Oxford Study Evaluates Proposed Nutrient Model
Soft drinks, breakfast cereals, and yogurts face the steepest drop in pass rates under the UK government’s proposed nutrient profiling model, Yahoo reported.
Researchers at the University of Oxford evaluated the impact of the planned switch to the updated system, which was put forward in 2018 and published by the government in January, according to Yahoo News. Ofcom currently uses the 2004/5 nutrient profiling model to enforce rules curbing the advertising of products high in fat, sugar, or salt.
Under the revised model, 72% of the 15,514 supermarket products analyzed failed the test, up from 58% under the current model, Yahoo stated. Of the 2,498 products that changed classification, 93% moved from a pass to a fail.
The analysis covered products sold by Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda, Ocado, and Marks and Spencer, but excluded discounters and out-of-home food sales, Yahoo noted. The sharpest drop occurred in soft drinks, where pass rates plunged from 66.2% to 5.9%.
Researchers Compare New Standards With Dietary Guidance
A separate study published in BMJ Medicine examined how existing public health definitions categorize processed and ultra-processed items, News-Medical reported.
When researchers used the Eatwell Guide to define unhealthy food, the model classified over 98% of ultra-processed products and 95% of processed products sold in the UK as unhealthy, News-Medical stated. By contrast, voluntary green, amber, and red traffic light front-of-pack labelling identified fewer than half of those foods as unhealthy.
“This study shows that the UK food environment is saturated with products that make it hard for consumers to eat a diet in line with UK government advice,” said Chris van Tulleken from UCL’s Infection, Immunity and Transplantation, as Nutrition Insight reported.
The senior author added that existing labelling and regulation systems may fail because they do not correctly identify dominant products as unhealthy. Co-author Dolly van Tulleken, a visiting researcher from the University of Cambridge, told News-Medical that the findings reveal how confusing and incoherent government definitions of unhealthy food are.
Industry Bosses and Health Groups Clash over Proposed Changes
Food and drink industry bosses urged the government to shelve the changes, arguing that categories spending tens of millions on reformulation would be hit hardest, The Grocer reported. Meanwhile, health campaign groups called on officials to push ahead with the updated framework, according to the same outlet.
Independent experts urged caution regarding the interpretation of the new models. Rosiered Brownson-Smith, a postdoctoral researcher in nutritional sciences at King’s College London, told Nutrition Insight that nearly 99% of ultra-processed foods classified as unhealthy under the new model does not mean those products have been demonstrated to cause harm.
Alberto Fiore, a professor of food chemistry and technology at Abertay University, pointed out to Nutrition Insight that the high figures stem from newly built models created by the authors themselves. Kurtz Kuhnle added that including minimally processed foods would provide necessary context, noting that items like milk, eggs, nuts, and avocados would fall into unhealthy categories due to fat content.
Frequently Asked Questions About UK Food Labeling
What criteria did the updated model use for sugar?
The revised model replaced total sugars with free sugars and applied stricter scoring thresholds, meaning many products accrued more points for sugar, Yahoo reported.
Which retail sectors were excluded from the University of Oxford analysis?
The analysis did not include discount retailers or food sold out of home, including restaurants, takeaways, and canteens, according to The Grocer.
How many products were evaluated in the University of Oxford study?
The study evaluated 15,514 supermarket products sold by major chains including Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda, Ocado, and Marks and Spencer, Yahoo stated.
Worth a look