Getting a grip on the advertising of HFSS food and drink

Nesta’s excellent latest report, ‘Mind the gaps’ on ‘why restrictions on less healthy food and drink advertising fall short’, deserves a careful read and much reflection. The report has already received some headline coverage in the media, which is a great start. 

‘Mind the gaps’ not only outlines how and why the new UK restrictions on less healthy food and drink advertising took so long to introduce, but the report’s authors also outline that they are likely to have little effect because of the large number of omissions to the policy. Indeed, they estimate the regulations will only affect around 1% of total food and drink advertising spend. Critically the new restrictions ignore outdoor advertising (including billboards and bus shelters) and leave brands and ranges exempt. Thus, McDonald’s can continue to advertise their ‘Happy Meal’ range as can Cadbury’s (owned by global corporation, Mondelez International) ‘Dairy Milk’. The restrictions also focus on only 13 food and drink categories, leaving out a large number of HFSS products as defined by the UK Government’s Nutrient Profiling Model (NPM) with clear anomalies, including chocolate spread and toffee-coated nuts. 

If we are to build healthier weight environments, public health experience tells us that this is not going to be an overnight job. Having allowed our town centres and transport hubs to be full of advertisements encouraging us to make unhealthy decisions about what we eat and drink, we will need to spend some time (and resources) changing this. 

Given the overwhelming evidence that advertising affects people’s (both adults and children) purchasing decisions – and frankly, why would anyone think otherwise if companies spend so much on promoting their products and brands  – why have we had to wait so long for the UK Government to implement restrictions on the advertising of food and drinks that are high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS)? 

‘Mind the gaps’ provides some powerful timeline visuals (that I am sure will be well utilised in future public health presentations) from the announcement of the draft UK legislation on provisions on advertising in December 2022 to its eventual enactment in January 2026. Nesta are very clear, and I would wholeheartedly agree, that implementation was delayed by the active efforts of the food and drink industry: “While industry consultation is necessary for advising on how policy is delivered, it is evident that in this instance, the process has allowed industry to dictate the ambition and timeline of critical measures to tackle obesity” (page 14). 

The same has been the case with other evidence-based public health policies over the years. I was involved in the campaigning for smoke free legislation in England between 2003 and 2006 when the tobacco industry fought back tooth and nail to resist banning smoking in enclosed public places. And yet the evidence of the damaging and ruinous effect of smoking on our health was known as far back as 1962 when the Royal College of Physicians published their groundbreaking report on smoking in relation to cancer of the lung and other diseases. Closer to home, the legislation requiring the minimum unit of pricing of alcohol in Scotland took a decade to introduce, due to a series of legal challenges (all unsuccessful) by the alcohol industry. 

Whilst most of us are now familiar with the social determinants of health (SDOH) – where we understand that our education, our income, and where we live and grow up have a greater impact on our health than our genes – we are only just beginning to become familiar with the commercial determinants of health (CDOH). The NCD Alliance in Scotland has produced an excellent report describing the CDOH and how the actions taken by industries that either produce or sell products harmful to people’s health influence peoples’ behaviours, causing harm to their health. 

The Nesta report* makes three recommendations to the UK Government to make the restrictions more watertight: 

• Expand restrictions to include brand-focused advertising; 
• Expand coverage to include outdoor advertising; 
• Expand coverage beyond the current 13 legislative food and drink categories to all HFSS products (according to the government’s NPM threshold). 

Whilst national policy to control unhealthy food and drink advertising by either the Scottish or UK Parliaments is to be welcomed, English and Welsh experience shows that local action is also possible and should be encouraged. Indeed, communities should have the right to help determine what is being marketed to their children. In 2023, Obesity Action Scotland (OAS) produced Local Levers for Diet and Healthy Weight (lead author Professor Lindsay Jaacks) in partnership with the University of Edinburgh. This report identified restricting food advertising as a potentially effective local lever to help change our food system and support healthier weight environments.  

We hope to see changes at national level but, in the meantime, attempts to control advertising at a local and regional level also have a part to play. As we found years ago in arguing for smoke free environments, community advocacy is important in winning public opinion, particularly if it’s predicated at addressing health inequalities. Public health advocacy needs a ‘bottom-up’ as well as a ‘top-down approach’ and a range of actors to promote broader societal changes that support public health. Obesity Action Scotland’s own recent polling – for which, a briefing will be published soon – shows how strongly the Scottish public feels about unhealthy food and drink marketing; particularly to children. 

As public health advocates, we welcome the UK’s new statutory restrictions on HFSS advertising but, as the Nesta report so clearly describes, appreciate that we need to do so much more. This is just where it starts. 

Dr Robin Ireland

Senior Advisor, Obesity Action Scotland 

Honorary Research Fellow, School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow 

March 2026  

* The report also notes that sport sponsorship has been almost omitted entirely from this legislation (the exception is when stadium advertising is broadcast on television before the 9pm watershed). And yet, a recent BMJ investigation found more than 90 deals between brands of HFSS food and drinks and sporting entities.