The UK made a silent move that could reshape how an entire generation eats

Childhood obesity rates remain high, with officials citing figures showing that at the start of primary school 22.1% of children in England are living with overweight or obesity, rising to 35.8% by the time they leave. Related harms extend beyond weight alone. Tooth decay is repeatedly highlighted as a major concern: it is described as the leading cause of hospital admissions for young children, and recent figures cited across coverage indicate that around one in five children have tooth decay by the age of five.

The financial pressures are also significant. Estimates referenced in reporting put the annual cost of obesity to the NHS at more than £11 billion. Alongside the direct burden on the health service, obesity is linked to elevated risks of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and some cancers, with health organisations warning that the consequences can be more severe when the condition develops early in life.

Against this background, the government and supporting public health groups argue that reducing children’s exposure to HFSS marketing is a reasonable lever. The logic is not that advertising is the sole cause of obesity, but that it contributes to a wider “food environment” in which highly marketed, energy-dense products are normalised and made more appealing; particularly to children, who are widely described as susceptible to persuasive advertising.

The new regime introduces two core constraints:

• Television: HFSS adverts are banned before 9pm (with coverage describing the restricted period as up to 9pm, and referencing a daytime-to-watershed window).

• Online: HFSS paid advertising is prohibited at all times.

The ban applies to products within 13 categories considered to play a significant role in childhood obesity. Within those categories, products are then assessed using a nutrient profiling scoring tool that weighs nutrient levels and flags items high in saturated fat, salt, or sugar. Only items that meet both tests (category inclusion and an “unhealthy” score) are captured by the restrictions.

The list of affected products includes familiar targets such as soft drinks, chocolates and sweets, pizzas and ice creams. It also extends into less obvious territory, capturing some breakfast cereals and porridges, sweetened bread products, and certain main meals and sandwiches. This broader scope reflects the policy’s attempt to address foods that may be marketed as everyday choices but still contain high levels of sugar, salt, or saturated fat.

Importantly, the scoring model can differentiate within a category. Coverage notes that plain oats and most porridge, muesli and granola are not affected, while versions with added sugar, chocolate, or syrup may be. The government hopes this structure will encourage reformulation and promote healthier variants; allowing brands to advertise products that meet the threshold, and creating a commercial incentive to improve recipes.

One of the most contentious aspects of the new rules is the way they pull in products that some consumers consider “better for you.” Reporting points to examples such as instant porridge, yoghurt drinks, and certain snack alternatives (including lentil-based crisps), alongside items like salted popcorn, seaweed sheets, and kombucha appearing in discussions of affected foods.

The reason is less about an overall verdict on whether a food can ever be part of a healthy diet, and more about how the profiling tool works. The scoring system allocates points for “A” nutrients such as energy, saturated fat, sugar and salt, then subtracts points for “C” nutrients such as fruit/vegetable/nut content, fibre and protein. Products that still score above a defined threshold are treated as “less healthy” for advertising purposes, even if they carry attributes that are not captured by the model. Nutrition voices cited in coverage argue this helps prevent “health halo” marketing; where a product’s branding suggests wellbeing benefits that are not matched by its sugar or salt content.

Experts also emphasise what the policy is not. It does not prohibit the sale of these foods, nor does it tell parents what they can feed their children. Instead, it restricts how aggressively certain products can be marketed in places and at times children are likely to see them.

The ASA will oversee enforcement, and companies that do not comply face potential action. The Food and Drink Federation (FDF) has said its members have been voluntarily adhering to the restrictions since October and has framed the policy as consistent with efforts to help people make healthier choices. The industry body also points to longer-term product changes, stating that manufacturers have reduced salt and sugar and cut calories across ranges over the past decade.

However, the practical impact of the ban will depend on how advertising strategies evolve. A recurring point across reporting is that brand advertising is still possible: firms may be permitted to advertise their brand identity without showing identifiable HFSS products. This creates a potential route for major companies to maintain visibility (through logos, slogans, and broader brand messaging) while avoiding product shots that would trigger the ban.

Marketing analysts have suggested this dynamic could favour larger firms that can afford broad brand campaigns, while smaller companies (often more reliant on product-led advertising to explain what they sell) may be more constrained. That concern raises questions about competitive effects, even as the public health aim is to reduce children’s exposure to particular HFSS product messaging.

There is also the risk of displacement. If television and online channels become more constrained, advertising budgets may move into other formats that children still encounter (such as billboards and posters) depending on how the overall regulatory framework applies across media.

Supporters of the restrictions describe them as “long overdue”, but many also stress they are not sufficient on their own. Academic experts argue that advertising controls should sit within a comprehensive long-term strategy that addresses inequalities, improves local food environments, and makes nutritious options more affordable, accessible and appealing.

The government has positioned the ban as part of a wider prevention agenda. Measures referenced alongside the advertising restrictions include actions intended to improve diets and reduce exposure to harmful products, as well as earlier interventions such as the Soft Drinks Industry Levy, which is cited as an example of regulation encouraging reformulation. Coverage also notes accompanying policies aimed at restricting promotions on unhealthy food in retail contexts and broader initiatives targeting children’s health.

The case for the HFSS advertising restrictions rests on a straightforward proposition: children’s diets are shaped not only by household choices but by the commercial environment around them. Supporters argue that reducing exposure to persuasive marketing for HFSS products (especially in the media children use most) should help shift preferences and reduce demand over time.

Whether those aims are realised will depend on enforcement, industry adaptation, and the degree to which brands can maintain influence through logo-led campaigns or by redirecting spend to other channels. Even then, most experts and campaigners agree that advertising restrictions address only one dimension of the problem. Lasting reductions in childhood obesity will likely require sustained action that pairs tighter marketing controls with improvements in affordability and access; so that healthier choices are not merely encouraged, but genuinely easier for families to make.