Leading medical journal The Lancet has highlighted a serious global health concern: the rising consumption of ultra-processed foods, often called junk food. These foods are linked to chronic diseases and growing health inequalities. While some food processing is normal, like turning wheat into flour, ultra-processing involves chemically altering food and adding substances to make products last longer and ready to eat. Examples include sugary drinks, packaged snacks, instant noodles, and flavoured yoghurts.
Consuming these ultra-processed items pushes healthier, fresh foods out of our diets. This increases the risk of obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Beyond health, junk food production harms the planet. It uses a lot of fossil fuels and creates plastic waste from packaging. The Lancet studies show that these processed foods are replacing traditional diets worldwide, even in places where they weren’t common before. This trend is a major cause of many diet-related diseases globally.
Despite strong evidence, governments are slow to act. This is largely due to the powerful junk food industry. Through lobbying, marketing, and public relations, the industry actively works against regulations. For instance, in 2024, just three major food companies spent billions on advertising – almost four times the World Health Organisation’s budget. Their goal is to create demand and make unhealthy food seem normal.
These companies use their vast global networks to influence policy. They can threaten to move jobs or investments, giving them significant political power. Public health experts see this corporate activity as the biggest obstacle to effective policies against junk food. The tactics used are similar to those of the tobacco, alcohol, and fossil fuel industries: coordinated networks, funded research, and lobbying to block regulations.
In India, this influence is visible. Industry groups partner with food regulators, which undermines public health efforts. The government has been slow to define what constitutes ultra-processed food high in fat, sugar, and salt (HFSS). A plan from 2017 to ban advertising of HFSS foods hasn’t been fully implemented. Furthermore, the Ministry of Food Processing Industries, meant to support farmers, has ended up promoting and subsidising the junk food industry. There’s a need to distinguish between normal food processing and ultra-processing.
The Lancet also points out that clear warning labels on food packaging are the most effective way to reduce consumption of unhealthy products. However, the Indian food industry has successfully resisted strong labelling rules, especially for products marketed to children. Instead of graphic warnings, the food regulator, influenced by the industry, is considering a less impactful star-rating system. Many organisations participating in these ‘stakeholder consultations’ are funded by or linked to the industry.
To combat this, transparent ‘conflict of interest’ policies are needed for standard-setting bodies. Government agencies and regulators must work together to define and regulate ultra-processed foods. This requires coordination between the ministries of health, agriculture, food processing, and consumer affairs. It’s counterproductive for the health ministry to warn about rising diseases while the food processing ministry subsidises junk food makers.
While individuals are responsible for their own health choices, the state must create an environment that supports healthy decisions. This means implementing the right public policies and strong consumer protection regulations to foster a healthier food environment for everyone.