Consultation outcome

Banning the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks to children: consultation outcome

Updated 16 July 2026

Summary

Background

This document sets out the outcome of the consultation on the proposal to ban the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks to children. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) consultation ran from 3 September 2025 to 26 November 2025. We received 1,095 responses from individuals sharing their personal and professional views, and on behalf of organisations.

This document highlights the main themes identified through the responses to the consultation and provides an analysis of the responses to each question. It sets out the:

• government’s response to the views raised in the consultation
• government’s decisions
• next steps

We are grateful to everyone who responded. All responses were carefully considered, and the views, information and evidence submitted informed the government’s policy decision and consultation outcome.

Results

Overall, 90% of respondents agreed with the government’s proposal to ban the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks based on age. Most individual respondents, professionals and organisations supported a minimum age of sale, including organisations in the health, education, research and local government sectors, as well as non-government organisations.

Views from food and drink industry organisations were more mixed. We heard clear concerns from some respondents about the proportionality of a ban, the strength of the evidence, and the effect on businesses and consumers.

Outcome

After careful consideration of the consultation responses and available evidence, the government has decided to introduce legislation to ban the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks to children under the age of 16 years in England.

Further detail, including the scope and enforcement, is set out in the relevant sections below and summarised in the consultation outcome section.

Next steps

The government will take forward secondary legislation under the Food Safety Act 1990 to ban the sale of high‑caffeine energy drinks to children, subject to usual Parliamentary processes and scrutiny. We expect the ban to come into force in April 2027.

Why we held this consultation

Evidence suggests a link between high‑caffeine energy drinks and negative outcomes for children’s physical and mental health, in addition to their education (Ajibo and others, 2024). These drinks must carry a warning label that they are not recommended for children, with many retailers introducing voluntary restrictions on their sale to children under 16 years. However, research suggests some retailers continue to sell these drinks to children (Vogel and others, 2022). There is widespread concern among parents, teachers and health organisations about their potential effect on children. Several countries across Europe and central Asia have already taken action to ban the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks to children.

DHSC consulted on proposals for a ban on the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks to children. The consultation asked whether an age restriction should be introduced in England and sought views on proposals, including:

• the minimum age of sale
• the products and businesses that would be in scope
• how the ban should apply in vending machines
• time needed for implementation
• how we propose enforcing the ban

Who responded

The consultation was open for 12 weeks from 3 September to 26 November 2025.

In total, we received 1,095 responses. Of these, 1,094 responses were submitted through the online survey, and one response was received by email.

We heard from:

• 734 (67%) individuals sharing their personal views
• 214 (20%) individuals sharing their professional views
• 147 (13%) organisations

Of individual respondents sharing their personal or professional views, 738 (78%) were parents, carers or guardians. Over half of these said they have a child aged under 16 years.

Of individuals sharing their professional views, we heard from:

• 61 (29%) healthcare professionals
• 59 (28%) education professionals
• 38 (18%) local government professionals
• 17 (8%) food and drink industry professionals
• 14 (7%) academia or research professionals
• 9 (4%) non-government organisation professionals
• 9 (4%) other professionals
• 7 (3%) preferred not to say

We received responses on behalf of organisations in these sectors:

• 47 (32%) vending machine organisations
• 34 (23%) local government organisations
• 21 (14%) non-government organisations
• 13 (9%) trade organisations representing businesses affected by the policy
• 7 (5%) other organisations
• 6 (4%) education organisations
• 6 (4%) manufacturers
• 6 (4%) retailers
• 4 (3%) academia or research organisations
• 3 (2%) healthcare organisations

How we analysed the responses

The consultation design

The consultation had 2 main sections:

• the action we propose taking
• how we propose enforcing the ban

Respondents may have answered different questions, depending on their previous answers. For example, respondents who disagreed with the proposed ban overall could choose whether to answer questions about the proposals for the ban or skip them. People who answered questions about the action we propose taking could then choose whether to answer questions about how we propose enforcing the ban or skip them.

All respondents were asked for:

• their views on the effect of the proposals on people who share protected characteristics
• any further information or evidence we should consider in the impact assessment (including the option to submit up to 3 files)
• any further matters they would like to raise relating to the consultation

Most of the consultation questions included a closed multiple choice tick-box-style question, as well as an optional free-text box (maximum 300 words). Respondents could use this to provide any specific information or evidence to support their answer.

If respondents disagreed with a specific proposal, they were asked what alternative approach we should take and why.

Methods

We summarised responses to the closed tick-box-style questions using counts and percentages for each answer option and examined how responses varied between groups where relevant.

For the open-ended questions, we manually reviewed the free-text answers and grouped them into themes. One answer could include multiple themes to reflect when respondents raised more than one point. We counted how often each theme appeared in response to each question to determine how frequently it was raised.

Some respondents used the free‑text box to raise issues that were not directly related to the question, or individual views that that did not form a shared theme. We have not included these in the thematic summaries.

Respondents could raise multiple points in a single response. As a result, theme counts may exceed the number of respondents. Where percentages are presented for themes, these are based on respondents who provided a free‑text response to that question, rather than all respondents. Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

Data cleaning

In a small number of responses, respondents answered questions that should not have been asked, based on the survey routing. This appears to have happened where respondents subsequently changed an earlier answer that affected their route through the survey. For consistency, we have removed responses to questions that respondents should not have been asked based on the survey routing. All other valid responses from those respondents were kept.

Interpreting the results

The qualitative analysis highlights the main themes raised by respondents, who agreed with or disagreed with each proposal. In some cases, one group (that is, those who agreed or those who disagreed) raised more issues than another. This reflects the range of views expressed, rather than the relative strength or weight of opinion.

The action we propose taking

Banning the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks based on age

Respondents were asked if they agreed or disagreed with the proposal to ban the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks based on age.

Of 1,095 respondents who answered this question:

• 990 (90%) agreed with the proposal
• 16 (1%) neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal
• 86 (8%) disagreed with the proposal
• 3 (less than 1%) said they didn’t know

Support was highest among individuals sharing their personal or professional views, with 96% of those sharing personal views agreeing with the ban, and 94% of those sharing professional views.

In comparison, support among organisations was lower overall, with 60% agreeing with the ban, varying by organisation type.

The organisational sectors with the highest levels of agreement were:

• academia or research (4 organisations, 100%)
• education (6 organisations,100%)
• healthcare (3 organisations,100%)
• local government (33 organisations, 97%)
• non-government organisations (20 organisations, 95%)

The organisational sectors showing the highest levels of disagreement were:

• the vending sector (35 organisations, 74%)
• manufacturers of high-caffeine energy drinks (4 organisations, 67%)
• trade organisations representing businesses affected by the policy (7 organisations, 54%)

Of the respondents who agreed with the proposal, 546 (55%) provided further information or evidence to support their answer. Themes raised included:

• concerns about links between children’s consumption of high-caffeine energy drinks and a broad range of negative outcomes for their physical and mental health, in addition to their education and behaviour in school, based on personal views, anecdotes, or with references to published evidence
• support for the policy intent and its potential effect on protecting children’s health, alongside views that high-caffeine energy drinks are not suitable for children
• concerns about marketing of high-caffeine energy drinks to children

Of the respondents who disagreed with the proposal, 69 (80%) provided further information or evidence to support their answer. Themes raised included:

• concerns that the proposed ban is not proportionate or supported by the available evidence, including references to:

  • the lack of causal evidence
  • the lack of regulatory reviews on safety, such as from the UK Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment and the European Food Standards Authority
  • conclusions by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee in 2018 and the Scottish Government in 2023 that they considered the evidence insufficient to justify a ban
• references to research that suggests children are not high consumers of high-caffeine energy drinks, and that most of their caffeine intake comes from other dietary sources, such as tea and coffee
• references to voluntary action already taken by retailers, manufacturers and the vending sector not to sell or market these products to children under 16 years, alongside existing legal requirements to label high-caffeine energy drinks as not recommended for children
• specific concerns about a complete ban on the sale of high‑caffeine energy drinks through vending machines

Regardless of whether respondents agreed or disagreed with the proposal, a small number suggested additional or alternative policy actions that the government could take in relation to high-caffeine energy drinks. These included:

• educational campaigns aimed at children and parents about the potential harms of high-caffeine energy drinks
• restricting the advertising and marketing of high-caffeine energy drinks to children
• changes to packaging, including reducing colourful designs or adding clearer health warnings

Government response

Having considered the consultation responses and the available evidence, the government has decided to ban the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks based on age. The decision on the age threshold is set out in the section on the minimum age of sale.

The consultation responses showed strong support for restricting the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks to children. Most respondents, including individuals, professionals and organisations that focus on children’s health and education, supported a ban based on age.

Views within some organisations were more mixed, with some parts of the food and drink industry raising concerns about:

• whether a ban is proportionate
• whether the evidence is strong enough
• the potential effect on businesses and consumers

We have considered these concerns in reaching our decision.

The evidence

Many respondents who agreed with a ban highlighted concerns that high-caffeine energy drinks are not suitable for children and referred to links with a range of negative health, behavioural and education outcomes. These views drew on personal experience as well as references to published evidence.

