In January 2026, the UK government implemented long-awaited restrictions on the advertising of less healthy food and drink. The ban on paid pre-watershed TV and online advertising was billed as a landmark change for public health. By reducing the flood of advertising that nudges us towards unhealthy choices, these changes could have made a real difference to a food environment that drives overconsumption.

But our new report confirms just how far the restrictions fall short of the original ambition. Our analysis suggests they will only affect around 1% of food and drink advertising spend, once expected shifts to unregulated channels are taken into account.

The report details how delay, dilution and industry influence weakened the rules now in place. There is room to improve these specific regulations, but the most important thing is that the UK government learns for future policy implementation. The healthy food standard, currently the strongest policy option on the table for reducing obesity, must not suffer the same fate.

Here are four lessons from our report.

A lengthy road to implementation enables policy impact to be steadily weakened. Between the 2018 proposal and 2026 implementation, the rules faced eight consultations from the government and the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), and four separate delays, creating a massive window for industry to water down the regulations. When it comes to influencing the proposals through access to officials, the numbers speak for themselves: between 2010 and 2023, ministers met with food industry representatives and trade bodies roughly 40 times more often than with health NGOs.

Over this period, concessions were made from what was consulted on. In 2021, unpaid online media, including brands' own social media, websites, and direct digital marketing (emails, SMS and push notifications) were excluded from scope. Then in 2025, a brand advertising exemption was set out in legislation. This means McDonald's can continue to advertise as a brand, and can also advertise ranges like Happy Meal: only individual products that are unhealthy, such as a Big Mac, are covered by the regulation.

Our report identifies four reasons why the current restrictions will have far less public health impact than might have been the case:

• the brand exemption allows company brands and brand ranges (like Cadbury’s ‘Dairy Milk’) to still be advertised on all channels irrespective of how unhealthy the underlying products are
• leaving outdoor advertising untouched means spend can be redirected to a growing channel that is highly effective at driving consumer behaviour
• covering only paid advertising means owned and direct marketing channels (a brand’s own website, social media or email marketing channels) remain entirely unregulated
• focusing on only 13 food and drink categories leaves out a large number of products classed as high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS)

Given these factors, our report estimates that just 8% of advertising spend currently falls within current scope. There is nothing to stop companies redirecting budget into unregulated types of advertising such as brand-focused ads, where over a third of spend already sits, or into unrestricted media channels. The highest-risk areas are outdoor advertising, where spend has more than tripled over two decades, and direct digital marketing, which marketers consistently rate as their most effective digital channel.

Once redirected spend into unregulated channels is factored in, Nesta estimates that the regulations will affect just 1% of total spend, roughly equivalent to the annual advertising budget of a single large company like Domino's. For rules hailed as a public health victory, that is a damning figure.

Closing these loopholes by bringing outdoor advertising, unhealthy brands and ranges, and less healthy products (outside of the 13 food and drink categories) in scope could bring up the proportion of advertising spend covered by the restrictions to 33%. These changes would make it much harder for companies to shift budgets into exempt channels and create stronger incentives to promote healthier products.

The health gains from a more ambitious approach could be substantial. Nesta's policy package, including a 21:00-05:30 watershed for TV and online advertising, tighter limits on paid online advertising, and a ban on less healthy advertising across public transport, could reduce children's daily calorie intake by around 44 kcals and cut child obesity prevalence by 16% over five years. The government's own impact assessment projects a reduction of just 2.10 kcal per day for children under the current rules.

Over and above closing individual loopholes, we need advertising rules that can adapt to the future, rather than those that are built for the past. Our findings show that younger people and those living in deprived areas face higher exposure to direct digital marketing from less healthy brands. These same audiences are increasingly reached through AI-driven and creator-led content, where food advertising operates in largely unregulated territory.

The healthy food standard represents a step-change in ambition. By setting mandatory health targets for large food businesses, it will give companies flexibility over how they meet them, whether through reformulation, placement, promotion, or other well-used tactics alongside advertising. That breadth is precisely its strength: it would drive changes across entire product portfolios, creating changes that could reduce obesity by around a fifth.

As the policy moves through implementation, there is a risk that it becomes a target for the same forces that weakened the advertising rules. To protect the healthy food standard from being delayed or diluted, we recommend the government:

• set an implementation timeline in legislation and hold to it. This should include firm dates for when requirements and enforcement actions take effect, giving businesses certainty and reducing the window for damaging delays.
• establish critical definitions and scope in legislation introducing the requirement. Deferring them to guidance or subsequent legislation (as was the case with the brand exemption and product categories) increases the risk that they are watered down.

When the potential benefit and impact of public health policies is eroded, the cost falls squarely on our nation’s health, with implications for the NHS and the economy.

The learnings from our report are clear - the potential of the healthy food standard to improve our nation’s health cannot be squandered through the same cycle of delays, exemptions and concessions that have defined the advertising regulations. We know the lessons - now is the time to act on them.