In a stark illustration of the power of corporate lobbying, plans to prohibit junk food advertising on public transport infrastructure and billboards are reportedly facing significant challenges. Investigative journalism by The BMJ has uncovered that efforts to protect public health are being hampered by intense lobbying from advertising companies and industry representatives. This ongoing conflict has ignited discussions about the efficacy of proposed bans aimed at limiting the visibility of unhealthy food options, particularly in areas where childhood obesity is a pressing concern.
The investigation included Freedom of Information (FOI) requests directed to a sample of councils across England, a maneuver that aimed to shed light on the extent of interference by advertising firms in local health regulation policies. With 52 councils participating in the inquiry, the responses revealed a concerted effort by powerful advertising entities to sway council decisions through threats of reduced revenue generation. These tactics have led local authorities to reconsider or even abandon their proposals to restrict the advertising of foods high in fat, sugar, and salt, collectively known as HFSS products.
Among the key players in the advertising landscape, McDonald’s was identified as a behemoth in the out-of-home advertising arena with expenditures amounting to £86.3 million in 2024, as highlighted by trade body Outsmart. This dominance is mirrored by other fast-food giants such as Pepsico, Coca-Cola, KFC, Mars, and Mondelez, which underscores the financial muscle of the junk food industry. The significant budget allocations for marketing by these corporations reveal an industry deeply committed to maintaining visibility for its products.
The investigation confirmed that advertising firms and lobbyists routinely alert financially-strapped councils about the economic ramifications of implementing advertising bans. This approach, which exploits the precarious financial situations of local governments, has effectively stymied initiatives meant to protect public health. It is ironic that areas with alarming statistics—where over 40% of children aged 10 and 11 are classified as overweight or obese—are precisely where these pressures are felt most acutely.
Even local authorities pushing forward with bans are confronted with lengthy delays, often extending up to eight years, due to pre-existing contracts with advertising firms. These contracts serve as a barrier to the timely enactment of health-protective policies. Moreover, the loopholes are concerning; despite restrictions, some advertisements for HFSS products, including popular items like McDonald’s chicken nuggets and KFC burgers, continue to circulate in public spaces.
Industry representatives, including those from Outsmart, have countered these assertions by emphasizing the regulatory environment surrounding advertising. They argue for a collaborative dialogue that encompasses their role in public health messaging and seeks to convert negative perceptions into opportunities for positive health campaigns. However, critics like Fran Bernhardt from Sustain argue that the deliberate deployment of scare tactics represents an aggressive strategy to undermine public health measures.
The conversation surrounding the efficacy of advertising regulations involves more than just economic implications; it also delves into the psychological impacts on communities, particularly children and young adults. The statement made by Peterborough City Council, which received warnings from Clear Channel and JC Decaux about the potentially detrimental effects of banning junk food advertisements, illustrates how language and rhetoric can manipulate fear and uncertainty.
Experts in the field express concern over the trend of using strong industry representation in discussions about health policy. Emma Boyland, Professor of Food Marketing and Child Health at the University of Liverpool, posits that the presence of industry stakeholders often results in compromised or diluted policies. This creates a paradox where efforts designed to enhance public health are infringed upon by the very entities that contribute to health crises.
As statistics reveal a grim forecast that childhood obesity rates may skyrocket by 50% by 2050 in the UK, the urgency for comprehensive policy reform becomes increasingly apparent. Experts are now calling for a nationwide ban on HFSS advertising in public spaces, paralleling the rollout of restrictions on television advertising before the 9 PM watershed and on online platforms set to commence in October 2025.
Amidst these lobbying efforts, grassroots campaigns are emerging. Organizations like Bite Back and Impact on Urban Health have initiated their own advertising campaigns as forms of resistance to corporate influence. Their endeavor, characterized by striking black-and-white billboards proclaiming “We’ve bought this ad space so the junk food giants couldn’t – we’re giving kids a commercial break,” serves to elevate public awareness about the need for healthier marketing environments for children.
The confrontation between local health policies and the advertising industry presents a complex, multifaceted challenge that requires careful consideration and sustained engagement from all stakeholders involved. With public health at stake, the dialogue can no longer afford to sit at the periphery of corporate interest. Ongoing scrutiny of advertising practices, combined with robust public policy, is essential to safeguard the health of future generations.
In conclusion, the insights gleaned from The BMJ’s investigation highlight both the vulnerabilities of local councils in the face of powerful advertising interests and the critical need for coherent national policies. The potential costs of inaction are staggering and carry implications that go beyond economic metrics, impacting the lives of vulnerable populations, particularly children. As the battle lines are drawn between public health advocates and the advertising industry, the quest for healthier environments continues, underscoring the necessity for collective action.
Subject of Research: Not applicable
Article Title: Advertising industry lobbying derails restrictions on junk food adverts in public places
News Publication Date: 9-Apr-2025
Web References: Not applicable
References: Not applicable
Image Credits: Not applicable
Keywords: Public health, advertising, lobbying, childhood obesity, HFSS, junk food, policy reform, marketing, nutrition, local government
Tags: advertising industry influence on regulationschildhood obesity prevention strategiescorporate lobbying impact on health policieseffects of advertising on children’s healthfast food advertising tacticsFreedom of Information requests in health policyHFSS products advertising bansinvestigative journalism in public health issueslocal council decision-making and lobbyingoutdoor junk food advertising restrictionspublic health advocacy challengesrevenue generation vs public health
