AUTHORS: EMILY WIGG, PROJECT ASSISTANT, & MATTEO MAGNANI, PROJECT ASSISTANT.
Reviewed by Sune Skadegaard Thorsen, CEO, & Brian Chen, Sustainability Consultant, GLOBAL CSR
Introduction
Every day, billions of people consume products that harm their health. Many of these products are hyper-palatable industrial formulations made from cheap extracted ingredients and flavor-enhancing additives, commonly known as ultra-processed foods (UPFs).
The leading producers and product distributors operate on a global scale. From the sourcing of raw ingredients to the consumption of the final product, their operations affect the lives of millions.
As set out by the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), businesses have a responsibility to respect human rights, regardless of their size, sector, location, ownership and structure. Foundational Principle 15(b) explains that this responsibility requires companies to implement a human rights due diligence process to identify, prevent, mitigate, and account for how they address their impacts on human rights. Operational Principle 17 clarifies that this process should enable companies to identify and address both potential and actual impacts on human rights.
UPF producers have a responsibility to account for how they identify and address their impacts on human rights by communicating transparently to the affected stakeholders, as required by Operational Principle 21.
Leading producers have made some efforts in this direction, and those efforts are acknowledged.
Yet a review of their communications, including annual reports, reveals a consistent gap. Corporate human rights due diligence processes are overwhelmingly focused on supply chain risks. Where consumer health is communicated, it is typically framed as a corporate commitment to make positive impacts and to realize financial opportunities. Adverse impacts on consumers, and particularly the potential adverse impacts on the right to health, the right to adequate food and fair distribution, the rights of the child, and the right to freedom of information remain largely unidentified and unmanaged. These risks of adverse impacts affect a lot of people and should be identified as severe (i.e., material in reporting terms) impacts.
The following sections examine each of these human rights in turn, drawing primarily on academic research to establish the adverse impacts at stake, and translating these findings into the language of human rights due diligence.
Discussion
Right to Health
A growing body of evidence links UPFs to a wide range of significant health harms. The right to health, as protected under Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), is the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, which covers underlying determinants such as nutrition.
The most comprehensive synthesis on UPFs to date, the Lancet Series on UPFs and Human Health (Monteiro et al., 2025), links UPF consumption to at least 12 chronic conditions, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. In Europe, based on national dietary surveys collected between 2003 and 2017, the share of daily calories derived from UPFs in adult population ranges from roughly 13% in Italy to over 40% in Sweden (Mertens et al., 2022). This reflects a well-established trend of UPF-based diets replacing traditional whole-food based diets, and with it, a rising public concern of diet-related chronic disease.
The UPF industry’s typical response, reformulating products to reduce sugar, salt, or fat, has limited mitigation effect on the adverse impact on health. The harm arises at the level of processing and is not solely caused by individual nutrients. Many UPFs are produced using combinations of cheap, industrially extracted ingredients and cosmetic additives, apparently designed to encourage overconsumption beyond satiety signals.
When publicly disclosing the results of their human rights due diligence processes, several major UPF producers recognize the right to health as a salient issue. However, closer analysis shows that some companies tend to conflate the right to health with the right to safe and healthy working conditions (ICESCR Article 7). Unilever’s 2025 Annual Report, for example, identifies “Health” as an adverse impact only in relation to its own workforce and workers in the value chain. It did not identify material impacts of its products on consumers’ health, despite acknowledging that regulatory changes requiring improved nutritional values could pose material financial risks that affect revenue growth.
Right to Freedom of Information
The consumers’ right to freedom of information (Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) is also adversely impacted, when consumers are not adequately informed about the health impacts associated with the products consumed. Labelling and marketing practices adopted by UPF producers shape consumer perceptions of their products. Products appear to be positioned through functional claims, micronutrient fortification, and minor reformulations, which can give the impression of a healthier nutritional profile than the degree of processing would suggest. Corporate campaigns and influencer partnerships have been observed to frame diet-related disease primarily as a matter of individual lifestyle choices (Baker et al., 2025). These practices raise the question of whether corporate communication on health is designed to inform consumers, or to manage public perception.
A whole area of exploration relates to sharing information to the public of the knowledge that large corporations have from their research on the health-related effects of UPFs.
