Health Select Committee recommends expanding HFSS ad restrictions to brand advertising and OOH

A report by the Health Select Committee has recommended expanding restrictions on advertising of less-healthy food (LHF).

The report argues that brand advertising should be brought within the scope of existing regulation “as soon as possible”.

It also recommends banning OOH advertising of high-fat, salt or sugar (HFSS) foods by July 2027.

In addition, the report suggests launching a consultation to expand the HFSS ad ban to other forms of advertising, such as sport sponsorship, online gaming and social media.

The recommendation comes after legislation restricting LHF advertising came into effect under voluntary compliance on 1 October last year, with the legal deadline taking effect from 5 January 2026.

That policy banned LHF ads from all paid online advertising, as well as TV and streaming services from before the 9 pm watershed.

The Media Leader understands that media channels that fell outside those restrictions, such as radio and OOH, have benefited from additional revenue from LHF brands seeking to comply with the ban while continuing to advertise to wide-reach audiences.

The ban notably did not include a ban on brand advertising, but rather ads for specific foods classified as HFSS. This conclusion was reached following a back-and-forth over imprecise language in the original law, which delayed enforcement of the ban while the law’s intent was clarified to exempt brand activity.

LHF restrictions round-up: How each media channel is impacted

The Committee cited numerous pieces of research in support of its decision to extend the ban to more media channels, including a report from food policy charity The Food Foundation which observed “a striking mismatch between the food categories with the greatest advertising spend and those that are recommended as part of a healthy diet.”

Less-healthy foods such as sweets, chocolate and crisps were found to account for £196m in adspend, more than one-quarter (29%) of all food and non-alcohol adspend on “traditional” media channels. This compared to £19m of adspend in support of fruit and vegetables (3%).

The Committee had also heard evidence that food marketing “detrimentally affected food preferences, choices and intake, particularly in children”.

Such evidence was challenged by the Advertising Association (AA), which argued the role of advertising was “a very small part of the overall food environment” and the evidence base for restrictions was “extremely weak”.

Nonetheless, the Committee concluded: “The evidence is clear: advertising impacts on the consumption of HFSS foods.”

The report reads: “The Government has already accepted this to some degree given the action already taken to restrict exposure to HFSS advertising, but it must be bolder. Its current approach leaves the majority of advertising untouched and undermines the intention of restricting exposure. No effort has also been made to encourage advertising to be healthier.”

Youth-led advocacy group Bite Back has backed the report’s recommendations, arguing that, with a new Prime Minister set to replace Keir Starmer in the coming weeks, the new Government has a “ready-made roadmap for improving children’s health”. The charity is calling on ministers to move quickly, beginning with a national ban on junk food advertising in OOH.

“Our young campaigners have shown how junk food advertising dominates bus stops, billboards and high streets, while our research has highlighted the concentration of unhealthy food marketing and fast-food outlets around schools,” said D’Arcy Williams, Bite Back’s CEO. “That is not an accident; it is the result of a system that has consistently put commercial interests ahead of children’s health. “

Trade bodies respond

Spokespeople from UK advertising industry trade bodies the AA, the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising (IPA) and Isba all decried the restrictions, arguing the evidence ad bans reduce obesity is scant and that the bans will raise further difficulties for businesses that have already had to weather years of uncertain policy on the subject of less-healthy foods advertising.

“The IPA is disappointed by the Committee’s recommendation to expand advertising restrictions,” said IPA director of public affairs Richard Casofsky. “The report does not provide convincing evidence that further restrictions would reduce obesity or improve public health outcomes. Policymakers should focus on interventions that are proven to work and are grounded in robust evidence.”

A spokesperson for the AA called the report a “significant missed opportunity to put forward policies which would bring together government, industry and the third sector to tackle this major policy issue.”

They continued: “The consistent conclusion across hundreds of studies, large-scale reviews and meta-analyses is that advertising restrictions have limited or no causal effect on either long-term childhood obesity or BMI, while positive public health campaigns have proven benefits. The focus should be on addressing the real drivers of poor health, including inequality, affordability, and accessibility of healthy food.”

The AA, the spokesperson said, would “strongly welcome working with the Government to move away from poorly evidenced policies that are ineffective and damaging to business and jobs, and onto a positive, collaborative approach that really will deliver healthy outcomes across the UK.”

Rob Newman, director of public affairs at Isba, likewise said the Committee’s recommendations “fail to recognise the realities and challenges facing advertisers, retailers and manufacturers.”

Adopting a new Nutrient Profile Model (NPM) will cost brands significant time and money to source new ingredients and reformulate products, he said, and, in conjunction with new HFSS ad restrictions, “hit advertisers at a time when they are already dealing with multiple government policy changes.”

“This, and the Committee’s proposal to unwind the brand advertising exemption from the LHF rules – which only came into force in January, and which the advertising industry voluntarily adopted early to enable the Government to meet its manifesto commitments – would also break faith with the promise that government gave to review the impact of those rules after five years,” Newman said.