14 March 2026
Healthy food sales reporting: progress, pitfalls, and the risk of industry gaming
Food businesses play a major role in what we eat, which in turn shapes both our health and the environment. Yet, the food system is contributing to growing health and climate challenges, raising questions as to whether it is serving both people and planet or simply profit? Clear, transparent reporting on the healthiness and sustainability of food sales is essential to show where progress is being made, where change is needed, and to better support decision-making by businesses, policymakers, investors and the public.
Why healthy food sales reporting matters now
The NHS 10 Year Health Plan, Fit for the Future, announced in July 2025 sets out government plans to introduce mandatory reporting of healthy food sales for all large food companies. This aims to improve transparency in the food industry as part of making the healthy choice the easy choice. The government further stated that it will use the reporting to look to set new mandatory targets on the average healthiness of sales in the next term of government.
Looking ahead, the government plans to consult in spring 2026 on proposals for mandatory reporting on healthy food sales across all major food businesses. Yet if mandatory reporting is to drive meaningful change, it will be essential that all food businesses are reporting against a consistent set of metrics.
This blog forms an update to our 2024 blog, Can reporting of healthy food sales be gamified?, in which we assessed the strengths and weaknesses of different metrics and how businesses could gamify them, highlighting the need for a consistent, standardised metric. Here, we draw on new data from the 2025 Plating Up Progress (PUP) benchmark to explore what progress businesses have made and the current state of play, finding that although many more businesses now report on their sales of healthy food there remain multiple inconsistencies in the reporting of this data.
What are businesses reporting and what nutrition profiling models are they using?
Plating Up Progress assesses 37 major food businesses across retailers, manufacturers, wholesalers, caterers, casual diners and quick service restaurants. It includes nine indicators that span the entire food system, from water usage and plastics to human rights and animal welfare. One of the indicators business performance on healthy and sustainable diets, and looks in detail on whether companies are disclosing data and setting sales-based target for healthier and more environmentally sustainable food and drink vs. less healthy and sustainable food and drink.
Our latest analysis shows clear progress since 2023, with 18 companies now either disclosing data on healthy food sales or setting a public sales-based target (11 retailers, one wholesaler and six manufacturers). This compares with just seven retailers at the time of our last blog post, when manufacturers were not included in the scope of the analysis, (see table below). This has undoubtedly been driven by the ongoing government work around mandatory reporting and accompanying investor pressure which has encouraged a number of businesses to disclose data and set targets on a voluntary basis in anticipation of regulation in this space. However, approaches are still varied in:
- the metric used to report sales (volume tonnage, units, revenue, proportion of own label products only vs. Other businesses who report on both own label and branded)
- the scope of products reported (own label only vs own label and branded)
- the nutrition profiling model used to define what counts as healthy
For instance:
- Two retailers (Sainsbury’s and Tesco) disclose data and have set sales-based targets covering both own-brand and branded products. However, Sainsbury’s report healthy food sales as a percentage of total sales by tonnage, while Tesco reports unit sales. This makes the data difficult to compare between the retailers, as unit-based metrics counts a six-pack of yogurt (6x100g) the same as a single 1kg tub, despite the clear difference in quantity. Additionally, Sainsbury’s uses their own criteria for healthy food, whereas Tesco uses the government’s 2004/5 Nutrient Profile Model (NPM).
- Asda report data for healthy sales across own-brand and branded products using the sales-weighted average (SWA) NPM score, which shows the overall healthiness of a company’s food sales. They are currently the only company to disclose using this type of healthy sales metric although this is likely to change.
- Eight companies (all retailers) currently have sales-based targets and disclose data on their own-label products only, meaning branded products sold in store are not included. Most using the NPM model (except Waitrose who use their own criteria). While this reflects the greater control businesses have over own-brand products in terms of reformulation and data availability, it only offers a partial picture of what customers are buying and allows branded good to escape scrutiny. In some cases, key data needed to calculate an NPM score (such as fibre or fruit and vegetable content) may be missing or not be readily shared in a consistent format.
- A further nine companies report in both own brand and branded products, However, five of these are manufacturers or wholesalers, who typically have better access to the nutritional data required to calculate these metrics.
- Among manufacturers, reporting metrics range from tonnage to revenue based. Value based data doesn’t give a true indication of consumer purchases as it does not account for the weight or volume of products sold. This metric can also be vulnerable to the impacts of inflation and market volatility.
Currently, there are no Out of Home (OOH) businesses of those assessed in PUP reporting sales-based data or who have set targets on healthy sales. Only two companies, Greggs and KFC, disclose data on the proportion of their range that is non-HFSS with the sector as a whole lagging far behind retailers and manufacturers. In the wholesale sector, Bidfood leads as the only wholesaler currently reporting transparently on healthy food sales.
