Consultation opens on less healthy food ad ban

The Committees of Advertising Practice (CAP and BCAP) are inviting brands to comment “in full” on all aspects of the government’s proposed ‘less healthy food’ (LHF) ad restrictions.

The three-week consultation is open to any interested parties, particularly those who responded to the first two consultation exercises. The consultation will close on 9 October at 5pm.

Coming into effect from 5 January 2026, the LHF rules will prohibit adverts for “identifiable” less healthy products from being shown on Ofcom-regulated television services and on-demand programme services between 5.30am and 9pm, and from being placed in paid-for space online.

Brand advertising is exempt from the new restrictions, with advertisers striking an agreement with the government stating they would comply with the rules from 1 October onwards. In May, the government delayed the law from October to January in order to include the brand advertising exemption in the legislation.

‘It’s about trust’: Industry bodies issue campaign ahead of new junk food ad rules

The restrictions state LHF products cannot be shown or referred to by name in advertising. This includes where a product is out of packaging but still recognisable, or where it might be illustrated in art or cartoon form.

Brands also shouldn’t “include branding inextricably linked to a LHF product variant” or “use a combination of factors that may identify an LHF product”.

Under the rules, influencers cannot name or show products, in their packaging or out, if recognisable. Organic influencer posts will be allowed, but cannot be boosted with paid spend. Brands can still post on their own channels provided they adhere to existing HFSS rules, but cannot promote the content through paid media.

To prepare brands for the rule change, in July, the Advertising Association, ISBA, the IPA and the IAB UK teamed up on an awareness campaign. The trade bodies have stressed the importance of brands conforming to the voluntary agreement, describing adherence as a signal to government and the general public of their commitment to responsible advertising.

“The LHF industry agreement is about trust,” said ISBA director of public affairs, Rob Newman in July.

“Government has listened to industry representations regarding the brand exemption; now it’s incumbent on advertisers to play their part by making every effort to avoid running product ads from 1 October.”

Closing the gaps

As of 5 January, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) will have full legal enforcement powers under the new legislation. Government modelling suggests this could prevent more than 20,000 cases of childhood obesity.

The link between LHF advertising, childhood obesity and cancer was made in research published by Cancer Research UK in August, which revealed more than half (52%) of young people have been exposed to junk food promotions on social media in the past month.

The charity’s ‘Digital Influence’ study found posts promoting high fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) products came from both businesses and influencers. Nearly four in 10 young people who saw the content engaged by liking, commenting or sharing, with influencer-led posts proving more influential than business-led adverts.

One 15-year-old participant reported that “at least every two minutes” they’re on Instagram they see at “least one food-related post”.

Speaking at the time, Cancer Research UK prevention policy manager Liv Cheek insisted the planned restrictions to online junk food advertising must be “properly enforced and strengthened by closing any remaining gaps in the online marketing rules”. Cheek urged the government and regulators to take “bold action” to shield young people from “harmful marketing”.

Young people face ‘widespread exposure’ to junk food marketing online

The ASA has already been cracking down on advertising seen to be promoting junk food to children.

Last month, the regulator upheld complaints against a Domino’s Pizza ad, which it deemed promoted an HFSS product likely to appeal to children.

The ad, which appeared during a Minecraft YouTube video, was for Domino’s Cadbury Creme Egg cookie, which is classed as an HFSS food. Current restrictions around HFSS foods mean advertising must not be targeted at under-16s and ads for these sorts of products should not appear on media likely to have strong appeal to children.

The Domino’s ad was shown as a paid-for ad on YouTube channel Milo and Chip during a video about the game Minecraft.

In response to the complaint, the pizza chain said it had taken steps to ensure the ad was not targeted at under-18s and had followed YouTube-owner Google’s rules for HFSS content. The brand said the ad was only shown to signed-in users, restricted to over-18s and excluded all YouTube ‘made for kids’ channels. Additionally, Domino’s had labelled its channel as being HFSS, as Google’s rules require.

However, the ASA ruled the ad appeared in media likely to appeal to children, noting both the popularity of Minecraft among under-16s and graphics used in the video, which the regulator claimed would appeal to a younger audience.