A loophole in Britain’s new junk food advertising restrictions is raising questions after research found that sugary chocolate spreads can escape the rules while certain breakfast products face advertising restrictions. Campaigners say the policy sends a confusing message to parents trying to choose healthier foods for their children.
A new row has erupted over Britain’s crackdown on unhealthy food advertising after researchers highlighted what they describe as a major loophole involving chocolate spreads.
The controversy centers on the UK’s restrictions on advertising foods high in fat, salt and sugar, commonly known as HFSS products. Introduced to help tackle childhood obesity, the rules are designed to reduce children’s exposure to advertisements promoting less healthy foods.
However, a recent analysis by Action on Salt & Sugar has raised concerns about why products such as chocolate spreads can escape the restrictions. In contrast, certain breakfast cereals and instant porridge products may be affected.
One example that has drawn attention is Marks & Spencer’s Whipped Chocolate Spread, which researchers identified as containing a particularly high amount of sugar per serving.
The findings have reignited debate about whether the new advertising rules are targeting the right products and whether some everyday foods are being treated inconsistently.
What the Research Revealed About Chocolate Spreads
The research examined 78 chocolate spreads sold in UK supermarkets and found that 99% would be classified as high in fat, salt or sugar under the Government’s nutrient profiling approach.
Researchers also examined a wider selection of 834 spreads, including honey, jams, syrups, chocolate spreads and nut butters.
The findings were concerning. Across the wider selection, 78% were high in sugar, while 86% were classified as less healthy.
Chocolate spreads performed particularly poorly. According to the analysis, 86% were high in sugar, and 91% were high in saturated fat. Researchers also found that 92% were classified as ultra-processed.
One product highlighted was M&S Whipped Chocolate Spread.
A typical 15g serving reportedly contains 9.2g of sugar. That is a substantial amount for such a small serving, particularly when children may eat chocolate spread on more than one slice of toast.
Nutella Hazelnut Spread with Cocoa was also highlighted, with 8.4g of sugar per 15g serving.
Researchers estimated that a typical serving of chocolate spread across the products examined contained 6.3g of sugar.
These findings have raised concerns about how easily children can encounter heavily sweetened products through advertising, particularly when the Government’s stated objective is to reduce exposure to unhealthy food marketing.
Why Chocolate Spread Escapes the Advertising Ban
The controversy comes down to how the British Government designed its advertising restrictions.
The rules, which came into force on January 5, 2026, do not automatically prohibit advertisements for every product containing high amounts of sugar, salt, or fat.
Instead, a product must satisfy two conditions before the restrictions apply.
First, it must belong to one of 13 specified food and drink categories identified as particularly relevant to childhood obesity.
Second, it must score poorly under the Government’s nutrient profiling model, which assesses nutritional composition.
The categories include chocolates and sweets, breakfast cereals, savory snacks, cakes, biscuits, soft drinks, ice cream, pizzas, sweetened yogurt and certain prepared meals.
Sweet spreads, including chocolate spreads, jams and marmalades, are not included as a separate regulated category.
This means a chocolate spread can contain considerable amounts of sugar and saturated fat without falling within the specific product restrictions.
Consequently, companies can continue advertising these products, subject to other applicable advertising rules.
Campaigners argue that this creates an obvious gap in a policy intended to protect children’s health.
Why Some Porridge Products Face Restrictions
The porridge comparison has attracted particular attention because many parents consider porridge a relatively healthy breakfast option.
However, breakfast cereals and porridge are among the 13 categories covered by the legislation.
That does not mean every porridge product is banned from advertising.
Plain porridge oats are not affected by the restrictions. Most ordinary porridge, muesli and granola products can still be advertised.
The problem arises when manufacturers add ingredients such as chocolate, syrup, or substantial amounts of sugar, and the finished product receives an unhealthy score under the nutrient profiling model.
For example, a heavily sweetened instant porridge product could face restrictions even though its basic ingredient is oats.
