16th February 2026
Walk through any Scottish supermarket, scroll through social media, or sit through a commercial break on TV, and you'll see the same thing. A relentless parade of burgers dripping with cheese, fizzy drinks fizzing in slow motion, chocolate bars snapping seductively, and energy drinks promising power, focus, or rebellion. This is HFSS marketing — High Fat, Salt and Sugar products and it's everywhere.
But while HFSS advertising affects everyone, it doesn't affect everyone equally. In rural communities like Caithness, Sutherland, Moray, the Borders, and the islands, the impact is deeper, more structural, and far more damaging. The health inequalities that already exist in these areas are widened by a marketing ecosystem designed to push the cheapest, least nutritious foods to the people with the fewest alternatives.
This is not just a public‑health issue. It's a rural‑justice issue.
The Rural Reality: Fewer Choices, Higher Prices, Worse Outcomes
In cities, HFSS marketing competes with a wide range of alternatives: fresh food markets, multiple supermarkets, independent cafes, and healthier fast‑casual chains. In rural Scotland, the landscape is very different.
1. Limited food retail options
Many rural towns have:
One supermarket
A couple of convenience stores
No fresh‑food market
No affordable healthy takeaway options
When HFSS brands flood social media with adverts for cheap, calorie‑dense food, rural consumers have fewer realistic alternatives.
2. Higher cost of healthy food
Fresh fruit, vegetables, lean meat and fish are consistently more expensive in rural Scotland due to:
Transport costs
Limited competition
Seasonal availability
HFSS products, by contrast, are cheap, shelf‑stable, and aggressively promoted.
3. Food deserts and long travel distances
In Caithness, a "quick shop" can mean a 40‑mile round trip.
HFSS snacks, ready meals and sugary drinks fill the gap because they're available everywhere — petrol stations, corner shops, vending machines.
4. Lower incomes and higher deprivation
Many rural areas have:
Lower wages
Higher fuel costs
Fewer job opportunities
HFSS marketing exploits this by pushing "value" products that are cheap upfront but costly in long‑term health.
The Digital Divide: Social Media Makes It Worse
HFSS marketing has shifted from TV to TikTok, Instagram and YouTube — platforms where young people in rural areas spend more time because there are fewer local leisure options.
What young people see online
"Mukbang" binge‑eating videos
Influencers promoting fast‑food deals
Viral challenges involving sweets, energy drinks or snacks
Sponsored content disguised as lifestyle posts
This is not passive advertising. It’s engineered persuasion.
And because rural teens often have:
Fewer sports clubs
Fewer youth facilities
Fewer safe outdoor spaces
Less access to affordable healthy food
...the influence of HFSS marketing lands harder.
The Health Impact: Rural Scotland Already Starts Behind
Public‑health data consistently shows that rural and northern Scotland face:
Higher rates of obesity
Higher rates of type‑2 diabetes
Higher rates of heart disease
Lower access to preventative healthcare
HFSS marketing pours petrol on a fire that’s already burning.
Why?
Because it normalises:
Sugary drinks as everyday staples
Fast food as a default meal
Snacks as emotional comfort
Energy drinks as a lifestyle
And it does so in communities where healthier choices are harder to access.
The Economic Impact: HFSS Marketing Undermines Local Food Economies
HFSS brands don’t just harm health — they harm local economies.
1. They displace local producers
When a £1 chocolate bar is advertised 20 times a day, it’s harder for:
Local bakers
Butchers
Fishmongers
Farm shops
to compete.
2. They drain money out of rural communities
HFSS brands are multinational.
Every pound spent on them leaves the local economy.
3. They shape demand away from local food
Marketing creates habits.
Habits shape markets.
Markets shape survival.
HFSS marketing pushes rural diets towards products that rural areas don’t produce — and away from the foods they do.
The Psychological Impact: Normalising Poor Health
HFSS marketing doesn’t just sell products. It sells identity.
It tells young people:
This is what fun looks like
This is what friendship looks like
This is what reward looks like
This is what comfort looks like
In rural areas where:
Mental‑health services are stretched
Social isolation is common
Youth facilities are limited
...HFSS marketing fills the emotional void with sugar, salt and fat.
Why Rural Communities Need Protection Most
HFSS advertising restrictions — including the UK’s upcoming online and TV bans — are often framed as national policies. But their benefits will be felt most strongly in rural areas.
Because rural communities:
Have fewer alternatives
Face higher health risks
Have weaker local economies
Are more exposed to digital marketing
Have less access to preventative services
Protecting them from HFSS saturation is not "nanny‑statism".
It’s levelling the playing field.
What Needs to Happen Next
If Scotland is serious about reducing health inequality, it must:
1. Enforce HFSS advertising restrictions rigorously
Especially on social media platforms.
2. Support rural food access
Subsidise fresh produce in remote areas.
