Junk food needs a strong policy dose

THE Lancet, a leading medical journal, has published a series of research papers on the rise of ultra-processed food, commonly referred to as junk food, in human diets and how this is undermining public health and giving rise to chronic diseases as well as widening health inequalities.

Most food items we consume undergo some amount of processing — wheat is processed to make atta, and rice and dal are milled to make them ready for cooking or preservation. The problem arises when agricultural commodities are ultra-processed in industrial factories, packaged, branded and marketed as healthy or natural.

Traditionally used methods of processing and preserving food like drying, chilling, freezing, pasteurisation, fermentation, baking and bottling largely keep intact the natural structure of food and enhance its durability and palatability. On the other hand, ultra-processing methods chemically modify food components, combining them with additives to produce ready-to-consume or long-lasting products. Examples of such ultra-processed food include sugary drinks, packaged snacks, potato chips, instant noodles, reconstituted meat, certain breakfast cereals and flavoured yoghurt.

High consumption of such products pushes out fresh or minimally processed food from diets and increases the risk of obesity, heart disease, diabetes and other health conditions. These products are also harming planetary health. Their production and transportation involves massive amounts of fossil fuels, and the packaging, mostly plastic, creates waste.

The Lancet series has analysed evidence from several studies to show that long-established dietary patterns are being displaced by ultra-processed food globally, and this trend is rapidly spreading to regions where junk food is not yet dominant. Second, available evidence strongly supports the observation that exposure to the ultra-processed dietary pattern broadly degrades diet quality. Third, the accumulated evidence shows that the displacement of long-established dietary patterns by ultra-processed food is a key driver of the escalating global burden of multiple diet-related chronic diseases.

Given such mounting evidence linking high consumption of junk food with the rising trend of lifestyle diseases, why are policymakers and governments slow in acting? It is because the junk food industry is so powerful and well entrenched that it keeps subverting regulation and policy-making processes through lobbying, marketing and public relations.

The data presented in The Lancet series is mind-boggling. In 2024, three top food corporations — Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Mondelez — spent a combined $13.2 billion on advertising. This is almost four times the operating budget of the World Health Organisation. Junk food marketing is aimed at influencing cultural preferences to generate demand and normalise the consumption of unhealthy food. Their global manufacturing and marketing provide junk food companies their political muscle. For instance, Coca-Cola produces 2.2 billion daily beverage servings across 200 markets, supplied by 200 partners operating 950 bottling plants. Companies leverage such vast networks to influence government policy decisions by threatening to relocate jobs, investments or input sourcing.

Public health experts have identified the industry’s corporate political activity as the most important barrier to the implementation of effective public policies to reduce harm linked to ultra-processed food. The tactics used by the food giants are similar to those employed by the tobacco, alcohol and fossil fuel industries. Their objective is to counter opposition and block regulation, and they do so through globally coordinated networks of front groups, multi-stakeholder initiatives and some fully-funded research partners. Besides direct lobbying, they infiltrate government agencies, mount flimsy litigation, promote corporate-friendly governance models and regulation, and try to manufacture ‘scientific doubt.’

All this is evident in the functioning of food regulatory agencies in India. Junk food industry organisations partner with the food regulator in various advocacy projects, making a mockery of public health. The government and the regulator are dithering on a clear definition of ultra-processed food high in fat, sugar and salt (HFSS) content. The National Multi-sectoral Action Plan on Non-Communicable Diseases of 2017 had called for amending the Advertising Code and Norms of Journalistic Conduct to prohibit advertising of HFSS food products, but it is yet to be implemented. The Ministry of Food Processing Industry was established with the intention of helping farmers, but it has ended up promoting and subsidising the junk food industry. It is time the ministry started differentiating between processing and ultra-processing.

The Lancet series emphasises that front-of-pack warning labels are currently the only approach shown to substantially reduce the consumption of unhealthy food products. The food industry in India has been successful so far in preventing harsher labelling on junk food products and lenient rules on marketing junk food to children. The food regulatory authority, under the influence of the food industry, has advocated a more benign star-rating system instead of graphic health warnings. The authority is doing so in the name of consultation with stakeholders, a bulk of whom happen to be directly or indirectly linked with or funded by the industry.

It is well known that the food industry has several paid ‘civil society’ and ‘consumer’ organisations which advance its point of view at consultation meetings. The standard and rule-setting bodies also must follow a transparent ‘conflict of interest’ policy to ward off industry influence on food governance and regulation.

The way forward is clear. Government agencies and regulatory bodies should define ultra-processed food and have a policy framework to regulate it. There should be no confusion between the processed food industry and those making ultra-processed food products. Once the policy based on evidence is formulated, government agencies (ministries of health, agriculture, food processing, consumer affairs, information and broadcasting) and regulators must work in coordination.

There is no point in the health ministry crying hoarse over the rise of non-communicable diseases on the one hand, and the ministry of food processing doling out subsidies to junk food makers. Yes, it is an individual’s responsibility to eat right and remain fit, but at the same time, it is the state’s responsibility to create an environment in which an individual can make the right choice. The right public policies and pro-consumer food regulation are, therefore, critical to creating a healthy food environment.