The proportion of ultra-processed products deemed unhealthy can almost double depending on which nutrient profiling model (NPM) is used, according to a new study in the journal BMJ Medicine.
It looked at 1,898 products and applied five UK NPMs – two in current use and three newly created using current government dietary guidance.
The first is the Food Standards Agency (FSA) nutrient profiling model (NPM), also known as high fat, salt, and sugar (HFSS), which assigns foods and drinks to ‘healthy’ or ‘less healthy’.
The second is the front-of-pack traffic lights system, in which fat, saturated fat, total sugar, and sodium are assigned a red, amber, or green colour.
Lastly, three new potential models were designed to align with the above but incorporating current government dietary guidance (Eatwell Guide) – they were called NPM1, NMP2 and NPM3, each with slightly different thresholds.
The FSA NPM identified 57.6% of the 1,898 products as unhealthy, whereas the traffic lights labelling system identified fewer than half (48.2%).
However, of the new models, NPM1 identified 91.5% of ultra-processed products as unhealthy, NPM2 identified 94.9%, and NPM3 identified 98.7%.
A 2018 revision of the FSA NPM (due to be implemented in January 2027) still identified 25-35% fewer processed and ultra-processed products as unhealthy than the most conservative Eatwell Guide NPM1.
The two current systems, FSA NPM and traffic lights, are misaligned with current UK dietary guidance, it concludes. “Food and drink products that, according to UK government dietary guidance, contain excess amounts of harmful nutrients are not identified by current systems for regulating UK food and drink,” say the study authors.
How were the foods chosen?
A nationally representative database of all food and drink products in the UK was used to identify processed and ultra-processed products according to the Nova classification.
This classification takes into account the purpose and extent of processing, and defines ultra-processed products as being industrially manufactured pre-packaged foods, including ingredients not used at home, such as cosmetic additives, modified starches, or isolated proteins. It’s used by the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.
What does it mean for the industry?
A more unified and consistent NPM would likely see many more foods and drinks fall into an unhealthy category.
“Our results showed that UK government guidance robustly captures unhealthy food, but also highlights the major inconsistencies between the current systems for identifying unhealthy food products in the UK,” say the authors. ”This highlights the possible benefit for all stakeholders in having a single system using agreed thresholds aligned with UK dietary guidance to identify unhealthy products for policy and regulation.”
And it may be a more effective one that consumers pay attention to, especially as UPFs gain more coverage. Currently, just 0.1% of consumers adhere to all nine Eatwell Guide recommendations; average intakes of free sugar, saturated fat, and salt exceed recommendations, and average intakes of fruit, vegetables, and fibre are below recommendations, according to the study.
As policymakers across Europe wrangle over which NPM is most effective as well as how to define UPFs, the food and beverage industry would be wise to start moving towards formulations that don’t fall foul of what could be a stricter and more accurate future of NPMs.
