UK’s Unhealthy Food Ad Ban Lets M&S Chocolate Spread Target Kids—But Not Porridge

The Hidden Sugar Trap: How Chocolate Spreads Are Evading Health Regulations

Chocolate spread may seem like a harmless breakfast treat, but behind its rich, indulgent appeal lies a troubling reality: it is one of the most sugar-laden and nutritionally poor foods on supermarket shelves—yet remains largely untouched by new government rules aimed at curbing childhood obesity. While the UK’s recent advertising restrictions target unhealthy foods high in fat, salt, and sugar (HFSS), a significant loophole allows chocolate spreads, jams, marmalades, syrups, and other sweet spreads to continue being promoted freely to children.

This inconsistency has raised alarm among public health experts, who argue that the current system fails to protect young consumers from marketing tactics targeting highly processed, sugary products. A comprehensive study conducted by Action on Salt & Sugar, based at Queen Mary University of London, analyzed 834 types of spreads—including chocolate spreads, honey, syrups, nut butters, and fruit preserves—and uncovered alarming trends in nutritional quality.

Chocolate Spreads: Among the Worst Offenders

Of the 78 chocolate spreads examined, a staggering 99% would be classified as HFSS under the government’s own nutrient profiling model. Despite this, these products are not subject to the same advertising bans that apply to items like soft drinks, confectionery, or ready meals. This exemption means companies can still market chocolate spreads to children through television, online platforms, and social media—often using playful branding and cartoon characters.

The findings reveal just how unhealthy these products truly are:
– 86% of chocolate spreads were found to be high in sugars.
– 91% contained excessive levels of saturated fat—linked to elevated cholesterol and increased risk of heart disease, heart attacks, and stroke.
– 92% were categorized as ultra-processed, meaning they contain additives such as preservatives, artificial sweeteners, emulsifiers, and stabilizers to extend shelf life and enhance texture.

Even a small serving—a mere 15 grams—contains an average of 6.3g of sugar, which translates to over 12g when spread across two slices of toast. That’s more than half the recommended daily limit for free sugars for a child aged 7 to 10 years. Some brands take this to extreme levels:

• Marks & Spencer Whipped Chocolate Spread: 9.2g of sugar per 15g serving.
• Nutella Hazelnut Spread with Cocoa: 8.4g of sugar per serving—equivalent to nearly 40% of a child’s total daily allowance in just one slice.

These figures highlight a critical issue: while some spreads are marketed as “indulgent treats,” their actual sugar content rivals that of candy bars or sugary drinks.

The Broader Problem: Sugar in Everyday Spreads

The problem extends far beyond chocolate spreads. The study found that:
– 78% of all spreads analyzed were high in sugar.
– 86% were classified as “less healthy” under the government’s criteria.
– 98% of jams and fruit spreads exceeded the threshold for high sugar content.
– 97% of syrups were also high in sugar.
– Even honey, often perceived as a natural alternative, contains 77.8g of sugar per 100g—a single serving providing almost half a child’s daily free sugar limit.

However, the research also revealed hope: not all spreads are created equal. For instance, Stute No Sugar Added Fine Cut Orange Marmalade contains only 0.4g of sugar per serving, proving that manufacturers can produce low-sugar alternatives without sacrificing taste or texture.

Dr Jizhao Niu, lead researcher on the project, emphasized the widespread nature of the issue:

“What stood out most from our analysis was just how widespread high sugar levels were across everyday spreads. This wasn’t limited to a few bad actors—it was systemic. We found substantial differences in sugar content between products within the same category, showing that lower-sugar options already exist.”

Yet, identifying these healthier choices isn’t easy for consumers. Packaging often lacks clear, standardized nutritional information, making it difficult for parents to make informed decisions.

A Call for Policy Change

Experts are now urging the UK government to close this regulatory gap. Dr Kawther Hashem, head of research and impact at Action on Salt & Sugar, stated bluntly:

“You cannot have a system designed to restrict the advertising and promotion of less healthy food, then leave out a category where virtually every chocolate spread fails the Government’s own healthiness assessment.”

She stressed that public health policy should not rely solely on corporate responsibility. Governments must take action to ensure fairness and consistency in regulation. “The Government has a responsibility too,” she said. “Ministers should close this exemption and make sure chocolate spreads and other sweet spreads are covered by the same rules as comparable less healthy products.”

