World Cancer Research Fund International (WCRFI) has been in official relations with WHO since 2016. We attend the World Health Assembly (WHA) every year, engaging with WHO, Member States and global health policymakers to advance our cancer prevention recommendations through meetings, side events, and Assembly discussions.

This year, WCRFI led a statement on maternal, infant, and young child nutrition and co-sponsored four statements led by NCD Alliance (on the follow-up on the High-level Meeting on NCDs, global architecture reform, the proposed economics of health for all strategy, and primary health care).

>  Read all of our statements from WHA79.

But notably: this year’s WHA felt different. Many people reflected on this throughout the week — across civil society, WHO staff, Member States,and advocates alike. With the Assembly split between the Palais des Nations and WHO headquarter buildings, this year we weren’t congregated in the same spaces, and the corridor conversations (planned or improvised) and connections that usually shape a WHA week were harder to come by.

The volume of side events was also notably higher than in previous years, pulling people into separate corners of Geneva, from breakfast meetings through to evening receptions. Several people remarked it felt more like a UN General Assembly week than a WHA one.

But, despite these differences, the core of WHA remained the same: a collective group of people from around the world demonstrating their commitment to address pressing issues and advance health globally. It’s because of this that I always leave WHA with a little more hope. And for those of us working on cancer and NCD prevention, there was real progress to take away, alongside the challenges that remain.

WCRF International at WHA79 – Elaine Green, Interim Head of Policy & Public Affairs, and Kendra Chow, Senior Policy & Public Affairs Manager

Prevention in national cancer control planning

For the cancer agenda, the activities actually started a few days before WHA opened. Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) held their second Cancer Planners Forum in Geneva (13–15 May), bringing together over 120 participants from 54 countries — including 45 government-appointed cancer planners from 42 countries.

Our newly published advocacy brief, Strengthening National Cancer Control Plans: Putting Prevention at the Centre, was shared with attendees. The brief sets out a straightforward but important case: around 40% of cancers are preventable, yet only 30% of national cancer control plans include comprehensive prevention measures, and three-quarters remain largely unfunded.

Getting that evidence into the hands of the people who develop and implement national plans is a direct route to shifting how cancer control is approached at country level, and a great way to put these messages front-of-mind for policymakers ahead of WHA.

The economics of health

As mentioned, this year’s WHA week lived up to its predecessors’ reputation of being a busy one. One of the headline outcomes of WHA79 was the adoption of WHO’s Strategy on the Economics of Health for All (2026–2030). The strategy positions health as an investment rather than a cost, and calls for it to be integrated into economic, fiscal, and industrial policy—not treated as a concern for health ministries alone.

WCRF International co-signed a statement led by NCD Alliance in support of the strategy, alongside UICC, the World Heart Federation, the International Diabetes Federation, and others. We welcomed its foundations in equity, sustainability, and social participation, and called for stronger attention to commercial determinants of health.

The commercial determinants driving consumption of tobacco, alcohol, and unhealthy diets are increasing NCD rates globally, and any strategy on health economics that doesn’t address this gap is missing a significant part of the picture. Prevention advocates have long made the economic case for action; this strategy provides stronger footing for doing so across government.

Global health architecture reform: a missed opportunity on inclusion

Member States also agreed at WHA79 to establish a joint process to reform the global health architecture, with recommendations due at next year’s Assembly. The intent—a more coherent, better-resourced system that can respond to today’s health challenges—is a positive direction to move towards.

What is harder to reconcile is the decision to exclude civil society and people with lived experience from the Joint Task Force overseeing the process. As NCD Alliance noted, this contradicts commitments governments have already made under WHA Resolution 77.2 on social participation for Universal Health Coverage. Meaningful, equitable reform cannot be designed without the people most affected by the systems being at the table. We hope this is reconsidered as the process develops.

Misinformation, communication and Cancer Prevention Action Week

A pharmacovigilance resolution adopted at WHA79 flagged the spread of misinformation as an ongoing threat to public trust in health interventions — an issue that is extremely prevalent to cancer and cancer prevention, as much as any other health area. People are navigating a lot of conflicting information about cancer risk, and clear, evidence-based communication from trusted institutions matters.

June sees WCRF UK’s Cancer Prevention Action Week taking place and the theme – Science Not Fiction – is part of our response to that: grounded in the most comprehensive ongoing evidence synthesis on diet, weight, physical activity and cancer risk, and aimed at communicating what the evidence actually shows. Look out for next month’s blog for more information on the campaign.

Investment, implementation, and impact

As we move further down the road after securing the commitments in the Political Declaration on NCDs and mental health, and need to move closer to implementing them, the focus is shifting to what actually makes impact possible. Side events and conversations throughout WHA79 reflected this shift, with investment increasingly in focus ahead of September’s Third International Financing Dialogue on NCDs in Manila.

That Dialogue is the next critical moment for turning commitment into action. As NCD Alliance has underlined, the gap between what was promised and what is happening on the ground is fundamentally a financing gap. And post-WHA, the broader challenge remains getting these conversations beyond the health sector: into finance ministries, food systems, planning decisions, and all the other spaces that shape the environments in which cancer risk accumulates.

Other strong areas of focus across the week included tackling the obesity crisis, as well as growing recognition of mental health and its interconnectedness with NCDs—further illuminating the need to engage in multi-sectoral action to address these complex, multifactorial issues.

