The UK Junk Food Ban: What Came Into Force — and What's Being Scrapped

Originally published October 2025 · Updated May 2026 with confirmation that BOGOF restrictions came into force October 1, 2025, the January 2026 TV and online advertising ban, and Prime Minister Starmer's 10 Year Health Plan announcement of intention to repeal promotion restrictions

After years of delays, political reversals, industry lobbying, and cost-of-living concerns, the UK's restrictions on junk food promotions finally came into force on October 1, 2025. Buy-one-get-one-free deals, multi-buy offers, and volume price promotions on foods high in fat, sugar, or salt — HFSS — were banned across supermarkets, large retailers, restaurants, cafés, and online vendors in England.

The legislation marked one of the most ambitious public health interventions in UK food policy for a generation.

And the government is already planning to repeal it.

The story of the UK junk food ban in 2025 and 2026 is not straightforwardly about public health progress. It is about the collision between genuine public health need, political pragmatism, and the extraordinary complexity of regulating the food environment in a country with an entrenched obesity crisis and a cost-of-living emergency.

TL;DR

• The BOGOF ban and volume price promotion restrictions on HFSS foods came into force on October 1, 2025, affecting supermarkets, large retailers, restaurants, cafés, and online vendors across England.
• From January 2026, TV advertising of unhealthy food and drink before 9pm was banned, and all online promotions for HFSS products were banned entirely.
• Prime Minister Keir Starmer's 10 Year Health Plan for England announced intention to repeal both the volume price promotion restrictions and the aisle placement rules, describing them as candidates for "smarter regulation focused on outcomes."
• The evidence for promotion bans reducing unhealthy food consumption is consistent — modelling suggests the BOGOF ban alone could cut average household calorie intake by thousands of calories per year.
• In December 2025, the UK government estimated obesity costs the NHS over £11.4 billion every year, with wider societal costs of £74.3 billion annually.
• The policy picture is genuinely complicated: the restrictions that came into force are well-evidenced. The political will to maintain them is uncertain.

What Came Into Force in October 2025

From October 1, 2025, supermarkets in England were barred from offering multibuys, buy-one-get-one-free deals, and other volume-based promotions on foods judged high in fat, salt, or sugar. The ban captures cakes, biscuits, pastries, crisps, chocolate, pizza, ice cream, and fizzy drinks — the staples of the snack aisle.

The regulations apply to businesses with over 50 employees, regardless of shop size, and ban volume-based promotions including buy-one-get-one-free, three-for-two deals, and any promotion that increases the quantity of HFSS product for a fixed price.

The ban joined an existing placement restriction — since October 2023, HFSS products have been banned from prominent locations including checkout areas, aisle ends, and store entrances. The two measures together represent a significant intervention in how junk food is sold rather than merely how it is marketed.

The October 2025 ban also introduced restrictions on free drink refills in food service venues — a measure targeting the soft drinks that contribute significantly to sugar consumption particularly in younger age groups.

What Came Into Force in January 2026

The October restrictions were followed by a further and arguably more significant intervention in January 2026.

From January 2026, TV advertising of unhealthy food and drinks was banned before 9pm, and all online promotions for HFSS products — including paid social media advertising, influencer promotion, and display advertising — were banned entirely.

The online advertising ban is the more consequential of the two. Television advertising restrictions have been debated for decades, but online advertising — algorithmically targeted, highly personalised, and disproportionately reaching children and young people — represents the primary advertising environment in 2026. A complete ban on online HFSS promotion has no precedent in UK food policy and represents a genuinely significant structural change to how junk food manufacturers can reach consumers.

The food industry had been preparing for these changes for years. Many manufacturers either renovated existing recipes to be HFSS-compliant or brought out new products that already comply. Mars reformulated certain bars by substituting nuts with oats and grains. Kellogg's cut sugar content by 10% across its children's cereal range, making them all non-HFSS compliant.

This reformulation pressure — arguably the most health-significant outcome of the entire legislative process — has been largely overlooked in the public debate about the bans themselves. The threat of regulation drove manufacturers to improve product formulations regardless of whether the regulations themselves ultimately remain in force.