This distinction is important because headlines suggesting that all porridge advertising has been banned are misleading.
Fact-checking organization Full Fact clarified in January 2026 that plain porridge oats remain eligible for advertising. Only certain less healthy varieties fall within the restrictions.
The apparent contradiction is therefore not that the Government has officially declared chocolate spread healthier than porridge. Rather, the regulations treat products differently because of the categories they fall into.
How the New UK Advertising Rules Work
The restrictions were introduced as part of Britain’s wider efforts to tackle childhood obesity and reduce children’s exposure to unhealthy food marketing.
Under the rules:
- Television advertisements for identifiable less healthy food products are restricted between 5:30 a.m. and 9 p.m.
- Paid-for online advertising of identifiable products covered by the restrictions is prohibited at all times.
- Healthier products within the regulated categories can still be advertised.
- Brand advertising may remain permissible, provided it does not effectively promote an identifiable restricted product.
The rules apply across the UK and are enforced through the advertising regulatory system.
The Government hopes that limiting children’s exposure to these advertisements will encourage healthier eating habits and motivate food manufacturers to improve their recipes.
Ministers have estimated that the restrictions could remove up to 7.2 billion calories from children’s diets annually and help prevent approximately 20,000 cases of childhood obesity.
These are Government projections rather than confirmed results already achieved.
Campaigners Want the Government to Close the Loophole
Action on Salt & Sugar, based at Queen Mary University of London, believes the findings demonstrate why the current rules need another look.
The organization is calling on ministers to include chocolate spreads and other sweet spreads in the advertising restrictions.
Dr Kawther Hashem, the organization’s head of research and impact, said the exemption is increasingly difficult to justify.
Researchers argue that products containing consistently high amounts of sugar and saturated fat should not escape restrictions simply because they fall outside the selected food categories.
They also believe manufacturers should face greater pressure to reduce sugar levels rather than relying on regulatory exemptions.
Dr Jizhao Niu, who conducted the research, highlighted the differences in nutritional content between products within the same category.
The researchers pointed out that some manufacturers already offer lower-sugar alternatives, suggesting that reformulation is possible.
For campaigners, the issue is not simply about banning advertisements. It is also about encouraging food companies to make healthier products more accessible to families.
What This Means for Parents
For parents, the debate highlights how confusing food marketing and nutritional information can sometimes become.
A product may appear suitable for breakfast or carry packaging that suggests it is a convenient family-friendly option, yet still contain considerable amounts of sugar.
This does not mean parents should panic about occasionally giving their children chocolate spread or other sweet foods.
Rather, the findings remind parents to pay attention to portion sizes, nutritional labels, and how often certain products appear in children’s diets.
Parents can also consider alternatives such as plain porridge oats, unsweetened yogurt and nut butters without added sugar, depending on their children’s dietary needs and any allergies.
The bigger concern raised by campaigners is that children should not be routinely exposed to marketing that encourages consumption of products with poor nutritional profiles.
Advertising can influence children’s preferences, purchasing requests and eating habits, making the wider food environment an important part of public health discussions.
The Bigger Debate Over Childhood Obesity
The controversy comes at a time when childhood obesity remains a major public health concern in the UK.
Health authorities have repeatedly warned that children’s eating habits are influenced by several factors, including food availability, household circumstances, physical activity and exposure to advertising.
The Government introduced the advertising restrictions because research suggests repeated exposure to marketing for less healthy foods can influence what children want to eat.
However, campaigners argue that restrictions will be effective only if they cover products that pose meaningful nutritional concerns.
The chocolate spread findings have therefore raised a wider question: should advertising regulations be based solely on specific food categories, or should they take a broader approach to nutritional content?
There are also questions about whether manufacturers might benefit from exemptions simply because their products do not fit neatly into the Government’s selected categories.
For now, sweet spreads remain outside the specific restrictions, even when individual products contain substantial amounts of sugar and saturated fat.
