• by Sarah Mahoney , 6 hours ago

The U.K.’s new junk-food advertising ban is sweeping. Its impact is vast: No TV ads for foods high in fat, salt or sugar before 9 p.m., and no paid online ads at all. The goal is curbing the obesity epidemic among British kids by reducing exposure to commercial messaging—an approach backed by growing research on how advertising affects children’s preferences and consumption.

A national ban here is unlikely, thanks to First Amendment protections for commercial speech. But marketers aren’t off the hook. Pressure is coming from a patchwork of state bills, city rules, school policies, digital-privacy efforts and front-of-pack labeling proposals—plus increasingly loud MAHA parents and politicians pushing cleaner food sentiment into the mainstream.

To understand what’s next, Marketing Daily spoke with DeAnna Nara, Ph.D., a licensed nutritionist and campaign manager at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit advocacy group.

Interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Marketing Daily: What is the U.K. trying to solve with this ad ban?

Nara: Childhood obesity, but also reducing unhealthy food exposure, particularly to children. This applies to soft drinks, candy, pizzas, ice creams. Evidence shows repeated exposure to this type of advertising influences children’s food preferences, consumption patterns and long-term health risks—and we see evidence of this even after one exposure.

Marketing Daily: Marketers here tend to say, “That could never happen in the U.S.” Are they right?

Nara: An exact U.K.-style ban is going to be tough. Advertising for general products is protected by the First Amendment. There are legal tests that get applied to commercial-speech restrictions, which usually make it hard to do a broad ban and hard to defend if it’s narrowly tailored.

We couldn’t just ban all junk-food ads on TV and online like the U.K. But it does show governments globally are looking at the relationship between marketing environments and public health. In the U.S., what we can do, and what we’re seeking to do, is reduce harmful exposure through targeted, legally defensible strategies. We’re focusing on deception, targeting practices and government-facilitated advertising in children’s environments like schools.

Marketing Daily: New York recently adopted the “Sweet Truth Act,” which requires sugar warnings. What else are you working on?

Nara: One of the biggest is the Predatory Marketing Prevention Act. Instead of banning speech, PMPA expands consumer-protection law to consider whether advertising is targeting specific groups. It gives attorneys general factors to consider—are ads targeting children, older adults or other vulnerable groups unfairly or deceptively?

It recognizes that targeted marketing of unhealthy products is a public-health and equity harm. We’re shifting the frame from what is being advertised to how and to whom. PMPA is a strong legal anchor because it operates within consumer-protection doctrine, meaning it can hold up in U.S. courts more easily than a broad ban on commercial content.

Marketing Daily: Others?

Nara: Limiting unhealthy food and beverage advertising in government-controlled spaces. Governments have more authority over property—transit screens, buses, kiosks—and they’re not required to display harmful commercial content. We’re working in New York to urge the MTA to revise policies that allow unhealthy food and beverage advertising and to avoid government-facilitated surveillance and targeting in digital out-of-home.

This mirrors what Transport for London did in 2019, restricting junk-food ads across the transit system. We saw reduced exposure and changes in purchasing patterns.

In Massachusetts, we’re working on the Healthy Kids Healthy Futures Act. It prohibits sugary-drink marketing in schools and requires added-sugar warnings on chain-restaurant menus.

Digital protection is another area. New York’s Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation for Kids Act restricts personalized feeds and nighttime notifications for users under 18. Other states, including Virginia, are moving toward laws limiting kids’ use of addictive social media and increasing age verification. We’re trying to make it harder for companies to collect data and target children with personalized ads.

Marketing Daily: Many companies hit by the U.K. ban are multinationals. Could this change what they sell or how they market in the U.S.?

Nara: We’re hoping. We’re seeing a tide change in how ultra-processed foods are viewed. There’s a world where consumer demand pushes companies to offer healthier products. We’ve done national polling, and people are interested in healthier products.

Industry will also be pushed by front-of-package warnings. The FDA is looking at warnings that reflect nutrition info on the back, which is confusing. That’s going to push more reformulation. Regardless of political views, we know these products create harm. Pushing companies to reduce sodium, sugar and saturated fat is something they can do. Reformulation is happening globally, and that trend is expanding.

Marketing Daily: We’re in a strange political moment, with ultra-processed foods under fire from both left and right. The risk to marketers are clear. What are the opportunities?

Nara: Some are taking advantage of changes. When politicians started talking about seed oils and ultraprocessed fats, some companies, like Shake Shack, started frying in beef tallow. Marketers can use these changes to make more money.

It’s not necessarily about eliminating marketing, but changing what gets rewarded in the marketplace and by consumers. Brands that lead on health and responsible marketing are building long-term trust with parents and families. There’s an opportunity to make products healthier, help consumers and make the healthy choice easy.