Those who disagreed argued that the evidence is not strong enough to justify a ban, including:

• the absence of evidence establishing a causal relationship
• references to previous reviews that concluded the evidence base was insufficient to support taking action

For example, in 2018, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s Energy drinks inquiry concluded that while the scientific evidence was not sufficient to justify a ban, it could be legitimate based on societal concerns and the qualitative evidence, including the experience of schoolteachers. In their 2019 statement on energy drinks (PDF, 411KB, archived in 2020), the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment said that children’s consumption of high-caffeine energy drinks is a complex social issue. We have considered these views in reaching our decision.

We recognise it is not possible to say from the type of evidence available that high-caffeine energy drinks directly cause these outcomes. There are ethical and feasibility issues limiting the ability to undertake causal research on this topic in children, meaning that the evidence base is necessarily observational and complex (Ajibo and others, 2024).

While the evidence is not definitive, it consistently identifies associations between consuming high-caffeine energy drinks and a range of negative outcomes for children. There is also wider concern, including from parents, teachers and health organisations, about the potential effect of these products on children.

We also recognise that different countries have taken different approaches. Some have introduced age restrictions on the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks to children, including Norway, Poland and Lithuania. Other countries have chosen not to act at this stage, based on their assessment of the available evidence. For example, after the consultation on ending the sale of energy drinks to children and young people in Scotland, the Scottish Government decided in 2023 not to introduce a ban. These decisions reflect different judgements about the available evidence and policy priorities.

On balance, we consider the evidence sufficient when considered alongside wider societal concern, to support taking action in England to protect children’s health.

Some respondents who disagreed with the ban highlighted evidence that children are not high consumers of high-caffeine energy drinks. However, research suggests that large numbers of UK children regularly consume high‑caffeine energy drinks, with up to one-third of those aged 13 to 16 reporting weekly consumption (Khouja and others, 2022).

While consumption levels may not be high at a population level, there are groups of young people who are at particular risk of consuming higher levels of caffeine. An estimated 4% of children aged 11 to 15 years in England consume one or more high-caffeine energy drink each day (Hulbert and others, 2023), which translates to over 100,000 children consuming these at least daily.

We are particularly concerned about higher consumption among children from more deprived areas (Vogel and others, 2022). This means the potential harms may be felt unequally across society. Children from more deprived communities may experience greater effects on their health and life prospects.

Why legislation is needed

The government welcomes the existing voluntary action not to sell high-caffeine energy drinks to children. However, research suggests this has not stopped sales to children from all retailers, and some children are still able to access these products (Vogel and others, 2022). So, further action is needed. Setting the minimum age of sale in legislation protects the health of children across all settings and is fairer for industry, as the same rules apply to all businesses and no retailer is disadvantaged by taking action.

The government has considered whether less restrictive measures could achieve the policy objective. These include:

• education campaigns
• restrictions on advertising and marketing
• changes to packaging and labelling

However, we do not consider these measures, either alone or in combination, to be sufficient or proportionate.

Some measures are likely to have limited effect and may be less equitable, such as those that rely on individuals to change their behaviour, as they do not directly restrict access. Others may have wider trade implications, such as being a technical barrier to trade or a sanitary or phytosanitary measure. For more information on these, see the World Trade Organization (WTO) topic pages Technical barriers to trade and Sanitary and phytosanitary measures.

These approaches could create additional compliance and production costs, which we want to avoid where possible. Some options would also affect adult consumption of high-caffeine energy drinks, which would not be proportionate action as an overall policy approach. We will publish our assessment of these options in the final impact assessment in due course.

For these reasons, the government considers that introducing an age restriction is a necessary and proportionate approach to reduce children’s consumption of high caffeine energy drinks.

The government response to views about children’s consumption of other caffeinated products, including tea and coffee, is set out in the section on products in scope. The response to views on vending machines is set out in the section on vending machines below.

Minimum age of sale for high-caffeine energy drinks

Respondents were asked if they agreed or disagreed with the proposal that the minimum age of sale for high-caffeine energy drinks should be 16 years.

Of 1,066 respondents who answered this question:

• 778 (73%) agreed with the proposal
• 54 (5%) neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal
• 229 (21%) disagreed with the proposal
• 5 (less than 1%) said they didn’t know

Of the respondents who agreed with the proposal, 242 (31%) provided further information or evidence to support their answer. Most used the free-text box to restate their selection or raise general agreement for the consultation proposal. Through the free-text box, some respondents who agreed with the proposal also supported the government going further by setting the minimum age of sale at 18 years.

Respondents who disagreed were asked what the minimum age of sale should be and why. Of these: 

• 193 respondents (89%) said it should be 18 years
• 9 respondents (4%) said it should be 21 years

A small number of respondents suggested other age thresholds, ranging from 10 to 25 years.

Of the respondents who disagreed with the proposal, 171 (75%) provided further information or evidence to support their answer. Themes raised included:

• support for a minimum age of sale of 18 years, to protect 16 to 17 year olds, and to align with other age restrictions intended to protect children, such as alcohol, tobacco, vapes, lottery tickets and scratch cards, as cited by respondents
• concerns about how a minimum age of sale of 16 years would be implemented and enforced, including rates of photo identification ownership for 16 and 17 year olds
• concerns about possible unintended consequences, such as proxy purchasing (that is, buying an age-restricted product for someone underage) by people aged 16 and over for children under 16 years, including in school settings
• references to international action, including bans on the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks to children in Lithuania, Latvia and Poland, where the minimum age of sale is 18 years

Some respondents provided views on the legal definition of a child and the legal rights of 16 year olds. These included views that a:

• minimum age of sale of 16 would be consistent with the rights held by 16 year olds in the UK, including the ability to leave home, drive a moped, work part-time and join the armed forces
• minimum age of sale of 18 would align with the legal definition of a child, as set out in the Children Act 1989 and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

Government response

Having considered the consultation responses and the available evidence, the government has decided to set the minimum age of sale for high-caffeine energy drinks at 16 years.

Why we set the minimum age of sale at 16 years

The government has considered the case for a minimum age of 18 years. This includes views that a higher threshold would protect the public health and education of 16 and 17 year olds. It would also align with some other age-restricted products such as alcohol, lottery tickets and scratch cards, as identified by respondents, as well as approaches taken in some other countries. Some respondents also argued that a minimum age of 18 would align with the legal definition of a child, as set out in the Children Act 1989 and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

While a higher age threshold could provide additional protection for 16 and 17 year olds, the evidence supports prioritising action to reduce consumption among younger children. These children may be more likely to exceed safe caffeine level levels, due to their lower average body weight.

Some respondents referred to alignment with other age-restricted products or the legal definition of a child. However, age thresholds vary across different products depending on the nature of the product, the associated risks and policy objectives. The government considers that a minimum age of 16 represents a proportionate balance in this context.

A minimum age of 16 years also reduces the effect on businesses compared with a higher threshold. It aligns with existing voluntary action by retailers not to sell or market high-caffeine energy drinks to children under 16 years. Building on this approach supports consistency for retailers and customers, and reduces the additional burden for retailers that have taken voluntary action to comply with the legislation.

International approaches

Respondents said the government should align with international approaches. Some countries have introduced a minimum age of 18 years, while in others, such as Norway, it is 16 years. Our decision aims to balance protecting children’s health with ensuring the policy is proportionate and deliverable.

Implementation

We recognise concerns about implementation and enforcement, including that children under 16 years are less likely to have photo identification, and that it would not be reasonable to expect them to carry their passport. Young people can be issued a provisional driving licence from age 15 years and 9 months, which can be used as proof of age. We recognise this has an associated cost and may not be accessible to all children. We are aware of wider government work on digital ID schemes, including work by the Office for Digital Identities and Attributes, and will monitor developments in this area.

To support implementation, we will work with retailers and enforcement bodies to provide clear guidance and support consistent application.

We will also monitor for potential unintended consequences, including rates of identification ownership and proxy purchasing.

Products in scope

Which drinks should be in scope of the ban

Respondents were asked if they agreed or disagreed that the ban should apply to any drink, other than tea or coffee, that contains over 150 milligrams of caffeine per litre.

Of 1,066 respondents who answered this question:

• 943 (88%) agreed with the proposal
• 32 (3%) neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal
• 69 (6%) disagreed with the proposal
• 22 (2%) said they didn’t know

Of the respondents who agreed with the proposal, 207 (22%) provided further information or evidence to support their answer. Most respondents used the free-text box to restate their selection or raise general agreement. For example, they noted that the definition aligns with existing labelling requirements for high-caffeine drinks.

Views varied on whether other sources of caffeine should be in scope. Some respondents noted that high-caffeine energy drinks are different to tea and coffee products, including differences in how they are marketed. However, some respondents who agreed with the proposal used the free-text response to suggest that the government could go further by including all caffeinated drinks (such as tea and coffee) or other caffeinated products (such as caffeine pouches and gums) in the ban. Others felt that these emerging products should be monitored through the evaluation.

Respondents who disagreed were asked how we should define products in scope and why. Of these respondents, 69 (100%) suggested alternative approaches or provided further information or evidence to support their answer.

