It is a popular belief that lay theories guide human decision-making. One example of such a lay theory is that unhealthy foods, as compared to healthy foods, are considered as tastier than healthy foods. This unhealthy = tasty intuition has been the cornerstone for the development of effective public health initiatives and awareness campaigns since its conception in 2006. Although some studies have been able to replicate the unhealthy = tasty intuition, other studies have cast doubt on the universality of this intuition. We replicated the original procedure to test the unhealthy = tasty intuition with a representative sample (n = 400) of the Austrian population by age and gender (study 1). To accomplish this, we used an implicit association task, where participants categorised pictures of foods as healthy or unhealthy and words as indicating a good or bad flavour. With this procedure, we measured the association between unhealthy/healthy and tasty/not tasty. Our results do not indicate an unhealthy = tasty intuition but the opposite: Participants associated healthy foods with better flavour. This result was found across all age groups and genders. In a follow-up study (study 2), we investigate whether older lay theories (unhealthy = tasty) are replaced by emerging lay theories about novel foods or foods with particular labels regarding their ingredients. In particular, we address the question of whether foods labelled as vegan or vegetarian are perceived as tastier, healthier or more sustainably produced. Data collection in a representative Austrian sample is currently ongoing.