Economic Survey Flags Unhealthy Diets, But Celebrity Ads Continue to Mask High Sugar Content: NAPi

New Delhi: Even as the Government of India’s Economic Survey 2025–26 acknowledges the growing public health crisis driven by unhealthy diets and ultra-processed foods, celebrity-led advertisements promoting high-sugar packaged foods continue without mandatory disclosures, public health advocacy group Nutrition Advocacy in Public Interest (NAPi) has said.

In a detailed submission circulated on Saturday, NAPi expressed serious concern over the continued promotion of ultra-processed foods high in added sugar through advertisements featuring national sports celebrities and child-friendly visuals, without disclosing their nutritional risks. The organisation cited a recent advertisement for a widely consumed packaged food product that reportedly contains 38.5 per cent added sugar by weight, a fact that is not disclosed anywhere in the advertisement.

According to NAPi, the use of a nationally revered cricketer, combined with family-oriented imagery and incentive-based messaging, directly influences consumer behaviour—particularly among children—while concealing material health information. “Such omission amounts to misleading advertising by omission,” the organisation said, noting that children constitute a particularly vulnerable audience.

NAPi pointed out that the Government’s own Economic Survey, tabled in Parliament, identifies unhealthy diets, excess consumption of ultra-processed foods high in sugar, fat and salt, and adverse food environments as major drivers of rising obesity and non-communicable diseases. The Survey, it noted, calls for stronger policy interventions to improve food environments and discourage unhealthy consumption, especially among children.

“Despite this official recognition, advertisements promoting high-sugar and high-fat foods to children continue without any disclosure or warning,” NAPi said, calling it a clear disconnect between evidence acknowledged by the State and regulatory practice on the ground.

The organisation argued that under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, omission of material information that can affect consumer decision-making qualifies as misleading advertising. When such advertising targets children, the violation is aggravated, it said. NAPi also noted that the Advertising Code under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting prohibits misleading or harmful advertisements, yet enforcement remains weak.

Referring to concerns raised by Members of Parliament in recent months over similar food advertisements, NAPi said the issue reflects the limits of voluntary self-regulation and underlines the need for statutory intervention.

Demands for Regulatory Action

NAPi has called on the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to amend its Advertisement Code and Norms of Journalistic Conduct to explicitly include high-fat, sugar and salt (HFSS) ultra-processed foods under prohibited categories, particularly where advertisements target children.

It has also urged the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) to take cognisance of misleading advertising by omission, issue directions mandating disclosure of added sugar, salt and fat content in food advertisements, and bar advertising of products that fail to make such disclosures.

“Not an Informed Choice”

Quoting the organisation’s Convenor, Dr Arun Gupta, NAPi said the contradiction between policy evidence and regulatory inaction is no longer defensible.

“The Economic Survey itself acknowledges that unhealthy diets and foods high in sugar are driving India’s growing obesity crisis, particularly among children. Yet we continue to allow celebrity-led advertisements that conceal the fact that these products contain nearly 40 per cent added sugar. This is not an informed choice—it is misleading by omission,” Dr Gupta said.

He added that allowing such advertising undermines the government’s own policy intent and weakens consumer protection, particularly for children.

NAPi said the present case warrants immediate regulatory intervention and should serve as a precedent for moving beyond voluntary guidelines towards enforceable statutory safeguards that align public health evidence with advertising regulation.