OPINION

When Food Became a Commodity: India's Liberalisation and the Marketisation of Meals

By Hameedullah Shaik · 2026-08-29

What happened

India’s food landscape has shifted from community‑based sustenance to a profit‑driven market, leaving consumers with endless choices but growing uncertainty. Liberalisation opened the doors for multinational brands, modern retail and aggressive advertising, turning even basic nutrition into a purchasable privilege. India’s liberalisation turned food from a communal necessity into a market commodity, making health a series of purchasable choices and exposing deep inequities.

TL;DR

India’s liberalisation turned food from a communal necessity into a market commodity, making health a series of purchasable choices and exposing deep inequities.

Key points

Liberalisation in the 1990s introduced multinational food brands and modern retail to everyday Indian life
Food companies design products to create repeat consumption, linking meals with status and happiness
Regulatory frameworks exist but struggle to keep pace with rapidly evolving, profit‑driven food industry
The market has created a premium “healthy food” sector, turning basic nutrition into a luxury
Health has shifted from a collective right to a series of private transactions, deepening class divides

When Food Became a CommodityLook at any supermarket today. The shelves are full of food—more choices than ever before. But at the same time, people are becoming more worried about what they are eating. We check labels for hidden sugar, preservatives, unhealthy oils and artificial ingredients. We ask whether something is really organic or whether a product is actually good for our health. This is a strange situation: we have more food than ever, yet we have less trust in the food we eat.Food was always part of India's family life, culture and agriculture. What people ate was closely connected to their land, seasons, local crops and traditions. Farmers grew food, traders sold it, and families cooked it at home. Traditional food was not always perfectly healthy, and poor people often struggled to get enough nutritious food. But food was mainly seen as something necessary for life, not simply as a product to be sold for profit.Things began to change rapidly after India's economic liberalisation in the 1990s. Global companies entered the Indian market, private businesses expanded, modern supermarkets grew and advertising became much more powerful. Food slowly became a major consumer industry. Burgers, pizzas, instant noodles, packaged snacks, sugary cereals and soft drinks moved from being occasional or unfamiliar products to becoming part of everyday life.We often say that the market simply gives people what they want. But the reality is more complicated. Modern food companies do not only respond to what people want—they also work hard to create those wants. They study what makes people buy again, what flavours they prefer, what packaging attracts children and what kind of advertising creates desire. Food is connected with happiness, modernity, convenience and status. We may feel that we are freely choosing what to eat, but our choices are being shaped by a powerful commercial environment around us.This also raises the question of freedom. Technically, everyone is free to choose what they eat. But can a poor worker and a wealthy professional really exercise the same freedom? One person may be able to buy organic vegetables, fresh food, premium proteins and specialised health products. Another may have to choose food based mainly on price, convenience and how long it will last. When income determines what kind of food a person can realistically buy, the idea of equal “freedom of choice” becomes questionable.The market has also created a new category called “healthy food.” Organic vegetables, cold-pressed oils, protein products, supplements and wellness programmes are now sold as solutions to our growing health concerns. There is nothing wrong with these products by themselves. The problem begins when healthy food becomes a premium product that only some people can afford. Why should a person have to pay much more simply to feel confident that the food they are eating is safe and nutritious?This brings us to regulation. India has food-safety laws and institutions such as FSSAI. There are rules covering food standards, contamination, additives, labelling and advertising. But having rules is not the same as having strong protection. The food industry is huge, complex and constantly changing. A product may legally meet certain standards and still contribute to an unhealthy diet when people consume it regularly and in large quantities.The responsibility then slowly moves from the industry to the individual. We are told: “You should have made healthier choices.” But how fair is that when the environment around us is designed to make certain products cheaper, easier, more convenient and more attractive? When unhealthy food is aggressively marketed and easily available everywhere, simply blaming the individual does not solve the problem.The same pattern can be seen in healthcare. We live in a food environment that can contribute to health problems. Then the market sells us health products, supplements, diagnostics, insurance, medicines and hospitals. Health increasingly becomes something we have to purchase. Prevention costs money. Treatment costs money. Insurance costs money. Even eating what is marketed as “healthy” can cost more.This is where the Right to Life becomes a much bigger question. The right to life should not begin only when a person enters a hospital. It should also include the conditions in which people live every day: safe food, clean water, clean air, decent working conditions and access to healthcare.If these basic conditions depend heavily on how much money a person has, then health becomes a class issue. Wealthier people can increasingly buy protection—better food, better healthcare, preventive tests, cleaner living environments and specialised services. Poorer people often have fewer choices and are more exposed to unhealthy conditions. The result is that health itself can become unequal.This does not mean everything from the past was better. Traditional Indian food was not automatically healthy, and modern food processing has brought many benefits. It has improved preservation, convenience, availability and, in some cases, food safety. Nor should the answer be to ban burgers, pizzas or soft drinks. People should be free to eat what they want.The real issue is the system around those choices.Why should unhealthy food often be cheaper and easier to access than healthier food? Why should children be exposed to aggressive food advertising? Why should consumers have to become experts in nutrition just to understand what they are buying? Why should organic food become a symbol of trust when ordinary food should also be properly regulated and safe?These are not simply questions about individual choices. They are questions about public policy and social responsibility.Instead of asking only, “Why don't people make healthier choices?”, we should ask a more important question:<blockquote>“Why have we created a food environment where unhealthy choices are often cheaper, easier, more convenient and more aggressively marketed?”</blockquote>That is where liberalisation and commodification come into the picture. Food has increasingly moved from being primarily a necessity to being a major commercial product. Health has become an industry. Healthcare has become an industry. Even protection from health risks can now be bought as a product.The danger is that the citizen slowly becomes only a consumer.When the air is polluted, we buy an air purifier. When water is unsafe, we buy bottled water. When food becomes uncertain, we buy organic food. When healthcare becomes expensive, we buy insurance. When we become sick, we pay for treatment.A collective problem keeps becoming an individual purchase.That cannot be the entire meaning of a healthy society.Markets can provide innovation, convenience and choice. Businesses have an important role to play. But the market cannot be allowed to decide everything about the conditions in which people live.Food is necessary for life. Health is necessary for dignity. Healthcare is necessary when health fails.These cannot become privileges available mainly to those who can afford them.The real question India must ask is not simply “What are you choosing to eat?”It is:<blockquote>“Who shaped the food environment in which you are making that choice—and who benefits from it?”</blockquote>And ultimately:<blockquote>If the market sells us the food, sells us the products to protect our health, and then sells us the treatment when we become sick, who remains responsible for the citizen?</blockquote>The Right to Life should mean more than simply the right to remain alive.It should mean the right to live in a society where a person does not have to constantly spend money to protect themselves from the basic conditions of everyday life.Food should feed people—not simply feed the market.Health should be a social priority—not a luxury product.And the citizen should be more than a consumer.