It is also important to note that businesses’ responsibility to respect human rights is distinct from legal compliance. Compliance with legal requirements on the disclosure of nutritional information or health effects should not automatically be considered as sufficient to meet the responsibility to respect consumers’ right to information.
The Right to Adequate Food and its Fair Distribution
The right to adequate food, as protected under Article 11 of the ICESCR, is not satisfied by caloric sufficiency alone. It requires access to nutritionally adequate, safe, and culturally appropriate food that is distributed in a manner that does not systematically disadvantage certain populations. Such food must also be both physically and economically accessible without requiring individuals to compromise other basic needs.
The expansion of UPF markets is causing severe impacts on this human right. Rather than alleviating food insecurity, UPFs play a role in what is increasingly described as the “double burden” of malnutrition: excess caloric intake alongside persistent micronutrient deficiency (Monteiro et al., 2025).
A consistent body of evidence shows that higher levels of food insecurity are structurally associated with higher consumption of UPFs. In many contexts, UPFs are the most affordable, convenient, and shelf-stable source of calories. Therefore, they are particularly accessible for low-income consumers, including consumers living in areas with limited access to fresh produce.
These communities are disproportionately exposed to aggressive marketing tactics that emphasize discounts and low-cost promotions. In addition, UPFs’ long shelf life further enhances their appeal, which reduces the financial risk of food spoilage, and making them a rational choice for households facing economic precarity. By contrast, fresh produce is more perishable, increasing the risk of waste and financial loss (Gallagher-Squires et al., 2023).
As UPF distribution expands in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), there is growing concern that the dietary and health burdens observed in high-income countries may be repeated in these contexts (Baker et al., 2025).
When the most affordable and accessible food options are also those most closely associated with adverse health impacts, individual preferences should not be viewed as the only factor in determining consumption choices. The multi-billion-dollar UPF industry plays a significant role in influencing food distributions across many economies, and UPF producers should acknowledge their impacts on communities’ lack of access to adequate food and its fair distribution.
The Rights of the Child
The rights of a child are not exempt from adverse impacts caused by UPFs. Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), children are entitled to the highest attainable standard of health (Art. 24), protection of their best interests (Art. 3), and access to appropriate information (Art. 17). Each of these protections is relevant to how UPFs are designed, marketed, and consumed.
Children possess unique developmental vulnerabilities that are not sufficiently accounted for in how UPF products are designed and marketed. UPFs are engineered to be hyper-palatable, combining enjoyable textures with high levels of sugar, fat, salt, and additives that stimulate the brain’s reward systems. Evidence shows that these characteristics shape children’s appetitive traits and establish long-term dietary preferences from an early age (Chamarthi et al., 2025).
Crucially, children lack the cognitive capacity to recognize and critically evaluate persuasive intent in marketing. This is particularly acute in digital environments, where advertising is embedded in games, influencer content, and other forms of “native” media that obscure their commercial purpose. Corporations exploit this developmental vulnerability through character branding, bright packaging, and emotionally resonant messaging designed to generate “pester power” over parents and establish early brand loyalty.
The interaction between child vulnerability and structural inequality further compounds these harms. Children in food-insecure households are more exposed to UPF marketing and more reliant on these products, reinforcing unhealthy consumption patterns. What emerges is a feedback loop in which commercial practices shape preferences, preferences drive consumption, and consumption entrenches adverse health outcomes across the life course.
UNGPs Expectations Vs. UPF Companies’ Practice
Under the UNGPs, corporate responsibility to respect human rights requires, at minimum, a policy commitment, a human rights due diligence process, and access to remedy through effective grievance mechanisms for impacts that a business has caused or contributed to. Human rights due diligence should enable companies to identify, prevent or mitigate, and account for how they address their adverse impacts on human rights.
To account for how businesses address identified impacts, Operational Principle 21 requires that businesses communicate the result of their due diligence to – at minimum – affected stakeholders and business relationships. In addition, businesses must communicate ‘formally’ on severe impacts.
Nestlé, Unilever, Coca-Cola, and PepsiCo are among the world’s largest UPF producers, and all have committed to implementing the UNGPs.
How did these companies take steps to align with the UNGPs, and identify and address the potential severe human rights impacts associated with their UPF products?
The following information is based solely on public information and primarily from the annual reports of the four large producers.