The alternative suggestions included the following:

• 18 respondents (26%) said the ban should apply to all caffeinated drinks, including tea and coffee
• 9 respondents (13%) suggested alternative approaches, such as using a higher or lower caffeine threshold, or defining products by sugar content
• 2 respondents (3%) said the ban should apply to caffeinated products, including caffeine pouches and gums

Some respondents to this question raised concerns that the proposed definition is not appropriate. They also said it was not developed in line with regulatory best practice under UK food law and WTO requirements.

Regardless of whether respondents agreed or disagreed with the proposal, some raised concerns about possible unintended consequences. These included:

• the risk of creating a loophole if emerging products, such as caffeine pouches and gums, are not included in the ban
• the fact that some manufacturers voluntarily apply the high-caffeine warning labels to products that may not meet the legal criteria
• concerns that products that contain the terms tea or coffee in their name could fall outside of the scope of the ban, despite being similar to high-caffeine energy drinks

Government response

Having considered the consultation responses and the available evidence, the government has decided that the ban will apply to any drink, other than tea or coffee, that contains over 150 milligrams caffeine per litre. This includes products intended to be diluted or reconstituted before consumption.

The definition

Most respondents supported the proposed definition for products in scope of the ban. It aligns with existing legislation under Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on food information to consumers, which requires products above this threshold to carry the label:

High caffeine content. Not recommended for children or pregnant or breast-feeding women.

This is the criteria used by industry bodies to identify a high-caffeine energy drink in their voluntary action not to sell or market high-caffeine energy drinks to children. Using this approach provides clear criteria for identifying products in scope, clarity for consumers and consistency for industry and enforcement bodies.

However, some respondents raised concerns the definition is not appropriate and does not reflect regulatory best practice. The government has considered these points. The definition draws on existing criteria in food information legislation and provides a clear and proportionate approach for defining products in scope. Given that this definition is already used by industry in their voluntary guidance, the government considers it appropriate.

Some respondents also suggested that the policy may fall within the scope of WTO agreements. We considered these issues as part of policy development. Further detail on the government’s assessment of trade considerations will be published in the final impact assessment.

Where manufacturers voluntarily use the caffeine warning labelling, they may choose to remove these labels during the implementation period. The definition for products in scope of the ban will be set out in legislation. We will provide implementation guidance to support retailers.

Why tea, coffee and other caffeinated products are not included

A small number of respondents supported extending the ban to all caffeinated drinks, including tea and coffee, or to other caffeinated products such as pouches and gums. The government does not consider this proportionate. Including these products would significantly broaden the scope of the ban without comparable evidence of potential harm in children. It would also create substantial additional burdens for businesses and enforcement authorities, particularly in the out-of-home sector.

We recognise that tea and coffee are widely consumed products with established consumption patterns across all age groups. We consider high-caffeine energy drinks to be a distinct category. They can:

• contain higher levels of caffeine per serving
• be consumed quickly or in multiple servings
• be marketed differently to tea and coffee products

For these reasons, we consider it appropriate to take a targeted approach based on the available evidence and concern.

We are aware of products designed to be reconstituted into drinks (for example powders, tablets or concentrates) that are marketed as high-caffeine energy drinks. These products provide comparable caffeine levels once prepared. Some respondents highlighted these products in the consultation.

Existing labelling requirements for high-caffeine drinks also apply to products in concentrated or dried form that are intended to be reconstituted before consumption. The government considers it necessary to include these formats within the scope of the ban to ensure a consistent and enforceable approach. Excluding them would create clear opportunities for children to access functionally equivalent products outside the scope of the restriction. It would also allow products to be reformulated for reconstitution to circumvent the age restriction.

We have also considered whether to include other emerging caffeinated products, such as pouches, chewing gums and food supplements. We recognise that some of these products may contain comparable levels of caffeine. However, unlike drinks (including drinks reconstituted before consumption), there is currently less evidence on how these products are used and accessed by children.

The government considers that focusing the restriction on drinks, including reconstituted formats, provides a clear, targeted and proportionate approach based on the available evidence and consultation responses. We will monitor whether children potentially switch to other caffeinated products outside the scope of the ban as part of the post-implementation review.

Businesses in scope

Which businesses should be in scope of the ban

Respondents were asked if they agreed or disagreed that the ban should apply to all sellers, retailers and businesses, both in store and online, that operate in England.

Of 1,066 respondents who answered this question:

• 983 (92%) agreed with the proposal
• 41 (4%) neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal
• 36 (3%) disagreed with the proposal
• 6 (1%) said they didn’t know

Of the respondents who agreed with the proposal, 238 (24%) provided further information or evidence to support their answer. Themes raised included:

• views that including all businesses selling high-caffeine energy drinks is necessary for any ban to be effective and enforceable
• restating their selection or general agreement with the reasons set out in the consultation, including that the proposal would be fairer for industry and that it is important for smaller retailers to be in scope
• views that the approach should be consistent with other age‑restricted products, such as alcohol, tobacco and vapes

Respondents who disagreed were asked which types of businesses should be in scope and why. For this question, respondents could select more than one answer. Nearly half (47%) said that no businesses should be in scope of the proposals.

The remaining respondents suggested that the following types of businesses should be included:

• 11 (31%) said retailers that primarily sell food and drink
• 10 (28%) said the eating out-of-home sector
• 8 (22%) said retailers not primarily selling food and drink
• 7 (19%) said online sellers, retailers and businesses
• 6 (17%) said individual sellers

A small number of respondents selected ‘other’ or ‘don’t know’.

Of the respondents who disagreed with the proposal, 22 (61%) provided further information or evidence to support their answer. Themes raised included concerns about how the ban would be implemented across different settings, particularly where businesses do not generally have age verification processes in place (such as in the quick service restaurant sector).

Some respondents raised concerns about including wholesalers in the ban, where sales of high-caffeine energy drinks are made from business to business, rather than direct to consumers.

Government response

Having considered the consultation responses and the available evidence, the government has decided that the ban will apply to all retailers of high-caffeine energy drinks in England, including in-store, online and in the out-of-home sector.

This includes:

• retailers that primarily sell food and drink
• the eating out-of-home sector
• retailers not primarily selling food and drink
• online retailers
• individual sellers

The ban will also apply to vending machines, as set out in the relevant section below.

The ban aims to protect children and reduce inequalities in health, so will apply only to sales to consumers. It will not apply to business-to-business sales, such as wholesalers, where there is no direct public health benefit to children. Retailers that sell directly to consumers, including cash-and-carry outlets, would be in scope. This is because these settings can still involve direct sales to consumers and including them ensures a consistent and enforceable approach across all retail environments.

Why the ban applies to all retailers

Most respondents supported the proposed approach. Many considered it necessary to include all retailers of high-caffeine energy drinks to ensure that the ban is effective. Respondents highlighted that excluding certain types of retailers would mean children can continue to access these products in those settings.

We also recognise the importance of fairness for businesses. Applying the ban consistently across all sellers ensures a ‘level playing field’, so no business is disadvantaged for complying with the legislation while others are not. This is consistent with the approach taken for other age-restricted products.

Implementation

We recognise that some businesses may face implementation challenges, particularly where they do not already have processes in place for age verification. Our assessment of this was informed by engagement with trade organisations across the sector and will be set out in the final impact assessment. To support implementation, we will work with trade bodies and local authorities to provide clear guidance and ensure a consistent approach across all sectors. This includes the quick service restaurant sector.

The government response to specific issues raised about online sales and vending machines is set out in the relevant sections below.

Online sales of high-caffeine energy drinks

How retailers should ensure the ban is applied online

Respondents were asked how retailers should ensure the ban is applied for online sales of high-caffeine energy drinks.

Of 1,025 respondents who answered this question:

• 647 (63%) said age should be verified at the point of sale
• 230 (22%) said age should be verified at the point of delivery
• 68 (7%) said they didn’t know
• 80 (8%) selected other

Of the respondents who selected other:

• 41 (51%) said age should be verified both at the point of sale and at the point of delivery
• 14 (18%) said there should be a complete ban on online sales of high-caffeine energy drinks

Across all respondents, 296 (29%) provided further information or evidence to support their answer. Themes raised included:

• views that verifying age both at the point of sale and at the point of delivery would be the most effective way to prevent sales to children
• views that the approach should be consistent with other age‑restricted products, such as alcohol, tobacco and vapes
• concerns about the effectiveness and practical implementation of age verification for online sales, including challenges for retailers at the point of sale online and for couriers at the point of delivery

Some respondents also suggested the government should review the effectiveness of online age verification software.

Government response

Having considered the consultation responses and the available evidence, the government will require retailers to not sell high‑caffeine energy drinks to children. The government will not set rules for the specific methods retailers must use to verify age for online sales. Retailers will remain responsible for ensuring compliance with the requirements of the legislation. This applies to all retailers, including online food delivery businesses.

Age verification

The consultation responses showed a preference for verifying age at the point of sale. Some respondents supported checking age at the point of delivery, or at both stages, saying that carrying out checks at more than one stage may be more effective in preventing sales to children.