The Government's Plan to Repeal What It Just Enacted

This is where the story becomes genuinely complicated.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer's 10 Year Health Plan for England announced intention to repeal both the volume price promotion restrictions and the aisle placement rules, describing them as candidates for "smarter regulation focused on outcomes."

The logic — as far as it can be reconstructed from government communications — is that the 10 Year Health Plan represents a more comprehensive approach to obesity and food environment reform, of which the blunt instrument of promotion bans is an insufficiently targeted component. The government's position appears to be that the bans are administratively complex, commercially disruptive, and potentially regressive — hitting budget shoppers who use multi-buy deals to stretch their food spending — without producing the targeted health outcomes that more sophisticated interventions could achieve.

The tension between these positions — introducing significant food environment regulation in October 2025 while announcing intent to repeal it in the 10 Year Health Plan — reflects the genuine political complexity of food policy. The public health evidence for promotion bans is consistent. The political economy is resistant.

Health regulation in the UK is under review and, as one food industry source noted, "it's messy and confusing." While Labour has set out its intention to pivot on previous decisions around BOGOF and store location rules, other restrictions remain in place, including junk food advertising targeted at children.

Why This Matters: The Evidence for Promotion Bans

Before evaluating the policy debate, it is worth establishing what the evidence actually shows about the relationship between junk food promotions and consumption.

The evidence is consistent and significant. The original Public Health England modelling — cited in the original version of this article — suggested that banning BOGOF promotions could cut average household calorie intake by approximately 7,000 calories per year. A Scottish Frontiers in Nutrition modelling study found that banning HFSS price promotions produced a net reduction of 651 kilocalories per capita per week in simulated scenarios — with the greatest reductions among lower-income households, who are disproportionately affected by promotion-driven purchasing.

The mechanism is not mysterious. Price promotions for HFSS foods work through several well-documented pathways: they create a perceived bargain that triggers purchase of products not on the shopping list; they increase quantity purchased; and they increase consumption of what is purchased — people eat more of food they have in greater quantities, particularly calorie-dense, highly palatable products.

Independent evaluations show HFSS rules are already cutting millions of unhealthy items from daily sales and nudging consumers toward healthier options.

The evidence base for promotion bans reducing HFSS consumption is considerably stronger than the government's current political position suggests. The question is not whether the bans work but whether they are the right policy instrument relative to alternatives — and the government has not yet clearly articulated what those alternatives are.

The Obesity Context

In December 2025, the UK government estimated obesity costs the NHS over £11.4 billion every year, with wider societal costs of £74.3 billion annually.

Official statistics published in November 2025, based on measurements from more than 1.1 million children in England in the 2024 to 2025 academic year, showed that 10.5% of children in reception and 22.2% of children in year 6 were living with obesity.

These numbers provide the context within which the food policy debate takes place. The promotion bans were designed as one component of a broader strategy to reshape the food environment — to make the default choice in a supermarket a healthier one, rather than relying entirely on individual decision-making in an environment engineered to produce unhealthy choices.

The food environment argument is straightforward: when the path of least resistance leads consistently to HFSS products — at checkouts, at aisle ends, in two-for-one deals — consumption of those products increases regardless of individual intention. Changing the environment changes behaviour more reliably than changing individual attitudes.

The counterargument — that this is paternalistic, that it disadvantages budget shoppers who depend on multi-buy deals, and that it places excessive burden on the food industry — has genuine substance. The cost-of-living context of 2024 and 2025 made the social equity dimension of the BOGOF ban particularly sharp: is it appropriate to remove a pricing mechanism that allows lower-income families to reduce their food costs, in the name of a public health intervention whose benefits are uncertain at individual level?

These tensions do not have easy resolutions. They explain both why the legislation was delayed for years and why the government is now signalling intent to repeal what it just enacted.

What This Means Practically

For consumers in England in 2026, the current landscape is:

• BOGOF and multi-buy promotions on HFSS foods — banned since October 2025. You will not find buy-one-get-one-free on crisps, chocolate, biscuits, cakes, fizzy drinks, or pizza in supermarkets.
• Checkout and aisle-end placement of HFSS products — banned since October 2023, and currently continuing despite the government's stated intention to repeal this.
• TV advertising of HFSS foods before 9pm — banned since January 2026.
• Online advertising of HFSS products — banned entirely since January 2026.
• Future status of promotion restrictions — uncertain. The government has signalled intent to repeal but has not set a timetable. The restrictions remain in force until repealed.

