Background
On 5 January 2026, new rules in the CAP and BCAP Codes on the advertising of “less healthy” food and drink products came into force.
The rules were supported by additional guidance, “Advertising of less healthy food and drink products”, which set out various tests and exemptions relevant to the ASA’s approach to assessing individual ads under the relevant Code rules.
Ad description
A banner ad and a display ad for Iceland Foods, seen on the Daily Mail website on 12 January 2026.
a. The banner ad showed an image of a Luxury Aberdeen Angus Beef Roasting Joint, a box of 12 Iceland vegetable spring rolls, a tub of Swizzels Sweet Treats and a pack of 8 Iceland sticky chicken skewers. Underneath each product a price was shown, and text to the side of the images stated “Iceland & the food WAREHOUSE”.
b. The display ad, displayed alongside ad (a), featured the same text and showed images of a Luxury Aberdeen Angus Beef Roasting Joint, a tube of Pringles Sour Cream and Onion crisps, a tub of Lurpak spreadable butter, a packet of Chupa Chups Laces, a bag of Chooee DiscoStix and a bag of Haribo Elf Surprises. Each image also included a price.
Issue
Bite Back challenged whether:
- ad (a) breached the Code, because it was a paid ad for an identifiable less healthy product placed on the internet; and
- ad (b) breached the Code, because it was a paid ad for identifiable less healthy products placed on the internet.
Response
1. & 2. Iceland Foods Ltd, t/a Iceland and The Food Warehouse stated that they had paid an ad network to place the ads on their behalf. The ads were targeted at consumers who had previously visited the Iceland website but had not completed a purchase.
Iceland said that prior to the introduction of the “less healthy” food regulations they had asked their suppliers to provide them with the necessary nutrient profile information for all of their online products, however, they were aware of gaps in this data. As a result, they instructed a data provider to compile nutritional information for all products on the Iceland website on a monthly basis, which would make clear which products would be categorised as “less healthy”. This information was made available to the ad network that placed ads (a) and (b) for Iceland. Iceland also said that where they found this nutritional information to be inaccurate, they rectified the data straight away.
With respect to the products featured in ads (a) and (b), Iceland confirmed that the Swizzles Sweet Treats tub, Chupa Chups Laces, Chooee Disco Stix and Haribo Elf Surprises were all classified as HFSS, and provided relevant nutrient profile information. They also provided nutrient profile information from their supplier which confirmed that Pringles Sour Cream & Onion crisps were not an HFSS product.
Associated Newspapers Ltd t/a Daily Mail (ANL) confirmed the ad was served programmatically via a third-party ad network. ANL had no involvement in the selection or approval of the ad and confirmed that they expect advertisers to be aware of their responsibility to run a compliant campaign.
Assessment
1. & 2. Upheld
The CAP Code required that persons must not pay for ads for an identifiable less healthy food or drink product to be placed on the internet.
The ASA understood that Iceland had paid an ad network to place ads (a) and (b) on their behalf, to be displayed to consumers who had previously accessed the Iceland website.
We considered that consumers who saw the ads could reasonably be expected to identify that the ads were for each of the products shown in the images. We therefore assessed whether the products that were identifiable in the ad were “less healthy” foods.
A food or drink was “less healthy” if it met two tests, set out in the rule. Firstly, it must be classified as HFSS according to the Department of Health and Social Care’s Nutrient Profiling Technical Guidance. Secondly, it must also fall within a food or drink category set out in law.
Iceland’s Luxury Aberdeen Angus Beef Roasting Joint shown in ads (a) and (b), the Iceland Vegetable Spring Rolls and Iceland Sticky Chicken Skewers shown in ad (a), and the Lurpak Spreadable Butter shown in ad (b) did not fall within a food or drink category set out in law. Ads for those products therefore were not restricted by the “less healthy” food rule.
Pringles Sour Cream & Onion crisps, shown in ad (b), were not an HFSS product, and ads for that product were therefore also not restricted by the “less healthy” food rule.
However, the Swizzels Sweet Treats in ad (a) and the packets of Chupa Chups Laces, Chooee Disco Stix and Haribo Elf Surprises in ad (b) were all classified as HFSS. We further considered whether those products fell within the “less healthy” food Category 4, which was described in law as “Confectionery including chocolates and sweets”. We concluded those products were all less healthy foods, the advertising of which was restricted by the “less healthy” food rule.
We therefore concluded that ads (a) and (b) were paid ads for identifiable “less healthy” products, and therefore breached the Code.
Ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 15.19 (Placement of less healthy food and drink product advertisements online).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Iceland Foods Ltd t/a Iceland and The Food Warehouse to ensure their paid ads on the internet were not for identifiable less healthy foods.
