The Dutch food industry has announced stricter advertising rules for food products, aimed at children. The new code, unveiled by the Federation of the Dutch Food Industry (FNLI) ensures tougher rules both online and offline, with a view to promote healthier lifestyles and reduce childhood obesity.
The move is industry-led and self-regulatory, with no legislative intervention. In the reporting on the latest change, the Dutch food sector is moving to zero food advertising aimed at children under 13, and for 13 to 16s only allowing ads for products that meet strict nutritional criteria (effectively excluding many HFSS categories from being marketed at that age group).
The UK has taken a different route: it is much more statutory and media-channel specific. At the beginning of this year, the Government introduced new rules restrict advertising of “less healthy” (HFSS) products with a 9pm TV watershed and a ban on paid-for online advertising for in-scope products, under powers created by the Health and Care Act 2022 and detailed regulations. In practice, this can be tougher than the Dutch system on online ads, because it isn’t limited to “child-directed” content... it’s a broad restriction on a defined set of identifiable products.
But the UK approach has two big weaknesses compared with a Dutch-style model. Firstly, it can be harder to explain: parents and businesses often find “in-scope product + media rule” less intuitive than “no marketing to under-13s; stricter rules to under-16s”. Secondly, the UK framework has been dogged by arguments over loopholes and displacement: notably the debate about brand advertising that doesn’t show an identifiable HFSS product, and the risk of spend shifting into less-regulated channels.
So should the UK adopt a Dutch-style approach? It should borrow the best of it, but not copy it wholesale.
The case for adopting Dutch elements is straightforward: clearer, age-based rules reduce compliance friction and makes enforcement less adversarial. If you want a system that businesses can follow without armies of lawyers, “under-13: none; 13–16: only products meeting criteria” is legible. It also aligns better with what the policy is trying to do: reduce children’s exposure, rather than treating adult media consumption patterns as a proxy for child protection.
However, we should be cautious about relying on self-regulation alone. It can move faster, but it is only as strong as compliance incentives and independent oversight. The UK’s statutory baseline arguably provides more certainty and durability, especially for online advertising.
The sensible UK “Dutch-style” evolution is therefore: keep the legal backstop (watershed + online restriction), but add simple age-based protections (explicitly covering teens, not just “child-directed” slots), tighten rules on brand-only campaigns that function as HFSS promotion, and plug obvious channel gaps (for example, clearer rules for influencer marketing and high-exposure outdoor locations around schools). That would be both business-workable and genuinely health-focused: clear rules, fewer loopholes, and less gamesmanship.
