Does the UK Government’s Traffic Light System Help People Understand Food Labels?
- infomishmashpublic
- Jan 11
- 7 min read
By Nin Sidhu | 11th January 2026
Most people in the UK rely on food labels to help them make quick decisions in supermarkets. The Government’s traffic-light food labelling system, with its familiar reds, ambers and greens, is widely recognised and often trusted as a simple guide to making “healthier” choices.
Over time, these labels have become part of everyday shopping habits. Many of us glance at them without a second thought, assuming they offer a clear and reliable picture of what we are buying. However, familiarity does not always equate to understanding.
In recent years, major UK broadcasters, including the BBC and Channel 4, have repeatedly examined food marketing, health claims, and the disparity between what packaging suggests and what food labels actually convey. Alongside this, reviews from UK health bodies and academic researchers have raised important questions about whether simplified labelling systems genuinely help people understand food, or simply make complex information feel easier than it really is.
This matters because most packaged foods are processed to some degree, including many that score well under the traffic-light system. Yet the labels focus on only a small set of nutrients, while shoppers are left to interpret colour signals without wider context about processing, formulation, portion size, or how foods fit into everyday diets.
As a result, the system may offer reassurance without clarity, particularly when time-pressed shoppers make quick decisions based on colour cues rather than a deeper understanding.
This blog explores a simple but important question:
Does the UK Government’s traffic-light food system help people understand food labels?
Labelling system actually helps people understand food, or does it sometimes create a false sense of clarity?
Rather than blaming individuals or singling out brands, the aim is to examine the system calmly and critically, considering how it works in practice, what current evidence reveals about consumer understanding, and why confusion persists — even with a labelling system designed to simplify things.
What the traffic-light system was designed to do, and where questions begin
The UK traffic-light food labelling system was introduced to help shoppers make quicker, clearer comparisons between foods at the point of purchase. It uses colour coding to show whether a product is low (green), medium (amber) or high (red) in fat, saturated fat, sugars and salt, alongside calorie information.
According to guidance from the Food Standards Agency and the NHS, the system is intended to support healthier choices by making nutrient information more visible and easier to interpret at a glance, particularly for people who may not routinely read detailed nutrition tables.
In that sense, the system has a clear and reasonable purpose:to reduce cognitive load during shopping and help people compare similar products more easily.
However, the system was never designed to assess food as a whole.
It does not consider:
How a food is processed
The number or type of ingredients used
Additives, emulsifiers, or flavour enhancers
How frequently a food is consumed
Or how foods interact within an overall dietary pattern
Instead, it isolates a small group of nutrients and presents them visually. This nutrient-by-nutrient approach reflects older models of nutrition policy that prioritised reducing fat, sugar and salt, particularly in relation to heart disease and obesity.
Where the evidence raises concerns
More recent public health research suggests that focusing narrowly on individual nutrients may not fully reflect how diet affects long-term health.
Large population studies published in the last few years have found associations between diets high in certain types of highly processed foods and increased risks of several chronic conditions, including cardiovascular disease, metabolic disorders, and some cancers. Importantly, these associations often remain even when total calorie intake is similar.
Organisations such as Cancer Research UK have repeatedly highlighted that cancer risk is influenced by overall dietary patterns, body weight, and long-term exposure, not single nutrients viewed in isolation. While no single food causes cancer, patterns of frequent consumption matter.
At the same time, reviews commissioned by UK health bodies show that while traffic-light labels can help people identify foods higher or lower in certain nutrients, they do not reliably improve understanding of food quality, processing, or long-term health impact.
This creates a tension:
A food can score mostly green or amber
Be perceived as a “better choice”
Yet still be part of a diet dominated by processed or reformulated foods
For many shoppers, the presence of reassuring colours may unintentionally signal overall healthfulness, even though the system was never designed to make that judgement.
In that sense, the system has a clear and reasonable purpose:to reduce cognitive load during shopping and help people compare similar products more easily.
However, the system was never designed to assess food as a whole.
It does not consider:
How a food is processed
The number or type of ingredients used
Additives, emulsifiers, or flavour enhancers
How frequently a food is consumed
Or how foods interact within an overall dietary pattern
Instead, it isolates a small group of nutrients and presents them visually. This nutrient-by-nutrient approach reflects older models of nutrition policy that prioritised reducing fat, sugar and salt, particularly in relation to heart disease and obesity.
Where the evidence raises concerns
More recent public health research suggests that focusing narrowly on individual nutrients may not fully reflect how diet affects long-term health.
Large population studies published in the last few years have found associations between diets high in certain types of highly processed foods and increased risks of several chronic conditions, including cardiovascular disease, metabolic disorders, and some cancers. Importantly, these associations often remain even when total calorie intake is similar.