The pathway from investment to implementation to impact is not an easy one. What has been made clear this week is there is much work to be done—particularly in activating policy levers that can deliver on the Political Declaration’s commitments, while also being achievable and sustainable. This is where WCRFI plans to work more closely with governments on implementing NCCPs, with prevention serving as a strong foundation, to support these aims and continue movement along the path towards positive impact for cancer and NCDs worldwide.

• Read WCRF International’s advocacy brief, Strengthening National Cancer Control Plans: Putting Prevention at the Centre
• Read WCRF International’s statements delivered at World Health Assembly

Coming into my new role as Interim Head of Policy and Public Affairs ¹ at World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) International, I was immediately faced with trying to understand what ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are and how they might, or might not, contribute to cancer risk.

The harms caused by UPFs have been a growing concern in public health, cancer research and nutrition policy over recent years. The increasing number of scientific publications such as Kevin Hall’s 2019 research and the recent Lancet series on UPFs and human health have further amplified and elevated attention to this critical issue. However, to be certain of the risks between UPFs and cancer, there is a need to identify, review and judge the strength of the evidence related to these potential links.

Foods can go through many different types of processing, not all of which are unhealthy. From common practices such as baking homemade bread and pasteurising milk, to commercial and industrial production which breaks foods down and recombines them, often using artificial preservatives and ingredients that aren’t normally found in a kitchen.

In 2010, the NOVA system of food classification was introduced and is now a common tool to categorise foods according to their level of processing:

• Unprocessed and minimally processed foods, containing no added fats, salt, sugar or other additives. Examples include frozen fruit and vegetables, and pasteurised milk.
• Processed culinary ingredients. These are ingredients that aren’t created to be eaten alone and are often used alongside foods in group 1 such as oils, sugars and salt.
• Processed food, where a product from group 2 – like salt, sugar, fat or vinegar – is added to minimally-processed foods. Examples include tinned goods such as lentils and beans, salted nuts and cheese.
• Ultra-processed foods. Many of the foods we consume daily fall into this category: pre-packaged meals (and yes, I have to admit, I am partial to an easy-to-cook ready meal on a Friday night), industrialised bread, sweets, soft drinks and sweetened yoghurt.

Why is this important and what does it mean for health?

Across the world, the average share of UPFs in a person’s diet ranges from 9% in Iran to 60% in the USA². Recent UK data shows that 57% of the calories British people eat come from UPFs: a figure that rises, worryingly, to 63.5% for children aged 1.5-11 years and 68% for adolescents aged between 12-18 years. Furthermore, there are critical health equity dimensions to the consumption of UPFs, with greater exposure to UPFs often being found among lower-income, marginalised or socially disadvantaged populations.

The increasing consumption of UPFs is a trend that is being seen not just in high-income countries, but also in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), leading to a double burden of malnutrition, with many LMICs being faced with challenges of both undernutrition and overweight and obesity at the same time³.

Alongside the growing body of evidence suggesting that UPFs are harmful to health, these trends are concerning. Combining the steady increase of UPF production and consumption in both high-income and lower-income countries, the way in which producers of UPFs undermine food systems and dietary patterns (by displacing minimally processed foods and being more affordable than freshly prepared meals), and the impact of UPFs on pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity loss, it is abundantly clear that the growing consumption of UPFs requires urgent policy action.

But what is the link between UPFs and cancer?

Well, the honest answer is that, at the moment, we are not entirely sure. The recent Lancet review of available evidence found some indications that an ultra-processed dietary pattern increased risk of a range of chronic diseases, including cancer-related morbidity and mortality. A small number of studies found an association between the consumption of UPFs and increased overall incidence of cancer.

However, to be certain of the risks between UPFs and cancer, there is a need to identify, review and judge the strength of the evidence related to the potential links between UPFs and cancer risk. This includes the evidence related to the biological mechanisms that may be driving these links. It may also be the case that UPFs, in and of themselves, do not increase our risk of cancer directly but increase the risk of things we know do. For example, the Lancet study found a clear association between UPFs and overweight or obesity – and we know that people living with overweight or obesity have an increased risk of at least 13 different types of cancer. We also know that one way to prevent cancer is to avoid processed meat as we highlight in our 10 Cancer Prevention Recommendations.

What have I learned so far?

In my second week in my new role, I was fortunate enough to attend a policy forum on UPFs organised by Imperial College London. The forum set out a clear case for action and highlighted some excellent examples of good practice in national policy implementation to reduce consumption of UPFs. Two things struck me during this forum:

• The scale of the challenge we are facing: from the force of social media algorithms that dramatically increase exposure to UPF marketing practices, to the power large industry holds over food production and manufacturing processes, and the challenges of implementing regulatory policies that tackle rather than exacerbate health inequities.
• That we can do something about it: the UPF Policy Forum also highlighted progress being made to emphasise the contents of food to consumers (such as high amounts of sugar, salt or fat) using front-of-packing labels. These advances, as demonstrated in the Americas, are a WHO Best Buy policy that can improve consumers’ understanding and choices of foods they eat, as well as push food producers to improve the quality of foods they are making.

My third observation, or question, coming out of the UPF Policy Forum, however, was ‘what does this mean for me in my new role at WCRF International?’ I can see that there are some linkages between UPFs and cancer, but these are in no way conclusive. How can I legitimately argue that by reducing consumption of UPFs you can reduce your risk of cancer when there are still so many unanswered questions? And how can I advocate for policy change without robust scientific evidence?

