Dr. Vijay Garg
Evidence of increasing lifestyle diseases due to the excessive consumption of junk food is steadily emerging, which is deeply worrying. Strong political and policy measures are urgently needed to curb this trend. However, policymakers continue to delay decisive action. In reality, industry lobbying persistently weakens regulations through aggressive marketing and influence over policymaking.
The renowned medical journal The Lancet has published a series of papers highlighting the growing consumption of ultra-processed foods—commonly referred to as junk food. These studies demonstrate how such foods undermine public health, contribute to chronic diseases, and deepen health inequalities.
Most foods undergo some level of processing—for example, grinding wheat into flour or milling rice and lentils to make them safe and cookable. Problems arise when agricultural products are heavily processed in factories, packaged, branded, and marketed as “healthy.” Traditional food processing methods such as drying, cooling, freezing, pasteurisation, fermentation, baking, and bottling largely preserve the natural form of food, extend shelf life, and enhance taste. In contrast, ultra-processed foods undergo extensive chemical modifications, with additives introduced to create ready-to-eat or long-lasting products. Examples include sugary beverages, packaged snacks, potato chips, instant noodles, reconstituted meat, some breakfast cereals, and flavoured yoghurt.
Excessive consumption of these products displaces fresh or minimally processed foods from the diet and increases the risk of obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and other non-communicable diseases. These products are also harmful to the environment. Their production and transportation require significant amounts of fossil fuel, and their plastic packaging generates enormous waste.
The Lancet series analysed evidence from several studies and highlighted three key findings. First, ultra-processed foods are rapidly replacing traditional dietary patterns worldwide, even in regions where junk food consumption was previously limited. Second, evidence confirms that diets dominated by ultra-processed foods significantly reduce overall nutritional quality. Third, replacing long-standing dietary habits with ultra-processed foods is a major contributor to the rising global burden of diet-related chronic diseases.
Despite overwhelming evidence linking junk food consumption to lifestyle diseases, governments and policymakers remain slow to act. The reason is the enormous power of the junk food industry, which influences regulations and policy decisions through lobbying, marketing, and public engagement strategies. Data cited in The Lancet is striking. In 2024, the top three food corporations—Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Mondelez—spent a combined $13.2 billion on advertising, nearly four times the executive budget of the World Health Organization.
The objective of junk food marketing is to shape cultural preferences and generate demand for unhealthy foods. The global scale of production and distribution gives these corporations immense political influence. Coca-Cola alone sells 2.2 billion bottles or cans daily across 200 countries, supported by 950 bottling operators and 201 partners. Companies often threaten governments by claiming that stricter regulations will result in job losses and reduced investment.
Public health experts identify corporate political activity as a major barrier to implementing effective policies to reduce harm from ultra-processed foods. The tactics used closely resemble those of the tobacco and alcohol industries. These include lobbying, funding favourable research, infiltrating regulatory institutions, promoting industry-friendly governance models, and creating what experts describe as “scientific illusions” to confuse public debate.
In India, these dynamics are clearly visible in the functioning of food regulatory agencies. Alarmingly, junk food industry bodies have partnered with food regulators in health awareness initiatives—an evident conflict of interest. The government and regulators have been reluctant to establish a clear definition of ultra-processed foods high in fat, sugar, and salt. The 2017 National Multi-Sectoral Action Plan on Non-Communicable Diseases recommended changes to advertising codes and journalistic conduct rules to prohibit the promotion of high-fat, high-sugar, and high-salt foods, yet these recommendations remain unimplemented.
The Ministry of Food Processing Industries was originally established to support farmers, but it has increasingly focused on promoting the junk food industry through subsidies. It is time for the ministry to clearly differentiate between processed foods and ultra-processed foods and align its policies with public health goals.
The Lancet series emphasises that front-of-pack warning labels are currently the most effective tool to reduce consumption of unhealthy foods. However, in India, the food industry has successfully resisted strict labelling requirements and regulations restricting the sale of junk food to children. Instead of clear warning labels, the Food Regulatory Authority has promoted a misleading star-rating system, claiming stakeholder consultation—despite most stakeholders being linked to the food industry. The industry also operates through proxy social and consumer organisations. Standard-setting institutions must enforce transparent conflict-of-interest rules to protect regulatory independence.
It is now evident that government agencies and regulators must clearly define ultra-processed foods and establish a robust regulatory framework. There must be no ambiguity between processed and highly processed foods. Once such a framework is in place, coordination among ministries—Health, Agriculture, Food Processing, Consumer Affairs, and Information & Broadcasting—is essential. It is contradictory for the Ministry of Health to combat rising non-communicable diseases while the Ministry of Food Processing subsidises junk food manufacturers.
While individuals bear responsibility for making healthy food choices, it is equally the government’s duty to create an environment that enables and encourages those choices.
Therefore, strong public policy and a sound food regulatory framework are essential to protect consumer rights and build a healthy food environment.
— Dr. Vijay Garg
Retired Principal
Malout, Punjab
