Dessert deception: how junk food advertising affects public health

Introduction

Chocolate. Crisps. Popcorn. If you're living in the UK, these are things you will no longer see on TV before 9 pm and in paid-for online advertising. This is because the UK has recently implemented a landmark ban on junk food advertisements, with the aim of making unhealthy food less desirable and therefore less consumed by the public. However, research from the World Health Organisation (WHO) suggests that marketing restrictions are only one small part of a strategy to combat the global rise in obesity.

Unfortunately, eating habits are no longer just a matter of individual choice: they are increasingly being affected by commercial determinants of health. Researchers have defined them as "strategies and approaches used by the private sector to promote products and choices that are detrimental to health". While some commercial activities can be positive, many are negative, particularly the production and marketing of ultra-processed foods (UPFs), which have contributed to an obesity crisis globally. Frontier Economics calculated the cost of obesity to be approximately £74 billion a year for the UK in an analysis for the Tony Blair Institute, of which the cost to the NHS is more than £11 billion.

The science of "engineered" cravings

A review from Harvard, Michigan, and Duke University suggests that many UPFs share more characteristics with tobacco cigarettes than with natural foods like fruit or vegetables. The research identified some key strategies used by both the food and tobacco industries to drive addiction and compulsive consumption. They are "dose optimisation", "speed of delivery", "hedonic engineering" and "deceptive reformulation", seen in Table 1.

Table 1- A comparison of key strategies used by both the food and tobacco industries to drive addiction and compulsive consumption. Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-0009.70066 

The UK's landmark 2026 junk food advertising ban

On 5 January 2026, the UK implemented a nationwide ban on television and online advertisements for products high in fat, salt, and sugar (HFSS). This ban prohibits junk food ads on TV before the 9 pm watershed and imposes a total ban on paid-for online advertising. The legislation targets the most vulnerable demographic: children, whose developing dietary habits are easily manipulated by high-energy and colourful branding. The UK government expects this action to remove up to 7.2 billion calories from UK children's diets every year, reduce the number of children living with obesity by 20,000 and deliver approximately £2 billion in health benefits over time. The ban is supported by evidence from the National Child Measurement Programme's annual report for the academic year 2024/2025, which shows that at the start of primary school, approximately 10% of children in England are already living with obesity. This figure rises to more than 22% by the time children leave primary school, as seen in Figure 1.

However, while public health experts have said that the ban is "long overdue", they warn that industry loopholes are undermining its effectiveness. In the UK, while specific products like pizzas or burgers are banned, the "brand-only" exemption allows companies to advertise their brand (e.g., the McDonald's "Golden Arches") as long as specific HFSS products aren't shown. This has led to a shift in marketing strategy: research from the Food Foundation shows that food companies increased their outdoor advertising spend, including billboards and public transport, by 28% between 2021 and 2024. Examples can be seen in Figure 2a and Figure 2b. McDonald's alone has spent £86 million on outdoor ads in 2024, up 71% since 2021, according to the Health Foundation.

The WHO's perspective on why pricing matters

While the UK focuses on advertising, the WHO warns that harmful products are becoming cheaper globally. Recent WHO reports reveal that weak tax systems are failing to keep pace with inflation and income growth, making sugary drinks and alcohol more affordable than they were years ago. Due to this, the WHO advocates for health taxes as one of the strongest tools for promoting well-being. Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General, explains that "health taxes are one of the strongest tools we have for promoting health and preventing disease".

In the UK, the 2018 Soft Drinks Industry Levy is cited as a major success; it generated £338 million in revenue in 2024 and has been associated with lower obesity rates in girls, particularly in deprived areas. However, the WHO notes that globally, sugary drink taxes often account for only 2% of the retail price, which is far too low to be effective compared to the 50-60% tax rates seen on tobacco. To address this, the WHO launched the "3 by 35" initiative, aiming to significantly increase the real prices of tobacco, alcohol, and sugary drinks by at least 50% by 2035 through tax increases.

The economic win

Contrary to industry arguments that these restrictions harm the economy, new research from the Sheffield Addictions Research Group suggests that reducing consumption of unhealthy products is actually a net economic gain for the UK. Because money spent on local services stays in the UK and money spent on global junk food brands often goes to the companies, reallocating just 10% of spending from confectionery to other domestic sectors could boost the UK economy by £389 million and create nearly 7,000 new jobs.

Conclusion

The UK's 2026 ban on junk food adverts is a significant step towards holding the food industry accountable. However, this must be seen as the first of many steps, rather than a final solution. While the ban restricts TV and online ads, industry giants are already exploiting loopholes to maintain their influence over people's food preferences, especially children's. To achieve its ambition of raising the healthiest generation of children ever, the UK must acknowledge that many UPFs are not just poor dietary choices but industrially engineered substances designed to influence human biology and drive compulsive consumption, much like tobacco.

A truly effective strategy requires a whole systems approach that moves beyond individual responsibility to food industry accountability. This includes closing loopholes in outdoor advertising and sports sponsorship, and implementing health taxes aligned with the WHO's "3 by 35" initiative that rise with inflation to ensure harmful products do not become more affordable over time.

Instead of harming finances, this shift is actually a significant economic win. This means transitioning from a model of "treating sickness" to one of active prevention is not just a public health imperative; it is also a strategic investment in the country's long-term economic and social prosperity.

Written by Naoshin Haque

Related articles: Rising food prices / Food at the molecular level / Childhood obesity