The Government has pledged to raise the healthiest generation of children ever, including a manifesto commitment to ban junk food advertising to children. New regulations have now been laid to exempt “brand” advertising from the scope of these restrictions. But how is a “brand advert” defined – and what does this mean in practice?
Between 16 July and 6 August 2025, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) consulted on the draft Advertising (Less Healthy Food and Drink) (Brand Advertising Exemption) Regulations 2025. This short consultation gave stakeholders very limited time to respond to an already complex set of proposals.
The Government’s position is that the new regulations simply codify the original intention to exempt “pure brand advertising.” While the Obesity Health Alliance (OHA) has consistently opposed brand exemptions, we accept that this was the agreed intention.
However, in response to industry lobbying, the Government has adopted a far broader definition of “brand” than ever consulted on. This approach creates loopholes that we believe will still allow:
-
Brands and “brands of ranges of products” (e.g. both Cadbury as a brand and Cadbury Dairy Milk as a product range).
-
Generic products treated as specific items (e.g. a doughnut vs. a Krispy Kreme glazed doughnut).
-
Products where the brand and product name are the same (e.g. Mars, Coca-Cola).
The finalised Advertising (Less Healthy Food and Drink) (Brand Advertising Exemption) Regulations 2025 and explanatory memorandum were laid on 10 September 2025.
Katharine Jenner, Director, Obesity Health Alliance comments;
“These long-awaited regulations are an important step in prioritising children’s health by removing the spotlight from specific unhealthy food products. However, the government could and should have gone much further. Sustained industry lobbying has weakened the restrictions, resulting in a missed opportunity to fully protect children’s health.
While we welcome the clarity provided today, and the fact that implementation will finally begin in January – more than three years after it was meant to be introduced – the reality is that adverts which promote unhealthy food and drinks through clever marketing and branding tactics can still be cast in a starring role, continuing to put children’s health at risk.
The government must now show it is serious about protecting children’s health by closing loopholes and setting out the next steps for ending all forms of unhealthy food advertising to children.”
Why does this matter?
The UK Government argues that brand advertising was never meant to be included in the original rules. However, it was never explicitly excluded. In fact, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) initially agreed with public health bodies, including the OHA, that brand adverts could fall within scope – prompting strong pushback from industry. Following sustained lobbying, In April this year, the Minister published a statement clarifying that the Government believed brand advertising is out of scope. However, it seems this was not sufficient for industry, who successfully lobbied for them to re-open the regulations, resulting in the brand exemption now being enshrined in law.
Research from Liverpool University has shown that children consume significantly more calories after exposure to food advertising—whether for products or brands. In one study, children ate more not just immediately after seeing food adverts but also at a meal hours later. Lead author Professor Emma Boyland concluded: “This is the first study to show that brand-only food advertising affects what children eat. We also showed that children don’t just eat more immediately following food advertising, they actually ate more at the lunch meal as well, a couple of hours after they had seen the advertising.”
The next step in this process is for the Advertising Standards Authority to provide new guidance for advertisers, and we urge them to produce common-sense guidance that will abide by both the letter, and the spirit, of the law.