India’s children face health risks as tariff-free British junk food enters market under new FTA – The Economic Times

 

Report on Public Health Implications of the India-Britain Free Trade Agreement

Executive Summary

A recent Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between India and Britain, supplemented by a similar agreement with four EU nations, facilitates tariff-free entry for a range of British and European food and drink products. This report assesses the potential impact of these agreements on public health in India, with a specific focus on their alignment with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The influx of inexpensive, ultra-processed foods, typically High in Fat, Sugar, or Salt (HFSS), poses a significant threat to national health outcomes, particularly among children. This development directly challenges India’s progress towards SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and highlights a critical need for policy coherence as outlined in SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

Analysis of Trade Agreements on Public Health and SDG 3

The India-Britain FTA and Increased Availability of HFSS Products

The new trade agreements will permit tariff-free importation of products including, but not limited to, chocolates, sweet biscuits, soft drinks, and gingerbread. This is expected to lead to a significant increase in the market presence of cheap, ultra-processed food products. The consequent rise in consumption of these items threatens to fuel the already growing market for unhealthy foods in India.

Public Health Implications and Contradiction to SDG 3

The increased availability and consumption of HFSS products present a direct challenge to India’s public health objectives and its commitment to SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being). Key concerns include:

• A surge in childhood obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases (NCDs) such as diabetes.
• The undermining of national health initiatives, including the Prime Minister’s campaign against obesity.
• A direct contradiction to SDG Target 3.4, which aims to reduce by one-third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment.

Global Regulatory Context and Policy Coherence (SDG 17)

International Best Practices in HFSS Regulation

Globally, nations are implementing robust regulations to mitigate the health risks associated with HFSS foods. These measures stand in stark contrast to the current regulatory environment in India.

• United Kingdom: Despite exporting HFSS products, the UK utilizes traffic light labelling, restricts HFSS marketing, and is set to enforce a 9 PM watershed ban on television and online advertising.
• European Union: The EU is actively strengthening its food labelling and marketing restrictions, with a particular focus on protecting children.
• Other Nations: Countries such as Chile, Mexico, Brazil, and Israel have successfully implemented strong, mandatory front-of-pack warning labels (FOPWL).

The “NAFTA Moment”: A Cautionary Tale

The experience of Mexico following the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in the 1990s serves as a critical precedent. The lack of health safeguards led to an explosion in the consumption of sugary drinks and processed foods, resulting in a severe public health crisis of obesity and diabetes that persists today. This historical example underscores the risks of prioritizing trade liberalization without concurrent public health protections.

Policy Incoherence and SDG 17

The current FTA framework reveals a significant policy conflict. While promoting trade, it simultaneously undermines national health goals. This lack of integration is inconsistent with SDG Target 17.14, which calls for enhancing policy coherence for sustainable development.

The Regulatory and Equity Gap in India

Current Deficiencies in Indian Food Policy

India’s regulatory framework for food safety and marketing contains significant gaps that leave its population, especially children, vulnerable to the negative impacts of HFSS products.

• Labelling: Absence of a mandatory, clear front-of-pack warning label system.
• Marketing: Weak and ambiguous laws governing the advertisement of HFSS foods, which allows for aggressive marketing tactics.
• Promotional Practices: Unrestricted use of cartoon mascots, health claims on unhealthy products, celebrity endorsements, and corporate sponsorship of school and sporting events.

Impact on Malnutrition and Inequality (SDG 2 & SDG 10)

The proliferation of nutrient-poor, calorie-dense foods contributes to a form of malnutrition that directly opposes SDG Target 2.2, which aims to end all forms of malnutrition by 2025, including addressing obesity. Furthermore, this issue represents a significant “equity gap,” as aggressive marketing and product availability disproportionately impact vulnerable populations, thereby exacerbating health disparities and contravening the principles of SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

Recommendations and Call for Institutional Action (SDG 16)

Mandates for Regulatory Reform

There is a clear and multi-faceted mandate for the Indian government, particularly the Health Ministry, to enact stronger regulations. This mandate is supported by:

1. The Prime Minister’s public call for healthier consumption habits.
2. The Supreme Court’s judicial observations regarding the “glaring gaps” in food labelling and its impact on children.
3. The economic rationale provided by the Economic Survey.
4. The scientific basis established in the Government of India’s own dietary guidelines.

Proposed Regulatory Measures

To address the identified risks and align with global best practices and SDG commitments, the following actions are recommended:

• Immediate implementation of a strong, mandatory, and easily understandable front-of-pack warning label (FOPWL) system for all HFSS food products.
• Enactment of a clearly worded law to severely restrict the marketing, advertising, and promotion of HFSS foods, with specific protections for children.