Nestlé
1. Policy Commitment
Nestlé Human Rights Policy, approved by its executive board in June 2023, states Nestlé’s commitment to “respect and promote human rights in our operations and entire value chain, in line with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and the Ten Principles of the UN Global Compact”, and describes how it operationalizes this policy through “due diligence processes in place to assess, address and report transparently on actual and potential human rights risks across our value chain in line with the UNGPs”, prioritizing the human rights-related issues they identify as “salient” – i.e., severe.
2. Human Rights Due Diligence
Nestlé Human Rights Salient Issue Action Plans, last updated in January 2025, describes its actions to address the identified salient human rights issues. Although the right to health, the right to freedom of information, and the rights of the child are not identified as separate salient human rights issues, actions under one identified salient issue “Right to food and access to nutritious, affordable, and adequate diets” describes how Nestlé addresses adverse impacts on this human right, but with relevance to all the four human rights discussed above, including:
(1). Right to Health
- Nestlé benchmarks its entire portfolio of products against international scientific nutritional profile ratings.
- Seeks to expand offering more nutritious products by CHF 20 — 25 billion by 2030.
- Commits to reduce sodium in frequently consumed products by 2025.
- Seeks to continuously guide people in making more nutritious food choices, by providing adequate information (see more under 2. Right to Information)
(2). Right to Information
- Guides people in making more nutritious food choices, by providing on-pack nutritional information, consumption guidance and services to support balanced eating.
(3). Right to Adequate Food and its Fair Distribution
- Identifies and prioritizes sector initiatives where Nestlé can advocate or support respect for the right to food and access to nutrition.
- Aims to provide accessible and affordable nutrition to lower-income consumers with a focus on emerging countries, and seeks to close nutrient gaps through micronutrient fortification
(4). Rights of the Child
- Plans to roll out revised policy on Marketing Communication to Children.
- Voluntarily restricts marketing to children under the age of 16.
- Plans to roll out revised policy on the Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes to not promote infant formula for babies up to six months of age.
3. Access to remedy
Nestlé’s grievance mechanism Speak Up provides its employees and all external stakeholders a channel to raise grievances with Nestlé and to seek remedy. Nestlé discloses that it received 3,753 messages in Speak Up in 2025.
Unilever
1. Policy Commitment
Unilever Human Rights Policy Commitment, released in March 2023, stipulates the company’s commitment to respect all internationally recognized human rights listed in the International Bill of Human Rights, in alignment with the UNGPs.
The Policy Commitment also describes its process to “take steps to identify and address any actual or potential adverse impacts which [they] may cause or contribute to through [their] own activities, or which may be directly linked to [their] operations, products or services or by [their] business relationships”.
2. Human Rights Due Diligence
Unilever’s 2025 Annual Report discloses the salient human rights issues identified by the company’s human rights due diligence process in 2023. Although Unilever identified “Health” as one of their eight salient human rights issues, it is understood exclusively in relation to adverse impacts on the right to safe and healthy conditions of employees, i.e., workers in own operations and in their value chain.
Unilever’s human rights due diligence process appears to have neglected risks of adverse impacts on caused by their products on consumers. Moreover, adverse impacts on the “Right to Adequate Food and its Fair Distribution” and the “Right to Freedom of Information” are not mentioned altogether.
The Double Materiality Assessment (DMA) conducted by Unilever indicates a disconnect between Unilever’s human rights due diligence and its impact materiality assessment that supported its annual reporting. For the stakeholder group “Consumers and End Users”, the DMA identified “Product Safety” and “Nutritional Product Quality” as material financial risks for the company because of their potential negative effect on revenue growth. Yet, despite recognizing the financial materiality of these topics, Unilever did not identify the corresponding adverse impacts on consumers. The company also states that it has not set targets relating to nutritional product quality.
It is worth noting that Unilever did identify adverse impacts on rights of the child in relation to “Marketing to Children” and describes the marketing policies and measures to address this impact in the annual report.
3. Access to remedy
Like Nestlé, Unilever’s grievance mechanism Speak Up provides its employees and all external stakeholders a channel to raise grievances with Nestlé and to seek remedy.
