The government has published its long-awaited update to the nutrient profile model (NPM), the tool currently used to classify foods as ‘HFSS’ (‘high in fat, salt and sugar’) or ‘non-HFSS’ in advertising, placement and promotion regulation. This is an important step for food policy in the UK, and one we welcome at Nesta. Here are four things to know about what this update means and what comes next.

The original NPM was developed in 2004/5. Since then, our understanding of diet and health has advanced considerably. In 2015, the independent Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) updated its dietary recommendations on sugar and fibre.

The updated NPM model (first consulted on in 2018) now reflects this evidence. The most significant change is the shift to measuring free sugars instead of total sugars. Free sugars include all added sugars in any form, including sugars naturally present in fruit juices, smoothies, purées and syrups. Unlike sugars naturally present in milk products, whole fruits and vegetables and in cereal grains, nuts and seeds, evidence shows that free sugars contribute to excess energy intake, weight gain, and tooth decay. The model also reflects SACN’s recommendation to increase fibre intake, as well as some more minor changes on protein and the inclusion of seeds with fruit, veg and nuts.

This matters because the previous model allowed some products high in free sugars to be classified as healthy, sometimes through adding protein or fibre (think of Joe Wicks’ killer protein bars). While this mechanism remains in the updated NPM, the thresholds have been tightened - it is now much harder to offset the impact of free sugars. The result is some ‘health halo’ products like Kellogg’s Bran cereal or Yoplait fruit-flavoured yoghurts will now be classified as HFSS, while genuinely healthy options like plain oats or unsweetened yoghurt will continue to be classed as non-HFSS.

While the updated model will more accurately classify products as HFSS, this still ultimately upholds a binary system. The NPM uses a scoring system, where points are allocated on the basis of the level of each nutrient or food component in 100 grams of a food or drink. Any food scoring 4 or above (or drink scoring 1 or above) is categorised as HFSS.

The problem with this pass/fail line applied to regulations around promotions and advertising is that companies are only incentivised to improve the healthiness of products that sit just below the threshold for non-HFSS. The revised NPM will change which products pass the threshold, but the cliff edge effect remains. Some businesses have raised complaints, as they have reformulated products to meet this cut off, only for it to change again.

At Nesta, we think a better policy approach would encourage companies to improve the healthiness of their entire product range, by applying the NPM as a continuous measure. If policy recognised improvements in NPM score across all products, businesses would be incentivised to make everything a little healthier, and all progress would be rewarded.

We welcome this update, but it has taken eight years from consultation to publication. This is a familiar timeframe for public health policies - like the TV and online advertising restrictions - which tend to be delayed or watered down, often following industry influence. This pace lags behind the urgent need for change - today diet-related ill health costs the NHS around £12 billion per year.

This is a lesson in why we need more agile policymaking. Six months ago, the government announced the healthy food standard – a policy, based in part on Nesta's proposal, that will require large food businesses to meet mandatory targets to improve the healthiness of their sales. The healthy food standard can be one of the most ambitious and impactful public health policies ever introduced in the UK, but only if it’s implemented well within this Parliament.

Updating the NPM is an important step in improving our nation’s health, with government analysis suggesting that applying the updated model to existing advertising and promotion restrictions could make a dent in population obesity.

However, the healthy food standard presents an opportunity to use the NPM in a far more ambitious way - one that could lead to a substantial shift in our diets. Rather than simply defining products as HFSS or not, using the NPM to set mandatory health targets would give businesses flexibility to use any tools at their disposal to improve the healthiness of their entire product range. This broad change in our food environment could help around 3 million people achieve a healthier weight.

Using the updated NPM would make the healthy food standard even more impactful. But with so much at stake - the health of our nation, the NHS and our economy - applying the new NPM to policy must not delay the healthy food standard's implementation. At Nesta, we think the government should use this Parliament to establish powers for mandatory data reporting, mandatory targets and enforcement mechanisms, laying the groundwork for the healthy food standard to deliver on its full potential.