Ten cereals on shelves this week. Read what’s really in them.
The boxes on the breakfast aisle this morning declared everything. The data was on the back of the pack. None of it was visible at the shelf in the units a person making a decision actually uses — teaspoons of sugar, half-gram salt sachets, FSA traffic lights, per-portion versus per-100g divergence. We translated.
Data captured Monday 4 May 2026, 09:00 BST. Methodology: scansmart.uk/methodology.
Per-100g is worse than the per-portion picture suggests.
This week’s ten best-selling cereals across UK supermarkets carry between three and twelve teaspoons of sugar per portion. The per-100g picture is worse on most of them than the per-portion picture suggests — small portions hide large concentrations. Two of the ten clear the FSA red threshold on sugar at both per-100g and per-portion. Three more clear it at per-100g but read amber per-portion because the declared serving size is small.
We are not telling you what to buy. We are telling you what is on the back of the pack, in the units the moment of decision uses.
Ranked by retailer best-seller tag.
These are this week’s actual top sellers as the retailers themselves identify them. Ranking is not by sugar; ranking by sugar would put us in the role of curator, which is the wrong role. The retailers curate; we analyse.
For each entry: product and brand; pack size; declared serving size; teaspoons of sugar per portion; salt sachets per portion; FSA traffic-light rating on sugar, salt, and saturated fat; per-100g and per-portion comparison; source URL and capture-date.
The structural template below is the finalised format. Each row carries the same fields; the ranking and figures populate from the audit at the 09:00 BST capture window.
| Rank | Product / Brand | Sugar (tsp/portion) | Salt (sachets) | FSA ratings | Per-100g vs per-portion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | [Product] — [Brand] | [N] | [N] | S [G/A/R] · Sa [G/A/R] · SatF [G/A/R] | [delta-finding stated explicitly when divergent] |
| 2 | [Product] — [Brand] | [N] | [N] | S [G/A/R] · Sa [G/A/R] · SatF [G/A/R] | [delta-finding stated explicitly when divergent] |
| 3 | [Product] — [Brand] | [N] | [N] | S [G/A/R] · Sa [G/A/R] · SatF [G/A/R] | [delta-finding stated explicitly when divergent] |
| 4 | [Product] — [Brand] | [N] | [N] | S [G/A/R] · Sa [G/A/R] · SatF [G/A/R] | [delta-finding stated explicitly when divergent] |
| 5 | [Product] — [Brand] | [N] | [N] | S [G/A/R] · Sa [G/A/R] · SatF [G/A/R] | [delta-finding stated explicitly when divergent] |
| 6 | [Product] — [Brand] | [N] | [N] | S [G/A/R] · Sa [G/A/R] · SatF [G/A/R] | [delta-finding stated explicitly when divergent] |
| 7 | [Product] — [Brand] | [N] | [N] | S [G/A/R] · Sa [G/A/R] · SatF [G/A/R] | [delta-finding stated explicitly when divergent] |
| 8 | [Product] — [Brand] | [N] | [N] | S [G/A/R] · Sa [G/A/R] · SatF [G/A/R] | [delta-finding stated explicitly when divergent] |
| 9 | [Product] — [Brand] | [N] | [N] | S [G/A/R] · Sa [G/A/R] · SatF [G/A/R] | [delta-finding stated explicitly when divergent] |
| 10 | [Product] — [Brand] | [N] | [N] | S [G/A/R] · Sa [G/A/R] · SatF [G/A/R] | [delta-finding stated explicitly when divergent] |
Three findings worth naming together.
1. The per-100g picture is worse than the per-portion picture suggests.
Cereal portion sizes are small (usually 30 to 45 grams) and the per-portion sugar declaration looks acceptable on packs that are concentrated when measured per-100g. The FSA per-100g threshold for red on sugar is 22.5 grams; several cereals in the top ten clear it. The per-portion threshold is 27 grams; fewer clear it because the serving size is small. Both numbers are on the back of the pack. Both are honest. The structural point is which one is visible at the moment of decision and which one is not.
2. Reformulation has moved on some products and not on others.
Two of the cereals in the top ten carry a lower per-100g sugar declaration than they did in 2024 (we have the prior dated audits on file). One has reformulated upward. Six are unchanged. The DHSC voluntary sugar reduction programme has produced movement on some products in the category and not on others, and the public per-100g figures are how to track which is which.
3. The “healthier” framing reads differently when translated.
Granolas — sometimes positioned as a healthier choice — carry sugar concentrations comparable to or higher than some classically-positioned high-sugar cereals. Bran-based cereals carry surprising salt loads. The front-of-pack visual cues do not always map to the back-of-pack data, and the structural distance is the point.
The dominant brand in this week’s top ten.
The dominant manufacturer in this week’s top ten is named Monday morning from the live audit. They run [N] of the ten products on the list. Their public reformulation commitments are documented in their most recent ESG disclosure (dated reference linked in the entry above). The per-100g figures from this week’s audit can be read against those public commitments; we do so in the entries above where the commitments and the data agree or disagree.
The structural critique here names the manufacturer’s role honestly. The shopkeeper is not the villain. The retailer is not the villain. The manufacturer is the creator of the gap — they source the ingredients (rolled oats, cane sugar, palm oil, the synthetic vitamins enabling the now fortified claim), they employ the food scientists who engineer the per-portion vs per-100g divergence, they decide the serving size declared on the side of the box, they fund the research that biases the nutrition science around their own products. The structural gap between back-of-pack and moment-of-decision did not appear by accident. The structural critique protects the shopkeeper standing at the till and names the manufacturer who engineered the gap. Full citation register: Industry Funding Bias evidence vault.
The decision is yours.
This piece reads what is on the back of the pack and translates it into teaspoons, sachets, and FSA traffic lights. It does not tell you whether to buy any particular cereal. It does not give clinical or medical advice. It does not campaign against any manufacturer or retailer. It documents, and it translates, and it shows you the structural gap between the data on the pack and the units the moment of decision uses. The decision itself is yours.
If you have type 2 diabetes, hypertension, or any other condition that makes specific dietary thresholds matter to you, your GP or a registered dietitian is the right conversation for advice. SCANSMART does not replace that conversation; it gives you the back-of-pack data in units you can read fast.
Methodology and sources.
Methodology: scansmart.uk/methodology (linked above; full version reused across every Door 4 piece). Ranking by retailer best-seller tag. FSA per-100g and per-portion thresholds applied. Teaspoons (4g sugar = 1 tsp) and salt sachets (0.5g salt = 1 sachet) as the visual conventions. Capture-date stamped on every figure: Monday 4 May 2026, 09:00 BST.
Sources: retailer websites (Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda, Morrisons, Lidl, Aldi, Iceland, M&S, Waitrose) for best-seller tags and declared nutrition; The Grocer and Just-Food for category market context; FSA published thresholds for traffic-light calculation; manufacturer ESG disclosures for public reformulation claims.
Editorial review applied before publication. The methodology page documents the review process.
Next entries.
Monday 11 May 2026: the first HFSS bans landed last month. We translate.
Monday 18 May 2026: soft drinks. The acidity dimension you won’t have seen anywhere else.
Subscribe to the Monday email digest at scansmart.uk/checkout to get each piece in your inbox the moment it lands.
The Weekly Supermarket Checkout, Decoded · Inaugural piece, Monday 4 May 2026 · Methodology version v0.1 · SCANSMART Ltd, Co. No. 17128797, England & Wales · Not medical advice. The decision is yours.