My opinion is yes—but India should tax nutritional harm, not processing itself.

A packet of biscuits may describe itself as “multigrain.” A breakfast cereal may promise vitamins, energy and immunity. A fruit-flavoured drink may display pictures of fresh fruit even when it contains a large amount of added sugar.

Meanwhile, the information that matters most—how much added sugar, salt or saturated fat the product contains—is usually printed in small letters on the back of the packet.

That is not meaningful consumer choice. It gives food manufacturers an information advantage over ordinary families.

Why India Needs to Act

India is facing a double nutritional challenge. Undernutrition continues to affect many families, while obesity, diabetes, hypertension and heart disease are also increasing.

The ICMR–INDIAB study estimated that around 101 million Indians had diabetes and approximately 136 million had prediabetes in 2021. NFHS-5 also reported that about 24% of women and 23% of men were overweight or obese.

At the same time, packaged snacks, biscuits, sugary drinks, instant meals, confectionery and ready-to-eat foods are becoming more affordable and widely available.

A WHO–ICRIER analysis found that India’s ultra-processed food sector recorded rapid growth in retail sales between 2011 and 2021.

This does not mean that packaged food is the only reason for India’s diabetes or obesity problem. Genetics, physical inactivity, stress, sleep, income, lifestyle and overall diet also matter. However, the growing availability and aggressive marketing of unhealthy foods cannot be ignored.

What Are Ultra-Processed Foods?

Ultra-processed foods are generally industrial products made using refined ingredients, additives, flavours, colours, sweeteners, emulsifiers or preservatives.

Common examples may include:

• Sugary soft drinks
• Packaged biscuits and cakes
• Instant noodles
• Flavoured chips and snacks
• Sweetened breakfast cereals
• Processed confectionery
• Ready-to-eat meals
• Some packaged meat products

However, not every industrially processed food is equally unhealthy. Pasteurised milk, packaged bread, frozen vegetables and fortified foods may also involve industrial processing.

Therefore, India should avoid treating every processed food as equally harmful.

What Does the Health Evidence Show?

A major umbrella review published in the BMJ found that higher consumption of ultra-processed foods was associated with several negative health outcomes, including cardiovascular disease, metabolic disorders, mental health problems and premature death.

Much of this evidence is observational, so it cannot prove that food processing alone caused every health outcome. Nevertheless, the consistency of the findings is difficult to ignore.

A controlled feeding trial involving 20 adults also found that participants consumed approximately 500 more calories per day while eating an ultra-processed diet compared with a minimally processed diet.

Participants gained weight during the ultra-processed diet period and lost weight during the minimally processed diet period.

The real concern is not simply whether food was made in a factory. The larger concern is the combination of:

• Excessive added sugar
• High sodium
• High saturated fat
• Low fibre
• Low nutrient density
• Large portions
• Misleading health claims
• Products designed for frequent consumption

Why Current Nutrition Labels Are Not Enough

Packaged foods in India are required to display information such as calories, sugar, added sugar, fat, saturated fat, trans fat and sodium.

However, most of this information appears in a nutritional table on the back of the package.

Consumers must understand serving sizes, percentages, grams and daily nutritional limits while standing in a shop. Many people do not have the time or nutritional knowledge to interpret this information properly.

A technically accurate label is not necessarily an understandable label.

Food companies can also make large claims such as “high in protein,” “contains vitamins” or “made with whole grains” on the front, while information about high sugar or sodium remains far less visible.

India Should Introduce Mandatory Warning Labels

India should require simple, visible and compulsory front-of-pack warnings such as:

HIGH IN ADDED SUGAR

HIGH IN SODIUM

HIGH IN SATURATED FAT

These warnings should appear clearly on the front of the packet and should also be visible on online shopping and quick-commerce platforms.

The purpose of a warning label is not to ban the product. Consumers would remain free to buy and consume it. The label would simply ensure that they can make an informed decision.

In my opinion, direct nutrient-specific warnings are better than a general star-rating system.

A star rating attempts to calculate whether a product is healthy overall. This may allow manufacturers to balance high sugar or sodium with added vitamins, fibre or protein.

A warning label gives consumers a clearer message: this product contains an excessive amount of a particular nutrient.

What India Can Learn from Other Countries

Chile introduced mandatory warning labels on foods high in sugar, sodium, calories or saturated fat. It also restricted child-focused advertising and limited the sale of unhealthy foods in schools.

