Regulating advertising of unhealthy and unsustainable food

Measures to regulate food advertising to help drive consumer demand for sustainable and healthy food options while reducing demand for unhealthy and unsustainable foods, among others, include the following:

• Increase research, measurement and attention on the effects of food marketing at the environmental and societal level, rather than only focusing on the effects of marketing on individual choices and health outcomes. This can help to build the case for more comprehensive food marketing regulations.
• Restrict marketing, advertising and other promotional strategies (e.g. in-store promotions or giveaways) of ultra and highly processed foods on television, radio, internet, social media and other platforms – particularly marketing geared towards children and located in areas around schools. Research shows that marketing regulations are effective at reducing the consumption of unhealthy foods (e.g. junk food or food items high in fats, sugar and salt). Similar regulations could be implemented to limit the advertising of food products linked to negative environmental impacts.
• Regulate labelling and marketing to enforce or promote accurate product information in a standardized, comparable format both across food product categories. Such criteria can include those related to food safety, origin, nutritional value, labour conditions, resource use and associated emissions. Conditions for effective labelling include regulations, strategies, guidelines and instruments that make labelling mandatory, backed by science and evidence, front-of-package (FOPL), incremental, multi-dimensional, clear, and reliable according to national contexts. Labelling also needs to be credible and actionable. Different options for designing environmental impact labels include star labels, stoplight labels, nutrition label add-ons and detailed comparison labels.
• Labelling guidelines and strategies should also consider diverse science and evidence-based FOPL schemes, potentially including interpretive and informative labelling that accounts for the Codex Alimentarius Commission guidelines, standards, and recommendations, as well as other relevant standards.
• Encourage food manufacturers to adopt food labelling that highlights impacts of products to the environment and to the individual consumer (i.e. connecting the purchase decision to a direct, tangible impact).
• Implement regulations that ensure that food health and sustainability claims are accurate and require that food packages and menus are clearly labelled with nutritional information (e.g. calories, fats, including saturated and trans-fats, sugars, salt, nutrients) and environmental impacts (e.g. carbon, land-use or water ‘footprints’).
• Establish equitable access to fresh, locally-produced food in urban and peri-urban areas (e.g., strengthening or establishing farmers’ markets and cooperatives from the surrounding region) and promote it with public advertising.
• Allocate additional finance for the marketing and promotion of organic food (i.e. under rural development programmes), as well as for regionally-produced food, within national or subnational budgets.
• Restrict not only the marketing of certain unhealthy food products, but also marketing that encourages certain behaviours like excessive or mindless eating, with special emphasis on considering the impacts on children.
• Develop and launch advertising campaigns on “ugly produce” (fruits and vegetables) to raise awareness that these products offer the same nutritional value, taste and aroma as their more conventional-looking counterparts.
• Educate consumers about how healthy foods are not always environmentally sustainable, such as by providing information on the expected range of sustainability levels within “healthy food” categories, or emphasizing that healthy food can exhibit a broad range of sustainability levels. Ideally, complement this awareness campaign with policies that incentivize manufacturers of healthy foods (or perceived healthy foods) to adopt production practices that minimize negative environmental impacts.
• Improve nutritional care in health care system programming, to bolster public education about the health benefits of heathy and sustainable diets.

Enabling governance measures that strengthen institutional capacity is essential for regulating the advertising of unhealthy, unsustainable foods.

• Policies, guidelines and public investment decisions should be coherent and align across different levels of governance.
• Offer technical assistance and guidelines to help suppliers and retailers measure key sustainability and health information about their products. This support aims to enable the design of more accurate advertising and labelling, ensuring consumers ultimately receive reliable information.
• Increase food literacy among consumers (i.e. consumers’ nutritional knowledge and understanding of food labels). In developing countries, this may also entail increasing general literacy.
• Make healthy and sustainable food more affordable for consumers, such as through subsidies and social protection measures.

Tools and guides that can be used to regulate the advertisement of unhealthy and unsustainable food include:

Guides

Regulating the advertising of unhealthy and unsustainable foods promotes public health and supports climate change mitigation, aligning directly with the UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience, advancing the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KM-GBF), and contributing to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Climate change mitigation benefits

• The regulation of unhealthy and unsustainable food advertisement can help reduce diet-related greenhouse gas emissions from food production and processing. In particular, ultra-processed foods (UPFs) use large quantities of energy, often derived from fossil fuels, as well as chemical inputs like fertilizers, which cause GHG emissions including through freshwater eutrophication and soil acidification. Studies indicate that UPFs account for up to one-third of total diet-related GHG emissions.