Many respondents also highlighted the importance of consistency with other age-restricted products, such as alcohol, tobacco and vapes. The government recognises that aligning with established approaches where appropriate can support clarity for businesses and consumers and help ensure compliance across different sectors.

Having considered these views, the government will not require a specific approach to age verification for online sales. Instead, retailers will be required to ensure that they do not sell high‑caffeine energy drinks to children. This allows retailers to choose the most appropriate arrangements for their sales models, while ensuring underage sales are prevented.

Challenges for online sales

We recognise concerns about the practical challenge of age verification for online sales. These include challenges for:

• retailers in verifying age at the point of sale
• couriers and delivery drivers at the point of delivery

The final impact assessment will set out our assessment of the effect of implementing the ban on the sector, including staff training and age checks. We will review the effectiveness of the ban and how it works in practice for retailers, as part of the post‑implementation review.

Some respondents suggested that the effectiveness of age verification for online sales should be reviewed. The government is undertaking wider work to support trusted digital identity solutions as underpinned by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. As these technologies continue to develop, they may support age-restricted sales in a range of settings. The government will continue to monitor developments and consider relevant evidence as part of the post-implementation review.

Vending machines

How the ban should apply in vending machines

Respondents were asked if they agreed or disagreed that the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks should be banned from all vending machines.

Of 1,066 respondents who answered this question:

• 915 (86%) agreed with the proposal
• 31 (3%) neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal
• 102 (10%) disagreed with the proposal
• 18 (2%) said they didn’t know

While overall agreement with the proposal was high, disagreement was largely concentrated among respondents from the vending sector. Most individual and professional respondents supported the proposal, whereas most responses submitted on behalf of vending machine organisations opposed it.

Of the respondents who agreed with the proposal, 233 (25%) provided further information or evidence to support their answer. Themes raised included:

• views that a complete ban on the sales of high-caffeine energy drinks from vending machines is needed for any ban to be effective and enforceable
• restating their selection or general agreement with the proposal
• views that the approach should be consistent with other age‑restricted products, such as alcohol, tobacco and vapes

Respondents who disagreed were asked how the ban should apply in vending machines and why. Of these respondents, 101 (99%) suggested alternative approaches or provided further information or evidence to support their answer.

Of those who made alternative suggestions:

• 70 respondents (69%) said that sales to children should be banned in vending machines in public-access settings but not those in restricted-access settings
• 16 respondents (16%) suggested a technological solution, such as age verification software, to restrict sales to children

Most of the respondents who disagreed used the free-text box to raise concerns that a complete ban on vending machine sales of high-caffeine energy drinks is not proportionate. In support of this view, respondents referenced:

• industry data suggesting that over 80% of vending machines are located in settings such as workplaces, warehouses, factories, staff rooms and adult-only gyms, which respondents said are not accessible to children
• industry data that the proposal would lead to losses in the region of £43 million per year for the vending sector, which is higher than estimates in the government’s consultation stage impact assessment
• existing voluntary guidance for the vending sector, which recommends that high-caffeine energy drinks should not be sold in vending machines in public sites where children under 16 years have regular access

Government response

Having considered the consultation responses and the available evidence, the government has decided that the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks should be banned from all vending machines.

Views on a complete ban

The consultation responses show strong overall support for a complete ban on sales from vending machines. Many respondents thought that this approach is necessary for the policy to be effective and enforceable. They also highlighted the importance of consistency with other age-restricted products.

Some respondents argued that a complete ban would not be proportionate. They cited industry data suggesting that a large proportion of vending machines are located in workplaces, warehouses, factories and other settings that they consider are not accessible to children. Respondents also highlighted existing voluntary guidance for the vending sector, which recommends that high‑caffeine energy drinks are not sold in locations where children have regular access.

We have considered whether alternative more targeted approaches would be sufficient to prevent underage sales. This includes applying the ban only in vending machines that can be accessed by the public (the approach reflected in voluntary sector guidance) or using technological solutions.

Setting-based approach and technological solutions

Applying the ban only in certain settings would require a clear and enforceable definition of what public or restricted-access settings are. There is no existing definition of these settings and, in practice, access may vary over time or between businesses. Some settings may be mixed-use or allow limited access by children, which could lead to a risk of inconsistent and unclear application of the ban.

A setting-based approach may also be more complex for businesses to implement and local authorities to enforce. This could lead to variation in how the ban is applied locally, potentially allowing continued access for children and increasing the risk of disputes about compliance. On that basis, we do not consider that it would provide a reliable or effective way of preventing underage sales across all settings.

We considered the use of technological solutions, such as age verification systems. These are not currently used consistently across vending machines and it is unclear if these solutions can reliably prevent underage sales. Their effectiveness would depend on the technology used and how it is set up and run in different settings.

Respondents also highlighted that the use of age verification hardware has a high cost to install and use. This approach may not be profitable for many vending machine businesses and may result in the removal of high‑caffeine energy drinks from machines.

On this basis, we do not consider that these approaches would provide a sufficiently reliable or enforceable means of preventing underage sales.

Why a complete ban is the right approach

A complete ban would provide a clear and consistent approach. It would:

• provide clarity on where the restrictions apply
• reduce the risk of access in settings with changing or mixed access arrangements
• make enforcement easier

It is also consistent with the regulatory approach taken for other age-restricted products in vending machines. The sale of tobacco from automated machines was banned following evidence that it was not effective for retailers to prevent underage sales. This was set out in the impact assessment on banning the sale of tobacco from vending machines. More recently, the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 banned the sale of vaping and nicotine products from vending machines.

Concerns raised in the consultation

We recognise the concerns raised by some respondents, particularly from the vending sector. These included the:

• potential economic impact of a complete ban
• effect on adult consumers
• arguments that a more targeted approach would be more proportionate

Some respondents also provided updated industry data estimating that a complete ban would lead to losses of around £43 million per year. This data was commissioned by the vending sector and referred to in consultation responses. It suggested a higher impact than the estimates set out in the consultation stage impact assessment, which had been informed by evidence provided by industry at that time.

We have engaged further with the vending sector to understand this updated evidence. We have taken it into account in the final impact assessment, refining our estimates of the effect of a complete ban.

Government’s conclusion

We have considered these concerns and the new data. While a complete ban will affect some businesses and adult consumers, we consider that this is necessary to ensure the policy is effective in reducing children’s access to these products.

For these reasons, the government considers that a complete ban on vending machine sales is a proportionate and effective approach.

However, we are keen that our policy is future proof. Businesses have a choice about whether to invest in technology that allows sales from vending machines to those verified as being 16 or over should solutions develop. Should any solutions develop, we will work with industry on guidance and updates to legislation, if that is required.

Liability for vending machine sales

Who should be liable for vending machine sales

Respondents were asked if they agreed or disagreed that the person who controls or manages the premises where the machine is located should be liable for any underage sales of high-caffeine energy drinks from vending machines.

Of 1,049 respondents who answered this question:

• 863 (82%) agreed with the proposal
• 69 (7%) neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal
• 59 (6%) disagreed with the proposal
• 58 (6%) said they didn’t know

Of the respondents who agreed with the proposal, 159 (18%) provided further information or evidence to support their answer. Themes raised included:

• restating their selection or general agreement for the proposal
• views that the approach should be consistent with other age‑restricted products such as tobacco and vapes

Respondents who disagreed were asked who should be liable for underage sales in vending machines and why. Suggestions included:

• the owner of the vending machine
• the person responsible for stocking the machine, such as the vending machine operator
• shared liability between the person responsible for stocking the machine and the person who controls or manages the site where the machine is located

Of the respondents who disagreed with the proposal, 56 (95%) provided further information or evidence to support their answer. Themes raised included:

• support for alternative approaches to vending liability
• concerns about the practical implementation of determining liability for vending machine sales

Some respondents used the free-text box to raise issues not directly related to this question. This included repeating views that there should be a complete ban on sales of high-caffeine energy drinks from vending machines, suggesting that some respondents may not have understood the question.

Government response

Having considered the consultation responses and the available evidence, the government has decided that the person who controls or manages the premises where the vending machine is located will be liable for committing the offence.

Why we made this decision

The consultation responses show strong support for this approach. Many respondents thought that placing liability on the person responsible for the premises provides clear accountability, particularly in settings where vending machines are accessible to the public. Respondents also highlighted the importance of consistency with other age-restricted products and this approach is consistent with regulation on tobacco and vapes.

Other approaches we considered

Some respondents supported alternative approaches, including placing liability on the vending machine operator or introducing shared liability between different parties. We have considered these options. However, we consider that making the person who controls or manages the premises liable provides the clearest and most straightforward approach. This approach is consistent with the existing approach for tobacco sales from automated machines. Having a single responsible party would:

• make enforcement easier
• provide clarity about who is responsible for complying with the rules

To support implementation, the government will provide clear guidance to businesses and enforcement authorities on how this requirement should be applied in practice.

Additional information from the vending sector

Effect on businesses of a ban on sales of high-caffeine energy drinks in vending machines

Respondents from the vending machine sector were asked about the impact of a complete ban on sales of high-caffeine energy drinks in vending machines to their business.

There were 66 responses to this question from respondents who identified as vending machine operators, owners or businesses selling high-caffeine energy drinks through vending machines.

