Learn how branding has fooled us and which chains are actually offering healthier options at a fraction of the price. For example, Greggs’ £1.45 porridge outscores meals costing three times as much at premium chains.
For office workers weighing up their daily lunch budget against their health goals, the maths has never added up quite like this. A comprehensive study analysing 1,898 menu items across nine of the UK’s biggest fast food chains reveals that KFC—yes, KFC—delivers more nutritionally balanced meals than wellness-branded chains like Pret a Manger.
The findings challenge everything British consumers have been told about the relationship between price and nutrition, particularly for the millions making daily lunch decisions at their desks.
The fast food chain rankings that challenge perception
At the top of the table sits an unexpected winner. KFC ranked first overall, scoring 81.11 out of 100 for nutritional balance, outperforming brands long associated with “healthier” fast food such as Nando’s (77.80) and Subway (77.75).
Perhaps most surprising is Pret a Manger’s position at sixth with an overall score of 70.60, trailing behind Greggs (73.14), McDonald’s (71.26) and Domino’s (72.65). Pizza Hut came last with 66.96.
The full rankings:
- KFC – 81.11
- Nando’s – 77.80
- Subway – 77.75
- Greggs – 73.14
- Domino’s – 72.65
- McDonald’s – 71.26
- Pret a Manger – 70.60
- Burger King – 68.80
- Pizza Hut – 66.96
The study analysed per-100-kilocalorie normalisation, meaning lower-calorie items can score disproportionately well. Key findings focused on substantial items (300+ calories). The data was sourced from CalorieKing UK in 2025.
Working lunch: it’s time to rethink your choices
For the estimated 13 million British office workers who buy lunch during the working week, the study’s findings matter enormously. Many have been conditioned to believe that the £6–£8 they spend at premium chains represents an investment in their health, whilst budget options mean compromising on nutrition.
The data tells a different story. Greggs’ Simply Creamy Oats Porridge, priced at £1.45, scored an impressive 98.47 out of 100. Subway’s 6-inch Breakfast Flatbread with Egg & Cheese achieved a perfect score of 100, offering a balanced 557-calorie meal. Greggs’ Feta & Tomato Pasta scored 99.17 for just £3.90.
These items outperformed many meals sold at three times the price in chains marketed as healthier alternatives.
What is the health halo tax?
The analysis, conducted by Branding by Garden, highlights what researchers describe as a “health halo tax”: consumers paying extra for brands that market wellness credentials without consistently delivering better nutrition.
Pret a Manger exemplifies this problem, according to the findings. Some individual items scored highly—such as the Avocado & Falafel Flat Bread Wrap at 99.45—yet the chain’s overall ranking suggests that its premium image doesn’t translate into across-the-board nutritional advantage.
Sweet treats: Read the label, you’ll be surprised
Fifteen of the lowest 20 scoring items were desserts, characterised by high sugar, excessive saturated fat and minimal protein. Most alarming, however, were beverages. Burger King’s flavoured latte scored just 32.90—lower than almost all dessert items analysed. Pizza Hut’s Hot Cookie Dough with Salted Caramel scored 33.85.
These findings raise concerns about drinks marketed as harmless add-ons to office lunches.
Plant-based isn’t automatically better
The study also dispelled another common myth: that vegan or vegetarian options are always healthier. Whilst some plant-based meals, such as Burger King’s Vegan Bean Burger (98.02), scored exceptionally well, many salads and wraps marketed as healthy alternatives underperformed expectations.
This makes things confusing, as he study found plant-based labels alone aren’t a guarantee of nutritional balance.
Socioeconomic issues and food choices
Joseph Hedges, CEO and Creative Director of Branding by Garden, argues that the implications extend far beyond menu choices.
“This exposes a pretty big problem,” he said.
Chains use premium branding and higher prices to create a health halo that doesn’t exist. KFC ranked top in this study due to their varied menu, yet is somehow still seen as an unhealthy option. This goes to show the true power of branding.
–Joseph Hedges, CEO and Creative Director of Branding by Garden
Hedges also warned of the broader social impact:
For families in the cost-of-living crisis, this matters enormously. Parents are told to pay more for ‘better’ food, when Greggs’ porridge at £1.45 scores better than items costing three times as much at premium chains. That’s not just misleading—it’s a socioeconomic equity issue… Even more concerning is that some beverages, marketed as everyday treats, score worse than desserts. Yet there’s no clear labelling to help consumers understand this.
Don’t be fooled by branding: choose your fast food wisely
The findings suggest that British office workers may need to rethink how they approach their daily lunch decision. Nutrition, it turns out, isn’t dictated by branding, price or even reputation. In many cases, the best-balanced meals are coming from the most affordable places on the high street.
Even if you bring your breakfast or lunch to the office from home, remember to read the label if the “nutritional” food is in any way processed.
As household budgets tighten and workers return to offices, keep in mind eating better doesn’t have to cost more—but believing the marketing hype just might.
Are you signed up for The Freelance Informer newsletter?
