This article is part of South First's year-long Beat Obesity, Lower Diabetes (BOLD) series, an attempt to keep the lens steady, week-after-week analysis on what is changing, what is not, and what must.
Published Jan 09, 2026 | 7:00 AM ⚊ Updated Jan 09, 2026 | 7:00 AM
The United Kingdom has banned television, radio and online advertisements for foods high in fat, salt or sugar before 9 pm.
Synopsis: The UK has banned junk food advertisements on prime-time TV and radio. India, despite having policies to insulate children from unhealthy food and beverages, lacks the will to implement them. Furthermore, the recently finalised India-UK trade agreement allows greater import of these unhealthy products into Indian markets.
Every advertisement promoting junk food plants in children a subconscious trigger that makes unhealthy eating normal, aspirational and desirable. The branding, the celebrity endorsements, and the toys bundled with meals all work to shape children’s perception of processed food, giving it a positive image.
“Children are highly impressionable,” said Dr C Rahul Reddy, Consultant Paediatric Endocrinologist at Ankura Hospital in Hyderabad. “When packaged and ultra-processed foods dominate the visual environment, children begin to see these foods as normal or routine, even though they are unhealthy.”
On 5 January 2026, the United Kingdom moved to restrict this influence. It imposed sweeping regulations banning television, radio and online advertisements for foods high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS) before 9 pm, alongside a complete ban on paid online advertising for these products.
The restrictions are part of an ambitious government plan to halve childhood obesity by 2030.
Indian children have no such state-sponsored protective cover. Despite having a policy framework in place that called for prohibiting HFSS advertising since 2017, India has failed to implement it.
Meanwhile, the recently finalised India-UK trade agreement allows greater import of these very products into Indian markets.
“This creates a double standard,” said Dr Arun Gupta, Convenor of Nutrition Advocacy in Public Interest. “In the UK, advertising of HFSS foods is being restricted by law, while in India, our regulatory framework remains weak.”
The clinical evidence on advertising’s impact on children is unambiguous. Endorsements by celebrity cricketers and film stars create powerful aspirational associations that work at a subconscious level.
“When well-known cricketers or film stars promote a product, children associate it with success, popularity, and aspiration. This influence often works subconsciously,” Dr Reddy said.
Crucially, advertising creates desire even before children taste the products.
“Even without tasting the food, the way it is packaged, marketed, and repeatedly presented creates desire,” he noted.
Promotional tactics such as toys, stickers and collectables bundled with food prove particularly effective with younger children, who are more vulnerable to visual and emotional cues.
Peer behaviour reinforces this effect. “Once a few children start consuming these products, others follow. Children begin asking parents for the same foods, not because of hunger, but due to social pressure and repeated exposure,” Dr Reddy explained.
When advertising exposure reduces, the effects are measurable and significant.
“The child’s brain receives fewer visual triggers. They think about these foods less, talk about them less, and experience fewer cravings driven by external cues,” Dr Reddy said. “In the absence of such visual triggers, healthier options become easier choices. Homemade food or minimally processed alternatives feel more accessible and acceptable.”
Over time, this can reduce excessive calorie intake and lower the risk of weight gain and metabolic complications.
“These conditions often begin silently in adolescence and persist into adulthood because eating habits, once formed, are difficult to break,” he added, referring to diabetes, hypertension and insulin resistance—all increasingly appearing in younger Indians.
The UK’s new restrictions target 13 categories of less healthy products, including soft drinks with added sugar, confectionery, cakes, breakfast cereals, pizzas, ready meals and ice cream.
Any product falling within these categories that scores above a certain threshold on the government’s Nutrient Profiling Model will be subject to the 9 pm restriction on television and a complete ban on paid online advertising.
The restrictions are backed by evidence. The UK’s sugar tax, introduced in 2018, has reduced total sales of sugar from soft drinks by 35%. Similar restrictions on promotions of less healthy foods in supermarkets have also led to a reduction in sales.
However, the UK regulations contain a significant weakness. Following industry lobbying, the government delayed implementation—originally scheduled for October 2025—and amended the legislation to exempt “brand advertisements”.
Companies cannot show identifiable unhealthy products like burgers or milkshakes, but they can advertise their brand logos and identities.
This exemption has been described as a “massive loophole” that points to government capitulation to industry pressure. Fast-food chains can continue promoting their brands without showing specific products, maintaining visibility and consumer recall.
Even more notably, outdoor advertising—billboards and posters on bus shelters—remains entirely unrestricted. Since the regulations were announced in 2020, food companies have markedly increased spending on outdoor advertising, which remains “pervasive and effective”.
