Five-a-day: is it still the right target?

Five-a-day: is it still the right target?

“Five portions of fruit and veg a day” is one of the most successful pieces of public health messaging ever run: memorable, simple, and now embedded in packaging, school lessons and NHS leaflets across the UK. It’s also, according to the largest analysis of the evidence yet conducted, probably an undersell. The research suggests the real curve of benefit keeps climbing well past five.

Where the number actually came from

The five-a-day figure traces back to a 1990 World Health Organization recommendation that individuals consume a minimum of 400g of fruit and vegetables a day (excluding potatoes and other starchy tubers), based on the epidemiological evidence available at the time linking fruit and vegetable intake to lower rates of chronic disease. With portions typically defined at 80g each, that translates neatly into “five a day”, a figure the UK and several other countries adopted for public health campaigns from the late 1990s onward specifically because it was simple, memorable and achievable as a messaging target, not because 400g represented some precisely optimal biological threshold.

What the more recent, larger research actually found

The most comprehensive evidence since then comes from a 2017 meta-analysis led by researchers at Imperial College London, published in the International Journal of Epidemiology. The study pooled data from prospective studies covering up to 2 million people worldwide, assessing tens of thousands of cases of heart disease, stroke, cardiovascular disease, cancer and death, to map the full dose-response relationship between fruit and vegetable intake and mortality risk.

The results confirmed the benefit of hitting five portions, but found it didn’t stop there: risk reduction continued climbing up to around 800g a day (roughly ten 80g portions), with each additional 200g (about 2.5 portions) linked to a further 10% reduction in all-cause mortality risk within that range. Beyond 800g a day, the researchers didn’t detect additional reductions in risk. The team estimated that, at a population level, as many as 7.8 million premature deaths worldwide could potentially be prevented each year if intake rose to the ten-portion mark globally.

Why does it work?

The proposed mechanisms are broad rather than tied to any single nutrient: fruit and vegetables are linked to lower cholesterol and blood pressure, better blood vessel and immune function, and contain a wide range of antioxidants, fibre and specific compounds (like the glucosinolates found in cruciferous vegetables such as broccoli) associated with reduced cancer risk through several different pathways. Researchers involved in the meta-analysis specifically noted that the benefit appears to come from the whole food itself, rather than any single component. Antioxidant or vitamin supplements haven’t been shown to reduce disease risk in the same way, which is a meaningful distinction if you’re weighing whether a supplement could substitute for actual fruit and vegetables (it doesn’t appear to, based on current evidence).

So why hasn’t the official guidance changed to “ten”?

Public health messaging hasn’t shifted, and the reasoning given by UK health officials is pragmatic rather than a rejection of the science: with roughly two-thirds of UK adults not currently meeting even the five-portion target, raising the headline number to ten risks making the goal feel unreachable, potentially discouraging people rather than motivating incremental improvement. It’s a genuine messaging trade-off: the evidence supports a higher target, but behaviour-change research generally favours achievable, credible goals over technically-optimal ones that people disengage from.

What this actually means for you

If you’re currently below five portions, the research is unambiguous that closing that gap first delivers real, substantial benefit, since the steepest part of the risk-reduction curve sits in that lower range. If you’re already comfortably hitting five and have room to add more, the evidence suggests it’s genuinely worth pushing toward seven, eight, or even the full ten portions where practical, rather than assuming five is an upper ceiling with nothing more to gain. And there’s no evidence a specific number beyond around 800g/10 portions continues adding benefit, so there’s no need to chase totals beyond that either.

The honest takeaway

Five-a-day was always a messaging simplification of the 1990 WHO recommendation, not a precisely optimised scientific target. The best current evidence, a meta-analysis of nearly 2 million people, suggests real benefit continues up to roughly double that amount, around ten portions a day. The UK hasn’t changed its headline guidance mainly because most people aren’t meeting even the lower bar yet, not because the higher figure lacks evidence.

Keep reading: For the gut side of eating more plants, see what a “balanced gut microbiome” actually means.

FAQs

Where does the “five a day” number actually come from?

A 1990 World Health Organization recommendation for a minimum of 400g of fruit and vegetables daily, which translates to five 80g portions. It was adopted by the UK and other countries as a simple public health messaging target in the late 1990s.

Is ten portions actually better than five, according to research?

Yes. A large 2017 meta-analysis of nearly 2 million people found risk of death and major disease continued declining up to around 800g (roughly ten portions) a day, with no further detected benefit beyond that point.

Why hasn’t the UK changed its guidance to ten a day?

Mainly for practical messaging reasons: only around a third of UK adults currently meet the five-portion target, and health officials have expressed concern that raising the headline number could make the goal feel unrealistic and discourage progress.

Can I get the same benefit from supplements instead of actual fruit and vegetables?

The research doesn’t support this: antioxidant and vitamin supplements haven’t shown the same disease-risk reduction as whole fruit and vegetables, suggesting the benefit comes from the complete food, not an isolated nutrient.

Does it matter which fruits and vegetables I eat?

The meta-analysis found benefits across various types, though researchers noted a need for further study into specific types and preparation methods. As a general principle, variety is a reasonable practical approach given the current evidence.

Is there a point where eating more fruit and vegetables stops helping?

Based on the current evidence, risk reduction plateaus around 800g (roughly ten portions) a day. The meta-analysis didn’t detect additional mortality benefit beyond that intake level.