As 2026 begins, many of us will be setting goals to eat healthier - resolutions that too often end up broken by February. The reality is even our very best efforts are pushing against an overwhelming tide of prompts that drive us to less healthy food.

Now more than ever before, unhealthy food is widely available and promoted, nudging us towards buying and consuming excess calories. In the last 30 years, the number of adults living with obesity has doubled, with numbers projected to rise even further in the years to come. Food advertising is a huge part of this. Evidence confirms advertising increases our desire for specific categories of food, from fast food to confectionery.

Today, the government’s new food advertising regulation (first announced way back in 2018), takes effect. The ban restricts advertising of products classified as high in fat, salt, or sugar (HFSS) online and before 9:00pm on TV. Whilst the regulation has the right intention behind it, and designing rules like these is difficult in a complex food and advertising landscape with unavoidable trade-offs - this win for health is much smaller than it could have been.

Here are four reasons why the new ban isn’t enough to curb the advertising of unhealthy food:

The new rules restrict specific HFSS products, but allow companies to advertise their brand or product ranges (a group of related products which may include varieties or flavours). McDonald’s cannot advertise a specific HFSS burger, but ads featuring the ‘Happy Meal’ range or recognisable Golden Arches brand will still be allowed to play across TV and online. Similarly, Cadbury’s can continue to advertise the ‘Dairy Milk Buttons’ range (mint, orange, caramel), just not individual products within that range.

The reality is companies aren’t going to stop spending money on advertising unhealthy food - they will just shift their strategy. It’s likely that the money spent on now-banned product advertising will simply move to compliant brand or range advertising.

This means that consumers probably won’t see fewer ads from food giants, just different ones: fewer specific product ads, but more range and brand ads. Plus, with evidence indicating that the impact on calorie intake is the same whether ads are for specific foods or fast food brands, it’s possible that even this form of advertising will continue to drive unhealthy eating habits.

An underlying challenge is the difficulty in defining what exactly constitutes a healthy ‘brand’ advert and this has spilled over into the definition of ranges. One simple solution could be to ban brand-only advertising altogether, allowing only product-specific advertising that meets defined health criteria alongside band advertising (imagine the Mcdonald’s ‘M’ with a salad) - this is comparable to the approach taken in Abu Dhabi. But even this solution has tradeoffs, such as limiting the flexibility of brands to shape their own advertising content.

Mandatory reporting, as announced in the healthy food standard, offers a potential solution to the challenges of defining healthy and less healthy brands and ranges through the provision of sales and nutritional information of large food businesses.

The ban narrowly targets TV (before 9:00pm) and online spaces where the advertiser pays a fee (banner ads or short commercials that play before video content). Billboards, bus stops, cinema, radio and print ads are excluded.

This creates a displacement risk, where money from the restricted TV and online formats moves to less-regulated formats like outdoor advertising. Indeed, The Food Foundation found that outdoor ad spend by food companies increased by 28% between 2021 and 2024, underscoring how the format is growing relative to stagnant spending on TV ads. Outdoor ads have been shown to drive food cravings at rates comparable to TV, and outside of restrictions within 100m of the school gate, they also impact a captive audience of children on the school run.

We’ve seen how effective outdoor advertising regulation can be. The success of HFSS ad bans across the Transport for London (TfL) network sets a precedent that could be extended to other outdoor advertising zones. Since TfL’s ban was introduced, at least 25 local authorities have adopted similar healthier advertising policies across council-owned outdoor spaces, with others consulting or developing proposals. However whilst some local authorities have adopted stronger outdoor advertising policies, they only have control over the assets they own; private sites remain outside their remit. A national policy covering all outdoor media alongside TV and online would close this gap.

By leaving this channel open, the displacement of ad spend outdoors could exacerbate the barrage of unhealthy advertising experienced by adults and children in their everyday lives.

Another major oversight is that focusing on ‘paid for’ ad space completely ignores company-owned channels, despite the latter being consulted on. Company websites, organic social media (posts that are shared without paid promotion) and crucially - direct marketing (email, SMS and app notifications delivered to consumers) remain unrestricted.

Leaving out direct digital marketing seriously underestimates how this repetitive, action-oriented tactic is one of the most efficient ways companies drive purchases. While the boundary between marketing and other public-facing company communications can be blurry, direct digital marketing is clearly designed to prompt purchases. Marketers agree that mobile messaging (like push notifications) will continue to be a popular tactic - yet these channels remain entirely untouched by legislation.

Whilst it’s important that customers get good value, there needs to be a limit to the use of these tactics. Potential policy responses range from restricting direct digital marketing for less healthy foods altogether, to introducing stronger safeguards such as more deliberate opt-in, or requiring a simple one-click opt-out.

What we have instead is a regulatory framework that is detached from our modern reality; a direct consequence of a policy being implemented in 2025 that was announced in 2018.

While it had the right intention behind it, the policy coming into force today is a watered-down version of what was consulted on. Since the UK government announced its plans for the policy eight years ago, there have been five separate government consultations and four delays to the rollout - with industry pushing back on the implementation timeline twice. The brand and range exemption have been at least in part influenced by industry and trade bodies.

This influence is not incidental. Between 2010 and 2023, ministers met with food businesses and their trade associations around 40 times more often than with food NGOs and public-interest organisations. In that context, it is unsurprising that ambition has been eroded over time.

Industry collaboration is absolutely necessary for advising how policy should be delivered, but it cannot be allowed to dictate the ambition or timeline of public health policies - particularly those that are urgently needed to tackle health conditions like obesity.

As the government proceeds with plans to reshape how unhealthy food is promoted, advertised, displayed and sold, it’s important that this lesson is learned. The healthy food standard - which aims to introduce mandatory health reporting and targets for all large food businesses - will require this careful balance to be struck.

The original focus of the regulation was the right one - it recognised the important role that food advertising plays in shaping our health. Designing advertising regulation that is effective, proportionate and future-proof is not easy, particularly in a fast-moving digital environment, but the four reasons above highlight how the regulations could be much more impactful.

The exemption of advertisements for brands and ranges, the focus on pre-watershed TV and online only within the paid for advertising space, and the lack of regulation for owned and direct marketing means companies can continue to drive purchasing of unhealthy food and drink through much of the advertising landscape.

Everyone benefits from the UK having a thriving advertising sector and profitable food and drink industry. However, we need ambitious, innovative policy that matches the pace of the fast-evolving advertising environment to support people to make healthier choices.

If we can get there we’ll see a meaningful impact on obesity - and probably a lot fewer broken new year's resolutions.