Top doctors want ban on junk food ads, celeb campaigns targeting children: Why this works

The statement puts the issue bluntly: “Take the Lead: Ban the Advertisements of Junk Food Products.” It also warns that aggressive and misleading advertising is contributing to the country’s growing diet-related non-communicable disease burden, particularly among young people.

In January, India’s own Economic Survey 2025–26 made a strikingly similar case. It said improving diets cannot depend solely on changing consumer behaviour and suggested that India explore a 6 am–11 pm ban on UPF marketing across all media, including digital platforms. It also backed stronger front-of-pack warning labels and suggested restrictions on marketing infant and toddler foods and beverages. India’s health experts and its economic policymakers are beginning to recognize the same problem: the food environment is influencing individual choices faster than individual health education can counter it.

India’s warning lights are already flashing

The numbers explain the urgency. According to NFHS-5, 24% of Indian women and 23% of men aged 15–49 were overweight or obese in 2019–21. The proportion of children under five who were overweight increased from 2.1% in 2015–16 to 3.4% in 2019–21.

The Economic Survey also highlighted the extraordinary growth of the UPF market in India and warned of the consequences for obesity and NCDs. It estimated that more than 3.3 crore children were obese in 2020, with the number potentially reaching 8.3 crore by 2035 if current trends continue.

These figures should not be interpreted as evidence that ultra-processed food or advertising is the sole cause of obesity. Diet, physical activity, urbanisation, income, sleep, family circumstances and the wider food environment all matter. But that is precisely why advertising deserves attention. It is one part of the environment governments can actually regulate.

A child is not an ordinary consumer

The World Health Organization (WHO) is unequivocal on this point. Its 2023 guideline says food marketing influences children’s food preferences, purchase requests and dietary intake and shapes their norms around food consumption. Modern marketing is not simply a television commercial. It can be a cricket sponsorship, a celebrity endorsement, a cartoon character on packaging, an influencer video, an online game, a competition, a promotional toy or a “limited-time” offer.

WHO, therefore, recommends mandatory and comprehensive regulation, backed by government-led nutrient profiling, and warns against allowing marketing restrictions to simply migrate from television to digital media. That has a direct implication for India.

Children watch cricket, movies and entertainment programmes with their parents. They use YouTube and social media. They play games. The child does not live inside a regulatory category called “children’s programming.”

Chile has already shown what can happen

India can learn from countries that have gone further. Chile provides perhaps the most instructive example. Beginning in 2016, it introduced an integrated food policy combining front-of-pack warning labels, restrictions on child-directed food marketing and restrictions on the sale of unhealthy products in schools.

The impact on children’s exposure to unhealthy food advertising was dramatic. After the first phase, exposure to advertising for foods high in calories, sugar, saturated fat or sodium fell by 44% among preschool children and 58% among adolescents.

Chile subsequently introduced a much broader time-based restriction. The results became even more striking: children’s exposure to unhealthy food advertising fell 57% after the first phase and 73% after the second. A longitudinal study of Chilean children found that, following implementation of the country’s package of food policies, children’s consumption of total sugars at school fell substantially, with reductions also observed in saturated fat and sodium intake. Adolescents experienced reductions in sugar and saturated-fat intake at school as well.

When governments change the food environment surrounding children — what they see, what is sold to them and how products are labelled — measurable changes in exposure and dietary intake can follow. That is precisely the kind of integrated approach India should consider.

The school gate matters

India has already taken some tentative steps in this direction. CBSE schools have been encouraged to use “sugar boards” and “oil boards” to make students aware of the sugar and fat content of common foods.

But awareness alone has limits. If the healthier option is unavailable while the unhealthy option is cheap, attractive and heavily promoted, a nutrition lesson is fighting an uphill battle.

WHO’s latest work on a healthy school food environment similarly emphasises the need for governments to create standards that increase access to healthier foods while limiting unhealthy foods and beverages in schools.

South Korea offers another warning

The country restricted television advertising of energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods during regulated hours. Research found reductions in advertising placements and exposure to such products, with changes in food companies’ advertising practices.

That is why India’s policy must be media-neutral. Television, OTT, social media, gaming, influencer marketing and digital advertising cannot be treated as separate universes.

The UK has now moved in the same direction

The UK has introduced a 9 pm watershed for HFSS food and drink advertising on television and restrictions on paid-for HFSS advertising online. The rules came into force in January 2026.

What India needs

Five things are essential. First, define HFSS and UPF clearly. Regulation needs a transparent, government-led nutrient-profile system rather than subjective arguments about whether a product is “healthy”.

Second, regulate all major media. Television-only regulation will simply push advertising into digital spaces.

Third, ban child-directed persuasion—not merely specific products. Cartoons, celebrities, sports personalities, games, gifts, competitions and promotional offers should be covered.

Fourth, clean up schools. Sugary drinks and HFSS products should not be sold, promoted or used to sponsor school activities.

Fifth, make warning labels genuinely visible. India’s Economic Survey has endorsed moving toward direct warning labels rather than relying solely on interpretive rating systems.

And there is a sixth requirement: independent enforcement. A regulation without monitoring quickly becomes a voluntary code with better stationery.

Governments can change the commercial environment in which children make food choices. India should therefore resist the temptation to frame this as a battle between the food industry and the consumer. The classroom should teach healthy eating. The school canteen should make it possible. The food label should tell the truth. And the advertising system should stop working against all three.