The good news is that this evidence is coming

WCRF International’s Global Cancer Update Programme, CUP Global, has this year included a systematic review of evidence on UPFs and cancer risk. While there is no guarantee that this review will lead to a clear conclusion on the linkages between UPFs and cancer, it will certainly add more evidence to help inform the debate.

With that in mind, I’m looking forward to July when our CUP Global Expert Panel will come together and review the latest evidence on this. So, if you want to keep informed on the links between UPFs and cancer risk, keep watching this space. Or even better, follow us on LinkedIn and sign up to our monthly e-news for the latest updates.

Notes and references:

¹ I’ll be covering this role while Kate Oldridge-Turner is on maternity leave.

² Monteiro C, Louzada M, Steele-Martinez E et al. Ultra-processed foods and human health: the main thesis and evidence. The Lancet, 2025; 406, 266702684.

³ Popkin B, Corvalan C, Grummer-Strawn L Dynamics of the double burden of malnutrition and the changing nutrition reality. The Lancet, 2019; 395, 65-74.

The year is 2013. Macklemore and Katy Perry are on the charts. Children everywhere are about to lose their minds for Frozen. Most of the population has never even heard of a coronavirus.

In London, WCRF International’s recently established Policy & Public Affairs team has been hard at work developing the NOURISHING policy framework.

Following the success of NOURISHING, in 2018 the EU-funded CO-CREATE project enabled WCRF International to develop the MOVING policy framework and database, which outlined priority actions to promote physical activity.

Fast-forward to 2026, and we are now leading an exciting programme of work to update these tools: we envisage integrating policies on nutrition and physical activity into a single set of tools.

Alongside, we will incorporate policies on alcohol consumption and breastfeeding and infant nutrition to align with our current efforts to support population-level adherence to WCRF’s Cancer Prevention Recommendations.

As we embark on this project, we are reflecting on how our tools can drive policy action as effectively as possible.

How can our policy tools support action on prevention?

WCRF International designed the NOURISHING and MOVING tools to support our core policy aim: to help governments and policymakers around the world take effective action on preventing cancer and other non-communicable diseases (NCDs).

Since their publication, NOURISHING and MOVING have been cited hundreds of times in academic literature and referenced by national governments and organisations including the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Their uptake has shown how these tools can support change across the policy process.

Policy frameworks provide a suite of actions to advocate for and implement. Given our focus on prevention, our frameworks have encompassed a whole-of-society and whole-of-government approach to supporting healthier populations, from retail environments, to urban planning, to marketing restrictions.

As well as providing policy options, policy frameworks can be used to monitor and benchmark policy progress. In 2023, our team used the NOURISHING and MOVING frameworks to carry out a benchmarking process in the European region, assessing progress on nutrition and physical activity in 30 countries.

By presenting the range of actions governments can take, policy frameworks provide a yardstick to identify countries’ strengths as well as priority areas for action.

The NOURISHING and MOVING frameworks were also used to guide the development of complementary policy databases. These databases catalogue real-world examples of policies from around the globe. For governments and advocates, learning from other nations’ experiences can be extremely valuable.

Consider sugar-sweetened beverage taxation, a policy measure which has now been implemented in over 100 countries, typically with the aim of reducing sugar consumption in the population.

A government looking to implement a sugar-sweetened beverage tax in their own context can learn from the example of Mexico, who implemented a flat excise tax of 1 peso per litre, or South Africa, who structured their tax based on sugar content.

They may be interested in knowing about the policy process that led to successful adoption in Chile, or how the measure impacted economic outcomes in the UK. Policy databases like NOURISHING and MOVING can help provide this information.

What’s next?

Over a decade after the launch of our first policy framework, the policy environment for prevention of cancer and other NCDs has evolved. Emerging issues such as ultra-processed foods, GLP-1s, climate change and air pollution are taking centre stage.

Governments are increasingly focused on policy integration and coherence in a bid to take effective action on complex issues. Advocates are exploring co-benefits and trade-offs with other agendas in order to build effective coalitions, particularly in the context of shrinking resources for public health.

Questions we are contemplating as we begin this project include:

• How can we best integrate a range of modifiable risk factors – nutrition, physical activity, alcohol consumption and breastfeeding – to reflect WCRF’s Cancer Prevention Recommendations?
• What types of information will be most valuable to our intended audiences, and how can we effectively mobilise these tools to support evidence-informed prevention policy?
• How should we navigate between depth and breadth in our database, weighing up the advantages of incorporating a wide range of policies from many countries, versus providing more detailed information around policy content, process and impact?
• How can we best incorporate co-benefits and trade-offs into our tools, acknowledging that actions that support cancer prevention can have synergies with agendas like climate change, health equity and mental health?
• Can our policy tools make space for and even drive innovation, as well as providing examples of precedent?
• How can we include country context in a way that helps our users understand what is likely to be feasible or effective in their own setting?
• What opportunities do AI innovations present for for expanding our coverage while maintaining the quality of our resources?

As we move forward with the next phase, we will engage experts and knowledge users in different regions and sectors to understand how we can best position these updated tools for use and take stock of the existing ecosystem of policy tools to ensure our work complements the efforts of other organisations.

If you would like to find out more about the policy framework and database update project, or see how you can get involved, please reach out to Chloe at c.cliffordastbury@wcrf.org.

Rates of childhood obesity have increased from 4% to 20% over the past 50 years. From a cancer prevention perspective, this is worrying news: childhood obesity often continues into adulthood, and our work shows that excess body weight in adults is linked to at least 13 different types of cancer. What’s more, our research has shown that higher body weight in childhood, adolescence and young adulthood is linked to an increased risk of colorectal cancer in later life.

