Regulating food product labels and their advertising is a constitutional imperative as they are intricately linked to health; we just can’t ignore mounting judicial, scientific, and economic consensus.
“The proper and accurate labelling of all pre-packaged food products is not just consumer protection and the right to know but part of the right to health and life.” said the leading constitutional expert of India, Sh. Rajeev Dhawan when asked about his views about ‘warning labels’ on High Fat High Sugar and High Salt (HFSS) food products. His words carry urgency.
The recent India -UK FTA allows UK to be eligible for tariff-free entry into India with food and drink products such as chocolate, gingerbread, sweet biscuits, soft drinks and non-alcoholic beer. It means lower prices for UK-made food products much of which is HFSS. While this may delight consumers in the short term, it may pose a grave long-term health risk in the form of obesity and diabetes. India-UK trade deal could be an excellent strategy for the BIG Food.
It is being hailed as an economic win. But as a pediatrician working on nutrition, for four decades, I see a looming public health crisis. This demands immediate attention to regulatory safeguards to protect India’s children from a flood of ultra-processed, HFSS food products as a result of the FTA with UK. India stands at the crossroads of law, trade, and child health. While India negotiates with the United Kingdom , (and several other countries) it is faces growing evidence on the harms of ultra-processed food products that are High in Sugar/Salt or bad fats.
Further, India also shows a rapid growth of UPFs in India at CGAR of 13.37%, from 900 million USD to 37.9 Billion USD. It means per capita UPF sales increased from INR 37 to 1964, a 53-fold rise. It is during this period that obesity almost doubled. Provisions under trade and investment chapters including Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and InvestorState Dispute Settlement (ISDS) can be invoked to challenge or pressure governments on public health regulations such as food product labelling and advertising controls.
In the absence of clear language that protects public health, we are laying legal landmines under our own regulatory framework. Allowing duty-free access to HFSS products provides multinational corporations grounds to contest future labelling or marketing restrictions. Mexico learned from a painful experience. Mexico’s NAFTA moment, when liberal trade flooded the market with sugary products and led to an obesity and diabetes epidemic. Chile faced coordinated trade challenges when it introduced front of the pack warning labels. Investorstate-dispute-settlement (ISDS) can cause a “regulatory chill”.
India lacks legal safeguards which UK has
UK’s case in critical. UK is set to enforce a 9 PM watershed on HFSS advertising and already uses a traffic light warning label system on front of the pack of HFSS food products. India has no comparable legal safeguard on labelling as yet and its weak laws to control advertisements are open to interpretation, allowing full freedom to the food industry. This amounts to discriminatory and double standards. Nobel Laureate, Joseph Stiglitz critiques the idea of “food freedom” that prioritizes the food industry’s freedom, arguing that freedom of the few often comes at the expense of the freedom and well-being of many, particularly those with limited economic resources.
Health of the people at stake
We must ask this question. Can we afford to ignore the constitutional duty to inform, protect and to prevent harm, especially when children are the first to be affected? Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently remarked, “Children must know how much sugar they are eating.” This is the moral clarity that should be reflected in law. When the food industry disguises high fat, sugar and salt content behind ‘health halos’, what is at stake is the right to information, right to health and life, and protection from deceptive practices.
The Supreme Court of India, in its April 2025 observation, was blunt: “You all have grandchildren? What are you feeding them? The packets have no information.” In doing so, the Court asserted not only the urgency of regulation but framed the issue through the lens of intergenerational equity and the right to be informed. SC was dealing with a writ petition urgently demanding warning label on HFSS foods. In July SC granted 3 more months to the Government of India.
At stake is not just whether a regulation is notified but whether that regulation stands the test of trade law, constitutional law, and children’s health rights. The Economic Survey 2024–25 has supported this view, stating that voluntary or positive-front nutrition labelling (like “star rating”) has failed to curb unhealthy diets globally. It calls for mandatory stringent warning labels that say upfront if the food product is high on sugar/salt or bad fats. Restrictions on marketing exposing children is another call. Having health taxes on ultra processed foods is the third call. This is as much an economic argument as it is a health one. Productivity losses and increased healthcare burden pose long term risks.
Global movement
Chile and Brazil have responded with strong frontof-pack warning labels and advertising restrictions. Norway and Canada have regulated recently. Chile bans marketing of HFSS foods to children under 14, including on packaging, television, and digital platforms. Cartoon mascots, celebrity endorsements and even toys are prohibited for HFSS products. These are not symbolic gestures but constitutionally grounded measures protecting children from predatory marketing and advertising, which is the hidden engine of consumption. Meanwhile, the European Union is moving toward stricter marketing rules, in particular in the digital spaces. This is because of mounting evidence on the impact of UPF products exposure on children’s preferences and long-term health. However, news of FTA with 4 EU nations is worrying too, as it would bring cheaper chocolates always high on fats and sugars.
India’s Constitutional Responsibility
While our food regulator and ministries deliberate on front of the pack labelling formats, but nothing concrete is happening on restriction of advertisements of HFSS, the real question is one of legal responsibility. Can the State allow practices that mislead the public, especially children? Can it ignore mounting judicial, scientific, and economic consensus that such practices endanger public health? The answer lies in treating this not as a consumer issue but as a constitutional one.
Articles 21 and 47 of the Constitution obligate the State to protect life and improve public health. The jurisprudence on right to information, protection from commercial exploitation of children, and food safety all converge here. If we do not act now, especially through regulations that mandate warning labels and prohibits advertising of HFSS food products, we risk allowing trade agreements and corporate pressures to pre-empt the very duties enshrined in our Constitution.
Advertising unhealthy industrial food products does not qualify for ‘free speech’, it must be understood by the government, regulators and advertisers. While Article 19-a does not include ‘public health’ as reasonable restriction, there is ample scope to justify this ban. The Prime Minister has signaled intent. The Supreme Court has issued legal direction.
The Economic Survey has laid out the economic rationale. Now, the legal community, led by voices like the Health Ministry and the judiciary, must rise to protect the public’s right to health from the invisible but powerful influence of commercial food systems. Because if we don’t, it will be the next generation that pays with its health. India has recently picked up on communications and behaviour change to fight the battle of obesity. It’s high time that India puts up a policy to reduce demand generation of unhealthy diets.
The MOHFW’s National Multi-Sector Plan of Action on Common NCDs , pending implementation, provides support to this action. A single, bold front-of-pack warning label system can help reduce consumption of all three nutrients of concern i.e. salt, sugar, and saturated fat, in one stroke. And when paired with restrictions on marketing; such as buy one get one free, sports and school sponsorships, celebrity endorsement and ban advertisements exposing children on all HFSS products, it creates a powerful public health shield that educates and protects. Let’s not allow economic diplomacy to sneak Big Food into our kitchens and schools.
Dr Arun Gupta, MD, is a Pediatrician and convener of the Nutrition Advocacy in Public Interest(NAPi), former member of the PM’s Council on India’s Nutrition Challenges.
