Growing up in Los Angeles, California, Sydney Scott was accustomed to Whole Foods and “organic” labels. Yet instead of simply filling her cart, she found herself asking why those labels were so compelling to many people.
Today, the healthy-food craze is more than a West Coast trend — it’s a global phenomenon. In the U.S. alone, the industry is valued at $213 billion and is expected to nearly double by 2033, according to a 2025 report by Research and Markets.
As an associate professor of marketing at WashU’s Olin Business School, Scott studies how consumers think and make choices. She’s especially interested in how morals factor into the judgements and decisions people make about their health and the foods they eat.
In a world of detox diets, Ozempic headlines and “all-natural” everything, Scott, who has a PhD in marketing and psychology, is helping to explain why these trends are so popular.
Natural versus unnatural
A broad theme throughout Scott’s research is consumers’ perceptions of “natural” — a mostly unregulated term that shoppers typically define as containing no additives and minimal human tampering. According to Scott, consumers generally prefer natural products, but not always to the same degree.
“Most people would choose a food that is made from natural ingredients over one that is not, if everything else was equal. But that’s not the tradeoffs consumers face when they’re at the grocery store,” she says. “Cost, shelf life, taste and convenience also influence our choices.”
Scott’s new paper, “Less is More (Natural),” examines how the number of ingredients in food affects consumer choices. In recent years, minimalist ingredient lists have become a selling point, visible in products like “That’s It” fruit bars and protein RXBARS.
“My research shows that many consumers see fewer ingredients as a sign that a food is more natural and, therefore, more appealing,” Scott says.
“Most people would choose a food that is made from natural ingredients over one that is not, if everything else was equal. But that’s not the tradeoffs consumers face when they’re at the grocery store. Cost, shelf life, taste and convenience also influence our choices.”
Sydney Scott
These findings reveal the psychology behind how people read labels and build narratives about purity, simplicity and nature — stories that can overshadow more objective measures like nutritional content or price.
Scott’s work on genetically engineered foods demonstrates how strongly people moralize naturalness. In studies published in 2018 and 2019, Scott found that consumers are largely opposed to genetically modified foods — such as weed-resistant soybeans, vitamin A-enriched rice or fast-growing salmon — often to the point of disgust, despite scientific consensus that they’re safe.
“People often view nature and naturalness as sacred and genetically engineered food as a violation of naturalness,” Scott says. “Even the slightest contact between natural foods and something else is seen as a contamination.”
But there are limits to the appeal of “natural.” For example, people tend to think natural medicine is safer but less potent than synthetic alternatives, Scott’s research shows. So, while natural products are more appealing for preventing disease, consumers are more inclined to choose an “unnatural” medicine — like insulin, antibiotics and cortisone creams — to treat a disease.
A moral lens on health decisions
Beyond food choices, a person’s morals can also influence their health-related decisions. Scott’s work in this area has given clinicians a new framework for understanding treatment resistance.
“Health-related decisions are typically not based solely on a dispassionate risk-benefit assessment. Our moral views have a big influence on decisions about our health, bodies and medicine,” she says.
Some patients feel that drugs are a “shortcut,” Scott’s research shows. These patients may prefer to manage their health the “right way” through behavioral changes such as diet and exercise, which they see as reflecting better character. That perspective can shape how they respond to physicians’ recommendations, especially around antidepressants, weight loss or long-term conditions like hypertension.
Physicians have told Scott this research helps them better understand some patients’ reluctancies and adjust how they talk about treatment — trying to remove moralizing language and focus instead on safety, effectiveness and the patient’s goals.
However, like food choices, there are many factors that influence medical-decision making. The rapid growth of GLP-1 drugs is one such example. Scott’s initial data and previous research offer insight into how these drugs have become so popular so quickly.
With GLP-1 medications, there are two separate but related judgements at play. There’s the moral judgment around the ailment itself, and the moral judgment about how you choose to manage or cure your symptoms. That’s an important distinction, Scott says.
“When it comes to hypertension, my research shows that some patients prefer to try managing their disease through diet and exercise before turning to medication.
“However, if you’ve been overweight most of your life, and have tried and failed to lose weight through diet and exercise, you already know that is not a feasible plan,” she says. “While some people likely think it shows better character to lose weight through diet and exercise, there’s also the feeling that it’s important to keep yourself healthy. That distinction is likely affecting people’s perceptions of GLP-1 drugs.”
