HFSS ad ban: how porridge became the junk food poster child

No comments

Porridge has become the poster child for a whole host of unexpected products which have been included in the government’s proposed advertising ban on junk foods, from October 2025.

Legislation outlining the delayed plans for the 9pm ban on HFSS TV ads – and a total ban online – was published yesterday (3 December). The extensive proposal lists 13 categories identified as the largest contributors of sugar and calories in children’s diets, with examples of various products under each, that will be impacted by the advertising ban if they are high in fat, salt or sugar.

Despite a myriad of food and drink products being named in the legislation – from coffee sachets to tortilla chips and chewing gum – the national papers seem to have collectively focused on the inclusion of porridge. Perhaps that is because porridge being named as a ‘junk food’ is wildly at odds with consumer perceptions. It is widely considered to be a nutritious breakfast option, providing slow-release energy and heart health benefits.

But the headlines are somewhat misleading. Not all porridge products will be included in the junk food ad ban – many are, of course, healthy. Only porridges containing hidden sugars, which fail the government’s Nutrient Profile Model, will be penalised.

Holding manufacturers to account

“Let’s be clear – this legislation doesn’t ban the advertising of any particular category of food,” says Bite Back head of policy and research Nika Pajda. “Companies can still advertise healthier products like porridge, provided it is a healthier one. However, some brands irresponsibly add so much sugar to products like porridge that they’re classified as unhealthy.”

Jon Walsh, CEO of gut health cereal and yoghurt challenger Bio & Me, says the legislation will hold unhealthy brands to account. “Bio & Me’s porridge pots are all HFSS-compliant,” he says. Meanwhile, big companies are “turning out ‘healthy’ products that aren’t actually healthy”.

Furthermore, shoppers often buy porridge because they think it’s “good for them”, says Walsh. “So, the shock is that ingredients like the extra sugars are almost being smuggled in.”

The problem is that most shoppers often take marketing at face value, but there’s no guarantee that products positioned as ‘better for you’ won’t contain hidden sugars. On the flip side, the more indulgent flavours might not be as unhealthy as consumers might expect…

Take PepsiCo-owned Quaker, which in late 2022 announced it had made most of its portfolio non-HFSS following “extensive reformulation and new product development”. Rather than playing up its better-for-you credentials, it has continued to focus on indulgence. It added Chocolate Orange and Caramel Fudge under its Heavenly Oats range in 2022, followed by Caramelised Biscuit in 2023 – all of which are actually non-HFSS.

By tweaking its recipes, Quaker has so far avoided in-store restrictions on HFSS products, and will be permitted to advertise its products after October 2025. If PepsiCo is willing to reformulate its recipes, surely other manufacturers will follow, which is a plus for public health, says Bio & Me’s Walsh. “Government intervention is to be welcomed,” he says.

HFSS ban is ‘a critical move’ for children

Katharine Jenner, director at the Obesity Health Alliance, goes further, calling the advertising ban on junk foods “a critical move to protect children’s wellbeing”. The government’s clampdown on ‘better-for-you’ products like porridge demonstrates how ubiquitous HFSS food has become, she argues.

“If food companies are adding so much sugar to products like porridge and muesli that they become ‘unhealthy’, how many other products that we think are good for us are actually full of things that harm us?”

Meanwhile, today’s story illustrates the flack the government will likely face if it listens to campaigners’ calls and implements further restrictions.

The House of Lords called for a ban of all HFSS advertising – not just on TV or online – as well as new taxes. If Labour takes these suggestions on board, it will face a barrage of opposition from the media, judging by the coverage on just one category in the ad ban. Porridge tax, anyone?