From manifesto pledge to policy reality
The long-trailed advertising ban on junk food is finally here.
The new rules introduce a daytime moratorium and late-evening watershed on TV advertising for unhealthy products and a near-total ban on paid-for online advertising.
Pledged in Labour’s General Election manifesto, the policy raises a broader question: what do these restrictions tell us about how the Government plans to advance its health mission while maintaining constructive relationships with business – and avoiding further pressure on household budgets?
Under the legislation, the restrictions do not apply to food and drink SMEs (defined as companies with fewer than 250 employees). For larger businesses, however, the rules are significant. The less healthy product advertising regime prohibits:
- Ofcom-licensed television services from including advertising or sponsorship for identifiable less healthy products between 5:30am and 9:00pm
- Ofcom-regulated on-demand programme services (ODPS) from including advertising or sponsorship for identifiable less healthy products during the same hours
- Paid-for online advertising for identifiable less healthy products, intended to be accessed primarily by UK audiences, at any time
As with most attempts to tighten regulation on food and drinks high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS), implementation has not been without controversy.
Last year saw a stand-off between industry and the regulator, after the Advertising Standards Authority’s initial guidance appeared to significantly widen the scope of the ban. Under that interpretation, any advertising by a brand highly associated with HFSS products – even ads that did not feature or reference a specific “less healthy” product – could fall within scope. In practice, that would have amounted to a blanket ban on advertising by well-known HFSS brands.
Unsurprisingly, this triggered strong pushback from industry – so much so that it prompted Government intervention. Ministers issued a clarification confirming that so-called “brand advertising” would be explicitly exempt from the legislation, narrowing the scope back to product-specific advertising. It was a clear signal that, while the Government is willing to regulate, it is also wary of regulatory overreach, and brands and broadcasters responded in good faith, signing a voluntary and unilateral commitment to apply the ban as originally intended from October 2025, ahead of full enforcement.
The Government has framed the policy as a major step forward in improving the nation’s diet and tackling poor health outcomes. That political confidence is not misplaced.
Polling suggests there is broad support among Labour MPs and voters for tougher action on unhealthy food, even where it risks increasing costs for consumers. In Cavendish polling, conducted following the 2024 General Election, found that 54% of Labour MPs said they would support greater restrictions on unhealthy food advertising, even if this led to higher prices, as did 52% of Labour voters.
Taken together, this points to a clear direction of travel. The junk food advertising ban is unlikely to be the end of the story. The recent expansion of the Soft Drinks Industry Levy – lowering thresholds and bringing milk-based drinks into scope – reinforces the sense that further HFSS interventions are on the horizon.
That said, the cost-of-living crisis remains politically salient. This creates an inherent tension: how can Labour continue to pursue ambitious public health goals without placing additional strain on the households most exposed to rising prices?
The advertising ban offers a clue. Rather than focusing on price levers, the Government is shifting responsibility upstream – towards brands themselves. The clear expectation is that companies invest in reformulation, innovation and portfolio change to reduce exposure to future restrictions.
Yet making those investments may be complicated by the lack of cross-party consensus. While Labour, the Lib Dems and the Greens appear aligned in the view that regulation is a key lever for improving health outcomes, the Conservatives resist intervention in favour of personal choice, and Reform outright reject it. In an already uncertain political climate, these dividing lines create an added challenge for brands trying to plan and invest against an unclear long-term HFSS policy landscape.
Turning HFSS constraints into brand impact
For brands operating in this space, the message is clear: regulatory risk now sits alongside nutritional performance as a defining factor in brand strategy. This shift isn’t just operational – ; it reshapes the way consumers perceive and interact with brands. When advertising freedoms narrow, the relationship between a brand and its audience becomes more fragile, and more valuable.
Consumers are watching how brands respond. Reformulation and portfolio change are no longer technical exercises hidden behind the scenes; they are visible signals of intent. A brand that moves decisively towards healthier options demonstrates alignment with cultural priorities around wellbeing and responsibility. Conversely, inertia risks eroding trust, especially when policy and public sentiment converge on the expectation of progress.
Brand impact becomes the lens through which these changes are judged. It’s not about compliance for its own sake, but about how those actions translate into credibility and relevance. The strongest brands will treat regulation as a catalyst for trust, using every shift, from product innovation to communication strategy, to reinforce their values and deepen consumer relationships.
The challenge is considerable, but it isn’t impossible to overcome. Knowing how to maintain relevance when traditional advertising routes are constrained is critical. So too is understanding how to strengthen consumer connection when the familiar cues of product-led marketing are off-limits. Both challenges point to the same solution – more creative storytelling and clearer articulation of the real benefits to the end user, consumer or otherwise.
The opportunity lies in making brand impact tangible, through experiences, content and touchpoints that validate action and make healthier choices aspirational. In this new landscape, the brands that thrive will be those that turn regulatory pressure into proof of purpose.