UK food industry counters new stricter salt and sugar limits for “healthy” ranges

As the UK government has redrafted its nutrition standards, food manufacturers are bracing for a shift in how “healthy” products are defined. While advocacy groups welcome the change, various industry groups are debating whether penalizing foods like staple high-sugar yogurts will clarify consumer guidance or create fresh confusion for brands and shoppers. 

The UK published an update to its 2018 Nutrient Profile Model technical guidance yesterday, which forms the country’s primary nutritional benchmark. A government consultation on high-fat, salt, and sugar (HFSS) classifications is on the table to determine the timeline for its legal implementation. The model also underpins HFSS advertising and promotion restrictions, such as a ban on TV ads for certain foods before 9 pm enacted this month.

Producers of products branded “natural,” such as fruit-based beverages, are mainly concerned that this updated model could soon place fruit-based products like smoothies and juices in the same category as chips and confectionery.

One significant update to the model is a shift from “total sugars” to “free sugars,” which includes added sugars and those naturally present in juices and purees but excludes sugars present in dairy or canned fruit. Natural fruit juices are now heavily penalized rather than offset by fruit content.

“Under the proposed scoring model, a smoothie packed with fruit, fiber, vitamins, and polyphenols is judged using the same blunt logic as crisps,” says Jack Helm, account manager of Beverage, Bakery, and Functional Foods at ingredient supplier ACI Group.

“Public health policy should support informed choices, and flattening complex nutritional data into a single score undermines that,” he argues. “If the goal is better diets and better outcomes, the tools used must be fit for purpose.”

“Free” versus “total” sugars

In recent years, British researchers reviewed the sugar content of more than 200 fruit drinks marketed at children and found them to be “unacceptably high.” Almost half the products reviewed contained at least a child’s entire daily recommended maximum sugar intake of 19 g (or five teaspoons) a day per 200 ml serving.

A separate analysis of over 1,200 chips, nuts, and popcorn snacks in the UK found that 77% of chips, 56% of nuts, and 88% of popcorn would be scored “less healthy” under the government’s guidelines. Often regarded as a healthier snack, many ready-to-eat popcorn products contain excessive levels of salt and sugar, it warned.

Another study indicated that increasing daily consumption of free sugars by 5% of energy intake increased the risk of various cardiovascular diseases by 6–10%. https://www.nutritioninsight.com/news/sugar-warning-scientists-warn-that-even-slight-increases-present-cardiovascular-disease-risks.html 

“Products that are too unhealthy to advertise should not be allowed to present themselves as ‘healthy’ through misleading on-pack claims. Now’s the time to close those loopholes, apply the model consistently, and let the product speak for itself, not the marketing,” says Sonia Pombo, head of Research and Impact at advocacy group Action on Salt & Sugar.

But Helm at the ACI group counters: “The system is unable to distinguish between naturally occurring sugars in fruit and added sugars in junk food, which fundamentally misrepresents how these products contribute to a balanced diet.”

“The government rightly encourages people to eat more fruit and fiber. Yet at the same time, it is proposing to restrict the visibility of fruit-based products because they score poorly against its own algorithm,” he stresses.

“That inconsistency risks confusing consumers and eroding trust — not to mention penalizing businesses who have already spent millions on reformulating their product lines, only to find their visibility will be restricted anyway because the government has moved the goalposts.”

Danone on processed foods debate

Speaking on the changes, Danone warns of greater uncertainty among consumers about what defines food as “healthy,” in light of the new updates.

“While the NHS 10-year plan rightly places a greater emphasis on the link between good nutrition and better health outcomes, we’re concerned other recent policy proposals, once implemented, may add to consumer confusion,” comments James Mayer, president of Danone North Europe.

“Industry has invested heavily in product reformulation — reducing fat, salt, and sugar to offer consumers healthier choices at the checkout. If those same products are suddenly reclassified as ‘unhealthy,’ it undermines that effort and sends mixed messages to consumers.”

Terms like ultra-processed foods (UPFs) add to the confusion, the food group underscores. The majority of dietitians and nutritionists it surveyed (88%) say they don’t understand what these are. 

Nearly half of the 5,000 British adults responding to the survey look for foods with added benefits like protein or fiber, which Danone highlights require “some processing.” However, 72% are worried that processed foods are unhealthy.

Although the term is widely used by media and influencers, its definition is contested as the commonly used Nova classification system has been criticized for being unclear and inconsistent. Danone contends: “[UPFs are] not a basis for government policy.”

“Focusing on the amount of processing, rather than a product’s nutritional value, is creating unnecessary confusion,” says Niamh Brannelly, head of Nutrition and Science Communication at Danone.

“Products enriched with fiber, protein, vitamins, and minerals play an important role in a balanced diet and shouldn’t be categorized as ‘unhealthy’ alongside those high in added fats and sugars.”

Biting back

D’Arcy Williams, CEO of a youth activist group challenging the current food system, Bite Back Right Now, believes “too many parts of the food system are set up to fool young people instead of fuel them.”

“Chocolate cereal, porridge soaked in golden syrup, and sugary yogurts are masquerading as healthy options at a time when a third of 10- and 11-year-olds leave primary school at risk of food-related ill health in their future, and children are consuming 50% more free sugars than recommended,” he stresses.

“We welcome the government’s move to update the Nutrient Profiling Model so that products containing sneaky sugars are taken out of the spotlight, making room for healthier products to be promoted instead.”

Since 2007, HFSS products have not been allowed to be advertised directly to children. Subsequently, the Nutrient Profiling Model has also been used to underpin other important pieces of legislation that followed, including a ban on ads for less healthy food and drinks on television before 9 pm and online at all times.

Meanwhile, a study by Action on Sugar, based at Queen Mary University of London, UK, found only 5 out of 100 “child-friendly” marketed yogurts were rated “low in sugar.” Nearly two-thirds (63%) of sampled yogurts exceeded 19 g of added sugars — which is a four to six-year-old’s maximum daily intake — by a third or more.

“Updating the Nutrient Profiling Model isn’t moving the goalposts — it’s making the game fairer,” says Katharine Jenner, executive director of Obesity Health Alliance and co-chair of the Nutrient Profiling Model working group.

“This measured, long-overdue update better reflects modern dietary guidance and ensures genuinely healthier foods are recognized, and that more highly processed, high-sugar products can no longer hide behind outdated definitions.”

Lindsey Marston, policy and campaign manager at the British Dietetic Association, adds: “Updating the model in line with the latest science is an important step forward. It helps close loopholes and ensures our approach reflects current nutrition evidence.”

“This clarity strengthens efforts to improve our overall food environment. Crucially, it supports healthier options coming more to the forefront. We’re excited to see this progress shaping a healthier future.”