The Coca-Cola Company
1. Policy Commitment
The Coca-Cola Company’s Global Human Rights Policy was last updated in December 2023, and is overseen by the Senior Vice President, Global Human Rights, Labor and Employee Relations. The policy describes the company’s commitment to the UNGPs and its respect for all internationally recognized human rights. It describes that the company strives to “identify and address salient human rights risks across (their) operations and value chain. (They) conduct due diligence and engage with stakeholders to prevent and mitigate risks”.
The policy also lists 10 issues as the key focus of their global program: safe and healthy workplace, diversity and inclusion, freedom of association, freedom from forced labour, freedom from child labor, wages and work hours, land rights, water and environmental stewardship, privacy, and consumer wellbeing.
2. Human Rights Due Diligence
The Cola-Cola Company identifies “Healthy Lifestyles” as one of 12 salient human rights issues and acknowledges the adverse impacts on health related to the high sugar content of its products and has made significant commitments globally to reduce added sugar content in their beverages. Its Global Human Rights Policy commits the company to “responsible marketing and to providing transparent and accessible nutritional information and a range of beverage options that enable consumers to make informed choices, consistent with a healthy lifestyle.”
In its sustainability report published in 2022, it is unclear whether product-related health impacts on consumers are fully covered in the company’s approach to human rights due diligence, as the related report sections focus heavily on human rights impacts within its supply chains. Nevertheless, The Coca-Cola Company’s description of its management of its products’ health impacts on consumers can be found in a separate section, under “Portfolio”. This section highlights several key goals:
- Offering drinks with reduced added sugar
- Offering more drinks with nutrition and wellness benefits
- Providing clear nutrition information on packaging and in communications
- Marketing drinks responsibly, including raising minimum marketing age to 13 years old (not placing marketing or advertising on media platforms in any media, platform or even where 30% of the audience is under 13).
The Coca-Cola Company’s public disclosures do not indicate that the company has identified impacts on the right to adequate food and its fair distribution. This may be because company’s products foremost consist of beverages. The company has however, identified adverse impacts in the area of “water stewardship”, in relation to the right to water, as it describes its analysis conducted of water-related risks in areas where they have the greatest impact.
3. Access to remedy
The Coca-Cola Company invites employees and external parties to report concerns through its grievance mechanism, EthicsLine, which is operated by a third-party service provider, NAVEX Global.
PepsiCo
1. Policy Commitment
PepsiCo’s Global Human Rights Policy, revised in August 2025, describes the company’s commitment to “respect the rights of all individuals and communities throughout our business and supply chain […], striving to implement the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights throughout our business and reporting on our progress in line with the UN Guiding Principles Reporting Framework.”
2. Human Rights Due Diligence
PepsiCo’s approach to human rights due diligence prioritises actions on several identified salient issues: climate change, fair pay and employment conditions, land rights, forced labor, freedom of association, human right to water, workplace health and safety. As PepsiCo organizes its efforts mainly around impacts that occur in their upstream value chain, the salient issues exclude severe impacts that their own products cause to the downstream consumers.
Nevertheless, “nutrition”, “product safety & quality”, “product labelling & claims”, “food & nutrition security” and “responsible marketing” are listed as ESG topics on the company’s homepage, corresponding to several human rights impacted by UPFs highlighted in the sections above. Although these ESG topics are presented in parallel to the company’s human rights due diligence process, they targets set by PepsiCo to mitigate impacts in these areas.
3. Access to remedy
PepsiCo invites employees and stakeholders in the direct supply chains to communicate to PepsiCo for suspected violations of their policies and standards through the PepsiCo Speak Up Hotline.
This raises the question of just how thoroughly aligned these companies are with the UNGPs in practice.
Company overview
Across all four of the largest UPF producers, a pattern reoccurs: human rights due diligence is overwhelmingly focused on adverse impacts arising in supply chains, while overlooking severe impacts caused by their products. The impacts should have been covered by human rights due diligence covering risks of causing or contributing to adverse impacts from own operations. Where health is identified as a “salient” human rights issue, it is often understood in terms of workplace health and safety, i.e., a different human right. Where health impacts on consumers are identified, they appear to be managed as an ESG-related financial risk in parallel to the human rights due diligence process.
