Why the new junk food advertising ban won’t solve the growing childhood obesity problem

Childhood obesity in England remains high and unequally distributed. Latest National Child Measurement Programme data show 10.5% of reception-age children and 22.2% of Year 6 children are living with obesity, with prevalence more than double in the most deprived areas compared with the least. Excess weight in childhood sets a trajectory towards higher rates of chronic conditions across the life course. If the government is serious about its ambitions to secure the ‘healthiest generation of children ever’, and to halve the gap in healthy life expectancy, it’s hard to think of an issue that demands more attention. 

Despite this, the government’s new regulation to tackle this problem is underpowered and focuses on a narrow structural driver of childhood obesity rather than comprehensively addressing the wider system failure.

What the new rules mean 

From Monday 5 January 2026, the government has banned pre-watershed TV adverts and paid‑for online adverts for identifiable less healthy products. This is a step in the right direction: there is evidence that marketing unhealthy food to children is associated with less healthy diets. And the World Health Organization recommends strict policies to protect children from the influence of advertising. Therefore, it is crucial to get this right. 

This policy has notable omissions. Out-of-home advertising (such as on billboards or public transport) is out of scope, as is sports sponsorship. Online restrictions target paid advert placements only. And the government has confirmed an exemption for brand-only advertising, meaning adverts that promote a brand without depicting a less healthy product are still allowed. 

Why the advertising ban will under-deliver

Rather than reducing exposure, the exemptions invite companies to move from one marketing approach to another. This is already observable. Food companies increased out-of-home advertising spend by 28% between 2021 and 2024 following the announcement of TV/online advertising restrictions. McDonald’s spent £86m in 2024, up 71% since 2021, and is the largest spender on outdoor advertising – among other unhealthy food manufacturers such as Unilever, PepsiCo, The CocaCola Company and Mars.

BMJ investigations show the impact of industry lobbing in delaying or diluting local council attempts to reduce outdoor junk food advertising – this is unlikely to abate now that the ban is coming in. Similarly, sports sponsorship by unhealthy food brands is an unregulated avenue that companies will increasingly rely on without tighter restrictions. 

The policy also will encourage advertisers to find more inventive ways to reach children online. On a livestreaming platform popular with young people, researchers identified 2.6 food cues (for example, an advert, a mention, product placement or image) an hour, with the majority for products high in fat, salt or sugar. 39% were brand-only cues (and therefore outside product identifiability rules) and 98% weren’t disclosed as paid promotion. Similarly, ASA’s 2024 monitoring found only 57% of influencer ads were properly disclosed. This is a major vulnerability when enforcement of the ban relies on distinguishing editorial content from paid advertising, and a loophole that will be widely exploited.

Finally, the brand exemption undermines the ability of the ban to reduce exposure to brands that advertise unhealthy food. When a similar approach was used in the Transport for London (TfL) junk food advertising ban, brands such as McDonald’s were able to use this loophole to continue advertising widely on the transport network. 

What needs to be done instead 

Strengthening the proposed marketing regulations would be an obvious next step. We know that tighter controls on out-of-home advertising work. For example, the TfL policy has been linked to the equivalent of around 1,000 kcal fewer unhealthy purchases per household per week, and larger reductions in sugar purchasing than the UK soft drinks industry levy, with no loss to TfL in advertising revenue.

As well as tightening out-of-home advertising regulation, the government needs to close the current loopholes that exist online and via sponsorship. And the brand exemption should be reconsidered – rather than focusing on individual product lines, food companies should be assessed as selling ‘more healthy’ or ‘less healthy’ products using average nutrient profiling model scores at portfolio level (using average NPM scores across all products in the portfolio). Brands that sell majority ‘less healthy’ food should observe full brand restrictions on advertising. 

But childhood obesity is dependent on multiple factors, demanding a suite of structural interventions rather than stand-alone policies. Children consume around 30% of their daily calorie intake during the school day, so the government should see through its commitments in the 10-Year Health Plan by expanding eligibility for free school meals and updating school food standards to ensure schools provide healthy food.

The government also needs to focus on how to keep children moving. Although in the 2024/25 academic year 49.1% of children met the 60-minute per day physical activity target, the majority, particularly from ethnic minorities and less affluent families, still fell short. The planned physical activity strategy must commit to the school and non-school environment interventions needed to keep all children active. 

Childhood obesity also cannot be tackled in isolation from adult diets and the wider food environment. Parental modelling and home availability strongly shape what children eat. Healthier household shopping habits, whether it’s through the government’s new Healthy Food Standard or changed dietary preferences of adults on weight loss medications, will likely have related benefits for trends in children’s weight. Using taxation, labelling, regulation and reformulation to improve the food ecosystem will benefit children as well as their parents. Local authorities need stronger powers to promote healthier food environments, and we need to maintain investment in local public health services. 

More soft play, less hard sell

Childhood obesity emerges when everyday environments consistently nudge calorie intake up and activity down. Although advertising bans can reduce marketing pressure, without closing out-of-home and sponsorship gaps, curbing brand exemptions and strengthening online enforcement, children’s exposure to unhealthy products will just change rather than fall. Tighter marketing rules need to be paired with stronger population-level food policy to shift the defaults that shape everyday choices – an approach that has strong support from the public. Otherwise, high-calorie, low-nutrient options will remain accessible and prominent, and the promise of the ‘healthiest generation ever’ will remain out of reach.