Those following the politics of food would know that the quality of food is in grave peril. This crisis would leave a majority of the world’s children chronically ill. They are likely to be vulnerable, at a much younger age, to non-communicable diseases. Research has suggested that the overconsumption of ultra-processed foods is the key reason for this crisis.
If and when we are to initiate a deep cleansing of the food that we eat, the onus is going to land on millions of mothers who spend a large chunk of their waking hours as arrangers of food. Although the burden of providing food has been borne primarily by women, the discourse on food paradigms of the future neglects to take into account the tremendous opportunity cost that women would end up paying. Even as we witness a global momentum on food safety, with countries rushing to adopt stricter labelling regulations for packaged food and consumer outrage erupting over misleading claims on food products marketed for children — the question remains what that alternative food paradigm would look like. Would it mean women spending even greater hours squeezing fresh orange juice or cold pressing vetiver grass for a glass of cooling khus? The idea of slow cooking is mesmerising, idyllic and healthy. But who will bear the brunt of that slowness?
Millions of women spend their productive hours engaged in cooking-related chores. Globally, women spend 2.8 more hours than men on unpaid care and domestic work. According to an Oxfam report, women and girls carry out 12.5 billion hours of unpaid care work every day which when valued at minimum wage would be at least $10.8 trillion a year, more than three times the size of the global tech industry. According to India’s second Time Use Survey of 2024, women across education and income categories continue to share a disproportionate burden of domestic chores. A large percentage of such women also work full-time in the formal job market, or as farmers and daily wage labourers.
Food laws across the world focus on three primary aspects: first, the content of salt, sugar and saturated fat in any packaged food will not exceed the limits imposed by science-backed standards such as PAHO and WHO-SEARO nutrient profile models; second, all packaged food should have clear and easy-to-read warnings on the front of a packet and, finally, there should be restrictions on alluring advertisements targeted at children. Latin American countries like Mexico, Peru, Uruguay, Chile and Brazil have already adopted these laws. India, which has witnessed a spiralling growth of the UPF industry and an explosive increase in children’s consumption of packaged and ultra-processed food, is on the verge of passing its first ever front-of-pack regulation. A slew of regulatory measures have been put in place by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, such as the directive that mandates all companies to “promptly remove 100% fruit juice claims from reconstituted fruit juices”.
But will these policies encourage healthier alternatives to junk food without increasing women’s domestic workload and systemic gender inequity in household labour? Industrial reformulation of junk food, minimally processed ready-to-eat options, and community-based kitchens can protect women from this domestic drudgery. School meal programmes such as India’s PM-POSHAN scheme, if evenly and efficiently implemented, can be a cost-effective solution too. Attempts to provide healthier food choices must safeguard women’s labour and time associated with producing safe and healthy foods.