How do Front of pack ‘traffic light’ labels impact your nutritional health?
I’m sure you’ll agree like most people who are constantly on the go, it’s great to have the convenience of a sandwich deal or the many grab’n’go options as a workplace lunch or snack. However, how often do you look at the ‘traffic-light label’ (FOPTL) on the packaging—and does it influence your choices? How helpful do you think the FOPTL label is when individual items—such as a sandwich, snack, or drink—are combined into a meal? Using examples from popular retailers such as Costa Coffee and M&S, I’ll highlight how everyday choices can quickly lead to higher intakes of foods high in fat, salt, and sugar.
Firstly, why is this important? It is recognised that diets with a high intake of saturated fat added sugar, and salt (HFSS) raises the risk of death and non-communicable diseases, and UK guidelines advise reducing these nutrients can help lower risks of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and overall mortality. The FOPTL help flag energy, fat, saturated fat, salt, and sugar. They’ve been around since 2013, with around 60% of UK manufacturers using them.
The colour coding works like traffic lights—green, amber, and red—to make these specific nutrients stand out. If there's a red label on a food pack, it doesn't mean you can't eat it—just limit how often or how much you choose these foods. Fewer reds support a healthier diet. Amber means the food is moderate in that nutrient and can help balance your diet; aim to include some green-labelled items as well. Green indicates low levels of a particular nutrient, making these foods healthier options. You don't need to eat only greens—a mix of reds, ambers, and greens can provide a balanced and nutritious diet. Learn more at British Nutrition Foundation.
While this colour coding is helpful and is simple to understand, it doesn’t give a full picture. For example, fruit juice might receive the same code as sugary drinks due to sugar content, even though it provides vitamin C and fibre. Similarly, nuts are high in fat, but these fats are beneficial fats that are important in a healthy diet. But also, doesn’t give any indication of positive health benefits for how much fruit and vegetables (5-A-Day) or does it meet Fibre recommendations.
If we were to follow recommendations at lunchtime for an average person not to exceed 30% of your energy (around 600 calories) and for key nutrients 23g total fat, 8g sugars and 1.8g salt; you’ll see some examples of a meal-deals or grab’n’go foods exceed this advice and even daily limits for some nutrients. Now personally speaking I am not averse to relying on a meal-deal or grab’n’go foods myself and sometimes life gets in the way with time and where you work etc. Whilst consuming these foods once in a while may not impact your health longer term, I would consider a course direction if you thought this is part of your current daily diet.
Also consider what the remainder of your mealtimes for the day look like, and how they may add to excessive consumption of those nutrients we wish to eat less of. In terms of energy consumption studies have shown that over 70% of lunch combinations already exceed 600 calories target, with some estimated to contain up to 1329 calories per serving. Just shows how easy it is to creep into consuming excessive calories which can lead to weight gain and the risk associated with that.
So, consider the first scenario as you pop into Costa Coffee for lunch because it’s your nearest lunchtime spot. And the Shawarma Chicken Flatbread catches your eye. First, notice the nutritional profile: 343 calories, low in saturated fats, with only 1 gram. All good. Well, its Costa so you got buy a coffee...maybe a cappuccino is not the most adventurous and I’ve not added any sugar! It’s bumped up the sugar label, how's that possible it’s just coffee & steamed milk! The traffic light system reflects total sugars, not just free sugars (added sugars). This can sometimes label foods with natural sugars — like milk or fruit — as 'high sugar'. At 24 grams, this accounts for 26% of the daily reference intake, which is quite high. But under labelling rules context matters:
o No added sugar? That’s a positive.
o Sugar from milk or veg? Less of a concern than refined or added sugar.
As you can see from the label it shows the amount, not the quality — something to bear in mind when assessing the meal’s health impact. It's crucial to be mindful of added sugars, especially when aiming for a balanced diet. So, while you are waiting your coffee to be made and waiting to pay a small packet of mini-shortbread biscuit catches your eye!!! Its only 8 small biscuits (10g). This combination provides nearly half of an adult's daily energy needs, clocking in at 921 calories, half of your daily recommended intake for fat, including an extremely high amount of saturated fat resulting in of nutrients highlighted red. I’ll mention that I think this is a lost opportunity to consume some of your 5-A-Day along with benefitting from gut promoting fibre. While spinach is nutrient-dense (rich in iron, folate, vitamin K), it's not a major fibre source by volume. You’d need around 225g of raw spinach to get just 5g of fibre — the amount in a single portion of lentils or beans. Consider these factors when choosing your meals; it's always good to be aware of what you're consuming and how it aligns with your daily nutritional goals.
