Current UK regulatory systems identify only around half of processed and ultra-processed food and drink products as unhealthy, according to research published in BMJ Medicine.
The study compared nutritional classifications across a nationally representative database of food and drink items. Researchers evaluated the Food Standards Agency nutrient profiling model, front-of-pack traffic lights labelling, and three new nutrient profiling models built on official Eatwell Guide dietary recommendations.
Based on official dietary guidance, the researchers constructed three new nutrient profiles. These profiles identify excess saturated fat, free sugar, salt, total fat, and energy density.
While free sugar, saturated fat, and sodium were detected by NPM1, NPM2 also captured total fat. NPM3 incorporated every single one of those elements.
The Food Standards Agency model identified nearly 58 percent of ultra-processed products and 50 percent of processed products as unhealthy. The traffic lights labelling system identified less than half (just over 48 percent) of ultra-processed products and 46 percent of processed products as unhealthy.
The newly constructed models aligned with official dietary guidance flagged significantly larger shares. NPM1 identified 91.5 percent of ultra-processed products as unhealthy. NPM2 identified almost 95 percent, and NPM3 identified almost 98 percent.
The divergence exposes systemic inconsistencies in how UK regulations evaluate food products. Official dietary rules recommend limits on total fat, saturated fat, trans fat, free sugars, and salt intake. Current regulatory tools miss many items exceeding those thresholds.
Food and drink products with excess content of harmful nutrients, according to UK government dietary guidance, were not identified by current systems for regulating UK food and drink products.
Study authors, BMJ Medicine
The authors argue that a single unified regulatory approach may offer a clearer path. They suggest this approach should use agreed definitions and align with official dietary guidance.
Products deemed acceptable under one regulatory mechanism remain inconsistent with the principles of another without such alignment.
Newly developed NPMs derived from current UK government dietary advice classed significantly higher percentages of ultraprocessed items as unhealthy than the FSA NPM. They also classed more items as unhealthy than the front-of-pack traffic lights system.
Processed items faced the same outcome.
Product classification represents only one aspect of public health regulation. Franco Sassi and Shashika Rathnayaka of Imperial College London noted in a linked editorial that product classification is only part of the policy problem.
Policies mostly target products, but their goal is to improve diets overall.
Regulatory measures can trigger substitution effects among shoppers. Policy outcomes cannot be measured solely by counting products that cross a classification threshold.
Authorities face a central dilemma regarding whether to base food policies on nutrient content, food processing levels, or a hybrid strategy. Each pathway can generate distinct regulatory outcomes.
A parliamentary response issued on 16 June 2026 stated that officials currently have no intentions to introduce processing-based food labels.
Official guidance continues to focus on nutritional quality, including sugar, saturated fat, salt and fibre.
Sensible steps for people aiming to improve their nutrition include making affordable, achievable adjustments that align with the UK’s Eatwell Guide.