From the examples above it is evident that there is no consistent approach to setting targets and reporting on healthy food sales, including the scope of products. This makes comparison difficult for all stakeholder groups and increases the risk of companies using metrics which flatter performances rather than reflecting real changes in what customers are buying and eating. For real progress towards healthier sales, the most robust and least gameable metrics are either a) the percentage of total and drink sales, by volume (tonnage), that comes from healthier vs less healthy (HFSS) products, using a government approved NPM and/or b) a sales weighted average NPM score (volume tonnage). The gold standard ought to be disclosure for both own-label and branded goods which provides a complete picture of portfolio sales and for comparability.
Click the tabs on the left hand side to see each of the following healthy sales metrics strengths, limitations and how it can be gamified.
- % of total food and drinks sales (in tonnage) that are healthy vs. less healthy for both own label and branded goods
- Sales weighted average (tonnage), nutrition profiling model (SWA NPM) score for both own label and branded goods
- % of total sales of own branded food & drinks that are healthy vs. Less healthy
- % of total food and drinks sales (in units) that are healthy vs. Less healthy
- % of total food and drinks sales in revenue (value) that are healthy vs. Less healthy
- The proportion of own-brand/label food and drinks products that are healthy vs. Less healthy
Granular insights: Provides sales figures coming from healthy vs less healthy food across the whole portfolio. This offers insights into consumer purchasing patterns based on the types of products sold.
Equal weight measurement: Accounts for the total weight of products sold, allowing for a more accurate comparison across different product sizes. For example, a six-pack of yoghurt (6 × 100g) and a 1kg tub would be reflected according to their actual weight sold. If the metric used units instead of tonnage, both products would count as a single unit despite their different quantities and potential impact on the consumer’s basket.
Encourages reformulation: Incentivises businesses to increase the volume of healthier products sold.
Clear and comparable: Relatively intuitive and easy data reported as a % of total sales for non-technical audiences to understand. Also, allows companies to track progress year-on-year, even as overall sales volumes fluctuate.
Data availability: Some companies, particularly those in the OOH sector, lack robust databases to capture accurate sales data by tonnage, which can hinder reporting. Including branded products can also be challenging, as businesses rely on information provided by branded supplies. In some cases, key data needed to calculate an NPM score (such as fibre or fruit and vegetable content) may be missing or not be readily shared in a consistent format.
Sector challenges: Reporting tonnage for the OOH sector (e.g., restaurants, cafés) is particularly challenging due to the lack of data infrastructure.
Definition of healthier: While many businesses disclosing data using this metric use the government’s approved NPM, not all do, with some using their own criteria of healthier vs. Less healthy foods.
Promoting healthier drinks: Companies can gamify this metric by prioritising the sales of “healthier” beverages such as water or diet soda over whole foods due to the weight of beverages. Sales of healthier foods and drinks can increase without companies actually selling more fresh produce or minimally processed healthy staples.
OOH Sector Incentives: In the OOH sector, offering free salads or healthier sides could be used to encourage higher sales of healthier foods even if these are not always consumed.
Granular insights: Provides insight into the overall healthiness of a company’s sales. This offers insights into consumer purchasing patterns based on the types of products sold across an entire portfolio.
Continuous measure: Incentivises improvement, however small, across a wide range of products, especially those products with high NPM scores e.g. confectionery and sweets that are unlikely to ever fall below the NPM threshold for ‘healthy’. This makes it a favourable metric for manufacturers with portfolios weighted towards more indulgent categories to demonstrate progress.
Equal weight measurement: Accounts for the total weight of products sold, allowing for a more accurate comparison across different product sizes. For example, a six-pack of yoghurt (6 × 100g) and a 1kg tub would be reflected according to their actual weight sold. If the metric used units instead of tonnage, both products would count as a single unit despite their different quantities and potential impact on the consumer’s basket.
Data availability: Retailers can draw on existing data as they are already required to calculate NPM scores for many of their products to comply with current HFSS legislation.
Complexity: Requires robust sales and nutritional data, more complex than a binary NPM score. Furthermore, it’s difficult to communicate the nuance of the score to the wider public.
Data availability: Including branded products can also be challenging, as businesses rely on information provided by branded supplies. In some cases, key data needed to calculate an NPM score (such as fibre or fruit and vegetable content) may be missing or not be readily shared in a consistent format.
Sector challenges: Difficult to apply consistently across different sectors as reporting tonnage and NPM for the OOH sector (e.g., restaurants, cafés) is particularly challenging due to the lack of data infrastructure.
Unclear impact: As a composite average, less able to show where businesses are actively shifting consumer behaviour towards healthier products, for example through changes to marketing or promotion.
Promoting healthier drinks: Companies can gamify this metric by prioritising the sales of “healthier” beverages such as water or diet soda over whole foods due to the weight of beverages.
OOH Sector Incentives: In the OOH sector, offering free salads or healthier sides (even if not always consumed) could encourage healthier options.
Available data: Data on own branded goods should be easily available and can help companies target healthier product sales.
Greater control: clear lever for reformulation and to shift sales towards healthier own-brand ranges.
Clear and comparable: easy data for non-technical audiences to understand and allows companies to track progress year-on-year, even as ranges changes.
