More policy-related news and blogs

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.

With the UK Labour Party in government for just over a year, this year’s Party conference provided a valuable opportunity to take stock of the progress made on health and identify areas in need of improvement.

Academics, people with lived experience, and experts from thinktanks and charities congregated in Liverpool in September to share how the government can be bolder on prevention – here are my top five takeaways:

1) Tackle poverty alongside prevention

Just before conference, the government published its 10 Year Health Plan for England, setting out a raft of policy priorities to achieve its health mission. Positively, a key theme throughout the Plan was the need to tackle health inequalities – the systematic and unfair differences in health between different groups of people – especially through prevention.

At an IPPR and Impact on Urban Health fringe event, “Can the Government deliver its long-term health mission?”, speakers made impassioned pleas about the need to address the social determinants of health. Dr Sonia Adesara, a practising GP and Vice Chair of the Fabian Society, explained that while she may be able to treat the symptoms and health issues that manifest as a result of living in poverty, such efforts are in vain if the government does not tackle the root causes of ill health.

These drivers are wide ranging, from poor food environments, where junk food is the cheapest and most available option, to substandard housing. Crucially, addressing them requires the adoption of a truly cross-governmental approach. As Peter Babudu, the Executive Director at Impact on Urban Health, put it, even the Department for Health and Social Care at its very best cannot tackle these complex issues alone.

These are subjects World Cancer Research Fund has engaged with significantly through our blog series on health inequality and cancer.

2) Prioritise public health over industry interests

Another hot topic at conference was the need to place public health above vested interest. The history of industry derailing, delaying and diluting public health policy in pursuit of profit has long been documented both in the UK and abroad. Yet, the food and drink industry continues to play a key role in various policy development processes under Labour.

The delayed junk food marketing ban provides a clear example of why the government needs to make a concerted effort to tackle vested interests. October was meant to see the implementation of a key manifesto pledge: a watershed ban on junk food advertisements. Instead, the ban, which could have a profound effect on reducing childhood obesity, has been delayed yet again. Worse, industry lobbying has resulted in a complete brand exemption. In practice, this means that products like Cadbury Diary Milk, Mars bars, and Coca-Cola can still be advertised because they are not only products but brands as well.

Walking through the exhibition hall, the presence of industry was hard to miss, with prominent stands for Heineken and Sainsbury’s – a reminder that just like those of us in public health, industry is also working hard to influence government.

3) Bring the public along on prevention

Action to improve public health is often depicted, especially in the media, as “nanny-statism”. At Nesta’s event, “How can the government make its health reforms a success?”, Kevin McKenna, the MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey and a former NHS strategist, insisted that we need to communicate more clearly with the public about why the 3 health shifts (sickness to prevention, analogue to digital, and hospital to community) are so important. Ultimately, we need a more compelling case to counter the “nanny-state” narrative, which does not reflect the public’s views. Polling consistently shows strong support for government action to improve health and reduce inequalities.

Meanwhile, at Demos’ fringe “Prevention: From overlooked to mission critical”, Prof Gurch Randhawa, Director of the Institute for Health Research, emphasised the importance of approaching prevention in a culturally sensitive manner so that everyone benefits. For example, schemes providing healthy food to those in need must take into consideration the food preferences and dietary requirements of the diverse communities they serve.

The task of bringing the public along on the prevention agenda does not rely solely on the government – charities, including ourselves, can play an important role. Our brilliant Health Information team’s work educating the public on how they can reduce their risk of developing cancer through good nutrition and an active lifestyle is just one example.

4) Beware the temptation of silver bullets

Despite the recognition of the need for a health-in-all-policies approach, the temptation of “silver bullets” and quick fixes loomed. This was particularly notable in discussions around weight-loss jabs.

In the UK, obesity is the second biggest cause of cancer after smoking. Addressing this crisis requires a coordinated approach that includes both prevention and equitable access to treatment. However, in his conference speech, the Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, didn’t quite echo these sentiments. Instead, he declared that “weight-loss jabs could help us finally defeat obesity”, while failing to mention the need to fix our broken food environment.

The hype around weight-loss drugs was reflected in long queues for a New Statesman event hosted in partnership with Eli Lily, a pharmaceutical company that produces appetite suppressants.

Wearable tech also came up in a similar context, with suggestions that it could revolutionise how individuals take charge of their own health. It was positive that the need for digital inclusion was recognised, but again, we need to ensure that proven policy interventions, such as salt and sugar taxes, remain the first port of call.

5) Reducing alcohol harm is key

One glaring omission was the absence of discussion on alcohol harm, especially given that alcohol deaths have reached record highs across the UK.

Charities including the Forward Trust ensured the issue was still on the agenda, hosting a sober reception as part of their work to advocate for alcohol-free spaces at conference.

We also highlighted alcohol harm, building on this summer’s Cancer Prevention Action Week, which sparked a national discussion on the link between alcohol and cancer. This included meeting with Dr Scott Arthur MP at conference to discuss alcohol-related cancer and the urgent need for government to deliver on its commitment to introduce mandatory alcohol labelling, ensuring that labels make the cancer risk of alcohol explicit.

The prevention mission is here to stay

Despite the long way we have to go, one thing is abundantly clear: the prevention mission is here to stay.

Fortunately, there are several critical influencing opportunities on the horizon where the government can apply these lessons from conference, such as the forthcoming National Food Strategy. Over the coming months, we’ll be working hard to hold the government to account in delivering on cancer prevention and survivorship.

If you’d like to keep up to date with our work, sign up to our monthly Policy and Public Affairs newsletter. If you have any thoughts on what we’ve covered in this blog, we’d love to hear from you! Get in touch with us at policy@wcrf.org.