Which? analysed 66 savoury snacks using the Nutrient Profiling Model and found that familiar brands, including some marketed as 'better for you', often score poorly on salt, saturated fat and fibre
The UK consumer group Which? audited 66 widely available savoury snacks and crisps to see how they perform against the government’s Nutrient Profiling Model. Using a scaled system to convert the official scores into a 0–100 rating, the review highlights that more than half of the products assessed are classified as unhealthy.
The study deliberately included both classic potato crisps and newer, plant-based options such as lentil and quinoa chips that are often presented with a health halo—a marketing effect that suggests a product is healthier than it really is.
The analysis used the Nutrient Profiling Model (NPM) to weigh positive elements like fibre and protein against negative ones such as saturated fat, salt and sugar.
Products that score at or below the regulatory threshold are commonly labelled HFSS (high in fat, salt or sugar). Results revealed surprising contrasts: some traditional crisps outperformed claimed healthier varieties because they balanced nutrients better and kept salt and saturated fat low.
Key findings from the snack audit
Of the 66 snacks tested, 36 were judged to fail the NPM, which means they are considered less healthy under official guidance. The highest-scoring product reached the mid-70s on the scaled rating, while the lowest plunged to just 20 out of 100. Top performers tended to be items that combined modest calories and low saturated fat with meaningful amounts of fibre or protein. Standouts included Kettle Chips lightly salted (a top score), and several vegetable or lentil-based crisps that kept negatives like salt and added sugar down.
The best-scoring snacks and why they did well
Products at the upper end of the list achieved good marks by limiting salt and saturated fat, and in some cases by retaining the potato skin or being oven-roasted rather than deep-fried. Higher fibre content and moderate protein also helped. For example, one leading crisp was praised for its low salt (around 0.7g per 100g) and very low sugar, while certain dried vegetable chips benefited from very high fibre that offset natural sugars.
Who landed at the bottom — and why
The poorest scores came from snacks with combinations of high saturated fat, high salt and minimal fibre. The lowest-ranked product, Mini Cheddars Original, received just 20 out of 100: it contains notably high saturated fat (about 14.4g per 100g), elevated salt (roughly 2.4g per 100g), and only modest fibre. Several other childhood favourites and cheesy, reconstituted snacks also ranked poorly because their positive nutrients could not counterbalance sizeable negative points.
Examples of ‘better for you’ options that disappointed
Some snacks positioned as healthier — such as certain lentil or quinoa chips — fell short because manufacturers used salt to boost flavour while fibre remained very low. One barbecue-flavoured lentil chip scored in the mid-30s because its salt level was high (over 2.5g per 100g) and fibre negligible, despite reasonable protein. Another popular children’s crisp scored in the 50s and was criticised for offering mostly calories with almost no fibre, showing how packaging claims can be misleading.
How shoppers can pick better snacks
Nutrition experts suggest practical steps to avoid being misled by branding. Look for the front-of-pack traffic light system where available and prioritise products with green or amber markers for salt and saturated fat. Choose snacks with higher fibre or a meaningful level of protein, and consider oven-baked or dried vegetable options rather than heavily fried, high-fat items. Reading the 100g figures on the back can reveal how a product compares across salt, sugar and saturated fat.
Policy and consumer protection
Which? has called for mandatory, clearer front-of-pack labelling so shoppers do not need specialist knowledge to make informed choices. The campaign argues that voluntary schemes leave too many products without easy-to-read signals, making it difficult to compare snacks quickly — especially during busy family outings or school terms. A more consistent, compulsory label would allow consumers to spot the healthier options at a glance.
