India’s Food Industry Is Now Under Global Scanner, but It’s a Chance for Reform

The month of April witnessed an extraordinary attention to food policy controversies featuring aggressively marketed food and beverage products.

It started with the government of India telling e-commerce platforms that drinks like Bourn Vita (a very high sugar and flavoured drink) cannot be categorised as 'health drinks'.

Then Nestlé came under fire for adding sugar to its product ‘Cerelac’ in India and other developing nations but not in the global north.

Let me explain the key underlying issues first.

The Public Eye and International Baby Food Action Network’s report, Sugar: For Nestlé, Not All Babies Are Equal, published earlier this month, highlighted the risk of adding additional sugar to baby foods and then intensively marketing it to poor countries.

Similarly, while Bourn Vita is not categorised as a health drink, it is aggressively marketed/advertised using clever communication such as 'Vitamin D Ki Taakat' shifted from the earlier 'Tayyari Jeet Ki'.

Spices and other food products found with high amounts of ethylene oxide are aggressively advertised too.

These have negative consequences on people's health.

According to a World Health Organization report from 2022, food marketing mostly promotes unhealthy foods and negatively affects children's health, eating behaviours, and food-related attitudes and beliefs.

What we need to act on are both the quality and marketing.

In 2018, the FSSAI granted four baby food corporations exemption while implementing a law that banned promotion of all baby foods under the age of two years.

In the making of a policy on 'front of the pack labelling' of unhealthy foods, the FSSAI sided with the industry, even at the cost of violating the process.

I have also heard food safety officers say that “we have to take care of the concerns or interests” of the food industry.

Is this partnership approach of the FSSAI to blame for inadequate food quality? Perhaps, yes.

Professor K Srinath Reddy, a renowned public health expert, writing for Hindustan Times recently, said that the FSSAI "must draw upon the expertise of other scientists who have no conflicts of interest."

He added,

Most of the fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) company food products are ultra-processed and inherently unhealthy because of their nutrient contents being high in sugars/salt, fats (HFSS), cosmetic additives, colours, and flavours.

It's the marketing of these products that makes people want to buy them and the consumption goes up.

Sugar-sweetened beverages, chocolates, salty snacks, breakfast cereals, and dairy products are the most commonly marketed. Their advertisements are usually misleading.

There is a plethora of scientific evidence that the rising consumption of ultra-processed food products is associated with obesity, diabetes, and several other non-communicable diseases.

A recent study in the British Medical Journal concluded, "Greater exposure to ultra-processed food was associated with a higher risk of adverse health outcomes, especially cardiometabolic, common mental disorder, and mortality outcomes."

Similarly, daily consumption of spices and other packaged products raises the risk of cancer among populations if laden with ethylene oxide.

The situation is alarming and we cannot rely on knee jerk answers.

The food industry usually argues that it is about the choice of the people. What it does not reflect in this view is that the food industry’s marketing wants you to replace your cultural dietary patterns.

Your everyday breakfast, lunch, and dinner are under attack from the industrial food/beverage products.

One handy example is Kellogg’s cereal and muesli targeting the breakfast habits of children and adults.

Last year, an analysis by public health experts in The Lancet revealed that our policies are unable to restrict the advertisement of unhealthy food products, even as both the FSS Act 2006 and Consumer Protection Act 2019 say no to ‘misleading advertisements’.

The study concluded that a robust regulatory framework is needed to protect children from HFSS food marketing.

India’s very own National Multi-Sector Action Plan for Prevention and Control of Common Non-Communicable Diseases ( 2017-2022) reflects that there is acceptance and agreement for both these policies – restriction and addition of warning labels.

We need to have a strong surveillance system that checks the quality and recalls any products found to be crossing the limits of harmful ingredients.

Why it is being delayed then? This is a question for the Government of India.

The government or the regulators need not partner with the food industry, but the solution lies in transparent “interaction” with them for implementing various regulations. There is no logic or scientific justification of having the food industry sitting on the same table as the policymakers to develop the contents of regulation.

India could learn a lesson from Israel, who developed the criteria for the positive front-of-package labeling (FOPL) by an independent scientific committee.

Or India could consider an overarching legal framework like the one the US has recently introduced a Bill that would require warning labels on foods and beverages that are high in nutrients of concern, and would restrict junk food advertising to children.

(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)