Climate change adaptation benefits

Among the seven key areas of adaptation put forward in the UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience, regulating advertising of unhealthy and unsustainable food can directly contribute to:

• Target 9a (Water & Sanitation): UPFs and industrially-farmed animal products have high water footprints and contribute to water pollution. Reducing their consumption through advertising regulations can help alleviate water stress and improve water quality.
• Target 9b (Food & Agriculture): Restricting the advertising of unhealthy and unsustainable foods can help shift consumer demand toward more sustainable options. This encourages food producers and retailers to prioritize sustainably produced foods, supporting the development of resilient, biodiverse food systems.
• Target 9c (Health): Limiting exposure to advertisements for foods high in sugar, salt, and unhealthy fats, especially among children, can lead to healthier food choices and dietary habits, increasing resilience to the health impacts of climate change. This is associated with lower rates of obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and other diet-related illnesses.
• Target 9d (Ecosystems): Reducing the promotion and consumption of highly processed, resource-intensive foods can decrease pressure on ecosystems, lowering the demand for foods linked to deforestation, overfishing, and intensive monoculture, supporting resilience to climate impacts.

Biodiversity benefits

Action under this policy option can help to deliver on several KM-GBF targets, in particular:

• Target 7 (Reduce Pollution to Levels That Are Not Harmful to Biodiversity): Limiting the promotion of specific food items that cause outsized levels of pollution (e.g. from the use of fossil fuels, fertilizers or generation of packaging waste) can lead to their reduced production. This can concurrently decrease associated pollution levels and enhance air quality, benefitting biodiversity.
• Target 10 (Enhance Biodiversity and Sustainability in Agriculture, Aquaculture, Fisheries, and Forestry): Advertising regulations can shift consumer demand towards sustainably produced food, disincentivizing the implementation of the most harmful practices in agriculture in favour of practices that help conserve natural ecosystems. These harmful practices include the homogenization of agricultural landscapes to grow cheap standardized ingredients, besides the application of chemical inputs. Regulating advertising of commodities with particularly high per kilogram species extinction rates such as some vegetable oils could also yield significant biodiversity benefits.
• Target 15 (Businesses Assess, Disclose and Reduce Biodiversity-Related Risks and Negative Impacts): Regulating advertisements could substantially impact greenwashing, ultimately inducing food producers and retailers to adopt sustainable practices to align with regulations, while also meeting consumers’ expectations.
• Target 16 (Enable Sustainable Consumption Choices To Reduce Waste and Overconsumption): The policy recommendation directly contributes and aligns with this Target of the KM-GBF. By regulating advertisements for unhealthy and unsustainable food, consumers are less exposed to misleading messaging by the media, and potentially more inclined to make sustainable dietary choices, reducing the environmental footprint of their consumption.

Other sustainable development benefits

Regulating advertising of unhealthy and unsustainable food can support the delivery of multiple SDGs, including:

• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being): Improved health outcomes due to decreased rates of obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases.
• SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production): More sustainable consumption and production patterns due to increased awareness and understanding of the sustainability impacts associated with food products; reduced food loss from production of processed foods.
• SDG 15 (Life on Land): Increased conservation and sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity due to reduced demand for and production of unsustainable foods.

The effectiveness of interventions and projects aimed at regulating the advertising of unhealthy and unsustainable foods depends on their strategic design and robust implementation, which may be hindered by a range of technical and non-technical challenges, including:

• Barriers to implementing strong restrictions on advertising of food items include poor monitoring of the advertising industry; weak regulatory enforcement; opposition from food industry lobby groups; poor intersectoral collaboration; and weak scientific criteria underlying the definition of ‘unhealthy’ or ‘unsustainable’ food.
• Without careful design, new sustainability labelling policies could contribute to higher food prices for consumers. This is because additional production requirements that minimize negative environmental impacts could be slow, difficult to implement and could impose significant costs to companies. There is the potential for these costs to be passed on to consumers.
• New labelling policies could lead to misinformation such as greenwashing, where companies attempt to “deceive” the system by embellishing their sustainability/health labels in order to attract consumer attention.

The following measures, incorporated into a comprehensive and holistic design of interventions regulating the advertising of unhealthy and unsustainable foods, can help mitigate trade-offs and overcome implementation challenges:

• All regulatory measures to incentivize a transition to more sustainable and healthier diets, including restrictions on advertising and marketing or mandatory labelling, must consider the local cultural context and food security requirements.
• To address costs associated with shifts in production processes, policy programs could provide funds and assistance to producers to facilitate implementation of new labelling/marketing requirements.
• To address greenwashing, labels could be required to provide sustainability/nutritional information which is detailed and comprehensive yet succinct and easy to understand.

