On 5 January, a broader statutory regime governing the advertising of ‘less healthy food’ (LHF) came into force, signalling a shift away from audience‑based protections towards a wider remit governing where and when certain food and drink products may be promoted.
Brands and manufacturers have long operated within restrictions aimed at limiting the promotion of products high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS), especially in media likely to be seen by children, but the new regulations add another layer to the proverbial cake.
The introduction of LHF restrictions overlap with, but are fundamentally distinct from, the existing HFSS framework and together these measures shape the advertising landscape as many food and drink brands and manufacturers take a bite of their new reality.
Diet starts this year
The LHF regime imposes two key limits. A 5:30am-9:00pm watershed on Ofcom regulated television and on‑demand services, and a full 24‑hour ban on all paid‑for online advertising.
The implications are weighty. LHF advertising is now largely absent from daytime and early‑evening television and removed from paid‑for online advertising. This marks a major shift from earlier approaches focused on safeguarding children. The rules apply regardless of audience, reflecting a wider public health aim to reduce exposure across the population.
Rounding out definitions
The LHF definition requires a product to meet two separate criteria and only products that meet both criteria are caught by the new rules.
One, the item must fall within one of 13 specified product categories. These categories include many commonly advertised foods such as sweets, crisps, most soft drinks containing added sugar, ice creams, desserts and of course much more.
Two, the product must also qualify as HFSS under the Department of Health and Social Care’s nutrient profiling model (NPM).
What’s not included?
The new rules contain several exemptions that are highly relevant to brands and manufacturers.
To begin with, small and medium‑sized enterprises fall outside the new regime, easing the compliance burden on smaller operators. In addition, certain media channels, notably radio and print such as newspapers or magazines, are generally out of scope, as is some unpaid online content that satisfies specific conditions.
Another route for advertisers is brand‑only advertising. Campaigns focusing solely on the corporate brand, without referencing or implying any specific LHF product, are exempted from the new rules. However, this is more complex than it may appear.
The test hinges on identifiability, if a UK viewer could reasonably infer that an LHF product is being promoted, the advert falls within the regime. Familiar packaging, distinctive product shapes, colour schemes, or well‑known taglines can all inadvertently tip a brand‑only campaign into regulated territory, so brands and manufacturers must think carefully.
We mentioned above, brands and manufacturers should note that even if a particular campaign is outside the LHF rules, HFSS rules continue to apply independently. These long‑standing restrictions, which focus mainly on advertising directed at or likely to appeal to children, still operate in parallel and must be assessed separately.
Hands on approach
Regulatory responsibility is shared between Ofcom and the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). Ofcom holds statutory enforcement powers in relation to broadcast and on‑demand services, while the ASA polices compliance with non‑broadcast rules.
In recent years the ASA has shifted towards a more proactive approach. It now deploys digital monitoring tools, including AI‑driven systems, to identify non‑compliant online advertising. This represents a departure from its former reliance on public complaints and spot checks and means that problematic content is more likely to be detected even before an issue is raised externally. As a result, brands and manufacturers should assume that enforcement will be more frequent, faster and more visible.
Breaking the rules can lead to a range of consequences including but not limited to taking down advertisements, publication of ASA rulings, media‑owner alerts and, in the most severe cases, Ofcom-levied financial penalties or suspension of broadcast licences. Reputational harm is an additional, and often longer‑lasting, outcome.
It is also worth highlighting that brands and manufacturers should ensure robust governance structures and clear contractual risk allocation are in place. While agencies, influencers and platforms may all participate in the creation and dissemination of advertising, the advertiser remains ultimately responsible for compliance.
How brands can adapt — and even benefit
But it’s not all sour, the new framework also offers strategic opportunities. Many manufacturers are already considering reformulation, particularly reductions in sugar content, to ensure products fall outside the LHF definition. In the era of health and wellness, changing the sugar content not only aids compliance but strengthens brand positioning, helping companies emphasise healthier choices and build consumer confidence.
The brand‑only route may also encourage more inventive campaigns, focusing on corporate values, sustainability commitments, or broader lifestyle messaging rather than on individual products. Meanwhile, traditional media channels, such as outdoor posters, billboards, bus‑shelter placements and transport‑network advertising, remain largely untouched by the LHF restrictions (but HFSS rules may still apply) and may become increasingly attractive for long‑term brand visibility.
Looking ahead
The LHF rules represent a major overhaul in UK advertising policy and indicate a broader intention to reshape the food environment. Brands and manufacturers that invest early in compliance, rethink their creative strategies and strengthen their governance arrangements will be best placed to navigate whatever future reforms may follow. Those that view the regime as an opportunity to innovate, rather than merely a hurdle to overcome, are likely to emerge strongest in the new regulatory landscape.
About the author
Guy Cartwright is managing associate at law firm, Stevens & Bolton.
