As the UK’s junk food advertising ban comes into force, it marks a significant shift in obesity policy with real implications for marketing and reformulation. Drawing on international comparisons, New Food Deputy Editor Ben Cornwell explores what the ban may change in practice and where its limits begin to show.
Instead of asking children to resist billion-pound marketing ecosystems, the government is now intervening directly in the food environment.”
Ministers estimate the ban will remove 7.2 billion calories from children’s diets each year, reduce the number of children living with obesity by around 20,000 and deliver two billion pounds in long-term health benefits. With 22.1 percent of children classified as overweight or obese when they start primary school, rising to 35.8 percent by the time they leave, the scale of the challenge is difficult to ignore.
Yet the ban also exposes a deeper truth about the UK’s approach to obesity. Despite progress being made, it remains uneven and fragmented.
Shifting responsibility from individuals to environments
For decades, obesity policy in the UK has focused heavily on individual behaviour. Eat less. Move more. Make better choices. That framing has struggled to deliver meaningful change in a food system shaped by aggressive marketing and constant availability.
Instead of asking children to resist billion-pound marketing ecosystems, the government is now intervening directly in the food environment.
“It’s a great step in terms of the UK Government signalling that it is seeing the role of the broader food environment and how that impacts on obesity levels,” says Elly Vaughan, Principal, Health Policy and Insights at Economist Impact. “And moving away from an approach that is more focused on targeting individual behaviour.”
The inclusion of online advertising is particularly significant. Food marketing is now encountered primarily through social platforms, digital video and influencer-led content rather than scheduled broadcast slots.
“If any of us reflect on our daily lives, we’re spending so much of it online,” Vaughan says. “There’s no one really in our population who isn’t spending some portion of their day online and so social media is hugely influential.”
In that respect, the UK has aligned itself with the strongest international evidence. Many countries have yet to do so.
A strong international position with internal imbalance
According to Economist Impact’s Global Obesity Response Index, supported by Eli Lilly, the UK ranks seventh overall. Examining obesity policy across all 50 US states as well as 20 countries globally, the Index evaluates how countries and states prevent and manage obesity and enables comparison both within and between health systems.
The UK ranks first for food quality and access and first for obesity management, but falls to twelfth for policy and governance and nineteenth for physical activity.”
Rather than measuring outcomes, the Index assesses whether governments have adopted a recognised package of interventions that organisations such as the World Health Organization have shown to be effective, assessing obesity prevention and response strategies across 30 indicators grouped into four pillars: policy and governance; obesity management; food quality and access and physical activity.
“The UK ranked seventh overall in the Obesity Response Index, so relatively strong, probably where we would expect the UK to land, with a well-developed public health infrastructure and health system,” Vaughan says.
However, the underlying scores reveal sharp contrasts. The UK ranks first for food quality and access, and first for obesity management, but falls to twelfth for policy and governance and nineteenth for physical activity.
“There’s a massive variation there,” Vaughan says. “And we’re seeing similar variations across a lot of countries assessed in the Index. Many obesity responses may be strong in some areas, but weak in others.”
The Index highlights a recurring structural weakness. Only 13 of the 20 countries assessed have an up-to-date national obesity strategy.
“National obesity strategies are critical - they act as policy glue,” Vaughan says. “They bring together different strands of activity and ensure a coordinated response.”
Responding to obesity requires an all-of-society approach, involving multiple government departments beyond health, as well as industry, communities and the wider food system. Without that coordination, policies tend to develop in isolation. Advertising restrictions, fiscal measures and treatment pathways exist, but do not always complement one another.
Nutrient profiling becomes a regulatory threshold
The advertising ban also reflects how technically complex obesity policy has become. Products are assessed using a nutrient profiling model that weighs sugar, salt and saturated fat against overall nutritional value. As a result, the rules extend beyond obvious junk food categories to include a wider range of everyday food items.
Plain oats and unsweetened porridge are exempt. Versions containing added sugar, syrup or chocolate may not be.
For food and drink manufacturers, nutrient profiling increasingly functions as a regulatory threshold rather than a purely informational tool. Whether a product can be advertised, how it can be positioned and which audiences it can reach are now tied directly to scoring outcomes. This raises the stakes for reformulation.
There is, however, a risk of superficial adjustment. Products can be engineered to meet scoring cut-offs without delivering meaningful nutritional improvement.
“Implementation remains inconsistent across the board,” Vaughan says, “and there is a need to ensure the strongest possible policy approaches are adopted.”
Vaughan points to nutrition labelling as an example. While labelling is mandated in the UK and in many other countries, it is not always required to appear on the front of pack. Evidence from the World Health Organization suggests front-of-pack labelling is the most effective format for influencing consumer behaviour, yet many jurisdictions continue to rely on back-of-pack information.