To maintain a healthy weight, children need more support to eat a nutritious diet. Policy can help foster systems and structures that make healthy diets easier and, for kids, schools are a great place to start.

The morning bell

My apartment in London overlooks a primary school attended by about 130 students. Waiting for my morning bus to WCRF’s offices, I see parents accompanying their children along the bustling road to the school gates. From a nutrition perspective, this particular route must feel a bit like running the gauntlet: a rotating billboard in view of the bus stop advertises burgers and fries, while every other business sells fast food. UNICEF’s Feeding Profit report, published last year, highlights this as a global problem.

To tackle the food environment around schools, several local authorities in the UK have chosen to restrict the opening of new fast food restaurants around schools. Cities such as Leeds and Manchester have opted to either reduce the number of new outlets near schools or prohibit them entirely.

Elsewhere in the world, governments have chosen to implement school-focused marketing restrictions. Latin American countries are leaders in this space, with countries like Chile and Mexico banning unhealthy foods from being advertised in schools. In 2021, the local congress in Lima, Peru went further, passing a law to prohibit the marketing of unhealthy foods within 200 metres of schools.

Lunchtime

From my own childhood in Canada, memories from the school cafeteria include slices of pizza, chocolate chip cookies and a freezer selling ice cream and popsicles. Although we occasionally managed to bargain for a few dollars for pizza, my parents worried that this menu wasn’t healthy enough. We mostly packed our own, a task added to already busy mornings.

Comparing notes with my partner who grew up in Sweden – where school lunches have been free for all children regardless of income for over 70 years – he remembers a self-service soup and salad bar to go with the daily mains. That didn’t stop students from complaining – tarragon fish day was particularly disliked. In high school, they would occasionally head over to the local pizzeria for lunch when their pocket money stretched to it.

Our memories reflect not only the cross-cutting appeal of pizza but the variation in school meals, even in high-income contexts. Until last year, Canada was still the only G7 country without a school food plan. However, we are not the only ones that have struggled to provide schoolchildren with nutritious lunches. Only 37% of school meal programs have an objective to prevent overweight and obesity, and wealthier countries are more likely to provide unhealthy foods.

Meanwhile, school food superstars like Brazil show us what can be done, successfully establishing legislation for coverage, quality, and procurement practices, emphasising local foods. In Japan, procurement policies also favour local producers, and pair school meals with food and nutrition education.

Recess

Beyond lunchtime, countries are developing innovative approaches to improving the quality of snacks sold on school premises. In Chile, a suite of policy measures aiming to reduce the consumption of foods high in calories, sugar, sodium or saturated fat has included banning their sale in schools. This has led to an impressive reduction in the sale of these unhealthy foods in school kiosks.

In January of this year, the World Health Organization published its new guideline providing evidence-based recommendations to support countries in creating healthy school food environments. This cites evidence from countries like Chile, as well as measures to directly provide children with healthy alternatives, like the European Union’s school scheme to support the distribution of milk, fruit and vegetables. Meanwhile, the School Meals Coalition, a global multi-partner initiative, facilitates country commitments to initiate or strengthen school food programmes, and fosters collaborations to support their efforts.

From the morning bell to lunchtime to recess, every part of the school day offers an opportunity to shape healthier futures. World Obesity Day calls on us to advocate for stronger food policy and equitable access to nutritious foods. If we get this right in schools, we don’t just change what children eat today – we help reduce their cancer risk tomorrow.

We commend the UK Government for setting out an ambitious 10-year strategy with a strong focus on survival, innovation, and patient experience.

Yet the Plan misses a chance to put prevention front and centre, with stronger alcohol policy, breastfeeding protection, and a dedicated focus on the modifiable risk factors that drive cancer

A bold ambition on survival and care

We particularly welcome the Government’s bold target that 75% of people diagnosed with cancer from 2035 will be cancer-free or living well five years after diagnosis – a genuine step change in ambition. The Plan’s emphasis on earlier diagnosis, reducing emergency presentations, expanding evidence-based screening, and improving access to innovative treatments has the potential to deliver meaningful improvements for patients across England.

We also welcome commitments to improve patient experience and outcomes, including personalised care, better coordination, and stronger accountability for delivery through a reformed National Cancer Board.

Progress on prevention – but a missed opportunity to go further

We welcome the Plan’s commitments on cancer prevention, including action to crack down on the illegal use of sunbeds and harmful UV exposure, progress towards a smoke-free generation, and expanded access to HPV vaccination as part of the ambition to eliminate cervical cancer. These are important, evidence-based interventions that will prevent cancers and reduce future pressure on the health system.

However, prevention deserves greater prominence. New global evidence shows that up to four in ten cancers worldwide are linked to preventable causes. Tackling the lifestyle and environmental factors that increase cancer risk is one of the most effective and affordable ways to prevent cancer in the long term.

Crucially, modifiable risk factors are not evenly distributed. Tobacco use, harmful alcohol consumption, unhealthy diets and obesity disproportionately affect people in lower socio-economic groups, driving stark and persistent inequalities in cancer incidence, survival and mortality. Strong, population-level prevention policies are therefore essential not only to reduce cancer overall, but to narrow health inequalities and ensure the benefits of progress are shared fairly.

We believe the Plan would have benefitted from a dedicated chapter on prevention, helping to drive a necessary mindset shift and embed the principle that diet, alcohol, and breastfeeding policies are cancer policies.

