ploughman’s plum chutney

Name: ploughman’s plum chutney
Brand: Tiptree

Tiptree

0043647813060

Processing

Ultra-processed

Group 4 of 4 on the NOVA scale

Additives listed

None we have assessed

1 of them not yet assessed here

Sugars per 100g

51g

High

UK FSA front of pack threshold

Three separate readings, kept apart on purpose. This is not a score, and none of it says this product is harmful.

Additives (1)

This label lists 1 thickener or gelling agent.

Also on the label, not assessed here yet

E440 Pectin thickener

Names and jobs come from the register of additives permitted in Great Britain, which we have not finished transcribing: a code shown without a name is a gap in our coverage, not a finding that it is unapproved. Naming one is not grading it either. Full detail appears only where we have an assessment against a named authority, so all of this describes our coverage rather than these additives. Most are common and low concern.

Ingredients

Victoria Plums (45%), Sugar, Apples, Sultanas, Wine Vinegar, Sea Salt, Gelling Agent (Citrus Pectin), Onion Powder, Ginger Puree, Garlic Puree, Star Anise

As printed on the pack, in the producer's own order: ingredients are listed by weight, so what comes first is most of what is in it. E numbers link to their assessment where we have one.

Processing level

NOVA group 4: Ultra-processed

Industrial formulations with additives, isolates and ingredients you would not cook with at home. The strongest modern evidence links high intake of these to poorer health outcomes.

Nutrients per 100g

Fat

Low

Saturates

Low

Sugars

51g

High

Salt

1.40g

Medium

Judged on the UK FSA front of pack thresholds for solid foods. A dash means the source has no figure, which is not the same as a low one.

Where this came from

Product data from Open Food Facts, which is crowd sourced and can be incomplete or out of date. Photograph from the same source, under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike licence. Our copy is from 17 August 2026: Open Food Facts is checked every night, and a product is rewritten only when its record there has changed, so an older date means the source has not moved rather than that we stopped looking. Something wrong? Correcting it at the source fixes it here and everywhere else that uses the same data. If the problem is one of our additive assessments, tell us.

Scan another barcode Search