India's children face health risks as tariff-free British junk food enters market under new FTA

India-Britain FTA, announced on Thursday, will allow tariff-free entry for British food and drink, such as chocolate, gingerbread, sweet biscuits, soft drinks and non-alcoholic beer. Another FTA with four EU nations also indicates that chocolates will be cheaper to enter India. This is bad news for the health of India's children.

Cheap Britain-made food products, which are likely to be high in fat/sugar/salt (HFSS), could now flood the Indian market and fuel the rapidly growing market of ultra-processed food products. It means consumption of unhealthy diets would increase when India is grappling with a surge in childhood obesity, diabetes and other diet-related NCDs.

Aggressive marketing of HFSS products is fuelling obesity. Between 2006 and 2019, the per-capita consumption of such products rose by nearly 50 times. Earlier this year, Narendra Modi launched an anti-obesity campaign, asking people to reduce oil consumption by 10%. This must now be backed by strong regulation on marketing, including mandatory front-of-pack warning labels on HFSS food products. Further, a clearly worded law must restrict advertisements of HFSS foods.


In the 1990s, Mexico signed Nafta with the US. Without safeguards, it led to an explosion of sugary drinks and processed foods, ushering in a wave of obesity and diabetes that haunts the country to this day. Mexican health experts call it their 'Nafta moment'. India can't afford to repeat this mistake.

Globally, regulations are not only focusing on labelling but also on marketing restrictions, especially to protect children. While Britain exports HFSS food products to India, it uses traffic light labels, restricts HFSS marketing, and will enforce a 9 PM TV and online ad ban from October. The EU is strengthening its food labelling and marketing restrictions, especially for children. Britain aims to reduce children's exposure to unhealthy food promotion. Chile, Mexico, Brazil and Israel have implemented strong front-of-pack warning labels.

In sharp contrast, India has no mandatory warning label, and the food industry enjoys the freedom of advertising, partly because of weak laws that are open to interpretation. Cartoon mascots or health claims on unhealthy food products, sponsorships of school or sporting events by food/drink product companies, and unrestricted celebrity endorsements of HFSS products are common occurrences. This is not just a policy gap, it's an equity gap.

So, why the hesitation in India?

The science is clear. The PM has spoken. Yet, regulatory action is still caught between industry resistance and bureaucratic delay. The question isn't whether we can do it, it's whether we will. The Supreme Court has also spoken about food labelling and its glaring gaps as the judges asked: 'You all have grandchildren? What are you feeding them? The packets have no information.'

The PM has given a moral nudge. The apex court has given a legal one. The Economic Survey has offered the economic rationale. Technically, GoI's dietary guidelines for Indians make this case strong enough.

Now, the country needs the health ministry to act boldly. Because if India doesn't lead on this now, it will be our children who pay the price, bite by bite.

The writer is convenor, Nutrition Advocacy in Public Interest (NAPi)