The UK government recently celebrated what it called a “world-leading” ban on junk food advertising aimed at children.
From this year, adverts showing products high in fat, sugar, and salt are banned on TV before 9pm and online at all times, a measure hailed as a breakthrough in the fight against childhood obesity. After all, nearly 40% of UK children are overweight or obese by the time they leave primary school, and diet-related illnesses are projected to shorten the lives of a third of today’s youngsters.
But for 20-year-old British-Indian activist Dev Sharma, the victory feels hollow. The campaigner, who began lobbying the government at age 14, warns that corporate loopholes have gutted the law, allowing global food giants like McDonald’s and Domino’s to continue targeting children.
Loopholes Undermine the Law
While the new law is meant to curb children’s exposure to junk food, a “brand exemption” inserted after intense lobbying from the food industry allows companies to advertise logos, jingles, mascots, and other brand imagery without showing the actual food.
“The biggest loophole now is the brand exemption,” Sharma explains. “This allows companies like McDonald’s to advertise the golden arches and Domino’s to advertise the pizza box, even though they are not allowed to advertise the food itself. In effect, they cannot show a pizza, but they can show everything that clearly represents it.”
Other examples include the popular chocolate Freddo. While companies cannot advertise the chocolate itself, they can freely promote the cartoon frog, making it an indirect, misleading marketing tool.
Physical advertising also remains largely untouched, with billboards outside schools and near youth clubs continuing to expose children to unhealthy products.
The real impact on children
Sharma has seen the impact firsthand.
“From the moment I wake up to the moment I go to sleep, junk food is part of my cultural wallpaper,” he says. “When I walk down the high street or into a supermarket, I’m surrounded by brands spending billions to capture my attention.”
The stakes are high: about a third of UK children are expected to have their lives cut short by food-related ill health, and in some areas, young people are already dying from diet-related conditions.
“The argument that young people simply ‘love’ junk food ignores the reality that these preferences are manufactured,” Sharma adds. “If this environment was created, it can also be changed.”
Sharma’s activism was sparked by personal experience. Growing up in Leicester, he lived in a food desert, areas with limited access to healthy, nutritious food, dominated by junk food outlets.
“I realized that young people growing up in food deserts die on average 10 years younger from food-related ill health,” he recalls. “At 13, I thought: I’ve done nothing wrong, yet something completely out of my control, food, could shorten my life.”
Seeing unhealthy brands dominate high streets and displace local food cultures inspired Sharma to act. “Once you see it, you can’t unsee it. They’re literally everywhere and they’re incredibly effective at marketing to us,” he says.
Driving change through “youthquake”
Sharma believes the solution lies in raising awareness and mobilizing young people. He calls this potential movement a “youthquake”, a societal shift where young people recognize injustice and demand change.
“From climate change to food, change happens when young people see that the system is rigged against them and start calling it out. Policy then begins to shift,” he says.
Movements like food farmer initiatives in India and campaigns in Britain show that youth engagement can drive meaningful change, pressuring governments to close loopholes and hold corporations accountable.
Despite the government’s celebration of new restrictions, Sharma warns that the battle is far from over. Closing loopholes and ensuring children are truly protected from junk food marketing requires continued vigilance, policy reform, and the collective voice of young people demanding accountability from both government and corporations.
“If we genuinely care about children’s health, we must tackle a crisis that is putting lives at risk. The environment that created these preferences can be changed,” Sharma insists.
