Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.

Advertising food to children is an area of significant public concern and debate. The rules are restrictive in order to ensure that food is advertised responsibly. Marketers are urged to advertise their products responsibly, exercise caution and be aware that adverse ASA rulings could bring the industry as a whole into disrepute. The Advertising Guidance note ‘Food and soft drink advertising to children’ provides a useful overview.

From a practical perspective, here are the key principles for creating responsible food ads relating to children:

Use health and nutrition claims correctly

Claims referring to children's development and health are only acceptable if listed as authorised on the applicable GB Register or EU Register.

The ASA ruled against a website which made the general health claim that CBD “helps balance the wellbeing of your child”. There were no authorised health claims for CBD on the GB Register and so the claim breached the Code. (Excite For Life Ltd, 18 September 2024).

For a brief overview of the key points on advertising food generally, see ‘Food: Health and nutrition overview’.

Place and target ads for HFSS products appropriately

Ads for food or soft drink products that are high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS) must not be directed at individuals under 16 through the selection of media or the context in which they appear (Rule 15.18).  This means that ads that directly promote (or have the effect of promoting) HFSS products must not appear in ‘children’s media’ (i.e. media where under-16s are the main target audience), or other media where under-16s make up more than 25% of the audience. 

Marketers should build a sound understanding of the audience composition of the media or specific content around which a marketing communication appears, to ensure under-16s do not make up more than 25%. In terms of targeting, marketers should also ensure they’ve taken all reasonable steps to exclude under-16s from the targeting criteria or recipient list for ads on the basis of age and relevant other criteria, for example, such as interests or interactions with other users. Marketers are also expected to hold evidence to support their placement and targeting choices. Further CAP guidance can be found in ‘Food: HFSS Media Placement’.

In 2024, an ad for Just Eat featuring McDonalds products, which included HFSS foods such as the Big Mac, was found to be insufficiently targeted away from individuals under 16. Age-based targeting had been applied to the paid-for Facebook ad, however the ASA considered targeting based solely on this was unlikely to be sufficient, particularly because of younger users misreporting their age or people sharing devices. Interest-based targeting measures had also been available for paid-for ads on Facebook, however as this had not been utilised the ASA concluded that the marketer had not taken all reasonable steps to minimise the exposure of under-16s to the ad. (Just Eat.co.uk Ltd, 21 August 2024).

In 2024 the ASA also investigated a complaint that emails for Burger King, which promoted meals with HFSS products, were directed at children through the selection of media or context in which they appeared. The emails were sent to registered users of a reward scheme, and users were asked to agree to terms and conditions, including confirming that the registered user must be over 16, or if not, that they had permission of a parent or guardian. However, it was noted registration could be completed without seeing the terms. The ASA ruled that Burger King should have taken further steps, beyond optional self-declaration at the point of sign-up, to ensure that children under the age of 16 were not at risk of receiving promotional materials for HFSS foods. (BKUK Group Ltd, 7 February 2024).

In 2022 the ASA also partially upheld a complaint against ads for a cricket tournament featuring various HFSS products for KP Snacks. An email and a paid-for post on Instagram were found to be directed at under-16s due to insufficient targeting measures, breaching rule 15.18. However, the ASA concluded that the marketer had taken all reasonable steps to avoid directing other paid-for ads on Instagram at under 16s, for example through the use of age, interest and geography-based targeting factors. Three posts on non-paid for Instagram accounts for brands such as Pom Bear and McCoy’s , for which age restrictions and targeting were not available, were also considered acceptable as audience data indicated followers of the accounts were made up of less than 25% children. (The England and Wales Cricket Board Ltd, 13 April 2022).  

See also: ‘Food: HFSS Overview’.

Avoid promoting poor nutritional habits or unhealthy lifestyles

Ads should not condone or encourage attitudes associated with poor diets or unhealthy lifestyles (Rule 15.11); for example, skipping meals, a dislike of green vegetables, hiding consumption from parental figures, or suggesting that an inactive or sedentary lifestyle is preferable to physical activity.

The ASA investigated an online game aimed at young children and considered that it condoned collecting and eating a large number of sweets, whilst hiding this fact from parents. It was found to breach the Code by irresponsibly encouraging poor nutritional habits and an unhealthy lifestyle in children. However the ASA ruled that other, shorter, games on the website which only involved the collection of a few sweets were acceptable. (Swizzels Matlow Ltd, 29 August 2012).

CAP Guidance on Rule 15.11 does not preclude ads that appeal to children from depicting food products being consumed responsibly, provided consumption is not excessive. Such ads should not condone or encourage poor nutritional habits or an unhealthy lifestyle (e.g. eating frequently between meals or immediately before bed, and portion sizes should be responsible), or disparage good dietary practice.

