Despite the Indian government’s plan to amend advertising laws to curb the promotion of foods containing HFSS (high amounts of fat, sugar and sodium), such products are being advertised extensively. As the evidence continues to grow about the harm to health from industrially processed foods designed to be highly palatable and potentially addictive, restricting their advertising – especially to children and young people – can no longer be avoided.
Try opening a YouTube video on politics, scrolling through Instagram reels, or scanning a newspaper, and you’re likely to find ads for noodles, chips, biscuits, breakfast cereals, chocolate, sugary beverages, or other ultra-processed food (UPF) products. Recently, there was a YouTube advertisement of the newly launched baked chips brand in India. The advertising emphasized the cheese and tomato flavors and “crunchiness” of the product to attract consumers. It did not disclose that the product is a UPF which contains ingredients such as maltodextrin, nature-identical flavors, flavoring agents, salt substitutes (KCI/potassium chloride), acidity regulators (627, 631) and emulsifiers (322). While prominently promoting select attributes such as “baked”, the advertising omitted material health information, including the product’s high salt and fat content and the presence of refined carbohydrates. Such marketing practices may create a misleading perception of healthfulness while obscuring the nutritional risks associated with these products.
While readers may recall their own experiences, there are some other examples in the media. A female film celebrity is seen recommending multigrain, “No Maida Choco Cereal” to her son, despite it being a high sugar product. An entire family of actors promote “12-grain” breakfast cereals, while a popular film actor promotes the biscuits 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 advertisements. Such selective disclosures create a false perception of healthiness and deprive consumers, especially children and adolescents, of the right to make an informed choice.
Comment | Flawed food rules fuel obesity crisis
Review Outlines
The focus of this article is also to draw the attention of policy makers to whether the existing legal frameworks adequately serve the public interest. Clear legal provisions may be needed to effectively regulate the advertising of unhealthy food products.
Advertising is directly linked to the increased consumption of UPF, which is strongly linked to increasing rates of obesity and diabetes. These advertisements often feature child actors and use emotionally appealing messages for both children and parents, creating a desire for such products. The fact that in 2024, three major international corporations spent $13.2 billion on advertising underscores the volume and power of food product advertisements. Advertising does not simply reflect demand; It helps to create it. In India alone, advertising expenditure of about ₹170 crore was spent on more than two lakh junk food advertisements in a month.
Evidence suggests that UPFs may encourage excessive consumption through mechanisms identified in addiction science. The health harms associated with UPFs appear to be closely linked to their industrial design and marketing strategies. But the food industry fails to disclose this fact to the public. Recently, the city of San Francisco filed a lawsuit against 10 major UPF manufacturers, accusing them of targeted marketing to children, development of overly hypnotic product formulations, and inadequate disclosure of health risks such as obesity and diabetes. Among other remedies, the lawsuit sought to prevent further deceptive marketing practices and insisted on corrective measures to address the effects of past false advertising.
Read this also Health Ministry asks government departments to publicize the amount of oil and sugar in Indian breakfast
a policy gap
The National Multi-Sectoral Action Plan (NMAP) (2017-2022) of the Government of India for the Prevention and Control of Common Non-Communicable Diseases envisages a ban/restriction on advertising of HFSS foods. Many pre-packaged foods are highly processed, contain additives such as colors, flavors, emulsifiers and sweeteners, and often contain HFSS. This issue has attracted policy attention. In February 2026, the Supreme Court of India, in response to a PIL on warning labels for packaged foods, said 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 have called for stronger measures, including front-of-pack warning labels, advertising restrictions and taxation on UPF. In 2024, the Court had said that misleading advertisements could encourage consumption of unhealthy foods by children, pregnant women and the elderly, with potentially serious health consequences. These developments point to a growing recognition that existing security measures may be inadequate.
The Lancet series on UPF and human health published three papers in November 2025, presenting scientific evidence linking UPF consumption to poor diet quality, displacement of real foods, and higher risk of obesity, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and other non-communicable diseases. Global and Indian data show that increasing consumption of UPF coincides with increasing 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 further evidence.
Comment | Take out the junk food, bring back the healthy plate
There is a need to improve the food environment
Children and adolescents in India are exposed to advertisements for UPF and HFSS foods daily through television, digital platforms, social media, sports broadcasts and influencers. This persistent and sophisticated marketing is designed to build brand loyalty and shape lifelong consumption patterns. The purpose of the UPF industry is clear: to encourage the displacement of genuine culinary or cultural foods for profit. What children or youth eat cannot be separated from what they are induced to eat in schools, workplaces, cinema halls, other public places or even at home.
Experts in the Lancet series argue that nutrition education and behavior-change programs alone cannot succeed in an environment that is filled with aggressive marketing of unhealthy food products.
This position underlines an important constitutional principle: when there is danger of harm and the population is vulnerable, the state has a duty to protect public health and regulate the marketing of unhealthy food products. India committed to ban such advertising in 2017, but that objective has not been met. Given the scale of the problem, neither market forces nor self-regulation are likely to suffice. Therefore, there is a strong case for the Government of India to impose strict controls on advertising and promotion of UPF and HFSS foods as planned in 2017 by amending the advertising laws.
If schools are to be safe spaces free from UPF, HFSS foods, and misleading nutrition messages, it is disproportionate to ignore the commercial environment that shapes children’s choices outside of school. The school environment itself needs clear policy direction, not just advice (as Brazil recently did). The Economic Survey calls for stronger regulation of UPF advertising and marketing. International experience from Chile to Mexico shows that voluntary self-regulation is often ineffective, while enforceable legal measures may be more effective. Given its impact on children’s food choices, advertising warrants stronger regulation as part of a broader mandate to health.
Banning advertising of unhealthy food products should not be seen as anti-industry or anti-profit. This may actually reduce company spending on advertising and encourage companies to redirect resources toward minimally processed foods and healthy local markets. Such change could help shape more sustainable and health-oriented food systems in the future.
Arun Gupta is a pediatrician, convener of Nutrition Advocacy in Public Interest (NAPI) and co-author of the Lancet series.
published – June 22, 2026 01:18 am IST
