Ready meals in UK: Action on Salt and Sugar Analysis

By
Dario Dongo
-
0
1640
Food Times_UK Piatti Pronti Action on Salt

A new analysis by Action on Salt and Sugar reveals widespread nutritional concerns across the UK’s booming ready meals market, with salt levels emerging as a major health risk. The study, which examined 1,511 products sold by leading UK supermarkets, found that many products still contain excessive amounts of salt, despite long-standing public health campaigns and reformulation targets.

With over £4 billion in annual sales and nearly three-quarters of UK adults consuming chilled ready meals between March and May 2024, these convenient products play a significant role in the national diet. However, their high salt content poses a substantial and avoidable risk for cardiovascular disease (Ma et al., 2022).

The report not only assesses levels of salt, fat, saturated fat, and fibre, but also outlines evidence-based policy recommendations to support industry-wide reformulation and protect public health.

Action on Salt and Sugar

Action on Salt (originally Consensus Action on Salt and Health, or CASH) is a non-profit organisation founded in 1996 by Professor Graham MacGregor at Queen Mary University of London. The organisation expanded its focus to include sugar in 2017, becoming Action on Salt and Sugar. Its primary mission is to improve population health through reducing salt and sugar consumption in the UK (Action on Salt & Sugar, 2025).

The organisation operates through several key strategies:

  • conducting independent research on food and drink nutrition;
  • informing policy development through evidence-based advocacy;
  • influencing food industry practices through engagement and critique;
  • raising public awareness about salt and sugar consumption
  • building advocacy networks for food reformulation.

Action on Salt has been instrumental in establishing the UK as an early global leader in salt reduction, with its advocacy directly contributing to the Food Standards Agency’s pioneering voluntary salt targets introduced in 2006 (He et al., 2014).

Methodology

Data collection followed strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Complete ready meals (with accompaniment) from both chilled and frozen sections were included, encompassing all cuisines, brands, and portion sizes greater than 200g. The study excluded starters, side dishes, incomplete meals, ambient meals, pizzas, pastries, and children’s meals.

Nutritional content was analysed against several government initiatives:

  • front of pack colour coded nutrition labelling (FOPNL);
  • UK nutrient profiles model (NPM);
  • calorie reduction targets;
  • salt reduction targets.

Products were subcategorised based on main protein element (red meat, poultry, mixed, fish, vegetarian and vegan) and cuisine (75 in total) to enable like-for-like comparisons. Eleven major retailers were included in the analysis: Aldi, Asda, Iceland, Lidl, Marks & Spencer, Morrisons, Ocado, Sainsbury’s, Tesco, The Co-operative, and Waitrose.

Key findings

Overall nutritional content

The study revealed significant nutritional variation across ready meals:

  • energy ranged from 164kcal to 1092kcal per serving;
  • saturated fat ranged from 0.3g to 27.7g per serving;
  • salt ranged from 0.40g to 6.40g per serving;
  • fibre averaged 5.8g per serving (range: 0.3g to 28.4g).

Of particular concern, nearly half (45%) of ready meals contained 2g or more salt per serving, with one in ten meals containing 3g or more: half the WHO recommended daily limit for adults.

Front of pack nutritional labelling

Analysis against the UK’s front of pack colour coded labelling criteria revealed:

  • 56% of products were high in salt;
  • 42% were high in saturated fat;
  • 28% were high in fat;
  • only 7% were low in salt;
  • one in five meals (20%) were high in fat, saturated fat, and salt simultaneously;
  • only 4% of ready meals would qualify for a ‘high in fibre’ claim;
  • 71% contained low fibre content.

Retailer and manufacturer comparison

Significant variation was observed between retailers:

  • Iceland had the highest proportion of ready meals high in salt (86%);
  • Aldi had the highest proportion high in saturated fat (51%);
  • Marks & Spencer had the highest proportion high in fat (38%).

Among manufacturers, several brands showed particularly poor nutritional profiles:

  • all ready meals from Wasabi, Jamie Oliver, and Kitchen Joy were high in salt;
  • 91% of Charlie Bigham’s ready meals were high in salt;
  • 100% of Jamie Oliver’s and Saputo Dairy UK’s ready meals were low in fibre;
  • only The Gym Kitchen and Weight Watchers had no ready meals high in fat, saturated fat, or salt.

