Food insecurity and the dominance of high calorie foods are twin problems plaguing the developed world. In the U.S. these problems have contributed to rising obesity rates and nutritional deficiencies. Meanwhile, some countries are taking steps to solve these problems, and we must learn from them.
Food insecurity in Australia has become a pressing issue, not only due to rising costs of living but also because of the fundamental structure of modern food systems. Approximately one in five Australian households experience food insecurity each year. At the “Real Action on the Cost of Living Crisis” briefing on April 6, I spoke with Professor Dr. Phillip Baker from the University of Sydney about one of the central forces shaping this crisis: the cultural and economic dominance of ultra-processed foods.
I asked Baker whether the solution to the ultra-processed food problem lies more in disrupting the economic dominance of the companies producing these goods, or in reshaping cultural narratives around food and health. I asked this because these foods occupy a culturally dominant, near-hegemonic position in our collective imagination, shaped in large part by targeted advertising.
Dr. Baker explained that ultra-processed foods are economically engineered for maximum profitability. To achieve this level of profitability, they are made with low-cost ingredients and heavily processed with sugar, fat and salt to stimulate overconsumption. Their long shelf life, low production cost and addictive palatability make them ideal commodities for large food corporations. This economic advantage creates a feedback loop: as food companies profit, they reinvest in marketing and distribution strategies further entrenching these foods in everyday diets.
In Australia, supermarkets are now dominated by these ultra-processed food products. This is not a coincidence — it is the result of deliberate business models and policy choices. Addressing food insecurity in Australia, then, must start with economic reform.
Dr. Baker advocates for disrupting the business models that sustain the dominance of ultra-processed foods in Australia. This includes ending subsidies for industrial agriculture and fossil fuels, taxing unhealthy foods and tightening regulations on marketing, especially to children.
Some promising steps have already been taken: the Australian government has piloted taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages in some jurisdictions and is considering broader policy frameworks for restricting junk food advertising. These policies can help redirect food industry incentives and make healthy, minimally processed foods more competitive in the market – steps we, too, could learn from.
Supporting local and sustainable agriculture is crucial. Programs that connect small-scale farmers with public institutions—such as schools, hospitals and aged care facilities—are beginning to gain traction. Such policies not only stimulate regional economies but also improve the access and quality of food for vulnerable populations.
While economic interventions are vital, Baker emphasized the need to complement them with cultural change. Australia’s current food culture is dominated by ultra-processed, highly palatable foods – a result of decades of advertising and global food trends. According to Baker, reversing this requires renewed emphasis on food education, local cuisine and community-led initiatives.
This includes expanding school kitchen gardens, implementing cooking classes and celebrating Australian culinary heritage. Programs like Stephanie Alexander’s Kitchen Garden Foundation are already proving effective in teaching children how to grow and cook real food, laying the groundwork for lifelong healthy habits.
Public health campaigns also play a role. Rather than merely vilifying junk food, effective messaging must reframe food as a social, cultural and health-related good. By highlighting the stories of local producers, Indigenous food traditions and sustainable farming, we can rebuild a shared food identity that resists the convenience of ultra-processed alternatives.
In America, we are not yet taking sufficient action to address our food insecurity issues. Approximately 6.1 percent of our population lives in food deserts, and nearly everyone is bombarded by the cultural dominance of processed foods. Australia’s experience with food insecurity and ultra-processed foods offers a valuable lesson: meaningful change requires both economic and cultural interventions. As Baker noted, unless we make unhealthy foods less profitable and healthy foods more accessible and attractive — both in terms of price and appeal — we won’t make any significant progress.
Food insecurity should be viewed not merely as a symptom of poverty, but as a systemic issue rooted in policy, industry structure and culture. There’s much we can learn from Australia’s experience, and much more we must do.
Manas Pandit can be reached at [email protected].