To meet the commitments made to respect human rights aligned with the UNGPs, the companies should:
- Identify and assess actual and potential adverse impacts (Principle 18),
- Integrate assessment findings across relevant internal functions and processes, and take action to prevent and mitigate impacts (Principle 19),
- Track the effectiveness of their response (Principle 20),
- Account for how they address their human rights impacts by communicating to, at minimum, affected stakeholders and business relationships, and report formally about severe impacts (Principle 21),
- and provide access to remedy where the company caused or contributed to actual impacts (Principle 22).
The limited consideration of product-related impacts on consumers appears to reveal a gap between the UPF producers’ commitment to respect human rights and their implementation of human rights due diligence.
Reorienting human rights due diligence to adequately assess risks of adverse impacts from own operations would strengthen alignment with the UNGPs and provide opportunities for companies to demonstrate greater accountability for the adverse human rights associated with their products.
Conclusion
Through this analysis, the appropriate path for UPF producers to manage their responsibility to respect human rights remains closely aligned with the proper application of the UNGPs. This means identifying and addressing the harm caused to consumers of UPF products and communicating that transparently.
Importantly, this responsibility does not depend on legislative mandate. The UNGPs are explicit on this point: the corporate responsibility to respect human rights exists independently of states’ own duties to protect and applies regardless of whether national law requires it.
Some UPF producers demonstrate limited accountability in addressing the human rights impacts caused by their own operations; a dimension which should be considered as the bare minimum for responsible business conduct and the most important part of human rights due diligence. Producing and marketing UPFs carry inherent risks of adverse impacts to consumers’ health, and should, due to the scope (number) of people affected, be identified as severe. Yet meaningful actions to prevent or mitigate the risks, if any, are likely to stay undisclosed unless companies adequately implement the UNGPs, enabling them to identify and address adverse impacts beyond impacts that they are merely linked to through their suppliers.
In practice, a proper human rights due diligence process should enable UPF producers (and retailers) to identify risks of adverse impacts on human rights caused or contributed to by their own operations. The production and marketing of UPF products may cause or contribute to adverse impacts on the right to health, the right to adequate food and fair distribution, the rights of the child, and the right to freedom of information.
Alignment with the UNGPs also requires the companies to communicate externally how they address identified severe impacts. Such communications are distinct from legal requirements to disclose nutritional information and should not be treated as satisfied by regulatory compliance alone. It should be communicated in a form and frequency accessible to those affected, not only through ESG reporting channels addressed primarily to investors and regulators.
The authors of this discussion piece are aware that the accountability mechanism ingrained into the UNGPs, according to which that companies should be transparent about how they manage risks of adverse impacts on human rights, has raised the bar for responsible business conduct.
It will inevitably push companies across a variety of sectors outside their comfort zones. They are expected to publicly explain how they deal with their most severe impacts on human dignity – often “issues” that companies have spent significant resources managing internally or keeping out of public debate.
While businesses cannot “violate international human rights” (only States can – with one exemption in relation to crimes against humanity), all companies are at risk of causing or contributing to adverse impacts on human rights. For most companies, they are at risk of causing or contributing to severe impacts.
Are companies ready to become transparent about how they handle such risks? Will “dealing with dilemmas” become the norm of responsible business conduct?