The brand exemption closely resembles surrogate advertising practices long used in India to circumvent restrictions on alcohol and tobacco products. Brands like Kingfisher, Royal Stag and Bagpiper promote music CDs and club sodas that carry identical branding to their alcoholic beverages, maintaining brand recall through legal alternatives.
While the UK moves forward with restrictions—however imperfect—India’s approach to food advertising remains fundamentally broken.
“We already have consumer protection laws and FSSAI (Food Safety and Standards Authority of India) regulations that prohibit misleading food advertisements. But they fail to clearly define what misleading means. As a result, almost every advertisement is allowed,” Dr Gupta said.
Between September 2023 and March 2025, the government was unable to identify a single misleading food advertisement, despite misleading ads being visible daily across television and digital platforms.
Food companies routinely conceal critical information, arguing that nutritional details are printed on the back of packaging.
“But the first point of contact for consumers is not the food label, it is the advertisement. Only after purchase do people look at the packaging,” Dr Gupta pointed out.
There are two clear pathways through which consumption of unhealthy foods increases. One is advertising itself, which has strong evidence showing increased consumption when products are promoted. The second is that many of these products are addictive in nature, encouraging repeated consumption.
“Neither of these realities is disclosed by the food industry,” Dr Gupta said.
The evidence on the harmful effects of ultra-processed foods has been clearly established through multiple Lancet papers. One laid out the scientific evidence; another focused on policy options.
San Francisco, California, US, recently filed a lawsuit against 10 major food companies, alleging they knowingly concealed information about the harms of their products, contributing to obesity and diabetes.
This official government-led legal action represents a new frontier in holding food companies accountable.
Dr Reddy emphasised that advertising is not the only determinant of children’s eating habits, but it is a major one that can be regulated.
“Adolescents are strongly shaped by their immediate environment. School canteens, neighbourhood food outlets, and peer groups exert a powerful influence. Even without direct advertising, availability and social acceptance drive consumption,” he said.
“This means that banning advertisements alone will not eliminate exposure to unhealthy foods. But it does remove one major driver and makes it easier to reinforce healthier behaviours at home and in schools.”
Behaviour change is most effective when the environment is consistent.
“When parents limit screen time, model healthy eating, and schools promote the same values, children are more likely to adopt better habits. Adolescents observe and imitate adults and peers around them. In such aligned environments, we do see meaningful shifts towards healthier eating patterns in clinical practice,” Dr Reddy said.
Dr Gupta outlined clear steps India must take. “India urgently needs to define HFSS. We already have workable thresholds, such as sugar or fat exceeding 10%, or sodium above specified limits. These definitions are used across WHO regions, including Latin America.”
Once HFSS is defined, the next step is restricting advertising, especially to children aged up to 18. “If a total ban is not politically feasible, at least a ban should be implemented, similar to the UK, where HFSS ads are prohibited during peak viewing hours,” he said.
Concerns about surrogate advertising are valid, given India’s experience with alcohol and pan masala companies.
“But if the government is serious, this can be addressed. The responsibility does not lie with consumers. It lies with food companies and with governments that fail to regulate them effectively,” he further stated.
The trade agreement itself allows India to introduce public-health-protective laws. Public health protection is explicitly mentioned in its preamble, meaning there is no legal barrier. “What is missing is political will,” Dr Gupta was blunt.
Dr Reddy emphasised that advertising restrictions must be part of a broader strategy. “Strong food policies are needed, including clear front-of-pack labelling, easily readable ingredient lists, and transparent calorie information. Star-rating systems used in some Western countries can help families quickly distinguish healthier options from unhealthy ones.”
He added that nutrition education must be strengthened across schools and colleges. “Isolated interventions will not work. A coordinated ecosystem involving policy, education, family behaviour, and the food environment is essential. Only then will we see sustained and meaningful change in how children and adolescents relate to food.”
Perhaps, most frustratingly, India already has a policy framework in place.
The National Multisectoral Action Plan on Non-Communicable Diseases, released in 2017, proposed prohibiting HFSS advertising across media platforms.
“The problem is not a lack of policy, but a lack of implementation,” Dr Gupta said.
The consequences of this inaction are playing out in paediatric endocrinology clinics across India.
Conditions like diabetes, hypertension and insulin resistance—once considered adult diseases—are increasingly appearing in adolescents. These conditions often begin silently and persist into adulthood because eating habits formed in childhood are difficult to break.
As the UK moves to protect its children from junk food advertising—albeit with significant loopholes—India faces a stark choice. The country can either continue allowing unrestricted marketing of unhealthy foods to children, or it can implement the policies already on its books.
The policy framework exists. The legal authority under the trade agreement is explicit. What remains missing is a political will to prioritise children’s health over food industry profits.
(Edited by Majnu Babu).