Reformulation also comes with practical limits. Sugar, salt and fat play functional roles in preservation, texture and shelf life. Ingredient substitution affects cost, supply chains and consumer acceptance, and not all categories can adapt at the same pace. The challenge for policymakers and industry alike is ensuring regulatory pressure drives genuine nutritional improvement rather than marginal technical compliance.
Fiscal policy and the limits of ambition
If advertising restrictions aim to reduce exposure, fiscal policy aims to reshape supply. In this area, the UK has one of its strongest records.
The Soft Drinks Industry Levy has driven reformulation and reduced sugar consumption without harming overall sales. Its recent extension to sugary milk-based drinks suggests a willingness to build on evidence of success.
Internationally, Mexico remains the most ambitious example. It is the only country in the Index to tax both sugar-sweetened beverages and unhealthy foods at a national level. Evidence suggests sugary drink purchases fell by 7.6 percent in the first two years following implementation, while purchases of taxed foods declined by 6 percent.
The UK has not followed this approach. There is still no levy on HFSS foods.
“We still have that gap around foods defined as HFSS,” Vaughan says. “Given that we’ve already seen an impact through the sugar-sweetened beverage levy, that’s something that the UK government could consider to strengthen policy.”
What building on the ban may involve
The significance of the advertising ban lies partly in what it paves for the future. UK food policy has increasingly followed an incremental path. Measures are introduced, evidence is gathered, gaps are identified and scope is extended. The sugar levy followed this trajectory and the advertising restrictions may now sit at a similar point. Data on exposure, purchasing behaviour and reformulation could support tighter controls on brand-only advertising, expanded restrictions in outdoor spaces, or stronger fiscal measures targeting HFSS foods.
The exclusion of outdoor advertising already appears notable. Evidence from Transport for London suggests restrictions on outdoor advertising can influence purchasing behaviour. Analysis of the policy found it was associated with reduced household purchases of unhealthy food and drink, yet outdoor advertising remains outside the scope of the current rules.
For food and drink manufacturers, this has practical implications. Scrutiny of marketing practices is intensifying. Nutrient profiling is becoming embedded in regulation. Expectations around transparency in sales and formulation are rising. Treating the advertising ban as a discrete compliance exercise risks underestimating the scale of future change.
Measuring progress in a rising trend
One persistent difficulty remains: obesity prevalence continues to rise.
In the UK, we don’t actually have any targets for obesity prevalence. Without knowing what you’re aiming for, it’s very hard to judge performance and efficacy of policy.”
Adult obesity in the UK stands at around 28 percent. Globally, rates have more than doubled since 1990. This makes targets politically sensitive and may explain why the UK has not set explicit prevalence reduction goals.
“In the UK, we don’t actually have any targets for obesity prevalence,” Vaughan says. “And without knowing what you’re aiming for, it’s very hard to then judge performance and efficacy of policy.”
She cautions that progress may not be reflected in falling headline figures, indicating that success may instead take the form of slowing a projected increase.
“If prevalence increases from 28 percent this year to 29 percent next year, that could still be considered a success,” Vaughan says. “If you can achieve a rise in obesity that is lower than estimates, then you’ve successfully curbed that rising trajectory.”
Intermediate measures therefore matter. Purchasing data, reformulation rates and exposure metrics may prove more informative in the short term. The UK’s new requirements for unhealthy food sales reporting could become a key component of future evaluation.
A line in the sand
The junk food advertising ban was not designed to solve obesity on its own.
What it does represent is a clear acknowledgement that existing approaches have fallen short and that protecting children’s health requires intervention in markets as well as messaging.
Whether the UK builds on this foundation by tightening loopholes, addressing outdoor advertising, confronting food taxation and funding prevention properly will determine whether this moment marks a turning point or fades into the background.
For now, the ban signals meaningful progress and aligns the UK with stronger international approaches. It reflects a shift in how obesity is understood, ie, as a structural challenge rather than an individual failing.
Obesity remains adaptive, persistent and deeply embedded in modern food systems. While a single policy can slow it, only a sustained, coherent strategy will change its direction.
Meet the expert
Elly Vaughan is Principal, Global Health Policy at Economist Impact. Elly is global lead on obesity for Economist Impact and has worked on a variety of projects on the prevention and management of obesity and other non-communicable diseases, including type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease (CKD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD).
Additionally, Elly has specific expertise in emergency preparedness and response, as Lead of the Global Health Security Index and having worked on a number of reviews for the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and Robert Koch Institute, including several peer-reviewed publications.