References
Monteiro, C. A., Louzada, M. L., Steele-Martinez, E., Cannon, G., Andrade, G. C., Baker, P., Bes-Rastrollo, M., Bonaccio, M., Gearhardt, A. N., Khandpur, N., Kolby, M., Levy, R. B., Machado, P. P., Moubarac, J., Rezende, L. F. M., Rivera, J. A., Scrinis, G., Srour, B., Swinburn, B., & Touvier, M. (2025). Ultra-processed foods and human health: the main thesis and the evidence. The Lancet, 406(10520), 2667–2684. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(25)01565-x
Scrinis, G., Popkin, B. M., Corvalan, C., Duran, A. C., Nestle, M., Lawrence, M., Baker, P., Monteiro, C. A., Millett, C., Moubarac, J., Jaime, P., & Khandpur, N. (2025). Policies to halt and reverse the rise in ultra-processed food production, marketing, and consumption. The Lancet, 406(10520), 2685–2702. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(25)01566-1
Baker, P., Slater, S., White, M., Wood, B., Contreras, A., Corvalán, C., Gupta, A., Hofman, K., Kruger, P., Laar, A., Lawrence, M., Mafuyeka, M., Mialon, M., Monteiro, C. A., Nanema, S., Phulkerd, S., Popkin, B. M., Serodio, P., Shats, K., . . . Barquera, S. (2025). Towards unified global action on ultra-processed foods: understanding commercial determinants, countering corporate power, and mobilising a public health response. The Lancet, 406(10520), 2703–2726. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(25)01567-3
Mertens, E., Colizzi, C., & Peñalvo, J. L. (2022). Ultra-processed food consumption in adults across Europe. European Journal of Nutrition, 61(3), 1521–1539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-021-02733-7
Gallagher-Squires, C., Isaacs, A., Reynolds, C., & Coleman, P. C. (2023). Snacking practices from infancy to adolescence: parental perspectives from longitudinal lived experience research in England. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0029665123003592
UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2000) General Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health (Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), E/C.12/2000/4. Geneva: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
Nestle, 2021. Human Rights Framework Roadmap, Vevey, Switzerland: Nestle. Available at: https://www.nestle.com/sites/default/files/2021-12/nestle-human-rights-framework-roadmap.pdf
Nestle, 2025. Human Rights Salient Issue Action Plans, Vevey, Switzerland: Nestle. Available at: https://www.nestle.com/sites/default/files/2023-02/nestle-salient-issues-action-plans-feb-2023.pdf
Coca-Cola, December 2023. Global Human Rights Policy, Atlanta, Georgia: The Coca-Cola Company. Available at: https://www.coca-colacompany.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/reports/pdf/CocaCola_Global%20Human%20Rights%20Policy_Document_20240419_v9.15.pdf
Nestle, Group Legal and Compliance, 2023. Nestle Human Rights Policy, Vevey, Switzerland: Nestle. Available at: https://www.nestle.com/sites/default/files/2023-07/nestle-human-rights-policy.pdf
Coca-Cola, 2022. Human Rights Overview, Atlanta, Georgia: The Coca-Cola Company.
Coca-Cola, 2022. Business and Sustainability Report, Atlanta, Georgia: The Coca-Cola Company. Available at: https://www.coca-colacompany.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/reports/coca-cola-business-sustainability-report-2022.pdf
PepsiCo, 2025. ESG Topics: Products and nutrition – Nutrition, Purchase, New York: PepsiCo. Available at: https://www.pepsico.com/esg-topics/nutrition#why-it-matters
PepsiCo, 2025. Global Human Rights Policy, Purchase, New York: PepsiCo. Available at: https://www.pepsico.com/docs/pepsico-5v9wci20/media/Files/esg-topics/pepsico-global-human-rights-policy.pdf
PepsiCo, 2026. ESG Topics: Products and nutrition – Responsible Marketing, Purchase, New York: PepsiCo. Available at: https://www.pepsico.com/esg-topics/responsible-marketing
Unilever, 2023. Human Rights Policy Statement, London, United Kingdom: Unilever. Available at: https://www.unilever.com/files/317c8e2f-a798-4f00-a1a1-dc4a1c806f45/unilever-human-rights-policy-statement-march-2023.pdf
Unilever, 2015. Human Rights Report, London, United Kingdom: Unilever. Available at: https://www.unilever.com/files/82edc8e9-aca0-4146-b3b9-ef10fab97e6c/unilever-human-rights-report-2015.pdf
Unilever, 2022. Human Rights Report Interim Update, London, United Kingdom. Available at: https://www.unilever.com/files/2d5cebae-87d6-4411-817d-22757e597cbf/human-rights-report-interim-update-2022.pdf
United Nations (2011) Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework, HR/PUB/11/04. New York and Geneva: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Chamarthi, V. S., Shirsat, P., Sonavane, K., Parsi, S., Ravi, U., Ponnam, H. C., Bindlish, S., Nadler, E. P., Kashyap, R., & Ro, S. (2025). The impact of ultra-processed foods on pediatric health. Obesity Pillars, 16, 100203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obpill.2025.100203
UNICEF (2025) Child Nutrition Report 2025: Feeding Profit — How food environments are failing children. United Nations Children’s Fund, New York. Available at: https://data.unicef.org/resources/feeding-profit-2025-child-nutrition-report/