Influential government health advisers have told ministers the junk food ad ban coming into force today is full of loopholes that will allow companies with unhealthy ranges to continue dominating the marketing landscape.
Nudge body Nesta said today’s delayed launch had the “right intentions”. However, it would achieve health gains “much smaller” than they could have been, because of gaps in the legislation, it added.
The body has been heavily involved in helping the government prepare plans for mandatory reporting and targets on health under Wes Streeting’s 10-year plan for the NHS. It said it was important that future legislation was not watered down or delayed by industry lobbying, which it said had already resulted in the advertising restrictions being blunted.
Today ministers hailed the launch of the “landmark” marketing legislation, following a series of delays, which bans advertising for less healthy food and drinks on television before 9pm, and online at all times.
It said the “decisive and world-leading action” was expected to remove up to 7.2 billion calories from children’s diets each year and go on to deliver around £2bn in health benefits.
However, Nesta said the new rules still allowed all companies to advertise their brand or product ranges. This meant that McDonald’s, while prevented from advertising a specific HFSS burger, would be allowed to play ads featuring its Happy Meal range or recognisable Golden Arches across TV and online.
Cadbury can continue to advertise its Dairy Milk Buttons range, meanwhile, just not individual products within that range.
Nesta also added its voice to fears from campaign groups that because the regulations do not cover outdoor advertising (such as billboards) or company-owned channels (such as social media or direct marketing), companies would shift their ad spend to those channels.
Health clampdown
Nesta has been influential in planning for the next phase of the government’s clampdown on health. The Grocer exclusively revealed last month that the DHSC had begun a series of cross-industry workshops – involving retailers, manufacturers and the out-of-home sector – ahead of the launch of a consultation on a new system of mandatory reporting in March.
The new system, which is expected to build on negotiations with the industry conducted by the now-defunct Food Data Transparency Partnership, will form the basis of Streeting’s new healthy food standard. The government has promised to bring in mandatory reporting by 2029.
Retail leaders have advised Streeting that providing the data for mandatory reporting and the associated targets will cost the industry “tens of millions of pounds” to produce and say it could take years for a system to be ready that would provide a level playing field.
Hugo Harper, director of healthy life at Nesta, said it was vital the government did not allow industry lobbying to stop it “filling the gaps” in its new legislation.
“There is clearly room for improvement on the advertising of unhealthy food at times where they are more likely to reach children – for example by requiring a healthy food item to be in any brand-level advertising, or for adverts for product ranges to have to be majority healthy food.
“Businesses will tend to exploit loopholes in regulations. That’s why an outcomes-based approach, such as the government’s announced healthy food standard – where targets are set and retailers can find their own way to meet them – is likely to have a much better effect on reducing obesity.
“It’s also likely that changes to advertising would be part of the way retailers would have to achieve those targets.”
Anna Taylor, executive director of the Food Foundation, added: “Today marks a big, world-leading, milestone on the journey to protect children from being exposed to the onslaught of junk food advertising which is currently so harmful to their health.
“But let’s not forget it took more than seven years from when it was first announced to coming into force.
“In the meantime, companies are switching tactics and switching channels to reach children in different ways.
“Our data shows that spending on outdoor advertising increased by 28% between 2021 and 2024 and the legislation permits companies to switch from product advertising to brand advertising, which is likely to significantly weaken its impact.
“We can’t stop here, we must remain focused on the goal – banning all forms of junk food advertising to children, and we must create a policy process which can be more responsive to industry tactics and less vulnerable to industry lobbying.”
One battle after another
However, health minister Ashley Dalton said the government was doing all it could to tackle the obesity crisis and defended its decision to protect growth by protecting brands from the impact of the ban.
“By restricting adverts for junk food before 9pm and banning paid adverts online, we can remove excessive exposure to unhealthy foods – making the healthy choice the easy choice for parents and children,” she said.
“We’re moving the dial from having the NHS treat sickness, to preventing it so people can lead healthier lives and so it can be there for us when we need it.
This government has worked closely with health campaigners and industry leaders to find the right balance, which combines our commitment to raising healthy kids and economic growth.”
Katharine Jenner, executive director of Obesity Health Alliance, said: “It’s been one battle after another, but we are finally going to see children being protected from the worst offending junk food adverts.
“This is a welcome and long-awaited step towards better protecting children from unhealthy food and drink advertising that can harm their health and wellbeing. These new restrictions will help reduce children’s exposure to the most problematic adverts and mark real progress towards a healthier food environment.
“For the government to achieve its ambition of raising the healthiest generation ever, this is an important policy as part of a broader approach to preventing obesity-related ill health. Continuing to strengthen the rules over time will help ensure these protections remain effective”.
No comments yet