Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) have become the centre of recent debate around fixing our broken food environment, with the House of Lord’s Food, Diet and Obesity Committee calling for further research on potential harms as a health priority.
Currently, the UK defines whether a food is ‘healthy’ for policy purposes using the 2004 Nutrient Profiling Model (NPM), which scores products based on their nutrient content. Food and drinks exceeding a set threshold are classified as ‘High in Fat, Sugar or Salt’ (HFSS) and subject to regulation.
To explore which ultra-processed products fall under the existing HFSS framework, we analysed over 3.3 million transactions from a major UK supermarket, accounting for over 80% of products purchased, using data from Kantar's Worldpanel Take Home service 2021. This dataset captures purchases from a continuously reporting panel of 30,000 GB households.
What’s in the report
- Almost two-thirds of UPF calories purchased (64%) come from HFSS products, the analysis finds. This proportion increases to almost four-fifths (78%) when two staple foods – bread and yoghurt – which are typically 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.
Findings/recommendations
- With such a large overlap of the calories consumed from HFSS and UPF products, the possible benefits of switching from NPM-based to UPF-based policy may well be marginal, at least based on current evidence.
- Whilst continued research into UPFs and their impact on our health is valuable, concerns around UPFs should not distract policymakers from pushing for effective regulation using the existing NPM-based approach to improve our food environment.
