Childhood obesity has become one of the most worrying health emergencies in Western countries. The excessive consumption of ultra-processed foods, rich in sugars, saturated fats and salt, is changing the eating habits of the new generations, with serious consequences on physical and metabolic health.
Advertising plays a key role in this process: studies show that repeated exposure to messages promoting junk food influences children’s food preferences from early childhood, directing them towards nutritionally unbalanced choices.
Faced with these data, some governments have begun to take action with increasingly incisive legislative measures. Among these, the United Kingdom has probably made the most drastic choice so far. On 5 January 2026, the law came into force which bans the advertising of foods and drinks high in sugar, saturated fat and salt, both on television and online, with the aim of reducing children’s exposure to junk food promotional messages and encouraging healthier food choices.
How the ban works
The new rules introduce limitations on two fronts:
What is covered by the ban? This is not a generic list. The perimeter of the restrictions is defined by a nutritional evaluation system that assigns scores to foods based on their overall profile. Those with high levels of added sugars, salt or saturated fats are penalized.
Specifically, we are talking about 13 product categories including sugary drinks and sweets, such as chocolate and sweets, but also pizzas and ice creams. The measure also extends to some breakfast cereals enriched with sugars, sweet baked products such as snacks and biscuits, and even sandwiches and ready meals with an unbalanced nutritional profile. Essentially, all those foods and drinks that children tend to consume often and which, if promoted through advertising, can influence their eating habits in a negative way.
There are also some foods excluded from the ban. For example plain oats, most porridges, muesli and granola without additions. But if instead there is sugar, chocolate or syrup in the composition, this causes the product to change category. It is precisely this mechanism that the government wants to exploit to push producers to reformulate recipes in a healthier way.
An interesting aspect of the legislation concerns the distinction between brand and specific product. Brands like PepsiCo, McDonald’s or Coca-Cola can continue to be visible on TV and online. Showing logos, company colors and general brand references is permitted. What can no longer be done is to associate the brand with the direct promotion of a product classified as unhealthy.
In practice, McDonald’s golden arches can appear in an advert, but not accompanied by a Big Mac or french fries. The same goes for a bottle of Coca-Cola or a pack of crisps.
This aspect of the law raises some doubts. In fact, large companies, thanks to the strength of their already consolidated brand, could be less penalized than small producers, who instead have to focus on direct communication of the product to make themselves known.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), the British authority for advertising standards, will monitor compliance with the new rules. Companies that do not comply risk heavy fines.
What companies can do
Producers are not left out completely. They can continue to advertise, but they need to focus on reformulated and more balanced versions of the same foods. A company that produces cereals can promote the line without added sugar, while the one with chocolate and syrup remains out of communication.
The intent of the new law is twofold: on the one hand to reward those who invest in healthier products and on the other to push the market towards a “spontaneous” reformulation. According to the Food and Drink Federation, the products of the main brands already contain a third less salt and sugar and a quarter fewer calories than ten years ago.
The reactions
Katherine Brown, professor of health behavior change at the University of Hertfordshire, called the ban “long overdue and a step in the right direction“According to the scholar, children are particularly vulnerable to aggressive marketing and these measures can really help reduce the risk of obesity and chronic diseases.
Josh Tilley, an expert in brand strategy, underlined, however, that smaller companies could be too affected by the measure. Not being able to afford large campaigns focused on the brand, many local companies rely on direct communication of the product. With the ban, this possibility disappears.
When also in Italy?
The United Kingdom is not the first country to limit junk food advertising, but it is certainly among the most radical. Countries such as Norway, Sweden and Portugal have introduced similar restrictions, but with smaller perimeters. The British approach, which combines a total online ban and a protected time slot on TV, could also become a reference for other European states, including Italy, where the debate on these issues is still in its embryonic stage.
It remains to be seen how effective this measure will really be in the long term. Reducing advertising exposure is important, but it alone is not enough. We need integrated policies that include nutrition education in schools, easier access to fresh and nutritious foods, and economic support for families to be able to make healthier choices. The ban is a piece, not the definitive solution. But it is still a sign that something is changing.
Sources: UK Government / BBC