Most respondents said that a complete ban on sales of high-caffeine energy drinks in vending machines would have a significant effect on their business. Concerns raised included lost sales, effects on adult customers and the potential for job losses.

Respondents highlighted recent industry data that suggests a complete ban would lead to losses of £43 million per year for the vending sector. This is higher than the estimate in the consultation stage impact assessment. Respondents from the low-cost gym sector also raised specific concerns about the effect of a complete ban in adult-only leisure facilities, which may lead to increased membership prices. They noted that this may not support the government’s efforts to increase physical activity levels.

Government response

The government recognises the concerns raised by respondents from the vending sector about the potential impacts of a complete ban on sales of high-caffeine energy drinks in vending machines. These include potential effects on revenue, effects on adult consumers and wider business implications, including potential job losses.

We have considered these points alongside the wider evidence and consultation responses. The government response is set out in the section on vending machines. We recognise that a complete ban will affect sales to the vending sector and some other businesses, and affect adult consumers. However, we consider this is necessary to ensure the policy is effective and enforceable across all settings. This is consistent with the approach to the sale of tobacco and vapes. We consider this approach proportionate to protect the health of children.

We have engaged further with the vending sector to understand the new industry data on the economic impact of the complete ban. We have used this to update the final impact assessment. Further detail on the government response is provided in the section on vending machines.

Alternative approaches for applying an age restriction in vending machines

Respondents from the vending machine sector were asked how a ban on selling high-caffeine energy drinks to children under 16 years only could work in practice.

There were 58 responses to this question from respondents who identified as vending machine operators or owners, or businesses selling high-caffeine energy drinks through vending machines.

Themes raised included:

• views that sales to children should be banned in vending machines in public-access settings, but not those in restricted-access settings
• suggestions to use technological age verification solutions
• concerns about practical challenges of age verification in unsupervised, automated machines

Government response

The government recognises that while some respondents highlighted the challenges of age verification in unsupervised machines, some others suggested alternative approaches to preventing underage sales of high-caffeine energy drinks in vending machines. These included restricting sales only in public-access settings or using technological age verification solutions.

We have considered these options. However, as set out in the section on vending machines, we do not consider that these approaches would be sufficiently effective or deliverable in practice. A complete ban provides clarity and ensures a consistent approach across all locations.

We will monitor developments in age verification technology and consider these as part of the post-implementation review.

Implementing the ban

Length of time needed to implement the ban

Respondents were asked if they agreed or disagreed that 6 months is an appropriate length of time for businesses and enforcement authorities to prepare to implement the ban.

Of 1,066 respondents who answered this question:

• 767 (72%) agreed with the proposal
• 69 (6%) neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal
• 154 (14%) disagreed with the proposal
• 76 (7%) said they didn’t know

Of the respondents who agreed with the proposal, 103 (13%) provided further information or evidence to support their answer. Themes raised included:

• restating their selection or general agreement with the proposal
• views retailers could build on existing voluntary measures on high-caffeine energy drinks to prepare for the ban
• views that government support would be important for implementation, including guidance for retailers and local authorities, and funding for enforcement

Respondents who disagreed were asked how long the implementation period should be and why. Suggestions included:

• 50 respondents (36%) said it should be 12 months
• 43 respondents (31%) said it should be 3 months
• 19 respondents (14%) said it should be one month

A smaller number of respondents suggested other durations, ranging from one to 4,800 months.

Of the respondents who disagreed with the proposal, 113 (73%) provided further information or evidence to support their answer. Themes raised included:

• views that the implementation period should be shorter or longer than 6 months
• concerns that retailers would need time to prepare for an age restriction, including updating guidance and systems, training staff, implementing point-of-sale materials to communicate the changes to customers, and either selling stock or installing age verification technology in vending machines
• concerns about implementation challenges for businesses in the out-of-home sector, such as quick service restaurants, which do not generally sell age-restricted products
• views that manufacturers would need longer than 6 months to adjust their supply to businesses, and that enforcement authorities will need enough time to consult on enforcement guidance

Government response

Having considered the consultation responses and the available evidence, the government has decided to provide an implementation period of at least 6 months from the date this consultation outcome is published.

Regulations are typically brought into force on common commencement dates (6 April or 1 October) to support a consistent approach for businesses and to help them plan for regulatory change. We intend to bring these measures into force on 6 April 2027, subject to Parliamentary scrutiny.

The consultation responses show overall support for a 6-month implementation period. Many respondents indicated that this would be sufficient, particularly where businesses can build on existing age restrictions for other products or voluntary measures to restrict sales of high-caffeine energy drinks to children. Other respondents felt a shorter implementation period would be more appropriate so not to delay protecting children’s health.

Some respondents thought a longer implementation period would be necessary. These respondents highlighted the time required for retailers to update systems and guidance, train staff, implement point-of-sale materials and manage existing stock. Others raised specific challenges for sectors less familiar with age-restricted sales, such as the out-of-home sector, including quick service restaurants. Some noted that manufacturers may require additional time to adjust supply chains and local enforcement authorities need time to prepare and consult on guidance. A small number of respondents also referred to specific operational considerations, such as contractual or supply arrangements.

We have considered these points. An implementation period of 6 months balances delivering the benefits of the policy with ensuring that businesses and enforcement authorities have sufficient time to prepare for implementation.

Some respondents from the vending sector said that installing age verification technology would require a longer implementation period (for example, up to 12 months). The chosen approach does not require businesses to install this technology.

To support implementation, the government will work with businesses and enforcement authorities to provide clear guidance on the requirements of the policy. This will include engagement with sectors with less experience of age-restricted sales to ensure a consistent approach across all settings.

Existing voluntary retail bans

Voluntary age restrictions on high-caffeine energy drinks

Retailers and businesses selling high-caffeine energy drinks were asked if they had already implemented a voluntary ban on sales to children under 16 years.

Of 100 respondents who answered this question:

• 55 (55%) said they have a voluntary ban
• 34 (34%) said they do not have a voluntary ban
• 11 (11%) said they didn’t know

Responses were provided by 36 individuals, 17 professionals and 47 organisations.

Of those who said they have already implemented a voluntary ban on sales of high-caffeine energy drinks to children under 16 years, 23 of the 55 respondents (42%) disagreed with the proposed ban overall.

Government response

The government welcomes the existing action many retailers have already taken to voluntarily ban sales of high-caffeine energy drinks to children under 16 years.

However, evidence suggests that voluntary measures are not applied consistently across all settings (Vogel and others, 2022). Legislation is needed to ensure a clear and consistent approach and to provide a ‘level playing field’ for businesses.

Assessing compliance with the ban

How should compliance with the ban be assessed

Respondents were asked whether powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 should be extended to allow local authorities to assess compliance with the age restriction on the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks.

Of 429 respondents who answered this question:

• 358 (83%) said the powers should be extended
• 31 (7%) said the powers should not be extended
• 40 (9%) said they didn’t know

Of respondents who supported extending the powers, 79 (22%) provided further information or evidence to support their answer. Themes raised included:

• restating their selection or general agreement with the proposal, including views that enforcement authorities need appropriate powers to carry out test purchasing and demonstrate non-compliance
• views that government support for enforcement is needed, including clear guidance and funding for local authorities
• views that the approach should be consistent with enforcement arrangements for other age‑restricted products such as tobacco and vapes

A small number of respondents also raised concerns whether trading standards officers would be able to enforce the ban if made under the Food Safety Act 1990. They noted that enforcement under the act is generally carried out by authorised food officers with specific qualifications and highlighted that not all trading standards officers meet these requirements.

Of respondents who did not support extending the powers, 25 (81%) provided further information or evidence to support their answer. Most used the free-text box to raise issues not directly related to this question. A small number of respondents raised concerns that it would not be proportionate to extend the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 for this purpose. This was because these powers are normally used for surveillance of serious crimes and are too intrusive for this type of enforcement.

Regardless of whether respondents agreed or disagreed with the proposal, some raised views that the government should provide support for enforcing the ban, including clear guidance and funding.

Government response

Having considered the consultation responses and the available evidence, the government intends use powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to support the enforcement of the ban, subject to agreement from the Home Office.

Appropriate powers for enforcement authorities

The consultation responses show strong support for ensuring that enforcement authorities have appropriate powers to assess compliance, including the use of test purchasing to identify underage sales. Respondents also emphasised the importance of consistency with other age-restricted products, such as tobacco and alcohol, which are enforced using these powers.

Effective enforcement is essential to the success of the policy. Using these powers will enable local authorities to undertake proportionate and targeted activity to identify non-compliance. This includes where covert test purchasing is used to gather evidence that an offence has been committed.

Concerns about enforcement powers

A small number of respondents raised concerns about the proportionality of using these powers, and about their use in relation to less serious offences. We have considered these concerns. Any use of investigatory powers will be subject to the existing safeguards and oversight arrangements that apply under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

Some respondents also raised questions about whether trading standards officers could enforce a ban under the Food Safety Act 1990. They noted that enforcement is typically carried out by authorised food officers with specific qualifications.

