New analysis by innovation think-tank Nesta finds that the case for standalone regulation of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) in the UK is weak at present. It shows that these foods are largely already covered by current UK food policies, which target foods that are high in fat, sugar and salt (HFSS).

UPFs are foods manufactured at industrial scale that use novel processes and chemical additives to enhance flavour and texture. In the UK, UPFs now make up more than half of what we eat, according to previous research and there have been calls for UPFs to be regulated.

Nesta’s analysis, using purchasing data from 3.3 million transactions at a major UK supermarket in 2021, finds a significant overlap between the two categories (UPFs and HFSS foods), suggesting that current HFSS-focused policies already target a large proportion of UPF calories.

Almost two-thirds of UPF calories purchased (64%) came from HFSS products, the analysis finds. This proportion increases to almost four-fifths (78%) when staple foods like bread and yoghurt, which are often UPF but not strongly linked to negative health outcomes, are excluded.

For UPF drinks, only one in five (21%) are classified as HFSS, but these HFSS drinks - such as high-sugar fizzy and energy drinks - account for over half (56%) of calories consumed from UPF drinks.

Almost all research on UPFs uses the NOVA classification, developed by Brazilian researcher Carlos Monteiro and colleagues, which defines UPFs as “formulations of ingredients, mostly of exclusive industrial use, made by a series of industrial processes, many requiring sophisticated equipment and technology”. However, the Nesta report points out that this definition lacks the precision and specificity needed for regulation. It also points to a limited understanding of precisely how UPF processes may cause health harms.

In terms of policy and regulation, the UK relies on the 2004 Nutrient Profiling Model (NPM) to define healthiness. The NPM scores products based on their nutrient content. Food and drinks exceeding a set threshold of fat, salt and sugar are classified as HFSS and subject to regulation.

On the back of the analysis, Nesta is warning that government and regulators should “stick to the definitions we know work” for policy-making, in this case the UK government endorsed-NPM - and not delay meaningful regulation given the scale of the obesity crisis.

Dr John Barber, deputy director of healthy life at Nesta, said: “It isn’t always easy for consumers to evaluate how healthy different food products are. Relentless advertising and promotion are nudging us towards buying and consuming excess calories. For some people, the concept of ultra-processed foods has become a new tool to consider the healthiness of the food they are purchasing.

“As a result, a growing number of prominent figures are now suggesting that ultra-processed foods should be regulated. But our research found that a majority of ultra-processed foods are already captured in existing measures intended to reduce sales of unhealthy products, such as advertising restrictions. In fact, some food that is generally considered to be affordable and nutritious - such as bread and yoghurt - is categorised as ultra-processed.

“Ultimately, the evidence is just not there at present for ultra-processed food as a category to be used more broadly in regulation. For that, we should stick to definitions that we know work and get on with getting more ambitious policies in place to tackle the obesity crisis as soon as possible. To really help people who want to choose healthier food, the Government will need to step in and get retailers to agree targets for the healthiness of the average basket of food sold.”

Notes to editors

1. The analysis used data from Kantar's Worldpanel Take Home service 2021. This dataset captures purchases from a continuously reporting panel of 30,000 GB households. UPF products were defined using the NOVA classification, and were labelled at product level by an independent data labeller taking NOVA scores from the Open Food Facts database.
2. The full report, "UPF and HFSS: Different labels, same foods?" is available at: https://www.nesta.org.uk/report/upf-and-hfss-different-labels-same-foods/
3. For more information on the analysis or to speak to one of the experts involved, please contact Kieran Lowe, Media Manager, on 020 7438 2576 or [email protected]. Spokespeople are available for broadcast interviews.