Subject: Social Justice

Mentor’s Comment

India committed in 2017 to restrict the advertising of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and foods high in fat, sugar and sodium (HFSS) foods under the National Multisectoral Action Plan, but that commitment remains unimplemented. In February 2026, the Supreme Court of India weighed in on the issue through a PIL on front-of-pack warning labels, and the Economic Survey 2025-26 called for stronger regulation of UPF advertising, bringing the policy gap into sharp focus.

What has made UPF and HFSS advertising a public health concern?

1. Rising exposure: Children and adolescents encounter UPF advertisements across television, social media, sports broadcasts and influencers.
2. Misleading health claims: Advertisements highlight selective attributes such as “baked”, “multigrain” or “12-grain” and conceal high sugar, salt and fat content.
3. Targeted marketing: Celebrity endorsements and child actors increase product appeal among vulnerable consumers.
4. Demand creation: Advertising does not merely reflect demand. It actively shapes consumer preferences and consumption patterns.
5. Scale of advertising expenditure: In 2024, three major transnational corporations spent USD 13.2 billion on UPF advertising globally. In India alone, more than two lakh junk food advertisements appeared in a single month, backed by an advertising expenditure of approximately ₹170 crore.

Why are UPFs increasingly linked to adverse health outcomes?

1. Industrial formulation: UPFs contain additives, flavour enhancers, emulsifiers and refined ingredients designed for high palatability.
2. Overconsumption effect: Their design encourages repeated consumption and reduces satiety.
3. Diet displacement: UPFs replace traditional and minimally processed foods.
4. Disease burden: Scientific evidence links high UPF consumption to obesity, hypertension, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.
5. Rising NCD challenge: Growing UPF consumption coincides with increasing obesity rates globally and in India.

Why are existing regulatory safeguards proving inadequate?

1. Policy implementation gap: The National Multisectoral Action Plan (2017-2022) envisaged restrictions on HFSS advertising, but implementation remains incomplete.
2. Weak disclosure norms: Advertisements can omit critical nutritional information and still remain legally compliant.
3. Limited consumer protection: Existing rules focus more on product safety than marketing practices.
4. Judicial concern: The Supreme Court has highlighted the need for stronger consumer information measures such as front-of-pack labelling.
5. Reliance on self-regulation: Industry-led safeguards have not substantially reduced child-targeted advertising.

What Is the Constitutional and Legal Basis for Restricting UPF and HFSS Advertising?

1. State duty to protect vulnerable groups: Children are especially vulnerable to food marketing, requiring state intervention to safeguard public health.
2. Existing policy commitment: The NMAP (2017-22) envisaged restrictions on HFSS food advertising, but implementation remains pending.
3. Advertising law as the key instrument: The proposed solution is amendment of advertising laws, a measure already contemplated by the government.
4. Supporting legal measures: The Supreme Court (2026) endorsed front-of-pack labelling, while MPs have advocated warning labels and taxation of UPFs.
5. Right to health framework: Regulation of unhealthy food advertising flows from the constitutional right to health and is supported by the Economic Survey 2025-26.

Does nutrition education alone solve the problem?

1. Information asymmetry: Consumers receive nutrition advice but are simultaneously exposed to aggressive food marketing.
2. Behavioural influence: Marketing exploits emotional triggers that often outweigh rational dietary choices.
3. Children’s vulnerability: Children lack the capacity to critically assess persuasive advertising.
4. Environmental constraint: Food choices are shaped by the surrounding commercial environment, not only by awareness levels.
5. Public health limitation: Education programmes cannot fully offset continuous exposure to unhealthy food promotion.

What do international experiences demonstrate about food advertising regulation?

1. City of San Francisco lawsuit against UPF manufacturers: In 2024, San Francisco filed a lawsuit against 10 major UPF manufacturers alleging child-targeted marketing, highly compelling product formulations, and inadequate health risk disclosure. The suit sought prevention of deceptive marketing and corrective measures for past false advertising.
2. Chile: Strong statutory restrictions on unhealthy food advertising reduced reliance on voluntary industry commitments.
3. Mexico: Regulatory interventions demonstrated greater effectiveness than self-regulation mechanisms.
4. Global evidence: International experience shows enforceable legal measures outperform voluntary compliance frameworks.
5. Lancet Series evidence (November 2025): Three papers published in The Lancet in November 2025 presented scientific evidence linking UPF consumption to poorer diet quality, displacement of real foods, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and other non-communicable diseases. The series argued that policymaking should not wait for further evidence.

Why is this ultimately a state responsibility rather than a market choice?

1. Right to Health: The state has a constitutional duty to protect public health when harms are foreseeable.
2. Child protection principle: Children constitute a vulnerable group requiring enhanced regulatory safeguards.
3. Market failure: Consumers often lack complete information about nutritional risks.
4. Externalities: Rising obesity and NCDs impose social and healthcare costs beyond individual consumers.
5. Public interest regulation: Restrictions on harmful advertising are comparable to other public health interventions.

What policy changes are required?

1. Advertising restrictions: Prohibit or significantly restrict child-targeted advertising of UPFs and HFSS foods.
2. Front-of-pack labelling: Introduce clear warning labels to improve informed choice.
3. Digital platform regulation: Extend restrictions to social media, influencers and online advertising.
4. Stronger enforcement: Replace voluntary compliance with statutory obligations and penalties.
5. Healthy food promotion: Incentivise marketing of minimally processed and nutritious foods.

Conclusion

The central issue is not consumer ignorance but the commercial environment that shapes food choices. Nutrition education cannot succeed when aggressive marketing continuously promotes unhealthy foods. India’s public health response must move beyond awareness campaigns and regulate the advertising ecosystem that drives UPF consumption, especially among children.