Organisations such as Cancer Research UK have repeatedly highlighted that cancer risk is influenced by overall dietary patterns, body weight, and long-term exposure, not single nutrients viewed in isolation. While no single food causes cancer, patterns of frequent consumption matter.
At the same time, reviews commissioned by UK health bodies show that while traffic-light labels can help people identify foods higher or lower in certain nutrients, they do not reliably improve understanding of food quality, processing, or long-term health impact.
This creates a tension:
A food can score mostly green or amber
Be perceived as a “better choice”
Yet still be part of a diet dominated by processed or reformulated foods
For many shoppers, the presence of reassuring colours may unintentionally signal overall healthfulness, even though the system was never designed to make that judgement.
Why this matters now
Rates of diet-related health conditions, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, and some cancers, have continued to rise in the UK despite widespread use of front-of-pack labelling.
This does not mean the traffic-light system is harmful or useless. But it does raise a legitimate question increasingly discussed in public health circles:
Is a system designed to simplify nutrients still sufficient in a food environment where processing, formulation and eating patterns play a growing role in long-term health?
Understanding that distinction is essential, not to alarm people, but to ensure that labels support clarity rather than confidence without context.
A note on dietary fibre and cancer risk
One area where there is clear and consistent evidence relates to dietary fibre.
According to Cancer Research UK, diets higher in fibre — particularly from wholegrains, pulses, fruits and vegetables — are associated with a reduced risk of bowel cancer. This is one of the strongest diet-related links observed in cancer research.
Fibre is thought to help by:
Supporting healthy digestion
Increasing stool bulk and reducing gut transit time
Feeding beneficial gut bacteria
Helping regulate blood sugar and insulin levels
Cancer Research UK highlights that many adults in the UK do not meet recommended fibre intake levels, largely because modern diets rely more heavily on refined and processed foods, which tend to be lower in fibre.
This is important in the context of food labelling, because fibre is not consistently highlighted within front-of-pack systems. A product may score well on fat, sugar or salt, yet still contribute very little fibre overall, something shoppers may not immediately recognise from traffic-light colours alone.
This does not mean fibre alone prevents cancer, or that individual foods determine outcomes. But it reinforces a wider point supported by public health research: long-term dietary patterns matter, and not all meaningful health information is captured by simplified label systems.
Processed Foods: What the Labels Don’t Always Show
Ultra-processed foods (UPFs)
are foods made mostly from industrial ingredients and additives, designed for convenience and shelf life rather than whole-food nutrition.
Amber-label foods
are processed foods that may look acceptable at a glance but still contain moderate levels of sugar, salt or fat, meaning they’re best eaten in balance rather than assumed to be “healthy.”
Green-label foods
are lower in sugar, salt or fat, but they still need context, a green light doesn’t automatically mean a food is unprocessed or nutritionally complete.
Why sauces are a hidden source of sugar and salt
Many popular sauces look harmless in small amounts, but UK public health bodies consistently highlight them as a major hidden source of sugars and salt in everyday diets.
According to the NHS, sauces such as ketchup, barbecue sauce, sweet chilli sauce, soy sauce and some stir-fry sauces can contain surprisingly high levels of added sugar and salt, even when used in small portions. So does the traffic light system help people understand food labels? Because they’re often added automatically to meals, people may consume more than they realise.
Why sauces are a hidden source of sugar and salt
The Food Standards Agency also notes that many condiments and cooking sauces are reformulated for shelf life and flavour consistency, which often involves added sugars, salt, and stabilisers. These ingredients are not always obvious from front-of-pack labels, especially when traffic-light colours appear mostly green or amber.
Independent UK campaigns such as Action on Salt have repeatedly reported that:
Some single servings of sauces can provide a large proportion of the recommended daily salt intake
Sweet sauces can contain multiple teaspoons of free sugars per portion
Portion sizes listed on labels are often smaller than how people actually use them
BBC food investigations and health reporting have echoed these findings, highlighting sauces as one of the most common ways hidden sugars and salts enter meals, particularly in ready meals, takeaways, and family foods.
Why this matters for food labels
Sauces are a good example of where simplified labelling can be misleading:
A sauce may appear acceptable based on traffic-light colours
Sugar and salt may be split across multiple ingredients
Fibre, processing level and formulation are not clearly signposted
This doesn’t mean sauces should be avoided altogether, but it does explain why public health guidance repeatedly encourages awareness rather than assumption, especially with frequently used condiments.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Let's summarise, this article examines whether the UK Government’s traffic-light food labelling system genuinely helps people understand food, or whether it oversimplifies complex information. While the system can support quick comparisons, evidence suggests it does not always reflect processing, fibre content, portion use, or long-term health considerations. By drawing on recognised UK health sources, this piece explores where clarity ends and confusion can begin, and why familiarity with labels does not always mean understanding.
Comments