Latest news and blogs

Rachael Hutson, CEO at World Cancer Research Fund, commented:

On social media, he’s the ‘mum’ you should listen to and laugh along with! So, who better to raise awareness of cancer prevention and the importance of research in this area? We’re incredibly pleased that Richard is supporting this challenge. Around four in ten cancers are preventable, and with the help of Richard and everyone who donates, we’re taking important steps to reduce that risk.

You can follow Richard on TikTok at @richardfrankscomedy, and find out how to get involved with the challenge below:

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.