Robust monitoring tools, clearly defined indicators, and comprehensive frameworks are essential for effectively tracking and evaluating the implementation of regulations on unhealthy and unsustainable food advertising. These tools can also support the monitoring of biodiversity and climate-related outcomes.

Indicators to monitor biodiversity outcomes

The Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity agreed to a comprehensive set of headline, component, and complementary indicators for tracking progress toward the targets of the KM-GBF. Some of these indicators could also be functional for monitoring the implementation of this policy option. These indicators are:

Tools to monitor biodiversity outcomes

Not identified

Tools to monitor climate outcomes

Not available

The feasibility of how to create economically viable transitions to more sustainable and healthy diets that also respect food security requirements depend largely on local contexts.

• Although not a direct implementation cost metric, it is important to consider that the economic mitigation potential of demand-side measures like shifting to sustainable and healthy diets ranges from 0.3–8 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, at annual prices of USD 20–100 per metric ton of carbon dioxide.

Some notable examples of the successful regulation of unhealthy and unsustainable food include:

• Policy recommendations associated with the EU Farm to Fork Strategy 2023 are pushing for sustainable food systems through steps that include advertising restrictions. Recommendations involve taxing unhealthy and unsustainable food products, restricting advertisements, and enhancing consumer education about health and environmental impacts. The strategy aims to integrate sustainability criteria into dietary guidelines, contributing to healthier ecosystems and biodiversity preservation​.
• In 2016, Taiwan implemented unhealthy food advertising limits for kids under 12 years old. Dedicated television channels for children cannot broadcast advertisements of foods exceeding set fat, sodium, and sugar content limits from 5 pm to 9 pm.
• The Chile Food Labelling and Advertising Regulation of 2016 restricts advertising directed to children under the age of 14 of foods high in fat, sugar and salt, including on television programs, the internet, radio and in magazines. The law also banned promotional strategies such as cartoons or advertising in schools. Consequently, child-directed marketing decreased significantly.