Protein type analysis

The protein composition of ready meals showed interesting patterns:

  • 73% were meat-based (39% red meat, 34% poultry);
  • only 5% were vegan;
  • 11% were vegetarian;
  • 7% contained fish;
  • 3% contained mixed protein sources.

Vegan ready meals demonstrated the most favourable nutrient profile, with the lowest average energy, fat, saturated fat, and salt content, while offering the highest fibre content per serving. Conversely, meals with mixed protein sources contained the highest average salt content.

Price analysis

Price analysis revealed that premium products (≥£4.51 per serving) contained higher levels of energy, fat, saturated fat, and salt per serving compared to lower-priced options. The most expensive ready meals had the poorest compliance with UK government voluntary guidelines:

  • 33% were high in fat, saturated fat, and salt simultaneously;
  • 5% exceeded maximum salt targets;
  • 31% exceeded maximum calorie targets;
  • 7% were classified as high in fat, salt, and sugar (HFSS).

Government guidelines and salt reduction targets

The UK has implemented a series of voluntary salt reduction targets since 2006, with the most recent iteration published in 2020 and targeted for completion by the end of 2024 (Public Health England, 2020). These targets have evolved over time:

  • the 2010 targets set an average of 0.6g salt per 100g for Italian/traditional ready meals and 0.8g per 100g for Chinese/Thai/Indian ready meals;
  • the 2017 targets established a maximum of 0.95g salt per 100g and an average of 0.63g per 100g across all ready meals
  • the 2024 targets reduced these slightly to a maximum of 0.90g salt per 100g and an average of 0.60g per 100g.

A recent World Health Organization (WHO) assessment of national salt reduction policies ranked the UK’s current approach as insufficient. While the UK was once a global leader, it has now fallen behind countries implementing more robust regulatory measures such as mandatory targets and taxation. The WHO report card highlighted that countries with voluntary-only approaches typically achieve less than 10% reduction in population salt intake compared to 30% or more in nations with comprehensive mandatory approaches (WHO, 2023).

Action on Salt and Sugar considers these targets outdated and inadequate for several reasons:

  1. Despite meeting targets, 56% of ready meals remain high in salt according to front-of-pack nutrition labelling (FOPNL) criteria;
  2. Progress in salt reduction has stalled since 2014, with average population salt intakes actually rising
  3. The marginal reductions between target iterations (just 0.03g per 100g average reduction from 2017 to 2024) lack ambition;
  4. Monitoring and enforcement mechanisms are weak, with no consequences for non-compliance;
  5. The government committed to review progress in 2022 but has failed to publish results.

While 96% of ready meals in this study met the maximum salt target, this high compliance rate suggests the targets themselves may be too lenient rather than indicating industry success. The report argues that reliance on voluntary industry action has proven insufficient to drive meaningful salt reduction.

Comparison with French ready meals

A recent analysis of ready meals in France conducted between 2020 and 2025 reveals interesting parallels and contrasts with the UK situation (Consommation Logement et Cadre de Vie – CLCV, 2025). The French study examined 1,782 ready meals and found:

  • 47% of French ready meals were high in salt compared to 56% in the UK study;
  • 39% of French products were high in saturated fat versus 42% in the UK;
  • 54% of French ready meals were deemed low in nutritional quality by the Nutri-Score system.

Both studies identified significant variations in nutritional quality within similar product categories, confirming that technical reformulation is feasible across both markets. However, the French market showed a slightly better profile regarding salt content, possibly reflecting different consumer preferences or regulatory approaches.

The French analysis also noted an increase in plant-based options between 2020 and 2025, growing from 6% to 12% of the market: significantly higher than the 5% vegan options identified in the UK study. This suggests the UK market may be lagging in the development of nutritionally superior plant-based alternatives (CLCV, 2025).

Discussion

The findings reveal several concerning trends in the ready meals market, particularly regarding salt content and nutritional quality. Despite most products meeting the maximum salt reduction targets, over half (56%) were still high in salt according to front-of-pack labelling criteria, suggesting these targets may be too lenient.

