The UK government hasn’t classified all porridge as ‘junk food’

We’ve seen widespread confusion on social media and some unclear reporting in the media about the government supposedly classifying porridge as “junk food”—and therefore banning it from online ads, and from television commercials before 9pm.

Some of these claims are misleading, because the government hasn’t classified all porridge as junk food. Plain porridge oats, for example, will not be subject to the advertising ban.

Porridge is included on a list of products that are “in scope” of the new legislation which is due to come into effect next October, but it would only be classified as a “product high in fat, salt or sugar” (HFSS) if the product in question scored four or more when assessed with the recommended Nutrient Profiling Model (NPM).

As the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) details in an explainer on the junk food ad ban, only products that meet both of these two criteria will be affected by these restrictions. 

By our calculations, based on the product’s published nutritional information, a typical pack of supermarket-branded rolled oats might get an NPM score of -5, meaning it is not HFSS. Some sweetened porridge products, to which ingredients besides oats have been added, might be classified as HFSS. 

The DHSC says: “Advertisements for plain porridge oats will not be banned under the advertising restrictions.  

“In fact, the majority of porridge, muesli and granola products will not be affected by the advertising restrictions but some less healthy versions (with added sugar, chocolate, syrup) could be affected.”

The last Conservative government also included porridge on a similar list of products that were in scope to be considered HFSS when it passed separate regulations banning the promotion of junk food, for instance in multibuy offers. 

Claims on social media and media reporting

We’ve seen lots of posts on social media claiming that porridge has been classed as a form of junk food, without any explanation that not all porridge is affected and that plain porridge, for instance, will not be subject to the ban.

For example, one post on Facebook claimed: “Porridge oats are now classed as junk food and it's advertising will be affected [sic].” Another said: “PORRIDGE has been branded a form of junk food in the Government’s latest nanny state crackdown.” 

As noted above, these claims are potentially misleading because porridge will only be classed as junk food and have its advertising affected if it is also classified as a “product high in fat, salt or sugar”.

Most of the media headlines we’ve seen about the new rules failed to mention that not all porridge will be classed as junk food, potentially confusing readers who do not go on to read the full story.

Some did give full context in their headline, with the Evening Standard, for example, saying: “Sugary porridge and crumpets among food products in anti-obesity advertising ban.”

But others, such as the Sun’s “Porridge branded ‘junk food’ under Government’s latest nanny state crackdown – as MPs blast ‘preposterous meddling’” and the Telegraph’s “Porridge adverts outlawed in junk food crackdown”, did not. The Express, Independent, LBC and the Mirror were among other outlets to run headlines which did not explicitly make it clear that only certain types of porridge would be subject to the ban.

Most of these news outlets do clearly state further into their articles that the new rules won’t apply to all types of porridge, though this did not appear to be clear in the Express story.

The Daily Mail and Mail Online also claimed “the ban will include staples considered by experts to be healthy, including porridge oats, crackers and even rice cakes” in their copy, without making it clear not all porridge will be affected.  

A spokesperson for The Sun told Full Fact that its news item “makes clear that only certain forms of porridge will fall within the scope of the new advertising rules”. The article says in its third paragraph “sweetened varieties of the breakfast favourite… will be prohibited” and then in its sixth paragraph adds “plain oats are in the clear”. The Sun added: “We see no inaccuracy, nor any possible misapprehension by readers of the true position.”

But as we have written about before, not everybody reads an article the whole way through—and we often see stories shared on social media on the basis of their headline alone. We believe the public deserves good information, and that every article should be accurate and give all necessary context from beginning to end. 

We have contacted the other news outlets mentioned in this article for comment and will update this if we receive further responses.