Action on alcohol and breastfeeding is lacking

The Plan does not expansively build on the wider prevention measures announced in the Government’s 10 Year Health Plan, particularly in relation to alcohol policy. Alcohol remains a leading avoidable cause of cancer, yet the Plan does not commit to minimum unit pricing (MUP) or restrictions on alcohol advertising and marketing, including where it reaches children and young people – among the most effective and evidence-based tools for reducing population-level alcohol harm and cancer risk.

We also note the absence of strengthened action to protect breastfeeding, including full compliance with the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes. Breastfeeding reduces cancer risk for mothers and improves long-term health outcomes for children, and stronger implementation of the Code should form part of a comprehensive, life-course approach to cancer prevention.

Partnerships with food manufacturers must also be approached with caution, given past experience of policy dilution. Where voluntary approaches fall short, Government must not shy away from mandatory measures. Strong governance, transparency, and protection from undue commercial influence are essential to ensure prevention policies deliver for public health.

Biomedical innovation matters but it is not enough

We are pleased to see the Plan’s commitment to biomedical prevention, including continued rollout of the HPV vaccine, trials of preventative vaccines such as LungVax, and plans to accelerate uptake of GLP-1 medicines for those who clinically need them. These innovations are hugely important and represent real progress in reducing cancer risk and improving outcomes.

But vaccines and medicines alone are not sufficient. We must also tackle the environments that make us sick. We cannot continue to treat people only to send them back to the same food, alcohol, and physical environments that drove ill health in the first place. Population-level prevention policies remain essential to reducing cancer incidence at scale.

Crucially, prevention is not only about avoiding diagnosis. It also supports survival and quality of life, contributing directly to living well with and beyond cancer. Good nutrition, physical activity, and maintaining a healthy weight are fundamental to recovery, rehabilitation, and long-term wellbeing. Prevention and survivorship are not competing priorities – they are mutually reinforcing.

Digital innovation as a driver of prevention

We welcome the ambition to harness digital innovation through the NHS App. By 2028, the App will allow patients to manage screening invitations, appointments, treatment plans, and prehabilitation, with personalised prevention advice drawing on genomic, lifestyle, and wearable data.

This creates a major opportunity to establish the NHS App as a trusted, accessible source of cancer prevention information, supporting people to understand and act on behaviours that can influence cancer risk over their lifetime. We would welcome the opportunity to contribute evidence-based, tried and tested prevention resources, developed and evaluated for public audiences, to support this ambition and ensure alignment with the best available science.

Prehabilitation, rehabilitation and supportive oncology

We strongly welcome the Plan’s focus on prehabilitation, rehabilitation, and supportive oncology, including dietary and physical activity advice, psychological support, and acute oncology for those with more complex needs. The evidence is clear: these interventions improve treatment tolerance, recovery, and long-term outcomes. We believe the ambition should be for these services to be available to all patients, where appropriate, as standard.

Research and the cancer workforce

Research and the cancer workforce will be central to delivering the Plan’s ambitions. While we acknowledge the focus on accelerating clinical research and innovation, there is a clear opportunity to strengthen investment in cancer prevention research, including implementation research on modifiable risk factors. Healthcare professionals must also be supported with the time, training, and tools to deliver prevention, behaviour change, and survivorship support alongside treatment.

Children and young people

We welcome the Plan’s commitment to improving nutrition for children and young people undergoing cancer treatment in acute settings. Good nutrition is fundamental to treatment tolerance, recovery, and survival. We hope this approach will be extended to all patients, and that public procurement across health settings consistently meets the highest nutritional and sustainability standards through the upcoming NHS food standards review.

Matching survival ambition with prevention action

We welcome the ambition and scope of the National Cancer Plan. The integration of prehabilitation, rehabilitation, supportive oncology, digital innovation, and prevention advice into the cancer pathway is a significant step forward.

However, there remains a missed opportunity to embed prevention at the heart of the Plan, through stronger alcohol policy, breastfeeding protection, and a dedicated focus on the modifiable risk factors that drive cancer incidence.

A Plan that matches its ambition on survival with bold, population-level prevention action will reduce cancer incidence, improve outcomes, and deliver a financially sustainable cancer strategy for generations to come.

We stand ready to work with Government, healthcare professionals, and partners to help make this ambition a reality.

> Read the National Cancer Plan on the DHSC website

It has long been established that junk food advertising drives consumption of unhealthy food and drink, shaping preferences from a young age and contributing to overweight and obesity.

The strength of the evidence base is perhaps best corroborated by the enormous advertising budgets of unhealthy food and drink companies. If advertising didn’t pay off, why would Coca-Cola allocate a whopping $5 billion to their worldwide advertising budget in 2024?

Restricting junk food advertising is therefore a powerful and proven public health measure. Yet, most recently, you may have seen measured responses from public health advocates in the UK, including World Cancer Research Fund, upon the introduction of long-awaited junk food advertising restrictions in January 2026.

Marketing regulations can underdeliver

The bottom line is that whilst the UK’s restrictions mark a step forward in protecting children’s health at a time when obesity rates continue to rise, they have been weakened and delayed by industry influence – most notably through the introduction of a sweeping brand exemption. This significantly undermines the policy in two key ways. First, it allows brands that are synonymous with foods high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) to continue being advertised – think the famous Golden Arches. Second, the lack of brand restrictions enables companies to promote entire HFSS product ranges, just not individual products. Ultimately this preserves brand visibility and influence while circumventing the spirit of the regulations.

