Despite the Government of India’s plans to amend advertising laws to curb the promotion of HFSS (high in fat, sugar and sodium) foods, such products continue to be advertised rampantly. As evidence of the health harms associated with industrially processed foods engineered to be highly palatable and potentially addictive continues to grow, restricting their advertising — particularly exposure to children and young people — may no longer be avoidable.

Try opening a YouTube video on politics, scrolling through Instagram reels, or scanning a newspaper, and you are likely to encounter advertisements for noodles, chips, biscuits, breakfast cereals, chocolates, sweetened beverages, or other ultra-processed food (UPF) products. Recently, there was a YouTube advertisement for a newly launched baked chips brand in India. The advertisement emphasised the product’s cheese and tomato flavours and the “crunchiness” to appeal to consumers. What it did not disclose was that the product is a UPF with ingredients such as maltodextrin, nature-identical flavourings, flavouring substances, salt substitute (KCI/potassium chloride), acidity regulators (627, 631) and emulsifier (322). While prominently promoting selective attributes such as “baked”, the advertisement omitted material health information, including the product’s high salt and fat content and the presence of refined carbohydrates. Such marketing practices can create a misleading impression of healthfulness while obscuring the nutritional risks associated with these products.

While readers can recall their own experiences, there are a few other examples in the media. A female film celebrity is seen recommending a multigrain, “no maida choco cereal” for her son, despite it being a high sugar product. An entire family of actors promotes a “12-grain” breakfast cereal, while a popular film actor endorses a biscuit as a “good choice”. Most of these products, however, are high in sugar, fat and/or salt, raising questions about the messages conveyed through such endorsements. Such selective disclosures create a false perception of healthfulness and deprives consumers, particularly children and adolescents, of the right to make an informed choice.

Comment | Flawed food regulations fuel the obesity crisis 

Review frameworks

The focus of this article is also to draw the attention of policymakers to the need for reviewing whether existing legal frameworks sufficiently serve the public interest. Clearer legal provisions may be required to effectively regulate the advertising of unhealthy food products.

Advertising is directly linked to increased consumption of UPFs, which is strongly associated with rising rates of obesity and diabetes. These advertisements often feature child actors and use emotionally appealing messages aimed at both children and parents, creating a desire for such products. The fact that in 2024, three major transnational corporations spent $13.2 billion on advertising underscores the volumes and the power of food product advertisements. Advertising does not merely reflect demand; it helps create it. In India alone, more than two lakh junk food advertisements in a month were backed by advertising expenditure of about ₹170 crore.

Evidence suggests that UPFs can encourage overconsumption through mechanisms that resemble those identified in addiction science. The health harms associated with UPFs appear closely linked to their industrial design and marketing strategies. But the food industry fails to disclose this fact to people. Recently, the City of San Francisco filed a lawsuit against 10 major UPF manufacturers, alleging child-targeted marketing, the development of highly compelling 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 pushed for corrective measures to address the effects of past false advertising.

Also Read | Publicise oil and sugar content of Indian snacks, Health Ministry tells government departments

A policy gap

The Government of India’s National Multisectoral Action Plan (NMAP) for Prevention and Control of Common Non-Communicable Diseases (2017-2022) envisaged the prohibition/restrictions on the advertising of HFSS foods. Many pre-packaged foods are highly processed, containing additives such as colours, flavours, emulsifiers and sweeteners, and are often HFSS. The issue has gained policy attention. In February 2026, the Supreme Court of India, in response to a PIL on warning labels for packaged foods, observed that front-of-pack labelling is necessary to protect the right to health. The Economic Survey 2025-26 also highlighted concerns around unhealthy diets. Several Members of Parliament have called for stronger measures, including front-of-pack warning labels, advertising restrictions and taxation of UPFs. In 2024, the Court had noted that misleading advertisements can encourage the 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 safeguards may be inadequate.

The Lancet Series on UPFs and Human Health, published three papers in November 2025 which presented scientific evidence linking UPF consumption to poorer diet quality, displacement of real foods, and a 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 increasing obesity rates. The Lancet made a strong case for policies in the food environments to reduce UPF consumption, with many experts arguing that policymaking should not wait for further evidence.

Comment | Toss out the junk food, bring back the healthy food plate 

The food environment needs a fix

Children and adolescents in India are exposed daily to advertisements for UPFs and HFSS foods on television, digital platforms, social media, sports broadcasts and through influencers. This sustained and sophisticated marketing is designed to build brand loyalty and shape lifelong consumption patterns. The aim of the UPF industry is clear: to encourage the displacement of real culinary or cultural foods for profits. What children or youth eat cannot be separated from what they are persuaded to desire at schools, work places, cinema halls, other public places or even at home.

Experts in The Lancet Series contend that nutrition education and behaviour-change programmes alone cannot succeed in an environment that is saturated with aggressive marketing of unhealthy food products.

This situation underscores an important constitutional principle: when harm is foreseeable and populations are vulnerable, the state has a duty to protect public health and regulate the marketing of unhealthy food products. India committed in 2017 to restrict such advertising, but that objective 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 UPFs and HFSS foods such as planned in 2017 by amending advertisement laws.

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

Restricting the advertising of unhealthy food products need not be viewed as anti-industry or anti-profit. In fact it could reduce company expenditure on advertising and encourage companies to redirect resources towards 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, convenor of Nutrition Advocacy in Public Interest (NAPi) and co-author of the Lancet Series