End the free rein of junk food advertising in India

Despite plans by the Indian government to amend advertising laws to limit the promotion of foods high in fat, sugar and sodium, these products continue to be heavily promoted. As evidence continues to mount of the health harms associated with processed foods made to be highly palatable and potentially addictive, limiting their advertising – especially exposure to children and young people – may no longer be possible.

Try opening a YouTube video about politics, scrolling through your Instagram feeds, or scanning a newspaper, and you’re likely to come across ads for noodles, chips, cookies, breakfast cereals, chocolates, sugary drinks, or other ultra-processed foods (UPF). Recently, an advertisement for a newly launched brand of baked chips in India appeared on YouTube. The ad emphasized the cheese and tomato flavors and “crunchiness” to appeal to consumers. However, she did not disclose that the product is UPF with ingredients such as maltodextrin, nature-identical flavors, flavorings, salt substitute (KCl/potassium chloride), acidity regulators (627, 631), and emulsifier (322). Although the ad heavily promoted selective attributes such as “baked”, it omitted information about the material’s health, including its high salt and fat content and the presence of refined carbohydrates. Such marketing practices can create a misleading impression of health while obscuring the nutritional risks associated with these products.

While readers may recall their own experiences, there are several other examples in the media. The film celebrity is seen recommending multi-grain, “no maida choco cereal” for her son, despite it being a high-sugar product. An entire family of actors are promoting the ’12-grain’ breakfast cereal, while a popular film actor endorses the biscuit as a ‘good choice’. However, most of these products are high in sugar, fat and/or salt, raising questions about the messages conveyed through such recommendations. Such selective disclosure creates a false perception of health and deprives consumers, especially children and adolescents, of the right to make an informed choice.

Comment | Flawed food regulations are fueling the obesity crisis

Overview of frameworks

This article also aims to alert policy makers to the need to review whether existing legal frameworks adequately serve the public interest. Clearer legislation may be needed to effectively regulate the advertising of unhealthy food products.

The ad is directly related to the increased consumption of UPF, which is strongly associated with rising rates of obesity and diabetes. These ads often feature child actors and use emotionally appealing messages aimed at both children and parents, creating a desire for such products. The fact that three large multinational corporations will spend $13.2 billion on advertising in 2024 underscores the volume and power of food product advertising. Advertising doesn’t just reflect demand; it helps to create. In India alone, more than two million junk food ads per month were supported by an ad spend of about ₹170 million.

Evidence suggests that UPFs may promote overconsumption through mechanisms that resemble those identified in addiction science. The health damage associated with UPFs appears to be closely related to their industrial design and marketing strategies. But the food industry fails to communicate this fact to people. Recently, the city of San Francisco filed a lawsuit against 10 major manufacturers of UPF, alleging marketing aimed at children, developing highly persuasive product formulations, and failing to disclose health risks such as obesity and diabetes. Among other things, the lawsuit sought to prevent further deceptive marketing practices and sought remedies to address the effects of past deceptive advertising.

Also read | Publish oil and sugar content of Indian snacks, says health ministry

Gap in politics

The Government of India’s National Multi-Sector Action Plan (NMAP) for the Prevention and Control of Common Noncommunicable Diseases (2017-2022) envisaged a ban/restriction on advertising of foods high in fat, sugar or salt. Many prepackaged foods are highly processed, contain additives such as colors, flavors, emulsifiers, and sweeteners, and are often HFSS. The matter gained political attention. In February 2026, the Supreme Court of India, responding to a PIL regarding warning labels for packaged foods, observed that front-of-pack labeling is necessary to protect the right to health. The Economic Survey 2025-26 also highlighted concerns about unhealthy diets. Several members of parliament called for stricter measures, including front-of-pack warning labels, restrictions on advertising and UPF taxation. In 2024, the court found that misleading advertisements can encourage the consumption of unhealthy food by children, pregnant women and the elderly, which can have serious health consequences. These developments indicate a growing recognition that existing safeguards may be insufficient.

The Lancet series on UPF and human health published three papers in November 2025 that presented scientific evidence linking UPF consumption to poorer diet quality, crowding out real food, and higher risk of obesity, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and other non-communicable diseases. Global and Indian data show that rising UPF consumption has coincided with rising obesity rates. The Lancet made a strong case for policies in the food environment to reduce UPF consumption, with many experts arguing that policy making should not wait for more evidence.

Comment | Throw away the junk food, bring back a plate of healthy food

The food environment needs fixing

Children and adolescents in India are exposed daily to advertisements for UPF and HFSS foods on television, digital platforms, social media, sports broadcasts and through influencers. This sustainable and sophisticated marketing is designed to build brand loyalty and shape lifelong consumption patterns. The goal of the UPF industry is clear: to promote the displacement of real culinary or cultural foods for profit. What children or young people eat cannot be separated from what they are taught in schools, workplaces, cinemas, other public places or even at home.

Experts from The Lancet Series argue that nutrition education and behavior change programs alone cannot succeed in an environment saturated with aggressive marketing of unhealthy foods.

This situation underscores an important constitutional principle: when harm is foreseeable and the population is vulnerable, the state has a duty to protect public health and regulate the marketing of unhealthy foods. India pledged to curb such advertising in 2017, but that goal remains unfulfilled. Given the scale of the problem, neither market forces nor self-regulation are likely to be sufficient. Therefore, there is a strong case for the Government of India to introduce stricter controls on the advertising and promotion of UPF and HFSS foods, as planned in 2017 by amending the advertising laws.

If schools are to be protected by UPF-free spaces, HFSS foods and misleading nutrition messages, it is inconsistent to ignore the commercial environment that shapes children’s choices outside of school. The school environment itself requires clear policy direction, not just recommendations (like Brazil recently). The Economic Survey called for tighter regulation of UPF advertising and marketing. International experience from Chile to Mexico suggests that voluntary self-regulation is often ineffective, while enforceable legal measures can be more effective. Because of its influence on children’s food choices, advertising requires stricter regulation as part of the broader right to health.

Limiting advertising of unhealthy food products need not be seen as anti-industry or anti-profit. In fact, it could reduce corporate advertising spending and encourage companies to redirect resources to minimally processed foods and healthier local markets. Such a shift could help shape more sustainable and health-oriented food systems in the future.

Arun Gupta is a paediatrician, consultant to Nutrition Advocacy in the Public Interest (NAPi) and co-author of the Lancet series

Published – 22 Jun 2026 01:18 IST