Written by Joss Duggan (10 min read)

In every supermarket, in every country, we’re faced with thousands of different brands - a startling level of choice that our ancestors could never have imagined. But this proliferation of ‘hyper-palatable foods’ gives us only the illusion of choice; beneath the packaging, the reality is that a handful of corporations control the vast majority of the global food supply.

Just four companies - Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge, and Louis Dreyfus - dominate the world’s grain trade, Bayer, Corteva, and Syngenta control most of the seeds that farmers plant, and Nestlé, PepsiCo, Unilever, and Mondelez own a staggering number of the processed foods that fill supermarket shelves.

From breakfast cereals to bottled water, from frozen meals to pet food, a shrinking number of multinational giants dictate what we eat, how it’s produced, and who profits. This is the world of Big Food - a system where corporate consolidation shapes the global diet, often prioritising efficiency and shareholder returns over public health, sustainability, let alone competition and consumer choice.

In an era where public health systems are under unprecedented strain from diet-related disease (i.e., obesity, ischemic heart disease, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, etc) should we be questioning the role of the global food industry?

Does the industry have a ‘duty of care’ towards consumers? And if so…what does that responsibility entail?

What is a Duty of Care?

Stock images for “duty of care” are unsurprisingly poor…

Ultra-processed foods are cheap, convenient, and are literally engineered to be irresistibly tasty - a phenomenon known as “hyper-palatability.” While these foods are convenient and profitable, they often come at a high cost to public health. Their design encourages overconsumption, leading to diet-related diseases that have become all too common. The obesity epidemic, driven in large part by the ubiquity of these foods, diminishes quality of life, fuels chronic diseases, and strains healthcare systems worldwide.

With such control comes the question: should they be held accountable for the health outcomes linked to their products?

What responsibility, if any, does the food industry hold in this context? The idea of a “duty of care” traditionally refers to the obligation of individuals or organisations to avoid actions that could foreseeably harm others. Arguably, this principle should extend to corporations that feed billions of people every day…

A duty of care can be understood in both legal and ethical terms. Legally, it implies accountability for actions that might harm others. Ethically, it stretches beyond mere compliance to include moral obligations that prioritise well-being. For corporations, this raises the question: should their actions aim solely at profit, or should they also consider the broader impact on public health?

A company that knowingly creates and sells a harmful product - whether a defective car, a dangerous drug, or an unsafe toy - can be held legally liable for the damage it causes. The food industry, however, has long evaded this level of accountability by arguing that its products are not inherently harmful but only when consumed in excess.

This argument mirrors the early defense of Big Tobacco, which framed smoking as a matter of personal choice, despite overwhelming evidence that cigarettes were designed to hook users and harm health.

The reality is that food companies do far more than just sell food; they actively shape dietary norms, influence consumer behavior, and lobby against public health policies. Given this level of control, the question isn’t whether they play a role in diet-related disease, but whether they should be obligated to mitigate harm rather than exploit it.

the Ethics of Responsibility

If feeding a population is a company’s primary function, then doesn’t it have an ethical obligation to ensure its products promote health rather than undermine it? Philosophy offers several useful lens through which we can consider this question.

1. Utilitarianism: Does Big Food Maximise Well-Being?

A utilitarian perspective asks whether the net effect of the food industry benefits or harms society. On one hand, Big Food has played a role in reducing global hunger, increasing food accessibility, and driving economic growth. On the other, ultra-processed foods have fuelled an epidemic of preventable disease, placing a crippling burden on healthcare systems.

If the overall impact of an industry leads to a public health crisis, can it claim to be maximising well-being - or has it sacrificed long-term health for short-term profit?

2. Deontological Ethics: Are There Moral Duties Beyond Profit?

Deontological ethics focuses on duty and principles rather than consequences. Should food companies have a moral duty to uphold transparency, honesty, and public well-being, regardless of financial incentives? Yet many companies prioritise legal loopholes over genuine responsibility:

High-sugar, high-fat products are marketed as "healthy choices."
Children are deliberately targeted with advertisements before they develop impulse control.
Companies spend billions lobbying against public health measures that would reduce consumption of harmful foods.

If food companies were required to uphold moral obligations beyond financial gain, how different would the industry look?

3. Virtue Ethics: Are Food Companies Good Corporate Citizens?

Virtue ethics evaluates companies based on character and values. A "good" food company would demonstrate compassion, responsibility, and restraint, ensuring that its products nourish rather than harm.

Instead, many corporations:

Comply with the bare minimum of regulation rather than adopting ethical best practices.
Actively resist efforts to introduce policies that might reduce diet-related disease.
Engineer foods for addiction, prioritizing profits over consumer well-being.

