Naming is not a cosmetic exercise in public health. It shapes how societies assign blame, how governments design policy, and how patients understand their own condition. That is why the routine description of non-communicable diseases as “lifestyle diseases” is not merely sloppy. It is misleading.
The label narrows a complex disease burden into a morality tale. It suggests that diabetes, cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory disease, cancer and related conditions are mainly the result of bad personal choices. That framing is convenient. It shifts attention from polluted air, poor urban design, food marketing, tobacco and alcohol promotion, precarious work, weak primary care, and unequal access to diagnosis. It also shifts responsibility from the state and industry to the individual patient.
That is a serious error in a country like India, where the burden of non-communicable diseases is rising across income groups, age cohorts and geographies. Public policy cannot afford a vocabulary that obscures causation.
READ I Universal health coverage begins with prevention, not insurance
Disease naming and public health communication
The language used to describe disease affects far more than public messaging. It influences stigma, funding, prevention priorities, and the design of care systems. Public health has learnt this repeatedly. Neutral and descriptive naming reduces panic and avoids attaching blame to communities, places or identities. Stigmatising language does the opposite.
The term “lifestyle disease” does not describe the epidemiology of NCDs with any precision. NCDs are not contagious in the conventional sense, but neither do they arise in a social vacuum. They emerge from an interaction of behavioural, metabolic, genetic, physiological, environmental, commercial and socioeconomic determinants. Any term that suppresses this complexity distorts the policy response.
That distortion matters because naming affects where governments look for solutions. If the disease is defined as a lifestyle failure, the answer becomes awareness campaigns and exhortation. If the disease is understood as the outcome of multiple risk pathways, the answer must include taxation, regulation, urban planning, screening, cleaner air, food policy, and stronger primary care.
READ I Menstrual health is enforceable right after Supreme Court ruling
NCD stigma and the cost of victim-blaming
Calling NCDs “lifestyle diseases” invites judgment. It encourages the assumption that patients are responsible for their illness, and therefore less deserving of empathy, social support or public investment. That has consequences.
Victim-blaming often produces guilt, shame and delay. People postpone screening. They avoid care. They disengage from long-term treatment. In diseases that require regular follow-up, medication adherence and lifestyle adjustment, stigma is not a side issue. It directly affects outcomes.
This is especially damaging in conditions such as diabetes, COPD, heart disease and several cancers, where diagnosis often comes late and treatment is prolonged. The moral framing can also shape provider behaviour. When clinicians, communities and employers internalise the idea that NCDs are self-inflicted, the patient-provider relationship weakens and social exclusion grows.
The phrase also creates a false hierarchy of deservingness. It implies that some illnesses are unfortunate, while others are earned. That is bad ethics and worse public health.
READ I India’s global health opportunity amid US withdrawal
NCD determinants go far beyond personal behaviour
Behaviour matters, of course. Tobacco use, unhealthy diets, harmful alcohol consumption and physical inactivity are important risk factors. But they are not free-floating personal choices. They are shaped by income, housing, transport, neighbourhood design, food availability, work conditions, advertising, stress, and the commercial incentives of powerful industries.
Metabolic risk factors such as hypertension, obesity, raised blood glucose and abnormal lipids sit between behaviour and disease. They require screening, early diagnosis and continuity of care. A blame-based vocabulary makes these conditions appear like personal negligence rather than clinical risks needing systematic management.
Environmental exposures deepen the problem. Air pollution, occupational hazards, chemical exposure, heat stress, noise and climate-linked shocks affect NCD risk and severity. Urbanisation intensifies some of these exposures while simultaneously reducing physical activity and increasing dependence on cheap processed foods.
Commercial determinants are central. Ultra-processed food companies market aggressively to children and low-income consumers. Tobacco and alcohol firms lobby against taxation and regulation. Fossil fuel dependence worsens air quality and cardiometabolic risk. None of this fits comfortably inside the phrase “lifestyle disease.” That is precisely why the phrase survives. It keeps the spotlight off systems and markets.
Social determinants of NCDs need policy attention
The NCD burden is socially patterned. Poverty, low education, insecure work, poor housing, and weak access to health services all increase risk and worsen outcomes. So do gender norms, age, family history and social stratification. The gradient is visible across regions and within cities.
Low-income households are less able to buy healthy food, less likely to have safe spaces for exercise, and more likely to face delayed diagnosis because primary care is weak or costly. Migrants, informal workers and peri-urban populations often fall between administrative categories and service systems. For them, the problem is not a lack of information. It is a lack of access, time, money and institutional support.
Once this is recognised, the weakness of the “lifestyle” frame becomes obvious. It individualises what is structurally produced. It asks patients to solve, through discipline, problems created by markets, infrastructure and unequal public provision.
State role in NCD prevention and care
States have a larger role than public campaigns usually admit. They shape food environments, regulate tobacco and alcohol, tax unhealthy products, design streets and transport systems, finance screening, build referral networks, and ensure continuity of care. They also determine whether primary health centres have trained staff, diagnostics, drugs and follow-up systems.
The state’s role is not limited to prevention. It extends to diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation and palliative care. Screening for hypertension, diabetes and common cancers must be population-based where feasible, not left to sporadic opportunism. NCD clinics, drug availability, referral systems, registries and community follow-up matter just as much as awareness drives.
Commercial regulation is part of this responsibility. Governments cannot address NCDs while allowing industry to shape the risk environment unchecked. Food labelling, restrictions on marketing, excise policy, conflict-of-interest safeguards and protection of policymaking from lobbying are all part of serious NCD governance.
A narrow behavioural frame weakens this agenda. It lets the state retreat into messaging when it should be regulating and investing.
NCD policy language needs correction
Kerala has long been seen as more advanced than most states in public health. Yet its policy language on NCDs often continues to use “lifestyle disease” or similar formulations. That matters because language influences administrative priorities.
When policy documents attribute NCDs mainly to modernisation, urbanisation and personal habits, they risk shrinking a wider public health crisis into an issue of individual conduct. That weakens the case for equity-centred prevention. It also blunts attention to air pollution, food systems, ageing, access barriers, commercial determinants and social inequality.
Kerala does need strong behavioural interventions. But it also needs a better vocabulary. “Non-communicable diseases” is more accurate. “Chronic diseases” may be useful in some contexts. A WHO-aligned description that recognises genetic, physiological, environmental and behavioural factors is better still.
What matters is not semantics for its own sake. It is whether the language clarifies causation, broadens accountability and improves policy design. On that test, “lifestyle disease” fails.
Public health language must match public health reality
India’s NCD challenge cannot be addressed through euphemism, moralism or shorthand inherited from a dated biomedical discourse. The disease burden is too large, the determinants too layered, and the inequalities too deep.
A bad label can produce a bad strategy. It can stigmatise patients, delay care, narrow prevention, and excuse state inaction. A better vocabulary will not solve the NCD crisis by itself. But it will help put responsibility where it belongs: across governments, markets, health systems and social conditions, not only on individuals.
That is reason enough to retire the phrase.
READ I Smartphone PLI must move beyond assembly
Dr Joe Thomas is Global Public Health Chair at Sustainable Policy Solutions Foundation, a policy think tank based in New Delhi. He is also Professor of Public Health at Institute of Health and Management, Victoria, Australia. Opinions expressed in this article are personal.