Dumping junk: How rich-country food giants are targeting India, Brazil, Mexico

Global sales of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) have shifted dramatically toward the developing world as growth stagnates in wealthy nations, raising urgent questions about fairness, food sovereignty, and public health across the Global South — with India, Brazil, and Mexico at the centre of the debate.

A new policy analysis co-authored by Dr. Arun Gupta, Convenor of Nutrition Advocacy in Public Interest (NAPi), India, and Associate Professor Phillip Baker of the University of Sydney, warns that multinational food corporations headquartered in the Global North are aggressively pushing UPFs into Southern markets, fuelling twin epidemics of obesity and diabetes.

The Numbers Tell the Story

Annual per capita sales of UPFs have risen by 40% in lower-middle-income countries and nearly 20% in upper-middle-income countries, even as sales in high-income countries remained flat, according to analysis of Euromonitor International data covering 93 countries. Global UPF market sales grew from US$1.5 trillion in 2009 to $1.9 trillion in 2023.

India stands out starkly, recording a 40-fold rise in UPF consumption over the past 15 years. The country now has over 100 million people living with diabetes and 250 million who are overweight or obese. A Lancet series on ultra-processed foods identifies India, Vietnam, Uzbekistan and Laos among the fastest-growing UPF markets in the world.

Big Food, Big Money, Small Print

The marketing muscle behind this push is enormous. In 2024 alone, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Mondelez combined spent $13.2 billion on advertising — roughly four times the operating budget of the World Health Organization.

A WHO-India study found that approximately 200,000 food product advertisements are flashed each month across just 10 select television channels and print media outlets. These products are heavily promoted through digital platforms, influencers and sports sponsorships, with children and young people as frequent targets.

Meanwhile, the health risks of excess sugar, salt and unhealthy fats remain largely invisible. Indian consumers must rely on dense nutrition tables and small-font ingredient lists on the back of packages — information that is technically compliant but practically difficult to interpret.

"This is not merely a matter of labelling design," the authors write. "It is a question of fairness, transparency, and public health."

The North Calls the Shots

The eight largest transnational UPF manufacturers — Nestlé (Switzerland), PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Mondelez, Kraft Heinz (all USA), Unilever (UK), Danone (France), and Fomento Económico Mexicano (Mexico) — are all headquartered in North America or Western Europe. Yet their fastest-growing revenues and greatest health impacts are playing out thousands of miles away.

The authors argue that these corporations use "sophisticated political strategies" to protect profitability, including blocking regulation, shaping science, influencing public debate, and funding a global network of 207 industry interest groups that lobby governments. They also initiate partnerships with government departments, NGOs and experts to "position themselves as part of the solution," ultimately promoting corporate-friendly policies while opposing regulation.

Brazil and Mexico Show the Way

Countries in the Global South are not without options — and some are already acting. Brazil, Chile and Mexico have introduced front-of-pack warning labels on foods high in sugar, salt and unhealthy fats, along with advertising restrictions and taxes on such products. Evidence from these countries suggests that warning labels improve awareness, support healthier choices and reduce consumption.

In Mexico and Brazil, UPFs' contribution to household food intake rose from 10% to 23% over the past four decades — a sharp reminder of how much ground has already been lost.

The authors call on India and other Southern nations to follow suit. "Front-of-pack warning labels or advertisement restrictions do not prohibit the sale of products or restrict consumer choice," they note. "Rather, they ensure that consumers receive clear, immediate, and understandable information before making a decision to buy."

A Call for South-South Solidarity

The analysis frames this not merely as a public health issue but as a question of economic and cultural sovereignty. UPFs, it argues, threaten centuries-old food cultures, agricultural traditions and culinary knowledge — from India's millets and pulses to the regional cuisines of Latin America.

"Resisting UPFs is not about rejecting modernity," the authors write, "but about ensuring that India and other nations' future is built on national strength, nutritional security, and democratic control over its own food system, rather than dependence on multinational corporate interests."

They make a direct call for South-South cooperation — particularly among India, Brazil and Mexico — arguing that shared policy experiences can form a necessary counterbalance to the economic and political power of Global North food corporations.

"This is a call to countries in the South to provide clearer warning information to your citizens and restrict advertisements of UPFs," Dr. Gupta and Prof. Baker conclude. "It will be a big step forward to counterbalance the power of Big Food of the North."