Are We Going Back to Basics... and Missing the Essentials?

Remember those health food aisles of yesteryear? A land of worthy but sometimes, let's be honest, slightly beige offerings. Fast forward to today, and it's a vibrant explosion of "better-for-you" options, from plant-based wonders to "clean label" concoctions boasting ingredient lists shorter than your commute. But amidst this pursuit of pristine simplicity, a crucial question is bubbling beneath the surface: are we in danger of throwing the nutritional baby out with the ultra-processed bathwater?

The spotlight recently landed on a seemingly virtuous launch: a plant-based milk boasting a mere three ingredients. Sounds idyllic, doesn't it? A return to nature, a minimalist marvel. And while the allure of a short ingredient list is strong, it raises a vital point: what about the good stuff we don't see on that label?

Think back a few years. Marks & Spencer, a name synonymous with quality on the UK high street, was among the pioneers in fortifying their plant-based milks with iodine. A seemingly small step, but a significant one for public health. Iodine, often lacking in plant-exclusive diets, plays a crucial role in thyroid function and overall well-being. M&S recognised a potential nutritional gap and proactively addressed it. Bravo!

So, when a new, stripped-back plant milk emerges, the natural inclination is to applaud its simplicity. But is "better" always synonymous with "fewer ingredients"? Or are we potentially facing a scenario where the drive for a squeaky-clean label inadvertently leads to a less nutritionally complete product? Are we prioritising that satisfyingly short ingredient list over the vital vitamins and minerals our bodies need to thrive?

The numbers paint a stark picture. National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) data reveals a sobering truth: without the fortification of everyday, non-discretionary foods, a significant chunk of the UK population – between 21% and 45% – falls short on essential minerals. And when it comes to vitamins, the shortfall affects 5% to a worrying 29% of us.

Now, here's the silver lining: the very fortification that some might now view with suspicion plays a crucial role in bridging these nutrient gaps. The same NDNS data shows that with fortified foods in our diets, the rates of inadequacy plummet, dropping by a substantial 3% to 13%. That's a tangible difference in public health, all thanks to the often-unsung heroes: added vitamins and minerals.

As the "better-for-you" trend continues its relentless march, it's time for some clarity across the board. We need a widespread understanding and recognition of the positive role that fortification plays, particularly in those everyday staples that form the bedrock of our diets. Classification systems, like NOVA and Nutrient Profiling Models (NPMs), need to acknowledge and celebrate the nutritional boost that fortification provides, rather than viewing it solely through the lens of "processing."

Furthermore, we need a clear and comprehensive definition of "health" to guide product development and reformulation. This definition must explicitly include nutrient adequacy as a key pillar, alongside the understandable desire for fewer artificial ingredients. Fortification shouldn't be seen as a compromise but as a vital tool in ensuring that "better-for-you" truly means better for our bodies.

And finally, the way we talk about these products matters. Marketing and communications need to shine a light on the benefits of added nutrients, clearly articulating the "fortification" story, rather than just focusing on what's not in the product (i.e., being "UPF-free"). We need to move beyond the simplistic narrative of "natural good, processed bad" and embrace a more nuanced understanding of how food science can contribute to a healthier population.

The three-ingredient plant milk raises a pertinent question, but it's likely just the tip of the iceberg. Where else are we seeing a stripping back of fortification in the name of a shorter label? And where might this trend lead us in the long run? Are we inadvertently creating a "non-UPF health halo" that, while ticking the boxes of ingredient minimalism, ultimately widens the very nutrient gaps we strive to close? It's a crucial conversation for everyone in the UK food and beverage industry – from manufacturers and retailers to nutritionists and consumers – to ensure that our pursuit of "goodness" doesn't leave us nutritionally short-changed.