A UK-wide ban on junk food adverts has now come into force, marking a significant change in the way food and drink brands can market products to the public.
From Monday 5 January 2026, adverts for “less healthy” products high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) can no longer be shown on television before the 9pm watershed (covering the daytime schedule), and paid-for advertising for those products is prohibited online at any time.
The policy is being presented as a practical step in the long-running drive to reduce childhood obesity, based on evidence that early, repeated exposure to advertising can shape food preferences and eating habits from a young age.
What the ban covers and why it matters
The restrictions apply to products considered among the biggest drivers of childhood obesity, including categories such as soft drinks, chocolates and sweets, pizzas, cakes and ice creams.
But the scope goes wider than many households might expect, reaching into everyday staples like certain breakfast cereals and porridges, sweetened bread products, and even some main meals and sandwiches.
In other words, this is not simply a clampdown on the “obvious culprits”. It is designed to reduce the visibility of a broad group of products that can be calorie-dense, heavily processed, and routinely marketed in attention-grabbing ways.
How “less healthy” is decided
Whether a product is caught by the ban is not based on brand reputation or public perception. It hinges on a scoring tool that weighs a product’s overall nutritional profile, balancing nutrient content against whether it is high in saturated fat, salt, or sugar.
Only products that fall within the defined categories and score as “less healthy” are restricted.
In practice, that assessment draws on a nutrient profiling approach that compares “A” nutrients (such as energy, saturated fat, total sugar and sodium) against “C” nutrients (including fruit, vegetable and nut content, fibre and protein), to produce an overall score.
The porridge paradox and other “surprise” products
One of the most discussed outcomes is the way the rules treat foods that many people associate with a healthier lifestyle.
Plain oats and most standard porridge, muesli and granola products are not banned. However, versions with added sugar, chocolate or syrup may fall into the restricted category, depending on how they score.
This is where the policy becomes easy to misunderstand. The category label alone does not decide the outcome; formulation matters. The same “type” of product can sit on either side of the line depending on what has been added to it.
A deliberate nudge towards reformulation
The restrictions are not intended to eliminate marketing altogether.
Firms can still promote healthier versions of products that would otherwise be restricted, and the government has been explicit that it hopes this will encourage manufacturers to develop healthier recipes and push reformulation further.
That creates an incentive: if a business can keep a product within a permitted nutritional range, it can keep far more freedom in how it advertises, especially on platforms where attention is won and lost in seconds.
The “brand advertising” workaround and who it favours
A key feature of the new rules is what they do not ban. Brand advertising is still permitted, provided no identifiable restricted product is shown. That means recognisable brand marks and general brand campaigns can continue, even if individual product adverts cannot.
Marketing commentators have noted that this distinction is likely to protect larger household names more than smaller food businesses. Big companies can afford broad, emotional brand campaigns that rely on recognition and familiarity.
Smaller firms often depend on product-focused advertising to explain what they sell and why it’s different, and those campaigns are precisely what becomes harder under a product-identification restriction.
Enforcement and what happens if brands ignore it
The voluntary “early compliance” period began on 1 October 2025, and the industry has been adjusting creative assets ahead of the legal start date.
Now that the rules are live, firms that fail to comply risk action by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).
The expectation is that enforcement will focus on whether restricted products are identifiable in ads, and whether paid-for online activity is attempting to promote in-scope products through the back door.
The public health case in plain numbers
Supporters point to stark health indicators. Recent figures cited in coverage of the policy show nearly one in 10 reception-aged children (9.2%) living with obesity, and around one in five children experiencing tooth decay by the age of five.
The wider cost is substantial too, with obesity estimated to cost the NHS more than £11 billion each year.
Against that backdrop, the government estimates the advertising restrictions will prevent around 20,000 cases of childhood obesity, and has also claimed the changes could remove billions of calories from children’s diets over time.
Expert voices: “long overdue”, but not a silver bullet
Health behaviour experts have broadly welcomed the direction of travel.
One professor of behaviour change in health described the watershed-style ban as long overdue and a move in the right direction, arguing that children are highly susceptible to aggressive marketing of unhealthy foods, and that exposure increases the risk of obesity and related chronic disease.
The same expert also stressed that advertising restrictions should sit within a wider strategy that makes nutritious options more affordable, accessible and appealing.
That broader point matters: an advertising policy can reduce pressure and temptation, but it cannot, on its own, fix food affordability, access, or inequality.
Industry response: “we’ve already reduced salt, sugar and calories”
The Food and Drink Federation (FDF) has said it is committed to helping people eat more healthily and noted that manufacturers have been working to comply, including during the voluntary period.
The federation also points to reformulation progress over the past decade, stating that its members’ products now contain around 31% less salt, 30% less sugar and 24% fewer calories compared with ten years ago, emphasising ongoing investment in developing healthier products.
What this could mean for marketers
For marketers, the rules change the creative playbook as much as they change the media plan.
Product-led persuasion (show the item, make it look irresistible, push a clear offer) becomes far harder when the product itself cannot appear in a compliant ad. That is likely to accelerate a shift towards brand-led storytelling: campaigns built around identity, lifestyle, humour, sponsorships, heritage, or purpose, rather than the close-up product shot.
It also raises the bar on strategy. Marketers may need tighter internal review processes, clearer guidance for creative teams and influencers, and stronger separation between “brand” messaging and product promotion, especially online where paid partnerships and promotional content can blur quickly.
For smaller brands in particular, there may be a real challenge in replacing product education with brand-building at scale, because brand-building is often slower, broader, and more expensive.
Conclusion: a new advertising landscape, with familiar debates
The junk food advertising ban brings a clear, UK-wide rule: less healthy HFSS products should not be promoted on TV before 9pm, and should not be promoted in paid-for online advertising at all.
The list of in-scope product categories is deliberately wide, covering everything from confectionery and soft drinks to some cereals, porridges, sandwiches and ready meals, with inclusion decided by a nutrient scoring model rather than guesswork.
Supporters believe the change is overdue and necessary, citing the influence advertising can have on children’s diets and the scale of obesity-related harm and cost.
Industry voices highlight reformulation progress and a willingness to work with the government, while campaigners and commentators continue to question whether allowing brand-only advertising leaves too large a gap.
What is clear is that this is not just a public health policy; it is a major pivot point for marketing strategy too.
In 2026, the brands that adapt fastest will be the ones that can sell a story without showing the product, and still persuade people to choose healthier options when they get to the shelf.