In 2020, the ASA investigated a bus ad for vinegar which depicted three teenagers in school uniform eating chips, alongside the claim “THEY’RE THE FIRST TASTE OF FREEDOM SO GO ON, RESPECT YOUR CHIPS”. The ASA considered the ad was likely to be understood as a reference to the autonomy that children gained as teenagers, and although chips were a HFSS food, the ad did not show them being consumed in excessive quantity (two portions were being shared between three people). It ruled the ad did not have the effect of condoning or encouraging poor nutritional habits or an unhealthy lifestyle in children. (Mizkan Euro Ltd, 13 May 2020).

The ASA has also previously not upheld other complaints on a similar basis (Beverage Services Ltd, 26 September 2012, Kellogg Marketing and Sales Company (UK) Ltd t/a Kellogg, 7 May 2014, Cereal Partners UK, 7 May 2014).

Do not use licensed characters in HFSS ads where the content targets under 12s

When ads directly target pre-school or primary school children (under-12s) through their content the use of licenced characters and celebrities popular with children is prohibited (Rule 15.15).

This prohibition does not apply to non-HFSS product ads or characters which are owned by the brand itself (“equity brand characters”).

Under a previous version of rule 15.15, a confectionary manufacturer’s website which had content, including interactive games, aimed at young children was found to breach the Code because it featured the licensed character Scooby Doo (Swizzels Matlow Ltd, 29 August 2012).

More recently in 2024, the ASA ruled against an ad for Cheesestrings (a HFSS food) featuring the licensed character, Garfield. Although the original character was created in the 1970s, the ad coincided with the release of a new Garfield animated film, which had a ‘U’ rating. The ad was also considered to be engaging and appealing to children under 12, due to the it’s content, imagery and tone. As a result, the ASA considered the ad breached rule 15.15 because the Garfield character was likely to be popular with pre-school or primary school children (under-12s), and the ad targeted children of that age. (Kerry Foods Ltd, 9 October 2024).

Marketers should be aware that when a licensed character is the predominant element of the content, it may be difficult to differentiate the targeting of the content from the character. As such, unless the content of the ad very clearly and unequivocally targets older children or adults, there is risk that the inclusion of a character could be seen as both directly targeting primary and pre-school children (under 12’s) and would also be prohibited as a result.

Marketers should also note that although the restrictions apply when the content targets pre-school or primary school children (under-12s), they must not feature licenced characters or celebrities popular with children (meaning under-16s).

Do not feature promotions in HFSS product ads where the content targets under 12s

Promotions are also prohibited in HFSS product ads that directly target pre-school or primary school children (under-12s) through their content (Rule 15.14).

In the ruling for Cheesestrings detailed above, which was considered to directly target children under-12 through its content, the ad breached the Code because it included a promotional offer (Kerry Foods Ltd, 9 October 2024).

Promotions may be included in HFSS product ads that don’t directly target pre-school or primary school children (under-12s) through their content, but should still not encourage children under 16 to eat or drink a product only to take advantage of the promotional offer. Such ads featuring a promotion must also avoid creating a sense of urgency or encouraging the purchase of an excessive quantity for irresponsible consumption.

All marketing communications featuring a promotional offer must be prepared with a due sense of responsibility.

Ensure ads do not pressure children to purchase

Children’s credulity or vulnerability must not be exploited in ads for food, nor should they be exhorted to make purchases or ask their parents or other adults to make purchases for them (Rule 15.16). Ads directly addressing children must not place pressure or urge them to buy food using hard-sell techniques, or through cajoling or bullying methods.

Marketing communications must also not try to sell to children by directly appealing to emotions such as pity, fear or self-confidence, or suggest that having the food somehow grants superiority, such as through making a child more confident, clever, popular or successful (Rule 15.16.1).

An advergame app which used language with a persuasive and negative tone to imply that players would miss out on parts of its functionality, and would not be able to perform as well in the games unless they scanned a QR code, was found to exploit children’s credulity and vulnerability. It was considered likely to make children feel inferior if they did not eat, buy or encourage their parents to buy the product. (Weetabix Ltd, 13 February 2013).

On the other hand, the ASA did not uphold a complaint for ad for Vinegar which featured children eating chips (detailed above). Although the ad stated that chips should be ‘respected’, the ASA considered the ad had not tried to sell a food to children by appealing directly to their emotions or by suggesting that having Malt Vinegar on chips somehow conferred respect or superiority to a child. (Mizkan Euro Ltd, 13 May 2020).

See also ‘Food: HFSS Overview’, ‘Food: HFSS Media Placement’, ‘Food: HFSS Product and Brand Advertising’, ‘Food: General health claims’, ‘Food: Nutrition claims’,  ‘Children: Promotional Marketing’, ‘Children: Safety’ and ‘Children: General’.

 

More on