Doesn’t reflect the whole portfolio: it doesn’t reflect the full picture of a company’s portfolio which includes many branded goods and may not indicate consumer purchases across the entire range offered.
Relevant for some sectors: approach is best for retailers who have both branded and own-branded products, less for manufacturers, wholesalers and the OOH businesses.
Incentivises sales of drinks: Companies could promote and increase sales of healthier drinks like water or diet coke and increase healthier options within own brand goods while also increasing sales of unhealthier branded goods.
Direction of progress: Gives a general direction of progress and figures coming from healthy vs less healthy food across the whole portfolio.
Easier to measure: It is easier to measure than tonnage as most businesses already track unit sales.
Inaccurate data: Products are available in different packages (1l vs 6 packs) which could skew the data and may not be a true indication of consumer purchases.
Incentives smaller units: Could be achieved by selling more 'healthier' drinks e.g. water, diet coke and products which have higher units but not in volume (sell 6 packs of small portions of yogurt vs 1 large tub).
Easy to measure: Revenue data is readily available and consistently tracked.
Easy to communicate: Simple data to communicate to stakeholder.
Measurement: It may not be a true indication of consumer purchases as it doesn’t account for weight or volume of product as it doesn’t reflect the serving size of products.
Vulnerable to economic factors: Data can fluctuate due to inflation and wider geo-political and economic impacts
Commercially sensitive: Sharing revenue sales data could be sensitive information businesses are not willing to share publicly.
Poor link to consumption: Value of products is not a good proxy to understand what is being brought, thus consumed.
Pricing strategy: Companies could adjust the prices of healthier products or decrease prices of less healthy products.
Not a comprehensive indicator: It doesn’t show change in healthier sales overall, thus not an indicator for healthier products as it doesn't reflect the serving size of product.
Easy starting point: Assessing the proportion of own-brand food and drink products is a straightforward way for businesses to begin evaluating their product portfolio.
Clear and comparable: easy data for non-technical audiences to understand and allows companies to track progress year-on-year.
Doesn’t reflect sales: Since this metric isn’t directly tied to sales, it may not accurately reflect consumer purchasing behaviour across the entire product range.
Relevant for some sectors: approach is best for retailers who have both branded and own-branded products, less for manufacturers, wholesalers and the OOH businesses.
Increasing healthier own-brand products: Companies can gamify their approach by focusing on increasing the proportion of healthier products within their own-brand offerings only.
Balancing with unhealthier branded goods: Simultaneously, they can increase sales of less healthy branded products.
Incentives sales of drinks: Companies could promote and increase sales of healthier drinks like water or diet coke.
Nutrition profiling models
Most companies are reporting healthy sales data using the 2004/5 NPM, but the model is over 20 years old. Recently, the government published an updated 2018 NPM that better reflects current dietary guidance, with a consultation on the accompanying guidance due later this year. While many public health organisations have welcomed the update, industry responses have been mixed, with concerns raised about reformulation feasibility and commercial impacts. This is particularly challenging for frontrunning companies that have already shifted their portfolio away from HFSS products under the 2004/5 NPM model, following significant investment in reformulation and data systems- under the new model, they now face having to go through the entire process again. See the British Nutrition Foundation’s statement which highlights the key changes in models.
This transition period presents both a challenge and an opportunity, making the forthcoming consultation on technical guidelines particularly important. In the interim, companies may delay adoption of the 2018 NPM or switch between models in ways that reduce comparability. A clear signal from the government on which model should underpin mandatory reporting will therefore be crucial.
More broadly, healthy food sales reporting sits within a wider shift towards greater corporate transparency and accountability. The Council of the European Union recently adopted changes to the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) proposed in the Omnibus I “simplification” directive. While these changes narrow the scope of companies required to report compared with previous iterations of the CSRD and CSDDD, the legislation will still have significant implications for large businesses operating in or trading with the EU. In the UK, the Department for Business and Trade recently published the UK Sustainable Reporting Standards 1 & 2, which aim to standardise corporate disclosure by endorsing the International Sustainability Standards Board Standards 1 & 2 for UK use. While the standards are currently voluntary, the Financial Conduct Authority has launched a consultation on whether to introduce requirements for certain UK entities to report against these standards via amendments to the UK Listing Rules. Together, these developments signal a clear direction of travel towards greater corporate disclosure.
Against this backdrop of expanding corporate reporting requirements, the UK government’s upcoming consultation on mandatory healthy sales reporting presents a clear opportunity to build on voluntary disclosure, learn from current practices and drive meaningful change. While voluntary disclosure has increased in recent years, consistency in metrics, scope and nutrition profiling model used is unlikely to be achieved without government intervention.
Based on our analysis, the gold standard for healthy sales metric would be for businesses to disclose across both own-brand and branded products: a) the percentage of total and drink sales, by volume (tonnage), that comes from healthier vs less healthy (HFSS) products, using a government approved NPM and/or b) a sales weighted average NPM score (volume tonnage).
