Sonia Pombo, Head of Research and Impact, and Natalie Brabben, Communications Officer at Action on Salt and Sugar, based at Queen Mary University of London.
With so much recent discussion about the Nutrient Profiling Model (NPM), the debate can feel noisy, political, and at times deliberately confusing. But underneath the headline is the simple truth – the NPM is more than 20 years old, and the world of food nutrition and evidence has evolved. So, in true listicle style, here are 5 clear reasons why the NPM urgently needed its update, and why it matters.
1. Science has changed and the NPM needs to catch up
Obesity remains one of the UK’s fastest growing and most costly health challenges, driving disease, widening inequalities and placing severe pressure on the NHS. When Labour came into power, promising the “healthiest generation of children” and an “NHS fit for the future”, prevention was rightly placed as key to that vision.
But the NPM we’ve been relying on for food policy was developed in 2004. Since then, a lot has changed; our food environment, eating habits, reformulation capacity and the evidence base itself.
More than two-thirds of adults are estimated to be living with overweight or obesity, [1] and children are consuming double the amount of free sugars than recommended, and 40% less fibre. [2] Tooth decay also remains the leading cause of hospital admissions among young children, setting them up for a lifetime of health-related issues and difficulties.
In this context, keeping a model that is now 22 years old at the heart of public health policy is indefensible. Updating the NPM is a necessary step towards a credible, modern, and evidence-aligned policy structure that reflects the health challenges of today and actually enables the healthier future our government has promised.
2. Not all sugars are the same (and policy should stop pretending they are)
One of the biggest scientific advances since the original NPM was developed, is the shift from measuring ‘total sugars’ to focusing on ‘free sugars’.
The 2004/5 model treated all sugars the same, failing to distinguish between naturally occurring sugars (found in whole fruits, vegetables and dairy) and the free sugars added during processing or released through juicing and pureeing. Since that time, there is now a strong body of evidence linking free sugars specifically to higher risks of tooth decay, excess calorie intake, obesity and type 2 diabetes. Failing to address this in the NPM meant that the model struggled to accurately reflect which products were truly less healthy.
By shifting to free sugars in the new NPM, policy can finally reflect the evidence and target the real problem. It gives policymakers a more accurate way of identifying products high in the sugars that matter most for health, and it in turn sends a stronger signal to industry about where meaningful sugar reduction should be focused.
3. Consumers deserve consistent messaging…
Choosing a ‘healthier’ snack or meal should not mean unknowingly consuming excessive levels of salt, sugar or saturated fat (HFSS). Yet under the original NPM, which underpins many policies that determine how ‘less healthy’ foods are marketed and advertised, many products promoted as ‘healthier’ options do exactly that.
Manufacturers can game the system by tweaking recipes to include small amounts of fibre, protein, fruit or nuts to nudge products just enough into that ‘healthier’ category and thereby outside the scope of the restrictions. As a result, products that still contain HFSS ingredients (directly contradicting the advice set out in the Eatwell Guide!) [3] are able to pass the system and are considered as ‘okay’, with little consideration of the salt, sugar and fat they actually contain.
This creates confusing and inconsistent messaging. Foods can avoid standard HFSS advertising rules, market themselves as sensible options and ultimately undermine informed decision-making. A modernised NPM closes these loopholes and restores clarity, ensuring ‘healthier’ classifications genuinely reflect what people expect them to mean.
4…and so does the food industry
The review of the NPM hasn’t appeared overnight. Work first began in 2018, drawing on updated advice from the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN). The review was consulted on years ago, [4] but never published under the previous government. Labour has now breathed new life into it and allowed the process to resume and reach its natural, evidence-based conclusion.
Some businesses may argue that this is ‘moving the goalposts’, but the truth is much simpler. Science has moved, the food environment has moved, and public health needs have moved. What hasn’t moved is the NPM. We can’t rely on policies designed for the food landscape of 2004 and expect them to deliver results in 2026.
Our Action on Salt & Sugar surveys consistently show that when expectations are clear and consistent, food businesses can, and do, reformulate. An updated NPM reinforces that, ensuring businesses are working to a single, up-to-date framework that reflects technical capabilities, the products on shelves, and consumer demands and health considerations. As with any regulatory change, businesses will have time to learn, prepare and adapt (just as it has done successfully for years!), and a refreshed NPM simply provides a clearer and more coherent map for the industry to succeed.
5. For the health of our nation
Given how embedded the NPM now is in food policy, keeping it fit for purpose is a public health necessity. The government’s own health impact assessment estimates that the updated NPM could reduce calorie intake by an extra 30%, potentially reducing up to 170,000 cases of childhood obesity and a staggering 940,000 obesity cases in adults, [5] helping take the burden off the NHS and tackling the UK’s obesity problem.
Times have changed, and consumers and industry deserve more. The NPM has the reach and influence to mold public health for the better, and though its update may not be perfect, its long-overdue to say the least.
But updating the NPM is only the first step. Right now, the new model is applied to a limited set of HFSS advertising and promotion rules; to truly shift the food environment, it needs to apply consistently across food policy to all products deemed less healthy – not just a handful of categories.
At last the NPM has been modernised. Now we need to use it properly, consistently and across the board, to create the healthier food environment it was designed for.
References
[1] Office for Health Improvement and Disparities: Obesity profile: short statistical commentary, May 2025. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/obesity-profile-may-2025-update/obesity-profile-short-statistical-commentary-may-2025 [Accessed 26th January 2026]
[2] Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (2025) National Diet and Nutrition Survey 2019 to 2023: report. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-diet-and-nutrition-survey-2019-to-2023/national-diet-and-nutrition-survey-2019-to-2023-report [Accessed 26th January 2026]
[3] NHS. The Eatwell Guide. https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/food-guidelines-and-food-labels/the-eatwell-guide/ [Accessed 27th January 2026]
[4] Department of Health & Social Care. Consultation outcome: UK nutrient profiling model 2018 review. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-the-uk-nutrient-profiling-model-2018-review [Accessed 28th January 2026]
[5] Department of Health & Social Care. Impact Statement: The 10 Year Health Plan for England. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69651a7699fbdc498faecd1f/impact-statement-10-year-health-plan.pdf [Accessed 26th January 2026]