How much sugar are you spreading onto your morning toast? A new report by Action on Salt & Sugar has revealed high levels of sugars across sweet spreads and exposed a major policy loophole which allows unhealthy foods to escape government regulations.  

The research, released as part of Sugar Awareness Week (2nd to 8th November) analysed 834 sweet spreads, including jams, honey, syrups, chocolate spreads and nut butters. It found that whilst 99% of chocolate spreads are classified as less healthy, all are being given a free pass from current legislation designed to protect public health. 

Read the report

Download: Action on Salt & Sugar_Sweet Spreads Report 2026.pdf [PDF 15,809KB]

 

Key findings 

• Across all spreads, 78% were high in total sugars and 86% are classed as less healthy under the current Nutrient Profiling Model (NPM).  

• Certain chocolate spreads contained up to 40% of a child’s daily free sugars limit, equivalent to over 2 teaspoons of sugar. 

• Some confectionery-based spreads contained more sugar than their chocolate bar counterparts per 100g 

 

Excessive sugar within a single serving 

On average, a common 15g serving of chocolate spread was found to contain 6.3g of sugars. For a 10-year-old child to eat this on two slices of toast for breakfast, it would add up to more than 12g of sugars – equivalent to around half their maximum daily free sugars limit within a single meal. 

The highest sugars per serving was found in M&S Whipped Chocolate Spread, which contained 9.2g of sugars in 15g - equal to over 2 teaspoons or almost 40% of a child's daily free sugars limit. This was followed by Hazella Choco Swirl which contained 8.9g and Nutella Hazelnut Spread with Cocoa with 8.4g sugars per 15g serving.  

 

Glaring policy loopholes 

The findings expose a striking inconsistency in the UK's current advertising and promotion policies.  

Made up of location, price-promotion and TV and online advertising restrictions, the regulations are in place to limit children's exposure to less healthy foods. However, some categories, including sweet spreads, are not in scope of the regulations, despite some products - such as ‘Maltesers Spread’ or ‘Cadbury Milk Chocolate Spread’, which are strongly associated with confectionery brands - containing the same or more sugars per 100g than their confectionery counterparts, which are included within the restrictions. 

Whilst sweet spreads were included in the original policy proposals, they were removed from the final legislation, with government citing the need for a narrower scope to balance with industry concerns about feasibility, implementation and cost. However, as today’s findings show, the weakening of these restrictions means unhealthy products, which contain as much or more sugar per 100g than confectionery, can still be widely promoted and advertised. 

 

Variation across jars 

The research also revealed significant nutritional variation across products.  

In one example from fruit spreads, 'Daylesford Organic Seville Orange Marmalade' was found to contain 10.6g of sugars, compared to Stute No Sugar Added Fine Cut Orange Marmalade ' with 0.4g per 15g serving. Similarly, ‘Bonne Maman Peanut Smooth Spread’ contained 2.7g of sugar whereas ‘Meridian Protein Smooth Peanut Butter’ was found to have 0.3g per serving. 

Whilst some businesses are clearly producing healthier options, this continues to be inconsistent across the sector. Across all spreads, 84% exceeded sugar reduction targets, emphasising that current voluntary measures are still failing to deliver any substantial impact.  

 

A public call for change 

The findings reinforce calls made in the Recipe for Change Citizens' Charter, which is a public-backed nationwide campaign launched earlier this year, urging Government to strengthen accountability measures to improve the health and affordability of food. In doing so, it demands food companies play a more active role in improving public health, rather than undermining it – a message made even more important following the evidence in today's report.  

 

What's the solution?

In response to today's findings, we are calling on government to:

1. Extend advertising and promotion restrictions to include a broader range of less healthy food categories, including sweet spreads.  
2. Apply the updated NPM to existing and future policies   
3. Strengthen transparency through Healthier Food Targets and Reporting to improve accountability and encourage healthier food reformulation.  
4. Improve and mandate front-of-pack nutrition labelling to help consumers make informed choices and encourage healthier product reformulation. 

Download our policy brief for a further breakdown of recommendations: Addressing the Unjustified Spreads Exemption - Policy Brief.pdf [PDF 419KB]

 

Dr Kawther Hashem, Head of Research & Impact at Action on Salt & Sugar, based at Queen Mary University of London, said:  

"This loophole is increasingly difficult to defend. You cannot have a system designed to restrict the advertising and promotion of less healthy food, then leave out a category where virtually every chocolate spread fails the Government’s own healthiness assessment. 

These products are overwhelmingly high in sugars and saturated fat, yet companies are still being given greater freedom to promote them. That is completely at odds with the direction of public health policy. 

Sugar Awareness Week is about holding businesses to account for the food environment they help create, but Government has a responsibility too. Ministers should close this exemption and make sure chocolate spreads and other sweet spreads are covered by the same rules as comparable less healthy products.” 

 

Dr Jizhao Niu, Postdoctoral Research Associate, who conducted the analysis, said:   

“What stood out most from our analysis was just how widespread high sugar levels were across everyday spreads. This was not limited to a handful of products or brands. We found substantial differences in sugar content between products within the same category, showing that lower-sugar options are already available. 

Consumers should be able to make informed choices, but it is not always easy to identify these differences from product packaging. Our findings highlight the need for clearer nutritional information and further efforts to reduce sugar across these products.” 

 

Kate Howard, Recipe for Change Campaign Coordinator, said:  

“It makes no sense that chocolate spreads can be overwhelmingly classed as less healthy under the Government’s own criteria yet still be exempt from rules restricting the advertising and promotion of unhealthy food. The Citizens’ Charter is clear that people want Government to be bold and hold food companies accountable for improving our health, not undermining it.”   

  

Victoria Mortimer, Parent Ambassador, Children’s Food Campaign, said:  

“As a parent, it’s so frustrating that something as obviously sugary as chocolate spread can still fall outside these rules. That’s exactly the kind of thing we talked about when developing the Citizens’ Charter: parents want to do the best for their children, but we need Government and food companies to play their part too. Unhealthy products shouldn’t be able to slip through the gaps.” 

 

Further details and a full breakdown of methodology can be found in: Action on Salt & Sugar_Sweet Spreads Report 2026.pdf [PDF 15,809KB]

For comments or media enquiries, please contact David Clarke at david@rock-pr.com