The brand exemption is not the only weakness of the advertising restrictions. Work on this policy began as far back as 2018, and in the years since, the marketing landscape has evolved dramatically. Simply put, the regulations are not a match for the rapidly changing marketing landscape. For example, direct marketing channels, such as email and text messaging, remain unchecked, allowing unhealthy food and drink companies to continue targeting consumers.

The unseen cost of delays and dilution

The unfortunate tale of industry influence is not unique to the UK. Globally, efforts to curb the scourge of junk food on society are denied, diluted, derailed and delayed by industry.

Marketing restrictions are difficult to get over the line. In the UK, the policy was subject to five separate consultations and four delays to its rollout. That is an immense amount of government time, effort and resources. Moreover, the burden it places on the public health sector, which often operate under capacity constraints, must be acknowledged.

We also need to recognise that obesity, a key risk factor for cancer, is linked to deprivation. In many countries, those living in the most deprived areas are more likely to be living with obesity compared to those in the most affluent communities. Delays or failures to implement effective policies therefore disproportionately impact those who are already most vulnerable.

Industry opposition at full throttle

The resistance we see to advertising restrictions can partly be explained by the fact that marketing is not a peripheral commercial function. Instead, it sits at the very core of food and drink businesses, playing a pivotal role in building brand value, customer loyalty and long-term profitability.

Marketing restrictions are also unusually visible. Unlike reformulation targets or nutrient thresholds, which operate largely behind the scenes, advertising bans are immediately noticeable. They can also be drawn into wider debates around personal responsibility, censorship and creativity – making the more contested and politically charged. They tend to hit a nerve.

Recognition of these issues is not a justification for inaction. The reality is that companies by their very nature are required to innovate, and they can do so in a way that supports public health rather than undermining it.

Action must go beyond the status quo

Let’s be clear, no one is suggesting that junk food marketing restrictions alone will solve the obesity crisis. However, the version we’ve seen introduced in the UK will most certainly underdeliver, especially given the restrictions don’t sit within a broader framework of measures designed to improve the nation’s diet yet. Countries in Latin America, including Chile and Mexico, have taken more holistic approaches which embed marketing restrictions within a wider set of measures including mandatory warning labels and robust school food standards

But when governments introduce policies that appear ambitious on paper but lack the strength to deliver in practice, they risk entrenching the status quo while giving the impression of action. This pattern is not unique to food. Similar delays and dilutions are seen across alcohol, gambling and other health-harming industries, where commercial interests routinely take priority over public health.

Ultimately, the question is not what needs to be done, but what governments are willing to do to protect public health.

After years of delays, a law to ban ads for unhealthy food and drink before 9pm on TV and across online platforms, will start.

Commenting on the ban, Dr Giota Mitrou, Executive Director of Research and Science at World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) International, said:

“Marketing is a well-established driver of consumption of unhealthy foods, and children – who are the primary targets of junk food advertising by large corporations – are particularly vulnerable. These long-awaited restrictions therefore mark an important step forward in protecting children’s health.

“However, we must recognise the fact that these measures have not only been severely delayed, but also significantly weakened by broad exemptions for brand advertising.

“The scale of childhood obesity crisis demands greater and more far-reaching action. The latest data shows that 10.5% of children in Reception and 22.2% of children in Year 6 are living with obesity, with prevalence more than double in the most deprived areas compared with the least deprived.

“The UK government must expand the range of products in scope of the ban, removing brand exemptions, and extend protections to the outdoor environment. We must not let large corporations’ water down and undermine efforts to give all children the healthiest start.

World Cancer Research Fund remains committed to working with the government to address obesity, which is a cause of at least at least 13 types of cancer.”

Delay to the junk food marketing restrictions

In 2020 – as part of its Obesity Strategy – the government under Boris Johnson promised to implement a ban on products that were high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) online and before 9pm on TV, saying it would come into force by 2023.

However, under pressure from industry, the enforcement was delayed while a further review was undertaken.

These delays mean that today’s implementation will be three years later than originally promised, and severely weakened.

Research has demonstrated that children eat significantly more calories in a day, after watching just 5 minutes of junk food advertising.

Building Momentum report

In 2020, World Cancer Research fund produced its Building Momentum report showing the lessons of implementing robust restrictions of food and non-alcoholic beverage marketing to children

The original CMA study made 11 important recommendations to bring the UK closer in line with international standards, address high formula prices and tackle inappropriate marketing practices.

Crucially, these important recommendations by the CMA also serve to ensure that breastfeeding – which protects babies against overweight and obesity, and mothers against breast cancer – is not undermined.

The long-awaited response from the UK government and four nations sets out several positive steps. It is encouraging to see commitments to make information for parent’s clearer in retail settings, clarify what constitutes advertising and give families more flexible ways to pay for formula.

These actions are welcome, but ultimately addressing excessively high formula prices remains the most equitable and impactful way to support families – especially during a cost-of-living crisis.

We also welcome the government’s intention to explore recommendations that would extend advertising restrictions to follow-on formula and require manufacturers to clearly show on product labels that all formula meets nutritional requirements and avoid vague or misleading claims.

These measures are vital to ensure parents receive clear, unbiased information in all settings and that marketing practices are fair and transparent.

However, it is disappointing that some recommendations – such as introducing standardised packaging in hospitals and establishing a pre-approval process for labels – have not been taken forward at this stage.

