Misleading the public until the bitter end, the Department of Health and Social Care issued a press release this morning confirming that “junk food adverts” will be banned on TV before 9pm and online 24/7 from next October. It used the legally meaningless phrase “junk food” five times. 

Junk food is in the eye of the beholder, but is obviously pejorative. That is why politicians and “public health” lobbyists use it. If they abandoned the weasel words and told us what is actually being prohibited, even natural allies of the nanny state might conclude that the advertising ban — which goes far beyond anything introduced elsewhere in the world — is a bit excessive. 

You will find no details in the press release, but the Advertising (Less Healthy Food Definitions and Exemptions) Regulations 2024 were put before parliament this afternoon and the full list of food products that are deemed too dangerous to be seen by children was finally unveiled. It runs as follows:

Savoury snacks whether intended to be consumed alone or as part of a complete meal, such as crisps, pitta bread based snacks, pretzels, poppadums, salted popcorn and prawn crackers (but not raw, roasted, coated or flavoured nuts), including—

(a) products made from potato, other vegetables, grain or pulses;

(b) extruded, sheeted and pelleted products;

(c) savoury crackers, rice cakes or biscuits;

(d) pork rind-based snacks.

Breakfast cereals including ready-to-eat cereals, granola, muesli, porridge oats and other oat-based cereals. 

Confectionery including chocolates and sweets.

Ice cream, ice lollies, frozen yoghurt, water ices and similar frozen products. 

Cakes and cupcakes. 

Sweet biscuits and bars of any shape based on one or more of nuts, seeds or cereal.

Morning goods, including croissants, pains au chocolat and similar pastries, crumpets, pancakes, buns, teacakes, scones, waffles, Danish pastries and fruit loaves. 

Desserts and puddings, including pies, tarts and flans, cheesecake, gateaux, dairy desserts, sponge puddings, rice pudding, crumbles, fruit fillings, powdered desserts, custards, jellies and meringues. 

Sweetened (whether with sugar or otherwise) yoghurt and fromage frais. 

Pizza (except plain pizza bases). 

Roast potatoes, potato and sweet potato chips, fries and wedges, potato waffles, novelty potato shapes (such as smiley faces), hash browns, rostis, crispy potato slices, potato croquettes. 

Any of the following which is not an exempt product within the meaning of paragraph 1—

(a) products, such as ready meals, that are marketed as ready for cooking or reheating without requiring further preparation and intended to be consumed as a complete meal;

(b) products ordered from a menu, which by themselves, or together with other products ordered from the same menu, are intended to be consumed as a complete meal;

(c) products, other than products that contain pastry, in or with a sauce (but not a marinade, glaze, dressing, seasoning or similar accompaniment) that are marketed as ready for cooking or reheating without requiring further preparation and intended to be consumed as the main element of a meal;

(d) breaded or battered—

(i) vegetable, fish, shellfish, meat, or poultry products;

(ii) substitute fish, shellfish, meat or poultry products, 

including fish fingers, fish cakes, chicken nuggets and breaded meat substitutes;

(e) sandwiches of any kind, including baguettes, ciabattas, wraps, bagels, filled muffins, filled buns or baps, filled croissants, toasties or paninis.

I have been saying for years that a ban on “junk food” advertising is a pig in a poke. Prejudice against American fast food chains has been exploited to allow the neo-puritans of the “public health” racket to ban advertisements for what most people call simply “food”. 

It is probably best not to think about how much time and money was expended by the British civil service to come up this list. Imagine the arguments over whether or not to include potato croquettes! What a thrill it must have been when negotiations over fish cakes were concluded! Four years after Boris Johnson was duped into supporting this ban, we finally know what the Department of Health and Social Care considers “junk food”.

Each of these products has to be deemed HFSS (high in fat, sugar or salt) or high in calories for the advertising ban to apply, but the threshold for being “high” is very low and many of these foods are inherently “less healthy” by the government’s definition. 

Incredibly, the list published today is a watered down version of what the “public health” lobby originally demanded. Chastened by the experience of the Transport for London advertising ban, which became a laughing stock after adverts showing butter and jam had to be pulled down, the government has exempted such products, despite them being manifestly high in fat and sugar respectively. Olive oil, raisins, hummus and other HFSS foods that grace middle class dining tables are also conspicuous by their absence.

Nevertheless, we shall soon be living in the only country in the world where sponge puddings, croissants and yoghurts are considered too hot for TV and can only be shown when young children are in bed. According to the government’s Impact Assessment, all this censorship will be worth it because it will lead to children consuming 2.3 fewer calories a day, although it is worth remembering that mandatory calorie labelling which was supposed to reduce average energy consumption by 41 calories a day and ended up achieving precisely nothing.

We are only five months into a Labour government and already we have legislation going through parliament for tobacco prohibition, a ban on disposable vapes, a vape tax, an e-cigarette advertising ban, and a ban on advertisements for everyday food products. For those of us who believe in personal liberty and free markets, it is a depressing time to be alive. We can only hope that the pace of authoritarian government meddling slows down once Keir Starmer has implemented all the policies left over from the Rishi Sunak regime.