Strengthening Institutions for Sustainable Development (SDG 16)

Bold and decisive action from the Health Ministry is essential to counter industry resistance and bureaucratic delays. By implementing robust public health regulations, India can strengthen its institutional capacity to protect its citizens, a core tenet of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). Failure to act decisively will mean that the cost of these trade agreements will be paid by the health and well-being of India’s children.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • The article’s primary focus is on the public health implications of the India-Britain FTA. It explicitly warns that the influx of cheap, unhealthy food will be “bad news for the health of India’s children” and will fuel a “surge in childhood obesity, diabetes and other diet-related NCDs (non-communicable diseases).” This directly addresses the goal of ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being.

2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • The article highlights that the lack of regulation is “not just a policy gap, it’s an equity gap.” This suggests that the negative health consequences will disproportionately affect vulnerable populations, particularly children, who are targeted by “aggressive marketing” and are less able to make informed choices. This connects to the goal of reducing inequalities and protecting vulnerable groups.

3. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

   • The article discusses unsustainable consumption patterns, noting that the “per-capita consumption of such [HFSS] products rose by nearly 50 times” between 2006 and 2019. The call for mandatory food labelling and marketing restrictions is aimed at promoting more responsible and informed consumption choices among the public.

4. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

   • The article critiques the India-Britain FTA, a form of international partnership, for failing to include public health safeguards. It warns India against repeating Mexico’s “Nafta moment,” where a trade deal led to an “explosion of sugary drinks and processed foods.” This relates to the need for policy coherence for sustainable development, ensuring that trade agreements do not undermine national health goals.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 3.4: Reduce premature mortality from NCDs

   • This target aims to reduce premature death from non-communicable diseases through prevention. The article directly addresses this by highlighting the rise of “childhood obesity, diabetes and other diet-related NCDs” and advocating for preventative measures like “strong regulation on marketing” and “front-of-pack warning labels” to curb the consumption of unhealthy foods that cause these diseases.

2. Target 10.2: Empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age

   • This target is relevant as the article focuses on the specific vulnerability of children. It points out how “unrestricted celebrity endorsements of HFSS products” and marketing using “cartoon mascots” target children, who lack the agency to resist. The call to “restrict advertisements of HFSS foods” and “protect children” is a direct effort to ensure their well-being is not compromised for commercial interests, thereby promoting their inclusion in a safe and healthy society.

3. Target 12.8: Ensure people have relevant information for sustainable lifestyles

   • This target is directly supported by the article’s central argument for better consumer information. The repeated call for “mandatory front-of-pack warning labels” is a specific policy tool to provide citizens with the necessary information to make healthier food choices. The article notes the Supreme Court’s concern about food labelling gaps, asking, “The packets have no information.”

4. Target 17.14: Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development

   • The article critiques the lack of coherence between India’s trade policy (the FTA) and its public health objectives. By allowing “tariff-free entry for British food and drink” without health safeguards, the trade agreement actively undermines the goal of tackling NCDs. The article implicitly calls for trade policies to be aligned with and supportive of national health and sustainable development goals.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Prevalence of childhood obesity and diet-related NCDs

   • The article mentions that India is “grappling with a surge in childhood obesity, diabetes and other diet-related NCDs.” Tracking the rates of these conditions would be a direct indicator of progress (or lack thereof) towards Target 3.4.

2. Per-capita consumption of HFSS products

   • The article provides a specific, though historical, metric: “Between 2006 and 2019, the per-capita consumption of such products rose by nearly 50 times.” Monitoring this consumption level going forward would be a key indicator for Target 12.8, measuring whether consumption patterns are becoming more responsible.

3. Implementation of mandatory front-of-pack warning labels

   • This is an explicit policy indicator mentioned throughout the article. The text clearly states, “India has no mandatory warning label.” Therefore, the adoption and implementation of such a policy would be a clear, measurable step towards achieving Target 12.8.

4. Existence and enforcement of laws restricting HFSS food advertising

   • The article points to India’s “weak laws” on advertising and contrasts them with Britain’s forthcoming “9 PM TV and online ad ban.” The existence, scope, and enforcement level of regulations restricting HFSS marketing, especially to children, serve as a concrete indicator for Targets 10.2 and 12.8.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

SDGs	Targets	Indicators
SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being	Target 3.4: Reduce by one third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment.	Prevalence/incidence of childhood obesity. Prevalence/incidence of diabetes and other diet-related NCDs.
SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities	Target 10.2: Empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age.	Existence of laws and policies to protect children from marketing of unhealthy foods.
SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production	Target 12.8: Ensure that people everywhere have the relevant information and awareness for sustainable development and lifestyles.	Per-capita consumption of HFSS (high in fat/sugar/salt) products. Implementation of mandatory front-of-pack warning labels on food products.
SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals	Target 17.14: Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development.	Inclusion of public health and nutrition safeguards in international trade agreements (FTAs).

Source: m.economictimes.com