CEREAL OFFENDERS

When it comes to muesli, new research shows even some premium brands are less than nutritious. So what should we look for in a genuinely healthy bowl

- Hannah Twiggs

Breakfast has always been sold as the most important meal of the day. Now it is also the most analysed. In an era obsessed with ultra-processed foods, fibre targets and HFSS classifications, the cereal aisle has become a battleground of labels: high-protein, low-fat, no added sugar, keto.

Muesli, long considered the sensible choice, is the latest product to find itself caught between reassuring branding and stark nutritional scoring.

A new analysis from Which? examined 86 muesli products and scored them using the government's Nutrient Profiling Model (NPM) - the same system used to determine whether foods are classified as high in fat, salt or sugar for advertising purposes. The model weighs so-called negative nutrients, such as energy, saturated fat, total sugar and sodium, against beneficial components, including fruit, vegetable and nut content, fibre and protein, then produces a final score. Under Which?'s scaled system, anything scoring 63 or above is considered a “pass”, while 62 or below is deemed less healthy.

Muesli, as a category, performs well. Fifty-two of the 86 products scored between 74 and 78 out of 100, placing them comfortably in healthy territory. Six products achieved 80 out of 100, including supermarket value ranges such as Asda Just Essentials, Morrisons Savers and Sainsbury's Stamford Street Co.

Yet four products fell at or below the 62 threshold, and one – Raw Gorilla Organic Keto Mighty Muesli, at around £5.50 for 250g – scored 46 out of 100. Ten points lower than Nestle's KitKat breakfast cereal, which is £3.50 for 330g.

The instinct, in 2026, is to treat that comparison as a scandal. But once you get past the shock, it's actually very revealing.