Switching Off Junk Food Ads: What the New Ban Means for Children and Communities

On 16 January, Dr Sharmin Shajahan, Deputy Director at Voice4Change England and Ditipriya Acharya, Senior Media, Marketing and Communications Officer at Voice4Change England appeared on Ion TV, hosted by Syeda Choudhury, to talk about the Horizons London Programme and the importance of healthy living, particularly for children, in light of the government’s new junk food advertising ban.  

They helped explain a significant shift in how the UK regulates the marketing of less healthy food – a change that could reshape children’s everyday food environment and deepen conversations about health inequalities in London and beyond. 

What the new ban does – and why 9 p.m. matters 

The new rules introduce a 9 p.m. watershed on TV for products high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS), and a full, round‑the‑clock ban on paid‑for HFSS advertising online. Thirteen product categories are covered, including sugary soft drinks, chocolate and sweets, ice cream, cakes and sweet biscuits, pizzas, prepared potato products and HFSS main meals and sandwiches. 

The 9 p.m. watershed is used because children are significantly more likely to watch television before this time, so a pre‑watershed restriction reduces the chance that children will repeatedly see persuasive HFSS ads woven into family programming. This responds to evidence that children’s exposure to unhealthy food marketing is associated with higher intake, stronger preferences and more purchase requests for these foods. 

How marketing shapes behaviour, not just “choice” 

Reviews of global evidence show that exposure to HFSS marketing increases children’s preferences for advertised foods, their purchase requests to parents and their immediate food intake, even when they are not hungry. 

Techniques such as cartoon characters, fun or “cool” branding, rewards and social media engagement make products feel tastier and more desirable, meaning children often believe identical foods taste better when they carry familiar branding or characters. Because children and adolescents are still developing critical thinking and self‑regulation, this asymmetry of power between sophisticated marketers and young audiences is a key justification for tighter regulation. 

Product vs brand advertising – and how industry adapts 

The law targets advertising for specific HFSS products in defined categories but does not fully remove the ability of companies to advertise their brands. Product adverts directly push particular high‑sugar or high‑fat items, whereas brand‑only campaigns can maintain loyalty and positive feelings that later translate into HFSS sales, even if the specific burger or drink is not shown. 

In other countries and sectors, similar restrictions have led companies to shift towards: 

• Brand‑building campaigns that avoid showing restricted products but keep logos, taglines and sponsorships visible. 

• Reformulation and promotion of “healthier” or non‑HFSS lines so that these products can still be advertised before 9 p.m. and online. 

• Greater use of unregulated channels  

  
  

This means that while the ban should cut the volume of explicit HFSS product ads children see, ongoing brand marketing may still normalise frequent consumption of foods from the same companies, potentially blunting some of the intended health impact. 

Illustrative example 

A fast‑food chain might stop running pre‑9 p.m. ads for its fried chicken meal but continue sponsoring a popular family TV show with its logo or run “family fun” brand adverts after 9 p.m. Thus, children’s direct exposure to HFSS product ads reduces, but the brand remains ever‑present in their daily lives.

The online ban and where marketing money goes 

The online environment has been especially powerful for HFSS marketing, as platforms allow highly targeted, personalised adverts based on browsing behaviour, social networks and location.  

By introducing a 24‑hour paid‑for online advertising restriction for less healthy food and drink, the policy aims to close this major loophole and prevent marketers from simply shifting TV spend onto digital platforms.  

Billboards, fast‑food density and racialised health inequalities 

Even with tighter TV and online rules, children’s choices continue to be influenced, particularly in neighbourhoods with high deprivation and high concentrations of Black and minoritised ethnic communities. Studies in England show that a child in a Black or minoritised ethnic community may pass multiple fast‑food shops and billboards on the way to and from school, while having fewer safe, affordable spaces for play and physical activity. 

In such settings, the visibility, proximity and low price of fast food can normalise frequent consumption and make healthier options feel less accessible or culturally relevant. Over time, this contributes to higher risks of obesity and diet‑related diseases, which already fall disproportionately on children in deprived and racialised communities across the UK. 

To narrow inequalities, programmes also need to address the local food environment by doing things like: 

• Working with councils to limit new fast‑food outlets around schools, and to regulate outdoor advertising near playgrounds, youth clubs and busy high streets. 

• Supporting parents and young people to build media literacy so they can recognise and critique marketing tactics, whether on a billboard, an app or a TV show. 

  
  

Taken together, the 9 p.m. watershed, the online ban and community programmes can help shift the balance of influence away from junk food marketing and towards healthier, more equitable environments for children to grow up in.