Abstract
UK front of package labelling (FOPL) informs consumers on the nutrient content of food. However, FOPL does not consider food processing, and with the UK government being urged to act on ultra-processed food (UPF), whether UPF should be added to FOPL is unclear. This study compared food and drink in the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) Intake24 database based on FOPL, nutrient content and NOVA classification, to understand whether UPF are covered by dietary recommendations for foods high in fat, salt and sugar. NDNS items were coded into minimally processed food (MPF), processed culinary ingredients, processed food and UPF according to the NOVA classification and FOPL traffic lights. UPF contained greater energy, fat, saturated fat (SF), total sugar (TS) and salt than MPF. UPF had a greater odds of containing red FOPL and an unhealthier overall FOPL score (OR:4·59 (95 % CI: 3·79, 5·57); OR:7·0 (95 % CI: 6·1, 8·2), respectively) and lower odds of containing green FOPL (OR:0·05 (95 % CI: 0·03, 0·10)), compared with MPFs. For items with no red FOPL, UPF still contained greater energy, fat, SF, TS and salt than MPF. However, several UPF have healthier FOPL scores. UPF had an unhealthier nutritional profile and FOPL score than MPF. For items with no red FOPL, UPF still had an unhealthier profile than MPF, with a higher energy density. Importantly, not all UPF were unhealthy according to FOPL. These results indicate partial overlap between FOPL, nutrient content and NOVA classification of UK food and drink products, with implications for UK food and drink labelling.