January may come to be seen as a turning point in global food policy. Within weeks, Britain and the US signalled a decisive shift in how governments are responding to junk food, or ultra-processed food products (UPFs), particularly with respect to their marketing and advertising. At the core is a growing recognition that rising consumption of UPFs is accelerating diet-related diseases, such as obesity and diabetes, especially among children.
These developments send a message: this is no longer about individual choice or parental responsibility. It is about commercial practices that shape dietary patterns at a population scale.
Britain From January, the nation has implemented a statutory ban on advertising unhealthy foods - no TV advertising before 9 pm, and a complete ban on paid online advertising. The government estimates that this will remove 7.2 bn calories from children's diets each year and prevent tens of thousands of future obesity cases.
This is not symbolic regulation. It rests on an evidence-backed premise that UPF advertising displaces healthy diets. Reducing exposure reduces consumption.
US Release of Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2025-2030 for the first time explicitly calls for a dramatic reduction in highly processed foods and those with added sugars. They link such diets to obesity, pre-diabetes and chronic disease. Backed by federal law and reinforced by school food mandates, the guidelines carry real policy weight.
The language is unusually direct. UPFs, referred to as 'highly processed' in the guidelines, are identified as those high in refined carbohydrates, added sugars, excess sodium, unhealthy fats and chemical additives. Processing is recognised as a risk factor, not merely the nutrient profile.
This marks a break from decades of nutrition policy that focused narrowly on individual nutrients, allowing companies to reformulate while leaving the underlying problem intact. A 'health drink' in India reduced sugar from 50% to 43%. It may be marketed as progress but remains harmful. Reformulation cannot address a crisis in which one in four adults is overweight or obese.
US Congress Childhood Diabetes Reduction Act, a bipartisan bill currently under consideration, would require mandatory health warning labels on UPFs and explicitly link their consumption to increased childhood diabetes risk. Although legislation has not yet been enacted, it highlights a significant policy gap alongside a growing political consensus. For years, consumers - particularly parents - have lacked access to material information about long-term health risks associated with these products. In this context, advertising restrictions and warning labels are increasingly framed not as 'nanny-state' interventions but as essential consumer protection measures.
India is undergoing a rapid nutrition transition. UPF consumption, once marginal, is rising sharply, particularly in urban and peri-urban areas, with aggressive expansion into rural markets. Running in parallel is a steep rise in overweight and obesity. NFHS-5 data show significant increases among children and adolescents, while adult obesity has nearly doubled in many states. Childhood obesity coexists with persistent undernutrition, creating a dual burden that strains families and the health system.
This parallel rise is not coincidental. Children are exposed daily to junk food advertising across TV, digital platforms, gaming apps and influencer marketing. Marketing of UPFs also includes incentives, yet existing regulation remains largely voluntary, unclear, fragmented and weakly enforced.
'Advertising restrictions will harm business', 'violate free speech' or conflict with trade obligations are common arguments. Recent developments in Britain and the US weaken these claims. If advanced market economies can impose statutory ad bans, reject UPFs in dietary guidance and consider warning labels, it becomes difficult to argue that similar measures are unreasonable or anti-growth.
India-UK Free Trade Agreement (FTA) explicitly recognises the right of parties to regulate to protect public health. Allowing cheaper imports of foods high in fat/sugar/salt (HFSS) from a country that bans their advertising and mandates front-of-pack labelling risks creating an uneven and unfair situation for Indian consumers, particularly children.
The core issue is not whether parents should make better choices. It is whether it is acceptable for corporations to spend billions engineering demand for products known to increase disease risk, while withholding clear warnings and saturating children's environments.
India already recognises child protection and public health as constitutional priorities. Evidence-based restrictions on marketing fall squarely within legitimate regulatory powers. What is missing is political resolve.
Across democracies, the regulatory direction is unmistakable. UPFs are no longer treated as lifestyle options but as policy problems. The question for India is no longer whether action is justified but how long we can afford to delay. Because every year of inaction quietly transfers future healthcare costs, lost productivity and preventable disease onto the next generation.
