The UK Government has published a long-awaited update to the Nutrient Profiling Model (NPM) used to determine which food and drink is ‘less healthy’.
Known as NPM 2018, the updated model works in a similar way to NPM 2004/05 but reflects changes to dietary recommendations, particularly for free sugars and fibre.
The update has been warmly greeted by health campaigners but has faced harsh criticism from those in the food industry, which have “serious concerns” about the impact of the new model (see below).
The 2004/05 version was originally developed by the Food Standards Agency to guide advertising policy. Since 2007, products classed as less healthy (or high in fat, sugar and salt – HFSS) have not been allowed to be advertised directly to children. It has subsequently also been used to underpin the HFSS legislation – The Food (Promotion and Placement) Regulations and Less Healthy Food Advertising Regulations – the latter of which came into force just last month.
In 2018, a consultation was undertaken by the now defunct Public Health England to develop a modified version of the NPM which reflects the latest dietary guidance at the time. This has now been published, although it is not yet applied to policy.
Compared to the previous version, the 2018 one has a lower threshold on free sugars, including those naturally present in fruit and vegetable juices.
How does it work?
The NPM 2018 applies equally to all foods and non-alcoholic drinks (generally as sold – however, NPM scores for reconstituted foods and drinks are calculated according to the manufacturer’s instructions). There are no category-specific criteria.
It uses a scoring system, in which points are allocated on the basis of the level of each nutrient or food component in 100 grams of a food or drink.
Points are awarded for:
- ‘A’ nutrients (energy, saturated fats, free sugars and salt)
- ’C’ nutrients or food components (protein, fibre, and fruit, vegetables, nuts and seeds)
The score for ‘C’ nutrients or food components is then subtracted from the score for ‘A’ nutrients to give the final nutrient profiling score. Foods scoring 4 or more points, and drinks scoring 1 or more points, are classified as ‘less healthy’.
‘Serious’ concerns raised
Karen Betts, chief executive of the Food and Drink Federation (FDF) was among those to raise concerns about the update.
“Food and drink manufacturers have made multi-million-pound investments to meet the nutrient profile model that underpins the new promotion and advertising restrictions, the latest of which only came into force in this month. This includes developing new options that make it easier for consumers to swap to healthier choices,” she said.
“We have serious concerns that changing to the new model will mean many healthier options could no longer be promoted or advertised to consumers, which runs the risk of them being delisted by retailers. It also undermines investment decisions that businesses thought they were making in the longer-term, and the uncertainty is causing companies to pause investment in developing healthier products.”
She concluded by urging the government to meet industry as soon as possible to discuss these concerns and how they can work together to help shift consumers towards healthier diets.
Further criticism came from Leo Campbell, co-founder of Modern Baker which is behind bread brand Superloaf. The brand aims to deliver nutrient dense products without sacrificing taste or convenience whilst also being fully compatible with existing manufacturing processes.
“After twenty years of reformulation under the old model, population health hasn’t improved – yet the same logic is being pushed further rather than being re-examined – it’s actually a retrograde step for population health,” he stated.
“Trust has been lost in the current system,” Campbell added. “Furthermore the collision of the GLP-1 era and a rising distrust of ultra-processed food has already shifted consumer tastes, yet policy is moving in a different direction. The irony is that the government is now asking supermarkets to police rules that retailers are already moving away from.”
Ingredient distributor and supply chain expert ACI Group also waded into the debate, warning that it risks unfairly penalising whole-food products.
Jack Helm, account manager – Beverage, Bakery & Functional Foods at ACI Group, noted that under the proposed scoring model, “a smoothie packed with fruit, fibre, vitamins and polyphenols is judged using the same blunt logic as crisps”. “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,” he explained.
“The government rightly encourages people to eat more fruit and fibre,” added Helm. “Yet at the same time, it is proposing to restrict the visibility of fruit-based products because they score poorly against its own algorithm. That inconsistency risks confusing consumers and eroding trust – not to mention penalising 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.”
As such, ACI Group is calling for a more evidence-based, differentiated approach to nutrient profiling – one that recognises whole foods, dietary context and genuine reformulation efforts, rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all scoring system.
“Public health policy should support informed choices, and flattening complex nutritional data into a single score undermines that,” Helm concluded. “If the goal is better diets and better outcomes, the tools used must be fit for purpose.”
An ‘important step forward’
Health campaigners view the update differently.
Dr Kath Roberts, senior lecturer in Public Health Nutrition at University of York and co-chair of the NPM working group, said the updated model reflects where science is now, not 15 years ago.
“It provides a far more accurate way of identifying foods that undermine health, particularly for children, and if it is applied to policy in the future, will ensure that advertising and promotions are based on evidence rather than outdated thresholds. Delaying its implementation would mean knowingly maintaining a food environment that drives poor diet and widening health inequalities,” Dr Roberts added.
Lindsey Marston, policy and campaign manager for the British Dietetic Association, described its publication as “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,” Marston added.
No comments yet