Beyond labels: What India needs to do to limit ultra-processed foods

A recent Lancet series has renewed global concern about the rapid spread of ultra-processed foods and their links to obesity and chronic disease. While these concerns are valid, focusing only on the products does not tell the full story. Global experience shows that the real issue lies in how food systems are changing, and how diets and habits especially among children are shaped over time.

 

India is debating front-of-pack labelling (FoPL) to address rising obesity and diet-related diseases. The hope is that clear warning labels will reduce consumption of unhealthy foods. While well-intentioned, evidence from across countries shows that labels alone cannot counter deeper structural forces shaping modern diets.

 

 

As India’s incomes rise and lifestyles change, convenience will play a larger role in everyday food choices. Food innovation in processing, packaging, and delivery, will expand rapidly. In this context, the key policy question is not whether ultra-processed foods will increase, but how to prevent them from becoming nutritionally dominant and habit-forming, especially for children.

 

International evidence shows a consistent pattern. As incomes rise, people have less time to cook, dual-income households become common, and demand for quick, affordable food grows. Food systems respond accordingly. Over time, ultra-processed foods move from being occasional choices to everyday staples.

 

This shift has occurred even in countries with high nutrition awareness. In the US, the UK, Canada, and Australia, where nutrition labels are widespread more than half of daily calories now come from ultra-processed foods. This makes clear that information on a package cannot, by itself, overcome convenience, habit, price, and easy availability.

 

Front-of-pack labelling has only a limited effect on food choices. It may help people pick a slightly “better” option within the same category, such as one biscuit or snack over another, and it can encourage companies to reduce sugar, salt, or fat. However, it does not make people stop buying that category of food. Companies also respond by adjusting products to score better on labels, without changing how often those foods are consumed.

 

This perspective is particularly important for India because ultra-processed foods do not yet dominate Indian diets. The Household Consumption and Expenditure Survey (HCES) 2023–24 shows that less than 5 per cent of total dietary energy in India currently comes from ultra-processed foods.

 

This suggests that India’s nutrition challenge cannot be explained primarily by ultra-processed foods at this stage. The problem lies elsewhere, poor diet diversity, inadequate intake of fruits, vegetables, and protein, and weak food environments for children. Over-focusing on FoPL risks misdiagnosing the problem and missing the window for preventive action.

What Chile and Mexico Show?

Chile and Mexico are often cited as FoPL success stories, but the evidence is mixed. In Chile, warning labels were part of a broader package that included bans on unhealthy foods in schools and restrictions on advertising to children. These steps led to product reformulation and short-term changes in buying. But obesity—especially among children—has not fallen, and consumers largely shifted within ultra-processed foods rather than away from them. Mexico shows a similar pattern. Labels are clear and widely understood, but ultra-processed food consumption remains high and obesity trends have not changed significantly. Together, these cases show that FoPL improves awareness and product quality, but on its own does not reduce the dominance of ultra-processed foods. Stronger effects come from complementary measures, particularly those protecting children.

Where Other Countries Have Done Better

A different lesson comes from Japan, France, Germany, and Vietnam. These countries have not tried to eliminate ultra-processed foods or rely mainly on warning labels. Instead, they use system-level measures to protect traditional diets.

 

Japan treats food education as a public good, with freshly cooked school meals and strong food education shaping lifelong habits. France and Germany use public institutions, schools and hospitals to prioritise fresh and minimally processed foods, influencing eating habits more effectively than labels alone. Vietnam shows the value of acting early: traditional meals and home cooking still dominate, supported by food and nutrition education in schools. All these countries have very or relatively low rates of obesity.

 

The common thread is simple: protect children’s diets, strengthen public food systems, teach food skills early, and keep a clear distinction between meals and snacks.

The Lesson for India

With rising incomes and urbanisation, ultra-processed foods will be part of India’s future. The policy choice is whether they remain a minor add-on or become the nutritional core of daily diets. The goal is not to ban or demonise ultra-processed foods, but to ensure they remain a small, occasional part of diets rather than everyday staples.

 

FoPL can help, but global evidence shows it cannot do the heavy lifting alone. More durable solutions lie in schools, public food programmes, food education, and early shaping of food environments.

 

India still has a critical advantage: ultra-processed foods account for a very small share of current diets. That window will not remain open indefinitely. The global lesson is clear, the foundations of food systems matter far more than the information printed on the front of a packet.

---

(Pawan Agarwal is founder & CEO of Food Future Foundation and former CEO, FSSAI)  (Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the writer. They do not reflect the views of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper)