It’s a tradition as set in stone as having too much Christmas turkey or drunken family fallouts over board games, and 2026 has not let us down.

Things would not be complete without a nice seasonal row over health and this year the (much) delayed arrival of the government’s new junk food ad ban provided the perfect subject for post-festive fisticuffs.

It’s not surprising that the controversy involves whether – after numerous delays, rowbacks and alleged watering downs – the new legislation has been gutted to such an extent that it will allow companies to continue promoting unhealthy products to the masses.

What’s more interesting is the source of the warning: nudge group Nesta, which has, so far anyway, been highly influential in helping to draw up the Labour government’s approach to tackling the obesity crisis.

Today Nesta told the government that the legislation was full of so many loopholes, the likes of McDonald’s, Cadbury and others would continue to rule the airwaves, with other brands escaping to the safe haven of outdoor ads, which have not been covered at all by the ban.

It comes as the DHSC, as revealed by The Grocer last month, prepares to launch a consultation on a new UK-wide system of mandatory health reporting in March, having announced it had assembled a sub-group of industry, NGOs and health experts to draw up the plans.

Industry lobbying

Nesta today says it’s vital those plans, which will form the basis of Wes Streeting’s new healthy food standard, are not (unlike today’s ad ban) limited to certain types of products, but cover the entire range of the supermarket shelves.

It also warns the government against allowing further “industry lobbying” to cause delays beyond the proposed 2029 launch date for the system. Although that is just the reporting stage, with plans for mandatory targets, already likely to be pushed to the next parliament, if they go ahead at all.

The DHSC has told the industry its mandatory reporting plans will be based on those agreed by companies including Tesco, Sainsbury’s Morrisons, Nestlé, Mars and General Mills under previous moves by the now wound-up health arm of the Food Data Transparency Partnership (FDTP). These included firms agreeing to report on the percentage of sales made up of HFSS foods, fruit & veg, and protein (animal and plant).

However, in November The Grocer revealed retail leaders appeared to be cooling on the idea after they warned Streeting that providing the data required for mandatory reporting and the associated targets that the government wants to bring in on the back of it would cost the industry “tens of millions” of pounds because of the data required.

Supermarket bosses are also furious at suggestions from the likes of Nesta that the policy could start with the leading supermarkets and only later be applied to out-of-home companies like Greggs and Starbucks.

Battle Royale (with cheese)

The government has admitted it is “very sympathetic” to industry demands for a “level playing field” but had not suggested how it plans to tackle the vast gulf in the available data between the different sectors.

And as if this backdrop wasn’t enough to guarantee a fiery start to the new year, there is also the small matter of the looming review of the nutrient profiling model, which has been used to underpin the new advertising ban and previous moves on in-store promotions.

As The Grocer has revealed, Streeting is planning an overhaul of the system, with ministers due to publish a response to the long-delayed 2018 review of the system, by the now defunct Public Health England, within weeks.

That will be followed by a consultation which could move the goalposts by re-designating thousands of products currently in the clear under the junk food ban and other measures, as HFSS. In turn, this will have huge consequences for mandatory reporting and the targets the government intends to set.

It’s all set for an absolute battle royale, with predictions of how it will end up best reserved for another day.

Topics