Following engagement with relevant stakeholders about this concern, we understand that there is no relevant legal requirement for officers enforcing this policy to hold particular qualifications. The Food Law Code of Practice requires competent authorities to ensure that staff are suitably qualified and experienced for their role. It also sets out expectations relating to the qualification and authorisation of officers but does not require a specific qualification requirement for this activity.

Supporting implementation

To support implementation, we will work with enforcement bodies to provide clear guidance and ensure a consistent approach. We will also complete and agree a new burdens assessment with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) ahead of the policy coming in to force.

Process of issuing a fixed monetary penalty

Length of time needed to respond to a notice of intent

Respondents were asked if they agreed or disagreed that 28 days is an appropriate length of time to make representations and objections or to discharge liability for a notice of intent. Discharging liability is admitting to the offence and paying a fine at a reduced rate to avoid being prosecuted.

Of 429 respondents who answered this question:

• 335 (78%) agreed with the proposal
• 43 (10%) neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal
• 17 (4%) disagreed with the proposal
• 34 (8%) said they didn’t know

Of the respondents who agreed with the proposal, 43 (13%) provided further information or evidence to support their answer. Themes raised included:

• views that the approach should be consistent with other age‑restricted products such as tobacco and vapes
• restating their selection or general agreement with the proposal

Respondents who disagreed were asked what duration they considered appropriate, and why. Suggested durations ranged from one day to 27 days. No single alternative duration was suggested by more than 2 respondents.

Of the respondents who disagreed with the proposal, 15 (88%) provided further information or evidence to support their answer. Most used the free-text box to raise issues not directly related to this question. A small number of respondents raised views that the duration should be shorter or that an alternative approach should be taken, such as issuing a fixed penalty notice instead of a fixed monetary penalty (see the government response section for more information). Respondents suggested that a fixed penalty notice may be easier to understand, quicker to use and already familiar from other age-restricted products like alcohol and tobacco.

Government response

Having considered the consultation responses and the available evidence, the government has decided that 28 days is an appropriate length of time to make representations and objections or to discharge liability for a notice of intent. The 28 days start on the day the notice is received. This will be made clear in the regulations.

The consultation responses show strong overall support for a 28-day period. Many respondents highlighted the importance of consistency with other enforcement regimes. Age-restricted products such as tobacco and alcohol are not enforced under the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. However, respondents highlighted that 28 days is broadly consistent with other enforcement under the act. This includes regulations on the promotion and placement of foods high in fat, salt or sugar.

Some respondents suggested shorter timeframes. We consider that a 28-day period provides consistency and ensures that retailers have sufficient time to understand the notice, seek advice where necessary and respond appropriately.

Some respondents also suggested using fixed penalty notices instead of fixed monetary penalties (a fine). Both are civil sanctions involving a financial penalty, but the process for issuing them differs. A fixed penalty notice can be issued immediately. By contrast, a fixed monetary penalty cannot be imposed until the recipient has been given an opportunity to make representations. If a penalty is imposed, the recipient also has a right of appeal. The government intends to use fixed monetary penalties because they provide a clear, established and proportionate process for enforcing the Food Safety Act 1990.

Discharging liability for a notice of intent

Respondents were asked if they agreed or disagreed that a person or retailer should be able to discharge liability for a fixed monetary penalty at a rate of 50% of the penalty within 28 days of being issued a notice of intent.

Of 429 respondents who answered this question:

• 200 (47%) agreed with the proposal
• 67 (16%) neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal
• 104 (24%) disagreed with the proposal
• 58 (14%) said they didn’t know

Of the respondents who agreed with the proposal, 35 (18%) provided further information or evidence to support their answer. Themes raised included:

• views that the approach should be consistent with other age‑restricted products, such as tobacco and vapes
• restating their selection or general agreement with the proposal

Of the respondents who disagreed with the proposal, 62 (60%) provided further information or evidence to support their answer. Themes raised included:

• concerns that reducing the penalty may be less effective at deterring underage sales
• views that any rate reduction should be less than 50% of the penalty

Regardless of whether respondents agreed or disagreed with the proposal, some suggested alternative approaches such as using a fixed penalty notice instead of a fixed monetary penalty or removing the penalty reduction for repeat offences.

Government response

The government has decided that retailers should be able to discharge liability at a rate of 50% of the penalty.

The consultation responses support this approach overall. Many respondents highlighted the importance of consistency with other enforcement regimes. Age‑restricted products, such as tobacco and alcohol, are not enforced under the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. However, discharging liability at a reduced rate is consistent with other enforcement under the under this act. This includes regulations on the promotion and placement of foods high in fat, salt or sugar.

Some respondents raised concerns that reducing the penalty may not deter underage sales or suggested a smaller rate reduction. We consider that a 50% rate reduction supports timely resolution of cases while maintaining an appropriate deterrent and enabling proportionate enforcement.

The government’s response to suggestions to use fixed penalty notices is set out in the section on the length of time needed to respond to a notice of intent.

Length of time needed to pay a final notice

Respondents were asked if they agreed or disagreed that 28 days is an appropriate length of time to pay a final notice.

Of 429 respondents who answered this question:

• 345 (80%) agreed with the proposal
• 35 (8%) neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal
• 15 (3%) disagreed with the proposal
• 34 (8%) said they didn’t know

Of the respondents who agreed with the proposal, 39 (11%) provided further information or evidence to support their answer. Themes raised included:

• views that the approach should be consistent with other age‑restricted products, such as tobacco and vapes
• restating their selection or general agreement with the proposal

Respondents who disagreed were asked how many days they considered an appropriate length of time and why. The suggested durations ranged from one day to 27 days. No single alternative duration was suggested by more than 2 respondents.

Of the respondents who disagreed with the proposal, 9 (60%) provided further information or evidence to support their answer. Most used the free-text box to raise issues not directly related to this question. A small number of respondents raised views that the duration to pay a final notice should be shorter, or longer, than 28 days.

Regardless of whether respondents agreed or disagreed with the proposal, some suggested alternative approaches such as using a fixed penalty notice instead of a fixed monetary penalty or providing a discount for prompt payment of a final notice.

Government response

The government has decided that 28 days is an appropriate length of time to pay a final notice. The 28 days start on the day the notice is received. This will be made clear in the regulations.

The consultation responses show strong overall support for a 28-day period. Many respondents highlighted the importance of consistency with other enforcement regimes. Age-restricted products such as tobacco and alcohol are not enforced under the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. However, respondents highlighted that 28 days is broadly consistent with other enforcement under the act. This includes enforcement of government regulations on the promotion and placement of foods high in fat, salt or sugar.

Some respondents suggested shorter timeframes. We consider that a 28-day period provides consistency and ensures that retailers have sufficient time to understand the notice, seek advice where necessary and respond appropriately.

The government’s response to suggestions to use fixed penalty notices is set out in the section on the length of time needed to respond to a notice of intent.

Late payment of a final notice

Respondents were asked if they agreed or disagreed that failure to pay or appeal a final notice within 28 days should result in the penalty being increased by 50%.

Of 429 respondents who answered this question:

• 306 (71%) agreed with the proposal
• 53 (12%) neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal
• 34 (8%) disagreed with the proposal
• 36 (8%) said they didn’t know

Of the respondents who agreed with the proposal, 46 (15%) provided further information or evidence to support their answer. Themes raised included:

• restating their selection or general agreement with the proposal
• views that the approach should be consistent with other age‑restricted products such as tobacco and vapes

Of the respondents who disagreed with the proposal, 17 (50%) provided further information or evidence to support their answer. Themes raised included views that the rate increase for non or late-payment should be smaller.

Regardless of whether respondents agreed or disagreed with the proposal, some suggested alternative approaches such as using a fixed penalty notice instead of a fixed monetary penalty. Some respondents used the free-text box to raise issues not directly related to this question.

Government response

The government has decided that failure to pay or appeal a final notice within 28 days should result in the penalty being increased by 50%.

The consultation responses support this approach overall. Many respondents highlighted the importance of consistency with other enforcement regimes. Age-restricted products such as tobacco and alcohol are not enforced under the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. However, a rate increase for late or non-payment is consistent with other enforcement under the act. This includes regulations on the promotion and placement of foods high in fat, salt or sugar.

Some respondents raised concerns that the rate increase should be smaller. We consider that a 50% rate increase is appropriate. Retailers will have 28 days to pay or appeal the final notice before any increase applies. This is in addition to the 28 days provided to make objections in response to a notice of intent. We consider that these periods allow sufficient time for businesses to pay or appeal the penalty before an increase.

The government’s response to suggestions to use fixed penalty notices is set out in the section on the length of time needed to respond to a notice of intent.

Level of fixed monetary penalty for underage sales

What the fixed monetary penalty amounts should be

Respondents were asked if they agreed or disagreed that the proposed amounts for fixed monetary penalties are appropriate.