Studies following the reforms found meaningful reductions in the purchase of sugar, sodium and saturated fat from regulated products.

Mexico introduced a tax on non-essential, energy-dense foods. Research found that purchases of taxed foods declined, with a stronger reduction among lower-income households.

These international examples suggest that warning labels and taxes can influence consumer behaviour and encourage companies to reformulate products.

However, labels and taxes work best when combined with nutrition education, healthier school meals and affordable alternatives.

Should India Impose Higher Taxes?

Yes, but India should not impose the same tax on every packaged or ultra-processed food.

A blanket tax would be inaccurate because different foods have very different nutritional profiles.

For example, a sugar-sweetened soft drink should not receive the same treatment as unsweetened yoghurt, fortified bread or frozen vegetables simply because all are industrially produced.

India should introduce a separate nutrition-based health cess linked to the amount of added sugar, sodium and saturated fat in a product.

The tax should be:

• Based on clear nutrient limits per 100 grams or 100 millilitres
• Higher when a product exceeds multiple limits
• Reduced when the manufacturer reformulates the product
• Applicable equally to imported and domestic products
• Reviewed regularly based on scientific evidence

This would reward companies that reduce sugar, salt and unhealthy fats while placing greater responsibility on companies selling nutritionally poor products.

The Policy Must Not Punish Poor Families

One major concern is that food taxes may affect low-income families more severely because they spend a larger portion of their income on food.

This concern is valid.

A health tax should not merely make commonly purchased food more expensive. The revenue should be used to make healthier food more affordable.

Tax revenue could support:

• Subsidies for fruits, vegetables, pulses and healthier staples
• Better school meals
• Improved Anganwadi nutrition
• Free drinking water in schools and public places
• Nutrition education programmes
• Technical support for small food manufacturers

A policy that only increases prices may appear punitive. A policy that increases the price of unhealthy products while reducing the cost of healthy alternatives would be more fair and effective.

Small Manufacturers Need Support

Large food companies have laboratories, nutrition experts, marketing departments and extensive financial resources. They are capable of reformulating products and redesigning packaging.

Small manufacturers may need more time and technical support.

The government should therefore provide:

• A reasonable transition period
• Clear nutritional testing guidelines
• Affordable laboratory testing
• Support for product reformulation
• Simple compliance procedures

However, small-business concerns should not become a reason to delay consumer warnings indefinitely.

Children Need Stronger Protection

Warning labels alone will not be enough when unhealthy foods are promoted using cartoon characters, celebrities, free gifts, games or sporting images.

Products carrying nutritional warnings should not be allowed to:

• Use cartoons or child-oriented characters
• Offer toys or promotional gifts
• Make misleading claims such as “healthy” or “good for growth”
• Advertise during children’s programmes
• Be promoted or sold inside schools

Children cannot reasonably evaluate long-term health risks against packaging specifically designed to attract them.

Protecting children from manipulative food marketing is a legitimate responsibility of the government.

Warning Labels Should Also Apply Online

More consumers are now buying food through e-commerce and quick-commerce applications.

If a warning appears only on the physical packet, many buyers may not see it before completing an online purchase.

Online sellers should display warning labels:

• On the product image
• Near the price
• Before the customer adds the product to the cart

Digital sales should not become a loophole in food-labelling regulations.

My Final Opinion

India should impose mandatory front-of-pack warning labels on foods containing excessive added sugar, sodium and saturated fat.

India should also impose higher taxes on the least healthy products, but the tax should be based on measurable nutritional harm rather than the broad label of “ultra-processed food.”

The objective should not be to ban packaged food, punish occasional indulgence or eliminate convenience products.

The objective should be to create a fairer food market where consumers receive clear information and manufacturers have a financial reason to improve their products.

People should remain free to decide what they eat. But that decision should be based on honest and visible information.

The freedom to choose food is personal, but the right to know what is inside that food should be non-negotiable.

References

• Food Safety and Standards Authority of India: Labelling and Display Regulations
• WHO–ICRIER report on ultra-processed foods in India
• BMJ umbrella review on ultra-processed food and health outcomes
• Controlled trial comparing ultra-processed and minimally processed diets
• Evaluation of Chile’s food-labelling and marketing regulations
• Evaluation of Mexico’s tax on energy-dense foods