3. Invest in local food economies
Back butchers, bakers, fishers, growers.
4. Provide alternatives for young people
Youth clubs, sports facilities, safe spaces.
5. Treat HFSS marketing as a structural issue
Not an individual failing.
Rural Scotland Deserves Better Than Junk‑Food Saturation
HFSS marketing is not harmless.
It is not background noise.
It is not "just advertising".
It is a system designed to push the cheapest, least nutritious products to the people with the fewest choices — and rural Scotland is on the front line.
Communities like Caithness deserve better than a diet shaped by algorithms and multinational brands. They deserve access, affordability, dignity, and health. And that starts with recognising HFSS marketing for what it is: a driver of inequality, a threat to rural wellbeing, and a barrier to a fairer Scotland.
The Unhealthiest Items Commonly Advertised on TV & Social Media
The UK Government and public‑health bodies classify “unhealthy” products as HFSS foods — High in Fat, Salt or Sugar. These are the products at the centre of new advertising restrictions coming into force between 2025 and 2026.
Cancer Research UK’s 2025 Digital Influence study shows that these products dominate young people’s social media feeds, especially on TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube.
Below is a breakdown of the main categories and specific examples of the unhealthiest items most heavily promoted.
1. Fast Food & Takeaway Chains
These are among the most aggressively marketed HFSS products.
Typical items advertised
Burgers (double/triple patties, cheese‑loaded)
Fried chicken buckets and wings
Loaded fries
High‑sugar milkshakes
Pizza with stuffed crusts and high‑fat toppings
Why they’re classed as unhealthy
High saturated fat
High salt
High calorie density
Evidence
Young people report constant exposure to “gooey burgers, frothy milkshakes and pillowy desserts” on social media feeds.
2. Sugary Drinks
These are among the most harmful products for obesity and tooth decay.
Commonly advertised
Full‑sugar fizzy drinks
Energy drinks
Sweetened iced teas
High‑sugar smoothies and frappes
Why they’re harmful
Extremely high free‑sugar content
Linked to childhood obesity and dental decay
Evidence
The UK Government explicitly includes sugary drinks in its HFSS advertising restrictions.
3. Confectionery & Sweet Snacks
These are some of the most heavily promoted items to children and teens.
Commonly advertised
Chocolate bars
Sweets and gummies
Ice cream
High‑sugar biscuits
Dessert pots
Why they’re harmful
High sugar
Often high saturated fat
Strong link to childhood obesity
Evidence
The Government’s junk‑food ad ban is designed to reduce children’s exposure to these products.
4. Ultra‑Processed Foods (UPFs)
These dominate supermarket promotions and online ads.
Commonly advertised
Ready meals
Instant noodles
Frozen pizzas
Processed meats (sausages, nuggets, hot dogs)
Snack pots and microwaveable pasta
Why they’re harmful
High salt
High fat
Additives and low nutritional value
Evidence
UPFs fall squarely under HFSS rules and are targeted by upcoming online ad bans.
5. High‑Sugar Breakfast Cereals
Often marketed as “healthy” but heavily sweetened.
Commonly advertised
Chocolate cereals
Honey‑coated cereals
Frosted flakes
Granola clusters with added sugar
Why they’re harmful
High sugar content
Marketed to children
Evidence
These products are included in HFSS classifications used for advertising restrictions.
6. High‑Fat Savoury Snacks
These are aggressively marketed during sports events and on social media.
Commonly advertised
Crisps
Nachos
Popcorn with added butter/caramel
Cheese snacks
Why they’re harmful
High salt
High fat
Encourages overeating
Evidence
Public‑health bodies warn that HFSS snack marketing strongly influences young people’s eating habits.
7. Alcohol (especially on social media)
While not part of HFSS rules, alcohol is a major health concern and widely advertised.
Commonly advertised
Spirits
Cocktails
Hard seltzers
Craft beers
Pre‑mixed cans
Why it’s harmful
High calorie content
Linked to long‑term health risks
Often marketed in aspirational lifestyle content
Evidence
Although not covered by HFSS rules, alcohol marketing is recognised as a public‑health issue in parallel with junk‑food advertising.
8. Vapes & Nicotine Products
Not food — but heavily advertised online, especially to young people.
Commonly advertised
Disposable vapes
Flavoured nicotine products
Why they’re harmful
Addictive
Often marketed with sweet flavours mimicking confectionery
Evidence
Public‑health bodies warn about crossover marketing between vape flavours and HFSS aesthetics (e.g., “cotton candy”, “bubblegum”).
Why These Ads Matter
The UK Government states that exposure to unhealthy food advertising directly shapes children’s eating habits, contributing to obesity and long‑term health problems.
This is why the UK is introducing:
TV HFSS advertising restrictions
Online HFSS advertising bans from 2025-26
And why public‑health bodies are calling for even stronger controls on social‑media marketing.