For people trying to eat more healthily, the practical implication is that the food environment in large English supermarkets is currently less engineered toward HFSS purchase than it has been for decades. This is a genuine change, even if its longevity is uncertain.

The Reformulation Effect: The Underreported Story

Perhaps the most significant outcome of the entire legislative process is the one that has received least attention: manufacturer reformulation.

In recent years, many manufacturers have reformulated existing products to be HFSS-compliant, reducing fat, sugar, and salt content in response to the threat of regulation. Kellogg's cutting sugar across its children's cereal range. Mars reformulating bars. Dozens of product reformulations across the industry, driven by the regulatory pressure of HFSS classification.

These reformulations persist regardless of what happens to the promotion restrictions. Even if the BOGOF ban is repealed, the products that were reformulated to become HFSS-compliant and avoid the restrictions remain reformulated. The lasting legacy of the legislation may not be the restriction of promotions — which may be repealed — but the permanent improvement in product formulations that the threat of regulation produced.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the BOGOF ban on junk food still in force?

Yes — as of May 2026, the volume price promotion restrictions on HFSS foods remain in force in England. They came into effect on October 1, 2025. The government has announced intention to repeal them as part of the 10 Year Health Plan, but no timetable has been set and they continue to apply.

What foods are covered by the HFSS ban?

The HFSS classification covers foods that exceed set thresholds for fat, salt, or sugar per 100g. Commonly affected products include crisps, chocolate, confectionery, cakes, biscuits, pastries, ice cream, fizzy drinks, pizza, and sugary cereals. Products reformulated below the HFSS thresholds — which many manufacturers have done — are not subject to the restrictions.

Does the junk food advertising ban affect social media?

Yes — from January 2026, all online advertising of HFSS products is banned entirely, including paid social media advertising, influencer promotion, and display advertising. This is one of the most significant elements of the overall package and has no equivalent in previous UK food advertising regulation.

Why is the government repealing the restrictions it just introduced?

The government's stated position is that the 10 Year Health Plan represents a more comprehensive approach to obesity, of which promotion bans are an insufficiently targeted component. The practical context includes cost-of-living concerns about removing deals that help budget shoppers, industry resistance, and a political preference for "smarter regulation focused on outcomes." The public health evidence for promotion bans is stronger than this position suggests.

Has the BOGOF ban actually changed what people buy?

Early evidence suggests yes. Independent evaluations found the HFSS rules were already cutting millions of unhealthy items from daily sales before October 2025. Modelling consistently shows that removing volume price promotions reduces HFSS purchase volumes, with the greatest effects among lower-income households. Whether the effects persist long-term without complementary policy measures is not yet known.

Does this affect Scotland and Wales?

The HFSS promotion restrictions described in this article apply to England. Scotland has its own food policy framework and separate legislation on HFSS restrictions. Wales and Northern Ireland have distinct devolved policy approaches. The advertising restrictions — TV before 9pm and online — apply across the UK.

The Bottom Line

The UK's junk food policy landscape in 2026 is messy, contested, and genuinely complicated — which is an accurate reflection of the difficulty of food environment reform at scale.

The promotion bans that came into force in October 2025 are well-evidenced. The advertising restrictions that followed in January 2026 are potentially the most significant food marketing intervention the UK has ever implemented. The government's signal that it intends to repeal the promotion restrictions reflects the political resistance that has followed food policy reform for decades.

What is less contested is the reformulation impact — the permanent improvement in product formulations that the threat of regulation produced, regardless of what happens to the restrictions themselves.

For individuals, the most evidence-backed approach to improving dietary quality remains what it has always been: reducing ultra-processed food intake, cooking from whole ingredients, and building the habits that make the default choice a healthier one — independent of what the supermarket environment provides. For a structured approach to that, the Junk Food Reset from the Reset Series provides the practical framework.

Related reading: Why Am I So Bloated? The Gut Science Behind Persistent Bloating · Fibremaxxing: What It Is, Whether It Works, and How Much Is Too Much · The Science Behind the Gut Reset

Popular Articles