Currently, only 13 food categories fall under the HFSS advertising ban, including biscuits, cakes, soft drinks, ice cream, breakfast cereals, and ready meals. Notably, confectionery-branded spreads like Cadbury’s Milk Chocolate Spread remain exempt, despite their similar nutritional profiles to banned products.

As childhood obesity rates continue to rise, the need for stronger, more inclusive regulations becomes ever clearer. Without addressing this loophole, efforts to create a healthier food environment for children will remain incomplete—and ineffective.

Understanding the Nutrient Profiling Model: A Closer Look at Food and Drink Scoring

The nutrient profiling model used to assess the healthiness of food and beverages is a scientifically designed system that evaluates products based on their nutritional composition. To qualify as a healthier option under this model, a product must achieve a minimum score of four or more points—this threshold is critical in determining whether a food item meets the criteria for being considered nutritionally beneficial.

This scoring mechanism operates by analyzing the content of 100 grams of a given food or drink. It assigns points to what are known as ‘A’ nutrients—components that are generally associated with negative health outcomes when consumed in excess. These include:

• Energy (calories)
• Saturated fat
• Sugar
• Salt (sodium)

Each of these ingredients contributes positively to the overall point total, meaning higher levels result in a higher score. This reflects the potential risk these components pose to long-term health, especially when consumed regularly in large quantities.

On the other hand, the model also accounts for ‘C’ nutrients—those that promote better health and are found naturally in whole, unprocessed foods. These beneficial elements include:

• Fruit content
• Vegetable content
• Nut and seed content
• Dietary fibre
• Protein

For every gram of these healthy nutrients present in 100g of the product, points are awarded. However, the key distinction lies in how the final score is calculated: the total points from the ‘C’ nutrients are subtracted from the total points assigned to the ‘A’ nutrients. This subtraction ensures that foods rich in beneficial ingredients receive a lower net score, indicating they are healthier choices.

For example, a snack bar high in fruit and fibre but low in sugar and saturated fat will have a strong ‘C’ score, which significantly reduces its final nutrient profiling score. Conversely, a sugary drink with no fibre, protein, or vegetables would accumulate many points from ‘A’ nutrients and zero from ‘C’, resulting in a high final score—and thus, a poor nutritional rating.

This system plays a vital role in guiding public health initiatives, informing food labeling policies, and shaping marketing regulations, particularly for products aimed at children. By providing an objective, science-based method for assessing food quality, it helps consumers make more informed decisions about what they eat.

The Growing Public Health Crisis: Obesity and Dental Decay Among Children

The implications of poor dietary habits extend far beyond individual health—they affect entire communities and strain national healthcare systems. Recent data from the NHS reveals a troubling trend among young children in the UK. Nearly one in ten children entering reception class (typically aged 4–5) are now classified as clinically obese. This statistic underscores a significant shift in childhood health over the past decade, driven largely by changes in diet and lifestyle.

Equally concerning is the rise in early childhood tooth decay. One in five children already suffers from dental cavities by the time they reach the age of five. This alarming rate is directly linked to excessive consumption of sugary snacks, drinks, and processed foods—many of which contain hidden sugars and lack essential nutrients.

These conditions do not exist in isolation. They are interconnected parts of a broader public health challenge, where poor nutrition during early life can lead to lifelong complications such as type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and mental health issues.

The Economic Burden of Obesity on the Healthcare System

The financial impact of the obesity epidemic is staggering. The National Health Service (NHS) currently spends over £11 billion annually to treat conditions related to obesity and its associated comorbidities. This includes managing diabetes, joint problems, hypertension, and mental health disorders linked to weight-related stigma and low self-esteem.

Moreover, the economic cost extends beyond direct medical treatment. Lost productivity due to illness, increased absenteeism from work, and the need for long-term care all contribute to the wider societal burden. As childhood obesity rates continue to climb, future healthcare costs are expected to rise even further—unless effective prevention strategies are implemented now.

The nutrient profiling model is one tool among many being used to combat this crisis. By encouraging manufacturers to reformulate products to reduce harmful ingredients and increase beneficial ones, it supports efforts to create a healthier food environment—especially for children who are most vulnerable to poor dietary influences.

As policymakers, healthcare providers, and families work together to reverse these trends, understanding and applying nutrient profiling principles becomes increasingly important. It’s not just about choosing healthier options—it’s about building a sustainable future where children grow up with the tools and environments needed to thrive.