This raises a crucial question: Are these businesses simply playing within the rules, or are they actively exploiting them? A responsible food industry wouldn’t just seek to avoid lawsuits—it would proactively work toward a system that benefits both business and public health.

“Healthy citizens are the greatest asset any country can have”

— Winston Churchill

A Legal Grey Area

Unlike Big Tobacco or Big Pharma, food corporations operate in something of a legal loophole when it comes to public health accountability. They must comply with basic food safety laws, ensuring products are not immediately dangerous, but there is no overarching legal requirement for them to prioritise long-term health over profit.

Several governments have introduced piecemeal regulations (e.g., sugar taxes, front-of-pack warning labels, and restrictions on marketing to children) but these efforts are reactive, nudging consumer behaviour without addressing the systemic drivers of unhealthy diets. Meanwhile, lawsuits over deceptive branding (e.g., sugary cereals marketed as “heart-healthy”) have occasionally forced rebranding but have not challenged the core business model that profits from overconsumption.

Other industries have not been given the same level of legal immunity.

Tobacco companies were ultimately forced to acknowledge their role in fueling lung disease and pay billions in settlements.
Pharmaceutical companies have faced legal action for their role in the opioid epidemic, with courts recognising their responsibility for public health harm.
Alcohol and gambling industries have been subjected to strict regulations to minimise societal harm.

Given the overwhelming evidence that ultra-processed foods are designed to drive overconsumption and contribute to chronic disease, why should Big Food remain exempt from similar scrutiny?

“We should resolve now that the health of this nation is a national concern; that financial barriers in the way of attaining health shall be removed; that the health of all its citizens deserves the help of all the nation”

— Harry S. Truman

The food industry has perfected the art of hyper-palatable, ultra-processed foods that override natural hunger cues, flood the brain with dopamine, and encourage compulsive overconsumption. The result? A public health disaster in slow motion. Rates of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease—all linked to diet—have skyrocketed, now outpacing smoking as a leading cause of preventable death.

The parallels to Big Tobacco are unavoidable. Decades ago, cigarette companies claimed their products were about personal choice, while privately engineering them to be more addictive. Today, food corporations use "bliss point" formulations - the precise sugar-fat-salt combinations designed to trigger maximum pleasure and keep consumers hooked.

If the same ethical reasoning that held tobacco companies accountable is applied here, then Big Food has a case to answer.

“Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food”

— Hippocrates

What About Personal Responsibility?

Libertarian thinking. behavioural nudges.

Critics might argue that the responsibility lies solely with individuals. The concept of radical personal responsibility places the onus on consumers to make informed choices. However, this perspective overlooks the fact that true responsibility requires awareness and education. People can only make good choices if they are aware of the consequences and equipped with the knowledge to act differently. Yet, even with awareness, behavior change is not guaranteed. Why, for example, do many people knowingly opt for hyper-palatable, less nutritious options despite understanding that chicken and broccoli are healthier? This suggests that factors beyond individual choice are at play.

“No-one ever got mugged by a doughnut”

— Charles Poliquin

Education Isn’t Enough

While education is a critical component of promoting healthier lifestyles, it cannot be the sole solution. Knowledge doesn’t always translate into action, especially when the competing options are scientifically engineered to be more appealing. The food industry’s aggressive marketing tactics and strategic placement of unhealthy products add another layer of complexity, making it harder for consumers to make healthy choices consistently.

Manipulation and Consumer Autonomy

A key issue lies in how much autonomy consumers truly have when choosing their food. Sophisticated marketing campaigns and food engineering that capitalize on the science of addiction often blur the line between choice and manipulation. If consumer autonomy is compromised, can we still hold individuals fully accountable for their dietary habits?

The argument for personal responsibility often overlooks the socioeconomic barriers that affect food choices. Lower-income communities frequently have less access to healthy, affordable options, complicating the notion of individual responsibility. Addressing these disparities requires systemic change that involves both industry action and public policy.

What should we be doing about it?

Modern foods are literally designed to be irresistible; maximising consumption and profitability…

Unlike the pharmaceutical or tobacco industries, food companies operate in a legal gray area when it comes to responsibility for public health. While they must comply with basic food safety laws, there is no overarching duty of care requiring them to prioritise nutrition over profit.

Governments have attempted to introduce piecemeal regulations - sugar taxes, front-of-pack warning labels, and restrictions on marketing to children - but these efforts are more about nudging consumer behaviour than holding companies to account. Lawsuits over misleading health claims have occasionally forced companies to remove deceptive branding (e.g., “heart-healthy” cereals packed with sugar), yet the fundamental issue remains: there is no legal precedent forcing food giants to acknowledge the role they play in the global rise of diet-related disease.

1. Industry-Led Reforms: A Healthier Business Model

Food companies cannot claim responsibility while continuing to maximize profit through unhealthy products. If they acknowledge a duty of care, the following steps should be fundamental to their operations.

