Abstract
Objective To compare food and drink in the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) database based on their front of package label multiple traffic light (FOPL MTL) score, nutrient content and NOVA classification.
Design National cross-sectional nutrient profiling analysis.
Setting The UK food and drink supply. Food and drink items were obtained from Intake24, the electronic dietary assessment method used in NDNS Year 12 (2019–20).
Main outcome measures Nutrient content, FOPL MTL and the NOVA classification of each item. Items were coded into minimally processed food (MPF), processed culinary ingredients (PCI), processed food (PF) and ultra-processed food (UPF) according to the NOVA classification, and coded into green, amber and red FOPL traffic lights according to Food Standards Agency guidance on fat, saturated fat, total sugar and salt content per 100g.
Results Out of 2,980 items, 55.4% were UPF, 33.1% were MPF, 9.5% were PF, and 2.0% were PCI. UPFs contained greater fat, saturated fat, total sugar, and salt per 100g than MPFs, and had a higher energy density and greater proportion of hyper-palatable items (p<0.001). PFs contained more fat, saturated fat, salt and energy per 100g than MPFs (all p<0.001), but a similar amount of total sugar. UPFs had higher odds of containing red FOPL (odds ratio (OR): 4.59 [95%CI: 3.79 to 5.57]), lower odds of containing green FOPL (OR: 0.05 [95%CI: 0.03, 0.10]), and higher odds of an unhealthier overall FOPL MTL score (OR: 7.0 [95%CI: 6.1 to 8.2], compared with MPFs. When considering items without any red traffic lights, UPF still contained more fat, saturated fat, total sugar and salt than MPFs, and had a higher energy density and greater proportion of hyper-palatable items (p < 0.001). However, a number of UPFs have healthier FOPL MTL scores.
Conclusions Most items in the UK are UPF. UPFs have an unhealthier nutritional profile than MPFs, are more likely to have an unhealthier FOPL MTL score and be more energy-dense and hyper-palatable. When considering items without any red FOPL, UPFs still have a poorer nutritional profile than MPFs, with a higher energy density and hyper-palatability. But, not all UPFs were unhealthy according to FOPL. The results have important implications for understanding how consumers may interpret the healthiness of UPFs or FOPL MTLs, and updating UK food and drink labelling.
What is known:
Nutrient content is an important determinant of diet-related health. Nutrient content is reflected in UK national dietary guidelines, and at point of purchase through front of package label multiple traffic light (FOPL MTL) scores for nutrients of concern.
Higher intakes of ultra-processed food (UPF), as defined by the NOVA classification, are associated with higher risks of adverse health outcomes including obesity and cardiometabolic disease.
The overlap between the nutrient content and FOPL MTLs of the UK food and drink supply with food processing is unknown. How FOPL MTLs might be used to guide consumer purchasing behaviour of UPFs is unclear.
What this study adds:
This is the first study to compare the nutritional characteristics of food and drink items representative of the UK supply with the NOVA classification.
There is partial overlap between FOPL MTL and NOVA; UPFs tend to have an unhealthier nutrient profile, but a considerable number of UPFs are considered healthy, based on their FOPL MTL score.
UPFs also tend to be more energy dense and hyper-palatable than MPFs, even when considering only ‘healthy’ items (without any red FOPL traffic lights).
Competing Interest Statement
All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: S.J.D receives royalties from Amazon for a self-published book that mentions ultra-processed food, and payments from Red Pen Reviews. R.L.B reports honoraria from Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Medscape, ViiV Healthcare Ltd and International Medical P and advisory board and consultancy work for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Gila Therapeutics Ltd, Epitomee Medical Ltd and ViiV Healthcare Ltd. A.B. reports honoraria from Novo Nordisk, Office of Health Improvement and Disparity, Johnson and Johnson and Obesity UK outside the submitted work and is on the Medical Advisory Board and shareholder of Reset Health Clinics Ltd.
Funding Statement
S.J.D. is funded by a Medical Research Council grant (MR/N013867/1). R.L.B. is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research, Sir Jules Thorn Charitable Trust and Rosetrees Trust. A.B is funded by Rosetrees Trust.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data can be made available upon request to the authors. For access to Intake24 datasets, please contact the Intake24 team directly: support@intake24.co.uk; https://intake24.co.uk.