A landmark three-paper series published in
The Lancet has issued one of the strongest global warnings yet about the public health dangers posed by ultra-processed food products (UPFs). Authored by 43 international experts, including India’s Dr Arun Gupta, paediatrician and senior public health advocate and prof Srinath Reddy, chancellor of the Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI) University of Public Health Sciences, the series argues that UPFs are rapidly displacing traditional diets worldwide and driving a surge in chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular ailments, depression and premature mortality.
The authors state that, while continued research is important, the current body of evidence is already sufficient to justify immediate and decisive policy action. They emphasise that improving diets cannot rely on individual behaviour change alone, and that regulating UPFs must become a priority, similar to tobacco and other industries whose commercial interests conflict with public health.
UPFs, classified under the Nova food system developed by prof Carlos Monteiro of the University of São Paulo, are industrial formulations made largely from food-derived substances, preservatives and cosmetic additives such as emulsifiers, stabilisers, sweeteners and flavouring agents. These products, from packaged snacks and instant noodles to sugary beverages, biscuits and flavoured cereals, are manufactured to maximise profitability through hyper-palatability, convenience and aggressive marketing.
A systematic review cited in the series found that 92 of 104 studies linked UPF consumption with one or more chronic disease outcomes. Several meta-analyses further show increased risks for 12 major health conditions, including overweight, type-2 diabetes, high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, gastrointestinal disorders, depressive symptoms and all-cause mortality.
India mirrors global trends but is moving at a much faster pace. Retail sales of UPFs surged from US$0.9bn (billion) in 2006 to nearly US$38bn in 2019 — a forty-fold rise — while obesity rates doubled in both men and women over the same period. The latest
ICMR-INDIAB-17 survey paints an alarming picture: one in four adults in India is overweight or obese, one in ten has diabetes, one in seven is pre-diabetic and nearly one in three has abdominal obesity. Childhood obesity has also increased sharply in recent years. Dr Arun Gupta notes that India still lacks precise national data on UPF consumption despite this rapid dietary shift. “The traditional meals are being fast replaced by hyper-palatable industrial UPF products via aggressive marketed and advertisement campaigns,” he says, warning that India must immediately recognise UPFs as a priority health issue.
The series also highlights the role of corporate power in shaping food systems and policy environments. UPF manufacturers are the most profitable segment of the global food industry. Between 1962 and 2021, more than half of the US$2.9trn (trillion) in shareholder payouts distributed across all food and retail sectors came from companies producing ultra-processed foods. These profits fuel extensive political lobbying, strategic partnerships, carefully crafted public messaging and a global network of industry-funded interest groups designed to weaken or delay regulation.
Prof Srinath Reddy warns that multinational corporations often target low- and middle-income countries such as India for rapid market expansion because traditional dietary patterns make these regions particularly vulnerable. He described UPFs as ‘advertised addictions’ and says stronger measures, including bans on advertising and celebrity endorsements, are urgently needed.
While India’s ‘Eat Right’ campaigns encourage consumers to choose healthier options, public health experts argue that communication alone is insufficient in an environment dominated by aggressive UPF promotion. Existing regulations on high-fat, sugar and salt foods are weak and riddled with loopholes, and voluntary industry self-regulation has repeatedly proved ineffective.
The Economic Survey 2024–25 has itself called for stronger food-labelling rules and tighter control over marketing. The Lancet series reiterates that front-of-pack warning labels are currently the only labelling strategy shown to substantially reduce consumption of unhealthy products. Concerns have also been raised about conflicts of interest in the regulatory process, with critics pointing out that nearly 80% of stakeholders consulted during Food Safety and Standards Authority of India’s (FSSAI) development of front-of-pack norms were from the food industry.
The authors argue that India must urgently adopt a coordinated policy approach to reduce the production, marketing and availability of UPFs while expanding access to fresh and minimally processed foods. They call for clear legal definitions of UPFs and high fat, sugar and salt (HFSS) foods aligned with national dietary guidelines; strict restrictions on advertising, especially during hours when children are most exposed; mandatory warning labels; exclusion of UPFs from schools, hospitals and other public institutions; stronger safeguards to prevent industry influence in policymaking; and robust national systems to track UPF consumption through Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), National Institute of Nutrition (NIN) and National Family Health Surveys (NFHS).
The series notes that Section 18 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, already empowers India to adopt precautionary measures to protect health even when scientific uncertainty exists.
For India, where UPF consumption is still rising rapidly, the authors warn that the window for preventive action is narrowing. Without decisive intervention, the country risks repeating the trajectory seen in several Western nations where UPFs now dominate diets and chronic disease burdens have soared.
The Lancet series frames the issue as a global health challenge on par with tobacco, alcohol and pollution — one that requires strong governance, independent scientific oversight and collective action to shield public health from commercial interests.