Of 429 respondents who answered this question:

• 238 (55%) agreed with the proposal
• 60 (14%) neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal
• 78 (18%) disagreed with the proposal
• 53 (12%) said they didn’t know

Of the respondents who agreed with the proposal, 29 (12%) provided further information or evidence to support their answer. Themes raised included:

• restating their selection or general agreement with the proposal
• suggestions that an alternative approach should be used, such as a variable penalty amount that rises with repeat offences

Respondents who disagreed were asked what they considered an appropriate amount and why. The suggested amounts for individuals, micro and small businesses ranged from £1 to £50,000. Suggestions included:

• 11 respondents (21%) said it should be £5,000
• 6 respondents (11%) said it should be £1,000
• 5 respondents (9%) said it should be £500
• 5 respondents (9%) said it should be £2,000
• 5 respondents (9%) said it should be £2,500

All other amounts were suggested by 4 or fewer respondents.

The suggested amounts for medium and large businesses ranged from £1 to £150,000. Suggestions included:

• 16 respondents (29%) said it should be £5,000
• 11 respondents (20%) said it should be £10,000
• 3 respondents (5%) said it should be £100,000

All other amounts were suggested by 2 or fewer respondents.

Of the respondents who disagreed with the proposal, 58 (74%) provided further information or evidence to support their answer. Themes raised included:

• concerns that the amounts should be higher to deter underage sales
• suggestions that an alternative approach should be used, such as a fixed penalty notice or a variable penalty amount that rises with repeat offences
• views that the approach should be consistent with other age‑restricted products, such as alcohol, tobacco and vapes
• concerns that the amounts should be lower

Government response

Having considered the consultation responses and the available evidence, the government has decided to set the fixed monetary penalty amounts at £1,500 for individuals, micro and small businesses (49 employees or fewer) and £2,500 for medium and large businesses (50 employees or more).

Penalty amounts

The consultation responses show moderate overall support for the proposed penalty amounts, with many other respondents not expressing a clear view. The amounts were developed with the trading standards sector and reflect the cost of the work required to issue a fixed monetary penalty.

Some respondents raised concerns that the proposed amounts may not be high enough to deter underage sales, while others suggested that the amounts should be lower. The government considers that the proposed levels achieve an appropriate balance between providing a deterrent and ensuring that penalties are proportionate across different types and sizes of business.

The penalty amounts are based on the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, which sets a maximum fine of £2,500. This is level 4 on the UK standard scale for summary criminal offences in the Sentencing Act 2020. The government has set penalties at this maximum level for medium and large businesses, and at a lower level for individuals, micro and small businesses.

Alternative approaches

Some respondents suggested alternative approaches, including penalties that increase for repeat offences. The government considers that the proposed approach provides a clear and proportionate framework for enforcement, while giving local authorities flexibility to take account of circumstances in individual cases. Where appropriate, enforcement authorities may choose to use:

• informal action
• a civil sanction in the form of a fixed monetary penalty
• criminal prosecution under the Food Safety Act 1990

Consistency with other age-restricted products

Some respondents highlighted the importance of ensuring consistency with other age-restricted products, such as alcohol, tobacco and vapes. Age-restricted products such as tobacco and alcohol are not enforced under the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. However, the fine amount for larger retailers is broadly consistent with other enforcement under the act. This includes government regulations on the promotion and placement of foods high in fat, salt or sugar.

The government’s response to suggestions to use fixed penalty notices is set out in the section on the length of time needed to respond to a notice of intent.

Additional requirements for local authorities

Publishing details of cases where a civil sanction has been imposed

Local authority respondents were asked if there are any circumstances where it might be inappropriate for them to publish details of cases where a civil sanction has been imposed.

Of 61 respondents who answered this question:

• 18 (30%) said yes
• 16 (26%) said no
• 27 (44%) said they didn’t know

Of respondents who said yes, 12 (67%) provided further information or evidence to support their answer. Examples included cases where:

• there is a wider or ongoing investigation against the person or business
• the person or business has the right to further appeal against the civil sanction
• there are data protection and privacy reasons, including if the person can be identified or is a child

None of the respondents who said no provided further information or evidence to support their answer.

Government response

Some respondents identified circumstances where it may not be appropriate to publish details of cases, including where there is an ongoing investigation, a right of appeal or data protection considerations.

The government considers that transparency is important in supporting compliance and public confidence in enforcement. However, information must be published in a way that complies with relevant legal requirements, including data protection legislation.

We will provide guidance to support local authorities in determining when it is appropriate to publish information. This includes how to take account of privacy, data protection requirements and ongoing proceedings.

Additional costs from guidance and transparency requirements

Local authority respondents were asked if the additional guidance and transparency requirements will place any additional costs on their local authority.

Of 61 respondents who answered this question:

• 41 (67%) said yes
• one (2%) said no
• 19 (31%) said they didn’t know

Of respondents who said yes, 25 (61%) provided further information or evidence to support their answer. Themes raised included views that the requirements would lead to additional activity and costs, requiring familiarisation time with the ban and additional resourcing to undertake the activities.

Some respondents answered this question more broadly by providing their views on the effect of the ban on their local authority. This included additional enforcement activity to undertake visits and respond to complaints, in addition to concerns about capacity and resourcing in teams. Some respondents used the free-text box to raise other points that did not form consistent themes.

None of the respondents who said no provided further information or evidence to support their answer.

Government response

Many respondents indicated that the additional guidance and transparency requirements may result in increased activity and costs for local authorities. This included time to:

• familiarise themselves with the policy
• update processes
• carry out additional administrative and enforcement activity

The government recognises that new requirements may have resource implications and will ensure that guidance is clear and proportionate to support effective implementation.

We will complete and agree a new burdens assessment with MHCLG ahead of the measures coming into force.

New burdens for local authorities

Information for the new burdens assessment

Local authority respondents were asked to provide any further information, evidence or data that should inform the new burdens assessment.

There were 27 responses to this question. Themes raised included:

• views that the ban will lead to additional enforcement activity and associated costs, including:

  • familiarisation with the policy
  • training
  • undertaking visits
  • responding to complaints
  • preparing and publishing guidance for retailers
• concerns about capacity and resourcing, including the need for funding to support additional staffing, training and enforcement activity
• views that government support will be needed, including clear guidance and funding
• queries about whether trading standards officers can enforce the ban under the Food Safety Act 1990

Some respondents used the free-text box to raise issues not directly related to this question, or other points that did not form consistent themes.

Government response

Respondents provided a range of information to inform the new burdens assessment, including expected increases in enforcement activity, staffing and training costs and the need for clear guidance.

It will be used to inform the new burdens assessment, which will be agreed with MHCLG ahead of the measures coming into force.

The government’s response to queries about whether trading standards officers can enforce the ban under the Food Safety Act 1990 is set out in the section on assessing compliance with the ban.

Effect on groups with protected characteristics

Effect of the ban on groups with protected characteristics

Respondents were asked whether this proposal was likely to have an effect on people who share a protected characteristic compared with those who do not.

Of 1,094 respondents who answered this question:

• 171 (16%) said yes
• 680 (62%) said no
• 243 (22%) said they didn’t know

Respondents who said yes were asked which protected characteristics they thought this applies to. Of these:

• 147 (86%) said age
• 51 (30%) said disability
• 45 (26%) said pregnancy and maternity
• 38 (22%) said sex
• 19 (11%) said race (including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin)
• 13 (8%) said religion or belief
• 14 (8%) said gender reassignment
• 10 (6%) said marriage and civil partnership
• 10 (6%) said sexual orientation

Respondents had the opportunity to provide information or evidence to support their answer. The themes raised for each protected characteristic are set out below.

Age

For those that selected the protected characteristic of age, 106 respondents (72%) provided further information or evidence to support their answer. Themes raised included:

• views that as an age restriction the ban affects children, but this is a positive point
• concerns that the vending proposal affects adults, though they are out of scope of the policy
• concerns about barriers by age, including rates of photo identification ownership for 16 and 17 year olds

Some respondents used the free-text box to raise issues not directly related to this question, or other points that did not form consistent themes.

Disability

For those that selected the protected characteristic of disability, 28 respondents (55%) provided further information or evidence to support their answer. Themes raised included:

• concerns that people with a disability may have a medical condition or need to consume high-caffeine energy drinks
• views that people with a disability may need targeted communication to ensure they are aware of the new age of sale restriction

The other points raised did not form consistent themes.

Gender reassignment

For those that selected the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, 5 respondents (36%) provided further information or evidence to support their answer. The points raised did not form consistent themes.

Marriage and civil partnership

For those that selected the protected characteristic of marriage and civil partnership, 2 respondents (20%) provided further information or evidence to support their answer. The points raised did not form consistent themes.

Pregnancy and maternity

For those that selected the protected characteristic of pregnancy and maternity, 29 respondents (64%) provided further information or evidence to support their answer. Most respondents raised views that caffeine is not recommended during pregnancy, so the ban may benefit those who are pregnant.

A small number of respondents used the free-text box to raise issues not directly related to this question or other points that did not form consistent themes.

Race (including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin)

For those that selected the protected characteristic of race, 10 respondents (53%) provided further information or evidence to support their answer. A small number of respondents raised views about how socioeconomic status may intersect with race. The other points raised did not form consistent themes.

Religion or belief

For those that selected the protected characteristic of religion or belief, 4 respondents (31%) provided further information or evidence to support their answer. The points raised did not form consistent themes.

