By Zhao Xiaona
LONDON, Oct. 4 (Xinhua) -- After years of postponement, Britain's long-debated restrictions on supermarket "buy one, get one free" (BOGOF) deals for foods high in fat, salt or sugar have finally come into force this month, marking a new step in the country's obesity strategy.
Under the Food Promotion and Placement (England) Regulations 2021, supermarkets, large retailers and online platforms across England are now prohibited from offering multi-buy discounts on HFSS (high fat, salt and sugar) products, including chocolate, crisps, biscuits, ice cream, soft drinks and other calorie-dense snacks. Restaurants are also banned from offering free refills of sugary drinks.
Originally scheduled to begin in 2022, the measure was postponed twice due to inflationary pressures and business concerns. It follows the earlier display restrictions introduced in October 2022, which barred HFSS products from being placed at checkouts or end-of-aisle displays.
The Department of Health and Social Care said the aim is to "create a healthier food environment," while allowing companies time to adapt. Yet for many public-health experts, the long delay underscored the political and commercial hurdles in Britain's battle against obesity.
BRITAIN'S OBESITY CHALLENGE
According to the government's Obesity Profile updated in May 2025, around 64.5 percent of adults in England are overweight or obese, with 26.5 percent classified as obese.
The gap between income groups remains striking: in the most deprived areas, 71.5 percent of adults are overweight or obese, compared with 59.6 percent in the wealthiest neighbourhoods.
Public Health England and NHS Digital data also reveal worrying trends among young people. In the 2022-2023 school year, 21.3 percent of children aged 4-5 and 36.6 percent aged 10-11 were overweight or obese.
Analysts point to economic inequality and food environment as key drivers. Low-income families often face greater exposure to cheap, calorie-dense products, limited access to fresh produce, and a higher density of fast-food outlets.
"Obesity in the UK is not simply a question of personal choice; it reflects systemic inequalities in access to affordable, healthy diets," the Health Foundation noted in a commentary, adding that obesity rates in deprived communities are "more than double" those in affluent areas.
Earlier research by the University of Leeds found that neighbourhoods with a higher density of fast-food outlets recorded significantly higher childhood-obesity rates, particularly in more deprived parts of the city, underlining how geography and deprivation reinforce unhealthy eating patterns.
WHY THE POLICY WAS DELAYED
The long road from legislation to implementation reveals how public health priorities often collide with political and economic realities. Although the HFSS promotion rules were written into law in late 2021, the government twice postponed their enforcement -- first from October 2022 to 2023, and again to October 2025 -- reflecting a mix of inflation concerns, regulatory complexity, and industry pressure.
Government officials argued that immediate enforcement could exacerbate food-price inflation during the cost-of-living crisis and that companies needed more time to reformulate products and redesign store layouts to comply with the new standards.
For many retailers and manufacturers, multi-buy discounts had long been a central marketing tool used to clear inventory and attract price-sensitive shoppers; removing them risked cutting into profits at a time when consumer spending was already fragile.
The Kellogg's case highlighted the level of industry resistance. In 2022, the maker of Frosties and Coco Pops challenged the government's methodology, arguing that its assessment failed to consider the nutritional effect of adding milk to cereals. The High Court dismissed the claim on July 4, 2022, upholding the legality of the rules and setting an important precedent.
Health campaigners, meanwhile, condemned the repeated delays. Following the 2023 deferral, the Obesity Health Alliance warned that each postponement "gives companies yet more time to promote unhealthy products to children" and urged ministers to place "children's health before industry interests."
Administrative hurdles also slowed progress. Regulators had to define what counts as a "comparable product," determine how to treat brand-only advertising, and clarify what legally constitutes a "promotion." Enforcement by local authorities has remained resource-intensive, further complicating implementation. A parliamentary briefing concluded that the rollout was hampered by "conflicting priorities during economic turbulence," as health objectives competed with efforts to stabilise prices and support business recovery.
BROAD SUPPORT EMERGES
Despite early criticism of "nanny-state" interference, surveys now show broad public support for the HFSS multi-buy ban.
According to a consumer poll by leading product intelligence platform Vypr, 39 percent of British shoppers expect the new restrictions to reduce their purchase of unhealthy foods, while 61 percent believe the policy is a good idea.
The survey also revealed that younger consumers and families with children were the most supportive groups, viewing the measure as "a positive step towards healthier supermarket environments."
Industry reaction has also shifted over time. While some retailers initially feared lost sales, most now see the legislation as manageable and consistent with changing consumer expectations. The Food and Drink Federation said its members were "well-prepared" after reformulating many products to comply with HFSS rules.
The Association of Convenience Stores added that smaller retailers were adapting by promoting healthier alternatives and local produce, though some warned that "a uniform rulebook may still hit small-format stores harder."
Evidence from the University of Leeds reinforces the positive public response. Its 2025 study found that restrictions on supermarket junk-food promotions were associated with a daily reduction of about two million HFSS items sold across major retailers. Nearly nine in ten respondents viewed the restrictions as "a good idea," and three-quarters of retailers said the rules had encouraged them to reformulate products or shift promotions toward healthier items.
"Such measures are a step toward a fairer food system," said Michelle Morris, who leads the Nutrition and Lifestyle Analytics team at the University of Leeds' Consumer Data Research Centre. "By changing the structure of supermarket promotions, we can support healthier choices without relying solely on individual willpower."
Economists and policy analysts caution, however, about potential unintended consequences. If healthier options remain relatively expensive, the ban could intensify cost pressures on low-income households, thereby reinforcing existing inequalities.
"Our research shows that the HFSS legislation was a force for good, leading to measurable reductions in less-healthy purchases -- but more now needs to be done to make healthy and sustainable diets the easy choice for our population," Morris said. ■