From labels to lived experience: what nutrition science is really telling us about obesity, UPFs and food choice in the UK

As a nutritionist, I often meet people who feel defeated by food. They tell me they know what they should be eating. They’ve read the labels. They’ve tried to “be good”. They’ve followed plans, apps and rules, yet their weight, energy, digestion, or blood sugar still aren’t where they want them to be. What’s striking is this - the problem is rarely a lack of knowledge or motivation.

Increasingly, nutrition science is telling us that obesity, diet-related illness and food choice are shaped as much by the food environment as by individual behaviour. To understand why so many people struggle, we have to zoom out - from labels, to supermarkets, to lived experience.

A few seconds, dozens of options and a lot of invisible pressure.

Food choices don’t happen in a vacuum — they happen in environments like this.

Why “just make better choices” isn’t working

Public health messaging often assumes that if people are given enough information, healthier choices will naturally follow. But real-world data paints a different picture.

Recent UK modelling research shows that adults consume, on average, 200–300 excess calories per day, largely driven by packaged foods, and that obesity rates are significantly higher in more deprived areas. This isn’t because people in those areas care less about health — it’s because their food environment is fundamentally different.

Food choice does not happen in a vacuum. It happens under time pressure, financial constraint, stress, marketing influence, habit, fatigue and family needs. When we reduce nutrition to “willpower”, we miss the bigger picture.

What front-of-pack labels can and can’t do

Front-of-pack food labelling has long been promoted as a way to help consumers make healthier decisions. In the UK, traffic-light labels have been used voluntarily since 2013. But evidence suggests they may not be doing enough.

New modelling indicates that mandatory warning labels, similar to those used in Chile, could lead to greater reductions in obesity prevalence and obesity-related deaths than traffic-light labels alone. One key reason? Simplicity. Most people spend only a few seconds looking at food packaging before making a decision. Complex labels require cognitive effort — something many shoppers simply don’t have spare in a busy supermarket aisle. Importantly, the modelling shows that mandatory warning labels could benefit people across all socioeconomic groups, not just those with higher health literacy. This matters, because policies that widen health inequalities (even unintentionally) ultimately fail. Labels can help. But they are only one piece of the puzzle.

Ultra-processed foods are more than “bad nutrients”

Much of the current debate focuses on ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and for good reason.

UPFs are not just foods high in sugar, salt or fat. They are industrial formulations designed to be hyper-palatable, convenient, cheap and profitable, often containing additives that alter texture, flavour and reward pathways. In high-income countries, they now make up around half of total dietary intake.

Research consistently links high UPF consumption with increased risk of obesity, cardiovascular disease, and metabolic ill-health. But the issue isn’t that people are choosing UPFs instead of “perfect” diets; it’s that UPFs crowd out real food, reshape appetite regulation and normalise constant eating.

These products are aggressively marketed, heavily promoted in supermarkets, and often the most affordable option — particularly during a cost-of-living crisis. When we tell individuals to simply “eat less processed food” without acknowledging this context, we set them up to feel like they’ve failed.

What supermarket shopping is actually like for many people

Qualitative research from the UK gives voice to something nutrition professionals see daily in practice - supermarket shopping can be overwhelming.

People living with obesity and food insecurity describe sensory overload, confusing promotions, constantly changing deals and the pressure to maximise calories per pound spent. Many use coping strategies, e.g. buying discounted items, limiting variety, avoiding food waste, which make financial sense but don’t always support health.

Crucially, participants in these studies are not ignorant or indifferent. They care deeply about health, sustainability and feeding their families well. But knowledge alone does not overcome structural barriers. This is where well-intentioned nutrition advice can fall flat. Advice that ignores cost, access, culture, stress, neurobiology and habit risks becoming irrelevant, or worse, shaming.

Behaviour change works best when support matches reality

Behavioural weight-management programmes can be effective. Large UK analyses show that structured, supported interventions lead to weight loss in both trial settings and real-world services, particularly when engagement is high and support is sustained. However, these programmes work best when they:

• acknowledge real-life constraints

• focus on habits, not perfection

• provide accountability and structure

• adapt to the individual, rather than forcing compliance

In other words, behaviour change works when people are supported, not blamed.

So where does personalised nutrition support fit in?

This is where my role as a nutritionist becomes important.

My work isn’t about handing out generic meal plans or telling people to “try harder”. It’s about helping individuals navigate a difficult food environment with clarity, compassion, and realism. That means:

• Translating complex nutrition science into practical, achievable changes

• Working with your preferences, budget, health conditions, and lifestyle — not against them

• Understanding how stress, hormones, digestion, sleep, medications, and past dieting experiences shape outcomes

• Helping you make progress without needing to be perfect

For some people, that means improving metabolic health or weight gently and sustainably. For others, it’s about gut health, blood sugar regulation, energy, or repairing a difficult relationship with food. Often, it’s all of the above.

Importantly, personalised support helps bridge the gap between what the science says and what real life allows.

Nutrition science is increasingly clear - obesity and diet-related illness are not simply the result of poor individual choices. They are shaped by food systems, environments, policies, and lived experience.

Labels matter. UPFs matter. Behaviour matters. However, context matters most.

If you’re feeling stuck, overwhelmed, or quietly frustrated with food, it may not be because you’re doing something wrong — it may be because you’ve been trying to do it alone in a system that makes healthy eating harder than it needs to be. Support doesn’t remove responsibility. It makes change possible.