Sex

For those that selected the protected characteristic of sex, 29 respondents (76%) provided further information or evidence to support their answer.

Some respondents raised views that men may be more likely to consume high-caffeine energy drinks and that advertising for these products is often perceived as male-focused. On this basis, some respondents felt that men may experience a greater public health benefit from the proposal.

A small number of respondents used the free-text box to raise issues not directly related to this question or other points that did not form consistent themes.

Sexual orientation

For those that selected the protected characteristic of sexual orientation, 2 respondents (20%) provided further information or evidence to support their answer. The points raised did not form consistent themes.

Government response

The consultation responses show that most respondents did not consider that the policy would affect people with protected characteristics differently. Where impacts were identified, they generally related to age. This reflects the policy’s aim to restrict sales of high-caffeine energy drinks based on age. Some respondents said this could have a positive effect on this group.

Some respondents identified potential effects for people with other protected characteristics, including sex, disability and pregnancy. These views have been considered as part of the equalities impact assessment provided to the Secretary of State.

The Secretary of State has had due regard to the need to:

• eliminate unlawful discrimination
• advance equality of opportunity
• foster good relations between different groups

This was considered as part of the decision to introduce legislation to ban the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks to children under the age of 16 years in England. Having considered the available evidence, including the consultation responses and the equalities impact assessment, we do not expect the policy to have any negative equalities impacts.

However, we intend to take steps to ensure the policy is delivered in an inclusive, fair, and safe way. This includes:

• providing an implementation period to allow retailers to have time to prepare, including training staff, updating systems and communicating changes to customers
• providing clear implementation guidance to support businesses and enforcement authorities
• working with businesses to ensure the implementation of the ban is accessible to people with disabilities or language barriers, for example through clear signage and guidance

Additional information

Information for the impact assessment

Respondents were asked to provide any further evidence or data they wanted us to consider in our final impact assessment.

There were 138 responses to this question.

Themes raised included:

• sharing published research and evidence relevant to the impact assessment
• restating support for, or opposition to, the proposed ban, or opposition to proposals for how it would apply to vending machines
• views on additional or alternative policy actions the government could take on high-caffeine energy drinks
• queries about whether trading standards officers can enforce the ban under the Food Safety Act 1990
• sharing personal experiences and anecdotal evidence
• broader views on other diet and obesity policies

We also heard from a small number of respondents that schools would need support to:

• ensure that children do not have high-caffeine energy drinks with them on school premises
• confiscate them if they are found

Relevant files

Respondents were given the opportunity to upload up to 3 relevant files.

Respondents uploaded 69 files to provide additional information or evidence in support of, or related to, their answers. This included relevant information for the final impact assessment. The files submitted varied in length and format.

The files uploaded included:

• published research and evidence, including studies on consumption, health effects and inequalities, or polling data and survey results
• reference lists and supporting evidence cited in written submissions
• written submissions setting out more detailed views on the proposed policy
• evidence provided to support or challenge the assumptions used in the impact assessment
• visual materials, including examples of product marketing, labelling and how age restrictions are communicated online
• views on applying the ban in vending machines, including information on providers of age verification software

Government response

Respondents provided a range of additional evidence, information and materials to inform the development of the policy and the impact assessment.

We have considered the uploaded files and evidence alongside the consultation responses. Where relevant, the information and evidence submitted has informed the final impact assessment, including refinements to the evidence base and the modelling assumptions. Information relating to specific parts of the policy, including vending machines, online sales, enforcement and implementation, were considered alongside the consultation responses, and are addressed in the relevant sections of the consultation outcome.

The final impact assessment has been submitted to the Regulatory Policy Committee for scrutiny. It will be published in due course.

We recognise the concerns raised by some respondents about support for schools. We understand that schools can add items to their local lists and many already ban high-caffeine energy drinks. In the Department for Education’s (DfE’s) omnibus surveys for 2024 to 2025, the majority of secondary school leaders (74%) said their school had a policy on high-caffeine energy drinks. In almost all cases (88%), the policy was that pupils are banned from consuming these drinks both on school premises and during the school day. We will work with DfE to consider whether high-caffeine energy drinks should be added to the statutory searching, screening and confiscation list ahead of the ban coming into force.

Further matters about the consultation

Respondents were asked if they wanted to raise any further matters about the consultation.

There were 74 responses to this question.

Themes raised included:

• restating support for the proposed ban
• views on additional or alternative policy actions the government could take on high-caffeine energy drinks
• restating opposition to the proposed ban, or proposals for how it would apply in vending machines
• views on other diet and obesity policies

Most respondents (95%) said they were satisfied or very satisfied with the consultation survey. A small number of respondents used the free-text box to provide views on the consultation process, including feedback that:

• it was lengthy or time-consuming to complete
• there was not enough space in the free-text boxes to respond fully to the proposals

Some respondents used the free-text box to raise issues not directly related to this question or other points that did not form consistent themes. Points relating to specific aspects of the policy, including implementation and enforcement, have been addressed in the relevant sections.

Government response

Respondents raised a range of additional points, including:

• support for and opposition to the proposed ban
• suggestions for further policy action

We have considered these views alongside the consultation responses. Where relevant, they have informed the development of the final policy approach. Information relating to specific parts of the policy are addressed in the relevant sections of the consultation outcome.

We note that while most respondents said they were satisfied or very satisfied with the consultation process, some found the consultation lengthy or considered that the free-text boxes did not provide enough space to respond fully. We have considered the information provided through the consultation responses and uploaded files in developing the final policy approach.

Consultation outcome

The government has considered the consultation responses and supporting evidence. This has informed the final policy approach, including decisions on scope, enforcement and implementation.

Responses to this consultation demonstrated strong support for banning the sale of high‑caffeine energy drinks to children. Respondents came from a range of sectors, including public health organisations, local authorities, education and health. They recognised the potential harm to children’s health and the need for action.

On that basis, the government has decided to introduce legislation to ban the sale of high‑caffeine energy drinks to children in England.

The action we’re taking

The government has decided that:

• there should be a ban on the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks in England to children aged under 16 years, building on existing voluntary action on the sale and marketing of high-caffeine energy drinks
• the products in scope include any drink, other than tea or coffee, that contains over 150 milligrams of caffeine per litre, consistent with the criteria in Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on Food Information to Consumers and existing voluntary industry practice, including products intended to be consumed as drinks following reconstitution
• all retailers selling directly to consumers are in scope, both in store and online, including retailers that primarily sell food and drink, the eating out-of-home sector, and retailers that do not primarily sell food and drink, while business-to-business sales are not in scope
• there should be a complete ban on vending machine sales of high-caffeine energy drinks, with the person who controls or manages the premises where the machine is located liable for any sales, consistent with the approach taken for tobacco
• there should be a minimum implementation period of 6 months for retailers and local authorities to prepare for the ban, from the date of publication of the consultation outcome

How the ban will be enforced

The government has decided that:

• enforcement powers will be given to local authorities, who will be responsible for enforcing the ban under the Food Safety Act 1990
• enforcement activity is expected to be led by trading standards officers, subject to local arrangements
• powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 should be extended to support enforcement of the ban, subject to agreement from the Home Office
• local authorities will be able to issue fixed monetary penalties (a fine) under the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 for non-compliance, alongside existing criminal offences under the Food Safety Act 1990

• fixed monetary penalties will be set at:

  • £1,500 for individuals, micro and small businesses
  • £2,500 for medium and large businesses

Next steps

The government will take forward secondary legislation under the Food Safety Act 1990 to ban the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks to children in England. Draft legislation will be presented to Parliament in due course.

Subject to agreement from the Home Office, the government will also take forward a separate statutory instrument under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to support enforcement of the ban.

Subject to usual Parliamentary scrutiny and approval, the government intends for the ban to come into force in April 2027. Ahead of implementation, we will work with trade associations, businesses and local authorities to support the ban. This will include providing guidance and agreeing a new burdens assessment with MHCLG.

The government will undertake a post-implementation review of the policy within 5 years to assess whether it remains effective, proportionate and appropriate. There will be a separate review within 3 years of enforcement powers under the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008.

References

Ajibo C, Van Griethuysen A, Visram S and Lake AA. Consumption of energy drinks by children and young people: a systematic review examining evidence of physical effects and consumer attitudes. Public Health 2024: volume 227, pages 274 to 281.

Hulbert S, Eida T, Ferris E, Hrytsenko V and Kendall S. Health behaviour in school-aged children (HBSC) national report: findings from the 2001-2022 HBSC study for England. Available at HBSC England reports. University of Kent, 2023.

Khouja C, Kneale D, Brunton G, Raine G, Stansfield C, Sowden A, Sutcliffe K and Thomas J. Consumption and effects of caffeinated energy drinks in young people: an overview of systematic reviews and secondary analysis of UK data to inform policy. BMJ Open 2022: volume 12, issue 2, article number e047746.

Vogel C, Shaw S, Strömmer S, Crozier S, Jenner S, Cooper C, Baird J, Inskip H and Barkeret M. Inequalities in energy drink consumption among UK adolescents: a mixed-methods study. Public Health Nutrition 2022; volume 26, issue 3, pages 575 to 585.