The UK Government recently confirmed in Parliament that pure brand advertising, i.e. that does not feature identifiable less healthy products, will be exempt from the new 9pm/online advertising restrictions. Caroline Cerny, previously Director at Bite Back, now Deputy Chief Executive, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), discusses the implications for future policy development;
In October 2025, new restrictions on high in fat, salt and/or sugar (HFSS) food advertising will finally come into force with a ban on ads for less healthy products on TV before 9pm and paid-for ads online at any time. It’s a big win for child health, marking the end of a decade-long campaign with many twists and turns along the way. But even as we celebrate, attention must shift to the next challenge: pure brand advertising.
Marketers are experts at adaptation. Restricting one route to potential customers only drives innovation and investment in another. Cue the latest tactic: brand advertising that doesn’t feature specific products. After much lobbying from industry (including festive hand-wringing over mince pies), the government recently confirmed in Parliament that pure brand advertising, i.e. that does not feature identifiable HFSS products, will be exempt from the new rules.
But can you advertise an unhealthy food product without showing it? The answer is yes – and powerfully so. McDonald’s “Raise Your Arches” campaign didn’t feature a single burger, yet it drove massive increases in sales and brand loyalty. This is brand marketing in a nutshell, and it poses a serious policy problem.
The use of pure brand advertising to circumvent product marketing restrictions isn’t new. As a child growing up in the nineties I was enchanted by the billboard ads showing opulent ripples of purple. Little surprise then that when I started to experiment with cigarettes in my late teens, Silk Cut was my brand of choice.
Just as 90s tobacco ads relied on sleek imagery and coded visuals, today’s food giants are rebranding unhealthy choices with lifestyle messaging, event sponsorships, and emotional cues. Like McDonald’s, other large brands, including KFC and Cadbury, have been investing in pure brand advertising, often with minimal or no products shown and marketers openly discussing it as a strategy to safeguard sales in light of the incoming restrictions. And it’s not just limited to junk food. Big alcohol brands are following Coca Cola’s brand sharing lead and heavily promoting their zero alcohol brands that use the same branding as the hero alcohol product.
Research shows that this type of advertising can affect our brains, shape social norms and influence behavior even when no specific product is shown. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis found evidence that brand marketing for food and alcohol can affect consumer preferences, choices, and purchase intentions (though studies were limited and of varying quality).
As brand marketing looks increasingly likely to be the way food giants continue to market to children, we need to ask: how can policy keep up?
Last year Bite Back worked with Professor Emma Boyland at the University of Liverpool to bring together a range of policy and academic experts to explore key questions:
- How do we define and identify an unhealthy brand?
- What can we learn from alcohol and tobacco regulation?
- What policy tools are available?
Four possible models were discussed:
- Sales-based: Brands are judged on the healthiness of the products they sell. This is likely to encourage reformulation but relies on transparent sales or volume data – which is currently lacking, unless the new Food Strategy is able to revive the Food Data Transparency Partnership, and – crucially – give it some real teeth.
- Category-based: Brands in high-risk food categories (like confectionery or sugary drinks) are restricted outright. It’s a simple but blunt approach, but likely to bring some political challenges, as it doesn’t provide the same incentive for reformulation.
- Healthier product-led: Adverts can only run if they feature product/s meeting health criteria , as with Transport for London’s model, which has been effective but risks simply driving desire for unhealthy products that share branding features or are more associated with the brand.
- Synonymous branding: Restrictions on branding that mimics or reflects unhealthy products. This reflects the Advertising Standards Authority’s(ASA) current approach, which has never been successfully applied due to its highly subjective nature.
Read more about the options and discussions in our joint briefing here.
As the food industry and advertisers evolve their tactics, policy must evolve too. If regulations are going to be effective in protecting children from unhealthy food marketing, we need to close the brand loophole before it becomes the main route to selling yet more sickness.