Micronutrients or processing? An analysis of food and drink items from the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey based on micronutrient content, the Nova classification and front-of-package traffic light labelling.

Abstract

Increased ultra-processed food (UPF) is associated with adverse health outcomes. However, with limitations in UPF evidence, and partial overlap between UK front-of-package labelling (FOPL) and degree of food processing, the value of food processing within dietary guidance is unclear. This study compared food and drink from the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) database based on micronutrient content, Nova classification and FOPL. The aim was to examine the micronutrient contributions of UK food and drink to UK government dietary micronutrient recommendations for adult females and males, aged 19-64 years, based on the degree of food processing and FOPL. NDNS items were coded into minimally processed food (MPF), processed culinary ingredients, processed food (PF) and UPF, and FOPL traffic lights. MPF, PF and UPF provided similar average contributions per 100 g to micronutrient recommendations. Per 100 kcal, MPF provided the greatest average contribution (14·4 % (interquartile range (IQR): 8·2-28·1)), followed by PF (7·7 % (IQR: 4·6-10·9) and then UPF (5·8 % (IQR: 3·1-9·7)). After adjusting for healthy/unhealthy items (presence of 1+ red FOPL), MPF had higher odds of an above-average micronutrient contribution per 100 kcal than UPF (OR: 5·9 (95 % CI 4·9-7·2)) and PF (OR: 3·2 (95 % CI 2·4-4·2)). MPF were more likely to provide greater contributions to micronutrient recommendations than PF or UPF per 100 kcal. These findings suggest that UPF or PF diets are less likely to meet micronutrient recommendations than an energy-matched MPF diet. The results are important for understanding how consumers perceive the healthiness of products based on FOPL.