The writer is convenor, Nutrition Advocacy in Public Interest (NAPi)
These developments send a message: this is no longer about individual choice or parental responsibility. It is about commercial practices that shape dietary patterns at a population scale.
Britain From January, the nation has implemented a statutory ban on advertising unhealthy foods - no TV advertising before 9 pm, and a complete ban on paid online advertising. The government estimates that this will remove 7.2 bn calories from children's diets each year and prevent tens of thousands of future obesity cases.
This is not symbolic regulation. It rests on an evidence-backed premise that UPF advertising displaces healthy diets. Reducing exposure reduces consumption.
US Release of Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2025-2030 for the first time explicitly calls for a dramatic reduction in highly processed foods and those with added sugars. They link such diets to obesity, pre-diabetes and chronic disease. Backed by federal law and reinforced by school food mandates, the guidelines carry real policy weight.
The language is unusually direct. UPFs, referred to as 'highly processed' in the guidelines, are identified as those high in refined carbohydrates, added sugars, excess sodium, unhealthy fats and chemical additives. Processing is recognised as a risk factor, not merely the nutrient profile.
This marks a break from decades of nutrition policy that focused narrowly on individual nutrients, allowing companies to reformulate while leaving the underlying problem intact. A 'health drink' in India reduced sugar from 50% to 43%. It may be marketed as progress but remains harmful. Reformulation cannot address a crisis in which one in four adults is overweight or obese.
US Congress Childhood Diabetes Reduction Act, a bipartisan bill currently under consideration, would require mandatory health warning labels on UPFs and explicitly link their consumption to increased childhood diabetes risk. Although legislation has not yet been enacted, it highlights a significant policy gap alongside a growing political consensus. For years, consumers - particularly parents - have lacked access to material information about long-term health risks associated with these products. In this context, advertising restrictions and warning labels are increasingly framed not as 'nanny-state' interventions but as essential consumer protection measures.
India is undergoing a rapid nutrition transition. UPF consumption, once marginal, is rising sharply, particularly in urban and peri-urban areas, with aggressive expansion into rural markets. Running in parallel is a steep rise in overweight and obesity. NFHS-5 data show significant increases among children and adolescents, while adult obesity has nearly doubled in many states. Childhood obesity coexists with persistent undernutrition, creating a dual burden that strains families and the health system.
This parallel rise is not coincidental. Children are exposed daily to junk food advertising across TV, digital platforms, gaming apps and influencer marketing. Marketing of UPFs also includes incentives, yet existing regulation remains largely voluntary, unclear, fragmented and weakly enforced.
'Advertising restrictions will harm business', 'violate free speech' or conflict with trade obligations are common arguments. Recent developments in Britain and the US weaken these claims. If advanced market economies can impose statutory ad bans, reject UPFs in dietary guidance and consider warning labels, it becomes difficult to argue that similar measures are unreasonable or anti-growth.
India-UK Free Trade Agreement (FTA) explicitly recognises the right of parties to regulate to protect public health. Allowing cheaper imports of foods high in fat/sugar/salt (HFSS) from a country that bans their advertising and mandates front-of-pack labelling risks creating an uneven and unfair situation for Indian consumers, particularly children.
The core issue is not whether parents should make better choices. It is whether it is acceptable for corporations to spend billions engineering demand for products known to increase disease risk, while withholding clear warnings and saturating children's environments.
India already recognises child protection and public health as constitutional priorities. Evidence-based restrictions on marketing fall squarely within legitimate regulatory powers. What is missing is political resolve.
Across democracies, the regulatory direction is unmistakable. UPFs are no longer treated as lifestyle options but as policy problems. The question for India is no longer whether action is justified but how long we can afford to delay. Because every year of inaction quietly transfers future healthcare costs, lost productivity and preventable disease onto the next generation.
The writer is convenor, Nutrition Advocacy in Public Interest (NAPi)
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of www.economictimes.com.)
Arun Gupta
The author is former member, PM’s council on India’s nutrition challenges