We are also clear that relying on voluntary action from manufacturers is unlikely to deliver meaningful change in a market dominated by a few large companies. We hope the government keeps this under review and does not shy away from mandatory measures if needed in future.

Kate Oldridge-Turner, Head of Policy and Public Affairs, said:

‘Infant nutrition is a public health priority with lifelong implications, including for cancer risk. The government’s response is a positive step forward in improving information provided to families about breast milk substitutes for those who need them. We are keen to work with government to ensure that every family has access to affordable products and services they need to ensure the best start in life for their child – and that they are protected from insidious marketing practices that skew feeding choices.’

January: Setting the scene for prevention

We started the year strongly with the launch of our Policy Blueprint for Cancer Prevention, our new flagship advocacy tool outlining a clear roadmap for policymakers to curb rising cancer rates through prevention. Bringing together evidence and policy guidance across diet, weight, breastfeeding, physical activity, and alcohol, the blueprint offers practical tools and factsheets to support healthier environments and reduce inequities.

It also highlights the wider co-benefits of prevention for resilient health systems, economies, and societies. Since launch, it has been downloaded 1433 times (and is our 5th most popular download) and presented at 2 conferences.

February: Taking international nutrition policy to UK Parliament

We participated in our first Obesity Health Alliance parliamentary event, meeting with the Minister for Prevention and 11 other Members of Parliament (MPs) to share our expertise in international nutrition policy.

We highlighted the link between obesity and cancer and the need for an integrated policy approach, as set out in our Policy Blueprint for Cancer Prevention.

We also shared best practice examples from other countries that the UK can learn from – critically demonstrating to MPs that it is possible for the UK to take meaningful action on obesity.

March: Welcoming new Policy Advisory Group members

Our Policy Advisory Group brings together leading policy experts from government, academia, and civil society around the world to guide WCRF’s efforts to turn evidence into action.

In March we officially welcomed four new members to the group: Dr Henry Li (UK), Dr Terry Slevin (Australia), Pubudu Sumanasekara (Sri Lanka), and Dr Si Thu Win Tin (Fiji) – expanding the group’s expertise to include more of our policy priority areas and increasing regional representation.

Ahead of the Budget, the Chancellor said it would deliver on the priorities of the British people to cut waiting lists, national debt and the cost of living.

In response to the Autumn Budget 2025, Kate Oldrige Turner, Head of Policy and Public Affairs at World Cancer Research Fund said:

“Almost half of cancer cases are preventable by addressing key risk factors such as obesity and alcohol, so we are pleased to see the UK Government take concrete steps on prevention in this Autumn Budget.

“The expansion of the UK’s world-leading levy on sugar-sweetened beverages to include milk-based drinks and plant-milk alternatives, alongside lowering the sugar threshold to 4.5g per 100ml, are particularly welcome measures. This will build on the immense success of the levy, which has reduced the average sugar content of drinks sold in the UK by almost half since it was introduced. Crucially, it will drive further reformulation and ensure that more drinks sold to consumers are healthier.

The World Cancer Research Fund International Policy Advisory Group (PAG) brings together leading policy experts from government, academia, and civil society around the world to guide WCRF’s efforts to turn evidence into action.

Established in 2015, the group advises on how to identify and communicate evidence effectively to policymakers and advance cancer prevention efforts. Its role is to highlight critical needs, overcome barriers to implementation, and strengthen alliances that can drive wider uptake of effective cancer prevention policies.

In this blog, we put a set of pressing global public health questions to the group, inviting them to share their insights on how best to steer policy and action in cancer prevention worldwide.

Elevating NCDs on the global agenda

NCDs have historically received less attention than infectious diseases, but PAG members agree that this is beginning to shift – albeit slowly. Dr Feisul Mustapha (Ministry of Health, Malaysia) notes that ageing populations, fiscal pressure, and post-COVID backlogs make NCDs unavoidable.

However, as Dr Si Thu Win Tin (Pacific Community, Fiji) observes, recognition has not translated into concrete action and funding investment to address NCDs, particularly in vulnerable regions such as Pacific small island developing states (SIDS).

Dr Henry Li (Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, UK) reframes the argument: NCDs are not a crisis but a structural economic challenge, threatening productivity, social stability, and fiscal sustainability.

All members agree that NCDs must be positioned beyond the health sector. Dr Feisul emphasises embedding NCDs into universal health coverage (UHC), climate policy, and development financing. Dr Win Tin calls for integration into health security and resilience agendas to unlock funding, while Dr Li highlights the need for life-course approaches to manage long-term costs.

Financing must pivot toward prevention, using measures such as earmarked taxes on tobacco, alcohol, and sugary drinks, subsidy reform, pooled procurement, and domestic co-financing, matched with catalytic international support.

Political will and sustainable delivery models are critical: prevention must be framed as essential to economic and social stability, not optional.

Policy interventions for maximum impact

When asked which interventions should be prioritised, the PAG highlighted both structural durability and innovation. Professor Shiriki Kumanyika (University of Pennsylvania, USA) reframes the question by considering what has shown least impact: behavioural interventions alone have a limited population-level effect in the absence of structural solutions.

Additionally, new pharmaceutical treatments like GLP-1s are changing policy expectations. Evidence is now needed on how these therapies can support primary and secondary cancer prevention while reinforcing dietary and nutrition policy measures.

Dr Li highlights structural policies – sugary drink taxes, marketing restrictions, and urban planning—not for maximum efficacy, but because they are politically durable and difficult to reverse. He also suggests pairing prevention with early detection technologies as a “Trojan horse” to attract investment and political momentum, ultimately benefiting longer-term preventive strategies. Collectively, these insights emphasise balancing innovation, feasibility, and sustainability in prevention policy.