1. Alfraidi, A., Alafif, N., & Alsukait, R. (2023). The Impact of Mandatory Food-Marketing Regulations on Purchase and Exposure: A Narrative Review. Children, 10(8). Retrieved February 19, 2024, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10453145/
2. Anastasiou, K., Baker, P., Hadjikakou, M., Hendrie, G. A., & Lawrence, M. (2022). A conceptual framework for understanding the environmental impacts of ultra-processed foods and implications for sustainable food systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 368, 133155.
3. Barrett, B. (2022). Health and sustainability co-benefits of eating behaviors: Towards a science of dietary eco-wellness. Preventive Medicine Reports, 28. Retrieved February 19, 2024, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9272027/
4. Cairns, G. (2019). A critical review of evidence on the sociocultural impacts of food marketing and policy implications. Appetite, 136, 193–207.
5. Cho, Y.-N. (2015). Different Shades of Green Consciousness: The Interplay of Sustainability Labeling and Environmental Impact on Product Evaluations. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(1), 73–82
6. Committee on World Food Security (CFS) (2024). CFS Policy Recommendations on Reducing Inequalities for Food Security and Nutrition (First draft). Available from https://www.fao.org/cfs/workingspace/workstreams/inequalities-workstream/en/.
7. Dhar, T., & Baylis, K. (2011). Fast-Food Consumption and the Ban on Advertising Targeting Children: The Quebec Experience. Journal of Marketing Research. Retrieved February 19, 2024, from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1509/jmkr.48.5.799
8. Food and Climate Change: Healthy diets for a healthier planet. (n.d.). United Nations. Retrieved February 19, 2024, from https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/food
9. FAO. (2024). Greenhouse gas emissions from agrifood  systems  Global, regional and country trends, 2000–2022 ( No. 94) (No. 94). Retrieved January 14, 2026, from https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/cd3167en
10. Galli, F., Prosperi, P., Favilli, E., D’Amico, S., Bartolini, F., & Brunori, G. (2020). How can policy processes remove barriers to sustainable food systems in Europe? Contributing to a policy framework for agri-food transitions. Sustainable Food Systems for Healthy Diets in Europe and Central Asia, 96, 101871
11. Global Alliance for the Future of Food. (2024). Public Climate Finance for Food Systems Transformation (20^24 update). Retrieved January 20, 2026, from https://climatefocus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/ga_climatefinancereport_2024.pdf
12. HLPE. 2023. Reducing inequalities for food security and nutrition. Rome, CFS HLPE-FSN. Available from https://www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe/insights/news-insights/news-detail/reducing-inequalities-for-food-security-and-nutrition/en.
13. Holdsworth, M., Kimenju, S., Hallen, G., Laar, A., & Oti, S. O. (2023). Review of policy action for healthy environmentally sustainable food systems in sub-Saharan Africa. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 65, 101376
14. IPCC Sixth Assessment Report – Working Group III – Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change | Knowledge for policy. (n.d.). Retrieved March 2, 2026, from https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/publication/ipcc-sixth-assessment-report-%E2%80%93-working-group-iii-climate-change-2022-mitigation-climate_en
15. Ketkaew, C., & Komsing, Y. (2025). How health, ethical, and environmental claims shape sustainable food consumption: The role of eco-labeling information quality in retail food markets. Future Foods, 12, 100831.
16. Köppen, S., Brasil, B., Braslavsky, C. C., Carcamo, R., Clark, G., Coscieme, L., et al. (2024). Implementing GBF Target 16: Addressing biodiversity impacts of food consumption. Retrieved from https://bfn.bsz-bw.de/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/1805/file/pol244en.pdf.
17. Leach, A. M., Emery, K. A., Gephart, J., Davis, K. F., Erisman, J. W., Leip, A., et al. (2016). Environmental impact food labels combining carbon, nitrogen, and water footprints. Food Policy, 61, 213–223
18. Leite, F. H. M., Khandpur, N., Andrade, G. C., Anastasiou, K., Baker, P., Lawrence, M., et al. (2022). Ultra-processed foods should be central to global food systems dialogue and action on biodiversity. BMJ Global Health, 7(3), e008269.
19. Li, Y., Shang, J., Zhang, C., Zhang, W., Niu, L., Wang, L., & Zhang, H. (2021). The role of freshwater eutrophication in greenhouse gas emissions: A review. Science of The Total Environment, 768, 144582.
20. Manders, A. (2023, March 8). Harmonised and mandatory nutrition labelling in the EU. Retrieved February 19, 2024, from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-9-2023-000783_EN.html
21. McDowall, W., & Underthun, A. (2025). Advertising restrictions and sustainability transitions: does banning advertising of harmful products induce innovation in benign alternatives? Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 56, 101000.
22. Moberg, E., Potter, H. K., Wood, A., Hansson, P.-A., & Röös, E. (2020). Benchmarking the Swedish Diet Relative to Global and National Environmental Targets—Identification of Indicator Limitations and Data Gaps. Sustainability, 12(4). Retrieved January 20, 2026, from https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/4/1407
23. Modern food emissions. (2023). Nature Climate Change, 13(3), 205–205
24. Raza, S., Zamanian, K., Ullah, S., Kuzyakov, Y., Virto, I., & Zhou, J. (2021). Inorganic carbon losses by soil acidification jeopardize global efforts on carbon sequestration and climate change mitigation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 315, 128036.
25. Regulating advertising of unhealthy and unsustainable food. (2024, February 20). Food Forward NDCs. Retrieved April 14, 2025, from https://foodforwardndcsnbsaps.panda.org/food-environment/regulating-advertising-of-unhealthy-and-unsustainable-food/.
26. REGULATION (EU) No 1151/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs. (2012). Retrieved from 2. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:343:0001:0029:en:PDF
27. Russell, S. J., Croker, H., & Viner, R. M. (2019). The effect of screen advertising on children’s dietary intake: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Obesity Reviews, 20(4), 554–568
28. Stein, A. J., & de Lima, M. (2022). Sustainable food labelling: considerations for policymakers. Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, 103(2), 143–160
29. The EU Ecolabel: The environmental label you can trust. (2023, December 21). Retrieved February 19, 2024, from https://eu-ecolabel.de/en/
30. The Food and Land Use Coalition. (2019). Growing Better: Ten Critical Transitions to Transform Food and Land Use. Retrieved from 1. https://www.foodandlandusecoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/FOLU-GrowingBetter-GlobalReport.pdf
31. Van Loo, E. J., Hoefkens, C., & Verbeke, W. (2017). Healthy, sustainable and plant-based eating: Perceived (mis)match and involvement-based consumer segments as targets for future policy. Food Policy, 69, 46–57
32. WBAE. (2020). Promoting sustainability in food consumption. Retrieved from https://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Ministry/promoting-sustainability-in-food-consumption.pdf?_blob=publicationFile&v=2.
33. Xu, Y., Jeong, E., Jang, S. (Shawn), & Shao, X. (2021). Would you bring home ugly produce? Motivators and demotivators for ugly food consumption. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 59, 102376