The wide variation in nutritional content within similar product categories demonstrates that reformulation is technically feasible. Products at the lower end of salt, fat, and saturated fat ranges prove that consumer-acceptable ready meals with better nutritional profiles are possible.

The limited availability of vegan options (only 5% of products) represents a missed opportunity, as these meals consistently showed the most favourable nutritional profiles. Increasing plant-based offerings could support broader public health goals while addressing concerns about both nutrition and sustainability.

The price analysis reveals a concerning pattern where premium products often have worse nutritional profiles, potentially creating inequitable access to healthier options. This suggests that market forces alone may not drive improvements in ready meal nutrition.

Recommendations

Based on these findings, the report offers several key recommendations, as outlined below.

For government

  1. Consider fiscal levers like a levy on unhealthy food, building on the success of the soft drink industry levy (Rogers et al., 2024), as also recommended by WHO (2024)
  2. Revitalise the national salt reduction programme as a public health priority
  3. Conduct an immediate review of the outdated 2024 salt reduction targets
  4. Develop a long-term salt reduction plan with mandatory targets.

For food industry

  1. Adopt front of pack colour coded labelling on all food and drink
  2. Commit to reformulation targets for salt and calories
  3. Increase availability and visibility of healthier ready meal options
  4. Standardise portion sizes in line with dietary guidance
  5. Increase vegetable and legume content to improve fibre profiles
  6. Explore greater use of low sodium salt replacers (LSSS).

Exploring Low Sodium Salt Replacers (LSSR)

The analysis of ingredient declarations revealed that only 45 ready meals (3%) used low sodium salt replacers (LSSS), despite their proven effectiveness. Ready meals containing LSSS had on average 8% less salt (0.51g vs 0.55g per 100g) compared to those without these ingredients.

LSSS offer significant potential for salt reduction while maintaining consumer acceptability:

  • potassium chloride blends like LoSalt can reduce sodium content by up to 66% while maintaining flavour profiles, with substantial health benefits (Neal et al., 2021);
  • botanical extracts and ferments from companies like The Kerry Group can reduce salt by up to 60% while addressing all three stages of taste sensation;
  • mixed mineral salts incorporating magnesium and potassium (like Smart Salt and SOLO Sea Salt) can reduce sodium by 30-60% without introducing bitter aftertastes;
  • naturally lower sodium sea salts like Saltwell offer a 35% sodium reduction with potassium naturally integrated within each salt grain

The study found that ready meals containing LSSS showed improved overall nutritional profiles, with none classified as HFSS compared to 4% of products without LSSS. This suggests that LSSS technology not only reduces sodium but may be associated with broader reformulation efforts.

Given the limited current uptake (3%) and demonstrated benefits, widespread adoption of LSSS represents a significant opportunity for industry-wide salt reduction without compromising taste or consumer acceptance.

Conclusion

Ready meals represent a significant contributor to UK diets and salt intake, with concerning nutritional profiles across major retailers and manufacturers. The wide variation in nutritional content within similar products demonstrates that reformulation is possible, but voluntary approaches have delivered limited success.

The stagnation in salt reduction progress highlights the need for stronger regulatory measures. Protecting public health requires both industry collaboration and political will to implement mandatory front of pack nutrition labelling (FOPNL) and reformulation targets, but also fiscal incentives to drive meaningful change.

As dietary salt remains a major modifiable risk factor for non-communicable disease, policy inaction essentially accepts avoidable harm to public health. The findings call for urgent governmental action to improve the nutritional quality of ready meals and reduce their contribution to excess salt intake across the UK population.

Dario Dongo

References

Dario Dongo
+ posts

Dario Dongo, lawyer and journalist, PhD in international food law, founder of WIISE (FARE - GIFT - Food Times) and Égalité.

Related post

nutri-scoreNutri-Score and health, new confirmations from France and Spain Nutri-Score public healthPublic health, Nutri-Score and fiscal measures compared Food Times_Nutri-Score_colorectal cancer preventionNutri-score and colorectal cancer prevention Food Times_Nutri-Score warning labels comparisonNutri-Score vs. warning labels: a cross-country study in LMICs