The case for prevention

Prevention remains the most neglected pillar of cancer control, yet it is essential for sustainability. Dr Pubudu Sumanasekara (Movendi International, Sri Lanka) points out that prevention reduces demand on treatment services, empowers communities, and embeds healthier norms into daily life.

Michelle Halligan (Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, Canada) provides evidence from Canada: prevention is central to the national strategy because it reduces incidence and healthcare costs. Tobacco alone costs $16.2 billion annually, including $6.5 billion in direct healthcare costs. Prevention strategies – from supporting smoking cessation to promoting healthier lifestyles—save lives, reduce inequities, and protect public finances.

Dr Li adds a political lens: prevention is often unrewarding in the short term. Politicians prefer visible treatment projects, while prevention yields long-term gains. He recommends creating early wins, building unusual coalitions with employers, insurers, and urban planners, framing prevention as an economic opportunity, and leveraging health system crises to demonstrate that prevention is the only sustainable solution. Prevention must be reframed as an essential, politically relevant pillar of cancer control.

Equity in policy

Ensuring policies reach underserved populations is critical. Dr Feisul emphasises building equity into design from the outset: remove user fees, use disaggregated data, co-create with communities, and finance outreach.

In low- and middle-income countries, delivery models such as community health workers, mobile clinics, workplace hubs, HPV self-sampling, single-visit screen-and-treat programs, and patient support for travel and childcare are essential. Continuous monitoring and course-correcting ensure equitable coverage.

Halligan advocates proportionate universalism: combining universal access with targeted approaches ensures equity-denied populations are served while maintaining broad reach. Building trust and co-developing culturally safe services is essential. Professor Kumanyika suggests clarifying definitions of equity to guide concrete policy actions.

Dr Li cautions that rigid equity-first approaches can slow progress. Instead, he recommends designing universal programmes that can scale, then addressing gaps through adaptive, iterative policy interventions. Equity emerges most effectively from sustainable, abundant delivery systems rather than as a precondition that restricts innovation.

Partnerships for scale

Partnerships are vital to scaling cancer prevention. Dr Feisul identifies four priority collaborations:

• governments with civil society for accountability and last-mile delivery
• academia for research and implementation evaluation
• private sector actors for regulated co-delivery via logistics, workplaces, and digital tools
• and multilateral agencies and philanthropy for catalytic funding.

Dr Sumanasekara emphasises government coordination to align stakeholders, including media and private sector actors. Michelle Halligan highlights trust-based, reciprocal partnerships with communities historically excluded from decision-making (such as Indigenous peoples in Canada).

In the Pacific region, Dr Win Tin stresses the importance of regional organisations, communities, faith-based groups, and private-sector engagement. Professor Kumanyika adds that partnerships should link cancer prevention with human rights and environmental sustainability.

Dr Li warns that many partnerships fail because organisations optimise for their own visibility rather than shared outcomes. Successful partnerships create new delivery entities with shared risk, governance, and accountability, focusing on population-level outcomes. Examples include joint ventures between governments, tech companies, and payers, or employer–healthcare provider collaborations responsible for long-term employee health. Effective partnerships are about delivery, not coordination.

Under-recognised priorities

Several priorities remain under-recognised globally. Dr Sumanasekara identifies alcohol as a major neglected cancer risk factor: its social and economic costs are poorly researched, public awareness is low, and industry interference slows policy progress. Harm to others beyond individual users is especially overlooked, highlighting the need for communication strategies that change behaviour.

Dr Li points to systemic gaps: insufficient workforce for prevention, lack of implementation science, and inadequate interoperable data systems to coordinate care and target high-risk populations. Dr Win Tin notes that political and commercial pressures frequently block well-evidenced fiscal and regulatory interventions.

Dr Li emphasises that the disconnect is political rather than scientific: research must focus not only on what works, but on how to implement interventions successfully within complex political and institutional environments.

Underserved populations

PAG members highlight populations most overlooked in research. Dr Win Tin points to small island populations, indigenous communities, and remote rural areas, whose cultural, environmental, and dietary contexts are rarely studied, leaving policy misaligned with local realities.

Dr Li adds middle-income countries experiencing rapid urbanisation, where high-risk populations outpace health system capacity. He also notes populations outside traditional health system reach, including specific employment or demographic groups. Dr Li stresses that the central challenge is not evidence generation – World Cancer Research Fund and others already provide robust data – but translating it into politically sustainable and implementable policies that reach the populations who need them most.

Conclusion

Across these discussions, several consistent themes emerge.

• NCDs and cancer prevention are economic, social, and development imperatives, not optional health priorities.
• Prevention must be central, politically framed, and paired with structural interventions that endure. Equity should be embedded into delivery systems but approached pragmatically to avoid stifling innovation.
• Partnerships must move beyond coordination to create delivery-focused entities with shared accountability.
• Under-recognised risks such as alcohol, underserved populations, and implementation challenges demand greater attention.
• Finally, closing the gap between evidence and policy requires understanding political economy, incentivising prevention, and designing sustainable systems capable of delivering at scale.

Collectively, the PAG’s insights provide a roadmap for elevating cancer prevention and NCD policies globally: combine robust evidence with political strategy, innovate delivery, embed equity, and scale impact through partnerships aligned around outcomes rather than institutional interests.