Depending on where you have been getting your health information from this week, you might have been told to either throw away your yoghurt or eat three pots of the stuff a day.
On one hand, we are being told that the UK government is poised to classify many fruit yoghurts and juices as “junk food” under its updated nutrient-profiling model – subjecting them to advertising bans, supermarket placement restrictions and a curb on “buy one, get one free” promotions. Meanwhile, a month ago, yoghurt was being praised as the reason a Spanish woman lived to 117.
It’s the perfect snapshot of Britain’s food confusion: two headlines, weeks apart, completely contradicting each other – and both, in their own way, right. But it also reveals something deeper about our national fixation with categorising food as good or bad, saintly or sinful.
The problem isn’t yoghurt. It’s the system judging it. The government’s decades-old nutrient profiling model is finally being updated to include “free sugars” – the type that comes from fruit when it’s broken down – which means even pure fruit yoghurts and juices may soon fail the “healthy” test. Nutritionists warn this misses the bigger picture: health is less about single nutrients and more about overall diet quality, context and dose.
So before we all panic-buy Greek yoghurt or ban it from breakfast, it’s worth asking: what do these shifting labels really tell us about how Britain eats – and why we keep getting it wrong?
How yoghurt became the enemy (and the hero)
Yoghurt has been enjoying something of a golden age. From gut health hero to whey protein favourite, it’s been lauded for its live cultures, calcium content, satiating protein and digestive benefits. For example, yoghurt was linked to a lower risk of colorectal cancer in a cohort of more than 150,000 people. And in the most extensive research into the genetic makeup of a supercentenarian, a 117-year-old Spaniard was quoted as having eaten three servings daily and maintaining a “child-like” microbiome.
What a healthy yoghurt looks like
- Plain or lightly-flavoured, minimal added sugar
- Live or “bio” cultures (look for Lactobacillus bulgaricus, Streptococcus thermophilus, Bifidobacteria)
- Good protein content (5-10g+ per 100g)
- Minimal ingredients list: milk, cultures, maybe fruit
- Full-fat or moderate-fat versions (the fat helps satiety and absorption of vitamins A, K2)
Yet, at the same time, the UK government is revamping its regulations so that many foods previously regarded as staples may soon be labelled “less healthy” or HFSS (high in fat, salt or sugar). From the retailer’s end, it’s being reported that they are bracing for “hundreds more grocery staples” to shift from “healthy” to “unhealthy” classification.
So yoghurt has found itself in the weird limbo of being both recommended and regulated. It’s a hero in one story, a villain in another.
The free-sugar trap: science meets policy
At the heart of the change is one technical term: free sugars. These are sugars that are released from fruit or other natural sources when processing (for instance, fruit juice) or added sweeteners. They differ from “instrinsic sugars” found naturally within the cell structure of fruit. The updated profiling model will put greater weight on free sugar content, meaning products that were once “healthy” may suddenly fail the threshold.
In essence, the model scores a product by awarding “A” points for negative nutrients (energy, saturated fat, total sugar and sodium) and “C” points for beneficial nutrients (fruit/veg/nut content, fibre, protein), then subtracting C from A. If the final score is too high, the product is “less healthy”.
The unintended consequence: yoghurts and fromage frais, even if high in protein and nutrients, may fail because of free sugar content or how the scoring system gives insufficient credit for beneficial nutrients in dairy.
What a questionable yoghurt looks like
- Fruit-on-the-bottom or flavoured children’s yoghurts with 10-20g sugar per 100g (a BMJ review of 921 yoghurts in 2018 found more than half contained 10-20g sugar per 100g)
- Low-fat labelled products which compensate by adding sweeteners or sugar
- Organic “dessert-style” yoghurts that rely on honey, chocolate or granola toppings
- Drinks or lassis (yoghurt-based drinks), which often fall into the HFSS categories or the “milk-based drinks” classification under the model
That’s why a “healthy” plain Greek yoghurt can appear in one article as five stars, and next week be treated as potential junk food in another policy brief. The science is nuanced; the regulation has to draw lines.
The policy vs consumer paradox
What this debate really exposes is not a yoghurt problem, but a policy and communication problem. On the one hand, the government is trying to reduce childhood obesity, restrict HFSS products, curb sugar exposure and shift population health.
On the other hand, consumers are confronted with a bewildering array of food morals: “good” food, “bad” food, junk food, superfood. And yoghurt just happens to be caught in the crossfire.
Industry groups are already pushing back. The British Retail Consortium (BRC) has asked ministers to “pause for a moment” and consider how many genuinely nutritious products will be penalised. One spokesperson said: “If you are a customer trying to understand what a healthy option is, according to this score, there’s no difference between having a pain au chocolat and a high-fibre breakfast cereal.”
Meanwhile, from the consumer’s viewpoint, the message is confusing. Eat yoghurt for your microbiome; avoid yoghurt for its sugar; full-fat, good or bad? Dairy is protein-rich yet penalised in the scoring model for saturated fat. The result: people retreat to extremes or give up altogether.
There is also a political dimension: critics argue this is nanny-statery – the idea that the state will micromanage which shelf yoghurt sits on, what times it may be advertised, how promotions run. Opponents say this adds costs for businesses and may push up food bills for consumers.
Why this matters to you
Middle-ground options
- Greek yoghurt or skyr: higher protein, though sometimes lower calcium unless fortified
- Kefir: more probiotic diversity, lower lactose, though still watch sugar content
- Plain natural yoghurt + add your own fruit or seeds to control sugar and add fibre
For the everyday shopper, the ongoing confusion matters. If plain yoghurt – one of the most versatile, nutritious foods in the fridge – is cast as junk, what trust can we have in policy or labels? And beyond that: when policy lumps all yoghurts together under “junk food” flags, there is a risk that people switch from relatively healthy options to something even less nutritious out of frustration or confusion.
From a health perspective, yoghurt has genuine benefits: protein, calcium, live cultures, satiation, microbiome support. From a policy perspective, the model is designed to curb exposure to high-sugar, high-fat products, especially for children. But the intersection of those two is messy.
For your shopping basket, here’s a takeaway: don’t panic, but stay sceptical. Yoghurt is still a very good food – provided you pick the right one. And yes, the fact that it’s under regulatory scrutiny doesn’t mean it’s “junk” by default; it means it’s being judged by one metric among many.
The real problem is our obsession with good versus bad labels. We have saddled food with moral weight, then looked to policy and press to sort it out for us. But food doesn’t behave like finance; it doesn’t neatly divide into black and white.
So the next time you’re standing in front of the yoghurt aisle, check the sugar, check the culture claims, pick something plain and minimally processed. And if someone asks you whether yoghurt will kill you or save you, you can answer: “Probably neither. It’s just food.”
Source link
‘My gums are in constant pain after dentist destroyed four healthy teeth’
Why Walnuts Are a Brain Superfood When Eaten at Breakfast
The Best 7-Day Healthy Meal Plan, Created by a Dietitian