Next example is from M&S where you spot the “NUTRITIOUS” Bang-Bang Chicken meal, with its “Eat Well” and “High in Protein” labels, suggesting it's healthy. It does provide two of your 5-A-Day and 20% daily fibre that gets a thumbs up from me, with a moderate FOPTL Amber. But you got to have a drink and that Orange & Passionfruit Kombucha sounds healthy right? This doubles your sugar intake and raises salt to nearly a third of the daily limit. Now it’s not lunch without a packet of crisps, and a packet of Extra Virgin Olive Oil & Black Truffle flavour are perfect to complete the meal. As you can see this combination provides over 30% of calories, fats and salt highlighted Red and sugars over half of daily intake highlighted Amber. Also, I wish to highlight how are food choices can be influenced by catchy marketing where wellness culture gives the Kombucha a halo of healthfulness or even the crisps that exploit the health holiness of EVOO.
Evidence has shown the power of health messaging, as people tend to consume more of a product labelled “low fat,” while terms such as “protein” or “natural” can divert attention away from its sugar and salt content. Think of how many other words you see on food packaging such as “Wholesome”, “Nutritious” or “Eat Well”?
These simple words grab our attention, making us circumvent or influence our consumer decision. A popular nutrition claim that I think needs attention is the “Reduced Fat” claim that is legally compliant on food labels. “Reduced Fat” sounds like a virtuous choice, but the claim is mostly a marketing sleight of hand. A product only needs 30% less fat than a similar (often deliberately unhealthy) version to qualify, which means it can still be high in calories, sugar, and highly processed ingredients. Manufacturers frequently replace the missing fat with starches or sweeteners to maintain taste, creating a product that isn’t meaningfully healthier—just different
I hope both those scenarios paint a picture of how easy it is to consume greater quantities of foods high in fat, salt and sugar.
Let’s talk meal deals for a second. A sandwich is just a sandwich… but once you add crisps, it suddenly becomes “lunch”, doesn’t it? But these snacks can be significant drivers of unhealthy eating habits. These snacks whilst in isolation may be ok but it the overconsumption over longer term impacts our health. A report by Action on Salt found that although almost two thirds (63%) of snack products display some form of nutrition or health-related messaging on their packaging or in product descriptions, a striking 70% would still be classified as HFSS foods. While such marketing claims are legally permitted, evidence shows they can mislead consumers by creating a “health halo,” which reduces the likelihood that shoppers will examine nutrition labels closely. For instance, Peperami promotes messages such as “protein kick” and “112 calories per stick,” yet it contains 3.9g of salt per 100g — around 1.6 times the salt concentration of Atlantic seawater.
Evidence demonstrates the power of health messaging, as people tend to consume more of a product labelled “low fat,” while terms such as “protein” or “natural” can divert attention away from its sugar and salt content.
A popular nutrition claim that I think needs attention is the “Reduced Fat” claim that is legally compliant on food labels. However, “Reduced fat” sounds like a virtuous choice, but the claim is mostly a marketing sleight of hand. A product only needs 30% less fat than a similar (often deliberately unhealthy) version to qualify, which means it can still be high in calories, sugar, and highly processed ingredients. Manufacturers frequently replace the missing fat with starches or sweeteners to maintain taste, creating a product that isn’t meaningfully healthier—just different.
I’m a big believer in making intentional nutritional decisions where preparing your meals most of the time gives you control over not only taste and texture but the nutritional benefits also. However, that’s not always possible with time being a constraint along with the convenience of grab’n’go foods available. This is where I think the food environment should be cajoled to do more to help encourage healthier eating, especially at lunchtime where many day-time workers rely on quick easily accessible and affordable options. I strongly support making mindful choices about nutrition, and preparing your own meals frequently allows you to control the taste, texture, and nutritional value. But I understand life is hectic with working hours, shift patterns, commuting hours, family commitments etc making it a challenge to eat a balanced diet. I would love to help support you with strategies, menu planning or guidance, so feel free to get in touch.