Reformulating Products to Improve Nutritional Quality

Reduce excessive sugars, trans fats, and sodium, which are major contributors to obesity, heart disease, and metabolic disorders.
Shift toward nutrient-dense formulations, ensuring that products deliver more than just empty calories.
Invest in research and development to create alternatives that balance taste, affordability, and nutrition.

Some companies have begun gradually reducing sugar content in soft drinks to avoid alienating consumers. A wider industry shift could normalize healthier versions of familiar products.

Improving Label Transparency

Clear, front-of-pack warnings on ultra-processed foods, similar to cigarette-style health warnings in Chile and Mexico.
Eliminate misleading branding, such as cereals marketed as "heart-healthy" despite containing high amounts of sugar.
Standardized "traffic light" nutrition labels to allow consumers to compare products at a glance.

The Nutri-Score system in Europe provides a simple A–E health rating on food packaging. Expanding this system globally could force manufacturers to compete on health, not just taste and price.

Responsible Marketing Practices

Restrict advertising of unhealthy foods to children, as has been implemented in Norway, Chile, and the UK.
Ban cartoon mascots and misleading health claims on products high in sugar, fat, or sodium.
Limit in-store placement of ultra-processed foods, particularly near checkout areas.

The UK has banned junk food advertising before 9 PM to limit children's exposure. More countries could follow suit, applying restrictions across digital platforms and social media.

2. The Role of Governments: Policy-Driven Accountability

While voluntary corporate responsibility is ideal, history shows that profit-driven industries rarely self-regulate effectively. Governments, therefore, have a role in enforcing accountability and creating a regulatory environment that prioritizes public health.

Taxation and Pricing Strategies to Shift Consumption Patterns

Implement sugar taxes on sodas and ultra-processed foods to disincentivize overconsumption.
Provide subsidies for fresh produce to reduce the price gap between processed convenience foods and whole foods.
Offer incentives for companies reformulating products, rewarding those who reduce harmful ingredients.

After Mexico introduced a sugar tax, soda sales dropped by 7.6% in the first year, with a 17% reduction among low-income households. Revenue from the tax was reinvested in public health initiatives.

Public Health Campaigns and Consumer Education

Nationwide campaigns educating consumers about ultra-processed foods and their risks.
Mandatory food literacy education in schools so children develop critical thinking skills about food choices.
Public service announcements countering misleading industry narratives about diet and health.

Finland ran a public awareness campaign about salt consumption, leading to a 25% decrease in national sodium intake and a 75% drop in deaths from stroke and heart disease over 30 years.

3. Structural Change: Aligning Incentives with Public Health

One of the biggest barriers to change is that ultra-processed foods remain the most profitable segment of the industry. As long as hyper-palatable, low-cost foods generate the highest margins, companies will continue prioritizing them.

To realign incentives:

Investors could push food companies to shift toward long-term health-conscious strategies rather than maximizing short-term profits from unhealthy foods.
Governments could reward responsible companies through tax benefits and incentives for sustainable, nutritious product lines.
Consumer demand could play a role—if people shift their purchasing habits, companies will adapt accordingly.

These structural changes require a coordinated effort between industry, government, and consumers.

Final Considerations

The food industry faces increasing scrutiny over its role in diet-related diseases. While some companies have taken steps toward reform, voluntary action has been slow, and the incentives driving food production remain largely unchanged.

If the industry is serious about upholding a duty of care, it must move beyond regulatory compliance and consider how its products impact long-term public health. Governments, too, have a role in ensuring that economic structures do not favor the mass production of unhealthy foods at the expense of consumer well-being.

Without meaningful change, continued pressure from regulators, public health organizations, and consumers is likely to shape the future of food policy in ways that will make reform unavoidable.

Failing to address the industry’s potential duty of care could have dire consequences for public health and future generations. Rising healthcare costs and diminishing quality of life will likely persist unless meaningful action is taken. This raises an important question: If we accept that the food industry bears some level of responsibility, how do we ensure they fulfill it effectively?

As we consider whether “big food” has a duty of care, it’s essential to recognize the balance between corporate responsibility and individual agency. Both the industry and the government must play proactive roles in fostering a healthier society. And finally, it’s worth asking: what other industries have a duty of care toward their consumers, and what lessons can be drawn from their approaches?

These frameworks don’t offer easy answers, but they force us to ask better questions: Does an industry that profits from overconsumption have a moral duty to limit harm? Should corporations be rewarded for selling what is legal, even if it is harmful? And if companies won’t regulate themselves, should society step in?

If a product is engineered to be addictive, aggressively marketed to vulnerable populations, and directly contributes to preventable disease, should the company behind it be held accountable? This is the question at the heart of the Big Food debate.