My much-needed three-week break reinforced three things: (1) the importance of taking time away from work and social media, (2) how privileged I am to be able to do that, and (3) we are not taking climate change seriously enough.
There were two heatwaves during the three weeks I was away. There were also hailstorms in at least one town we stayed in.
We were fortunate - and again privileged - to stay cool and sheltered during them, but I was very conscious that a vast majority of people won’t have those options. The shocking excess death figures in Europe (at least 35,000) are a testament to that.
Yet, policymakers and powerful actors in Europe seem consumed by their own political careers instead. Their silence is deafening and incredibly frustrating. But that’s why having a break was so useful. I’m refreshed and ready for the next battle.
For the past 18 months or more working on the Big Food vs. The People investigation, I spent a large chunk of time tracking down legal documents, reading voraciously about public health policy, and speaking to food system experts, academics, civil society groups, and journalists around the world.
In the process, I learned a few things that I wanted to share, even if some - or all - seem obvious.
Getting a law passed isn’t the end of the battle
Many of us ordinary folks tend to heave a sigh of relief and celebrate when the causes we support win: getting an important law passed, electing an official with progressive policies on food and climate, winning a referendum.
But if this investigation taught me anything, it’s that the passing of an effective public health policy may have ended an often long-running battle over its justification and design, but it also marks the beginning of a new one.
The industry will find ways to delay implementation, challenge provisions, roll back requirements, and repeal the law. We saw this in every country and region we looked at: Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, the U.S., UK, and Europe.
Sometimes they succeed, like the 16-year delay in Brazil and the repeal of sugar taxes in Norway (2021), Finland (2016), and Denmark (2014). See this 2022 paper on how corporations battle soda taxes in Europe and this Marion Nestle post from 2023 on how the industry funds research to play down UPF risks.
Lawsuits are just the most visible and tangible form of the pushback.
The takeaway? The work doesn’t end when the law passes. It’s a constant, shifting battle to ensure it’s implemented effectively, its mandate is protected, and there’s no room for regression.
Political shifts can threaten public health policies
The gains are fragile. Even if the industry loses the lawsuits, they can still win when political winds change.
See: Colombia, whose new administration, led by the right-leaning MAGA-adjacent populist Abelardo de la Espriella as president, has signalled it will repeal the health tax.
See also: Brazil, whose upcoming elections on Oct 4 will determine whether its push to rein in ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) and Lula’s broader progress on reducing hunger, continues, because neither is likely to survive under Bolsonaro junior’s far-right politics.
Delaying is a win in itself for the industry
Whether it’s the multiple rounds of expert panels and consultations that have dragged on in India since 2014 over front-of-pack labelling, or the lawsuits against Brazil’s advertising regulation that has run since 2010 (here and here), any delay in implementing a public health policy is a chance to continue selling highly profitable but nutrient-poor products.
In both countries, the delay has allowed a new generation to grow up addicted to products that harm our health.
In Daily Maverick, Lillian Roberts used our investigation to dig into what’s happening in South Africa and elsewhere on the continent. I was struck by what she wrote about Draft regulation 3337 on front-of-pack warning labels.
“One of the first hurdles… with the draft regulation 3337 was the “delaying tactics” of industry, through 5,000 public comments, outlined Rebone Ntsie, Chief Director for Nutrition, Health Promotion and Oral Health at the Department of Health, speaking at the second leg of the South African Human Rights Commission’s hearings into hunger, on 9 July. It took the national Department of Health more than a year to consider each comment – one of which was over 500 pages, she said.”
The fight over NOVA is a red herring
Almost every day, I see LinkedIn posts trashing NOVA, the classification system for UPFs developed by a team of Brazilian scientists led by Carlos Monteiro. The criticism ranges from “too broad” to “ignores nutrient density”.
But these “endless technical debates over ultra-processed foods are a big distraction, a red herring if you like,” Phillip Baker, associate professor at the University of Sydney who has studied food systems and UPFs extensively, told me.
“The most important question is why so much of our food environment is dominated by cheap, heavily marketed, highly profitable products that displace healthier and less processed foods,” he said.
“Focusing endlessly on whether individual products meet a particular definition risks obscuring the much bigger structural problem, which is a food system organised around corporate profitability and how this drives the production, promotion and consumption of unhealthy diets.”
“The scientific debate matters, but it should not become a distraction from addressing corporate power and the political and economic forces that shape what food is available, affordable and aggressively marketed to people.”
Full disclosure: Phil is the corresponding author on an upcoming academic paper looking at the lawsuits we helped identify in Latin America. I’m a co-author.
The “nanny state” charge is similarly disingenuous
Let’s be clear: in a democratic society, there must be room to challenge laws. None of the countries we looked at give governments carte blanche to enact any laws they want.
I should know: I was born and raised in a military dictatorship that brooked no dissent.
Providing useful information, making unhealthy foods more expensive, and ensuring children aren’t bombarded with sugary, salty, fat-laden foods isn’t “nanny state” behaviour. It’s caring for people, and being prudent about a country’s own development.
I also saw first hand how effective marketing and advertising can be, even under a military dictatorship. I’ve spoken to scores of people in my own country, both in urban and rural areas, whose diets became increasingly influenced by what they saw and heard on television, radio, and in newspapers, leading instant noodles, sugary drinks, and packaged snacks to replace traditional meals.
Besides, let’s not delude ourselves into thinking corporations and governments have the same resources at their disposal.
The incentive structure is broken, what do we do?
We live in a terrible economic and investment system that rewards increases in shareholder values instead of a healthier, fairer, or more sustainable society. In a system like this, companies focus on boosting their profits in any way they can, including by selling us unhealthy food.
Unfortunately, we’re stuck in this system, at least for now. There are discussions about how to transform it, but that’s beyond both my pay grade and intelligence level.
The question I have is how the majority of us who want fairer, healthier, and greener food systems can work together within the current one.
To quote Jose Luis Vivero Pol, I’m not against profit maximisation. I’m just against profit maximisation at all costs, especially when the costs are borne by the most vulnerable.
Thin’s Pickings
Big Food vs. The People Edition (II)
The Guardian’s follow-up article, where WHO director general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus criticised the world’s biggest UPF companies following our investigation, is well worth a read. So is Felicity Lawrence’s op-ed on this topic.
I love how The Daily Maverick added their expertise by including what’s happening in South Africa and across the continent. I would love to see outlets in other countries do the same.
This NYT op-ed by Lindsey Smith Taillie on the U.S. federal government’s unexpected delay in publishing a definition of UPF mentioned our investigation, but also shed light on industry tactics.
AgFunder wrote a piece on a webinar on strategic litigation organised by the Access to Nutrition Initiative (ATNi), where I shared our findings.
Ken Cook, President and co-founder of the Environmental Working Group (EWG), interviewed me about the investigation.
The Usual
An ODI commentary made a compelling case on the need for a new food systems governance agenda to tackle hunger, identifying “five linked priorities: power, finance, accountability, alliances and political traction”.
Another commentary, this time in the BMJ, focuses on the UK but its message is universal: surplus food redistribution is not a substitute for structural reforms needed to reduce poverty.
I can’t end this week’s issue without this beautiful obituary from The New Yorker of Dolly Parton (“the outlaw Christian who loved Jesus and refused to hate anyone else”). Pair it with this AP piece, which used her own words. What a loss.
As always, please feel free to share this post and send tips and thoughts on bluesky @thinink.bsky.social, mastodon @ThinInk@journa.host, my LinkedIn page, twitter @thinink, or via e-mail thin@thin-ink.net.