Protein has become a question of trade, feed systems, animal health, and ecological risk, which is why protein politics belongs within the One Health frame of World Health Day 2026
Image Source: Getty Images
This essay is part of the series: World Health Day 2026: Standing with Science in an Age of Shared Risk
For much of the last three decades, the Food Guide Pyramid, released by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 1992, served as one of the most recognised visual standards for teaching the public how to think about diet, proportion, and nutritional hierarchy. That earlier pedagogic order has now been recast. Current US dietary guidance marks a clear shift in emphasis. It reclaims the pyramid as an educational device and asks consumers to “prioritize protein at every meal”. India’s food market has moved in a similar direction, though through commerce rather than public pedagogy. Protein-labelled lassi, shakes, fortified flatbreads, snack bars, and packaged snacks now occupy mainstream shelves and delivery platforms.
The commercial force behind that shift is not incidental. An analysis of the 2023–24 Household Consumption Expenditure Survey finds that average at-home protein intake is 55.6 grams per person per day, with nearly half of that intake coming from cereals, while pulses contribute only 11 percent.
‘Protein politics’ can be a useful term for the struggles that now surround how protein is promoted, sourced, priced, regulated, and socially valued. A nutrient has acquired commercial force, public health relevance, and policy significance at the same time in India. World Health Day 2026, under the theme “Together for health. Stand with science”, centres attention on evidence, One Health, and the wider systems that determine health outcomes. Protein belongs within that frame because access, affordability, safety, animal health, feed systems, and ecological stress are all part of the same planetary question. Once a nutrient becomes a mass commodity, a food-centric belief system, and a policy obsession, it will inevitably become political. In a world striving for a One Health approach uniting human, animal, and planetary health, protein’s fate will have ripple effects well beyond the dinner plate.
Protein becomes political when supply, prices, and national self-reliance enter the equation. Most countries do not control all the protein inputs they consume, so they manage it through trade policy, subsidies and strategic planning. In India’s case, the newfound protein appetite collides with the hard fact that the country does not fully control its protein supply lines. India might be the world’s largest producer of milk and pulses (legumes), but it still relies heavily on imports to meet demand for certain protein-rich foods.
The aim was to protect domestic farmers from an influx of cheap imports that were pressuring local prices. This is a clear example of recent efforts to balance the interests of consumers (who seek low-cost protein foods) and farmers (who require remunerative prices).
India’s dependence on imports is particularly clear in two food categories: pulses and edible oils. Pulses remain the most important protein source for a large share of Indians, yet domestic output does not always keep pace with demand. Imports from countries such as Canada, Myanmar, and Russia have therefore become an important part of the supply picture. Edible oils, which are fats rather than proteins, are similarly imported in bulk. In 2024–25, India imported a record 16.4 million tonnes of edible oil worth US$ 17.3 billion, along with 7.3 million tonnes of pulses worth US$ 5.5 billion. Those imports help moderate shortages and stabilise availability, but they also expose domestic food prices to global volatility.
Yellow peas offer a clear example of how quickly this can turn into a policy problem. For much of the recent period, India has allowed duty-free imports to keep prices stable. In late 2025, the government, responding to domestic producers' concerns about cheaper imports driving down farmgate prices, imposed a 30 percent import duty. The aim was to protect domestic farmers from an influx of cheap imports that were pressuring local prices. This is a clear example of recent efforts to balance the interests of consumers (who seek low-cost protein foods) and farmers (who require remunerative prices).
Such policy toggling is happening worldwide. China, the world’s largest soybean importer, has recognised that its hog and poultry sectors are vulnerable to foreign markets. It has long depended on massive imports of soybeans, mainly from the Americas, to feed its pigs and poultry. Over 80 percent of China’s soybean consumption is imported, a dependency viewed as a strategic vulnerability. China’s response has taken a different form. Rather than focusing only on trade measures, it has tried to reduce vulnerability through feed reformulation. In 2023, Beijing set out to reduce the share of soymeal in livestock feed from roughly 13 percent to about 10 percent by 2030. That effort depends on alternative protein inputs, synthetic amino acids, and changes in feed formulation. Analysts argue that it could lower soybean import demand by several million tonnes over time and reduce reliance on suppliers such as the United States and Brazil. Protein policy, therefore, cannot be understood only as a question of diet. Once populations demand more protein, governments must grapple with where that protein will come from and at what cost.
The real power struggles over protein often unfold at a further remove, in feed mills, biotech laboratories, and the regulatory systems governing animal health. Modern meat, dairy, and egg production depends on complex inputs that consumers rarely see. High-yield chicken and pig diets, for example, rely on carefully balanced combinations of corn, soymeal, vitamins, and synthetic amino acids. The security of these inputs has become a strategic concern.
Another is the global market for specialised additives, including nutrients such as lysine and methionine, which are often produced by a global industry largely dominated by a few countries, meaning any supply hiccup can ripple through animal farms everywhere.
China’s feed reforms mentioned earlier are one example, where, by cutting soy in feed and boosting domestic forage, the government aims to protect against international shocks. Another is the global market for specialised additives, including nutrients such as lysine and methionine, which are often produced by a global industry largely dominated by a few countries, meaning any supply hiccup can ripple through animal farms everywhere. Consider soybeans, most of which end up as animal feed. The vast majority (almost 80 percent) of the world’s soy is grown to feed livestock, not to feed humans directly. This intensive demand for feed protein has global environmental consequences. In Brazil and other exporting countries, millions of hectares have been destroyed for soy monoculture and beef production, at times through deforestation of carbon-rich ecosystems. Thus, the pursuit of cheap meat protein is linked to lost forests and biodiversity, a classic externalised cost. This means a nation’s protein policy is implicitly also land-use policy and climate policy.
Animal health is another critical dimension. Intensive livestock systems often rely on significant use of antibiotics and hormones to sustain low-cost protein production. Over the past decade, many countries have begun tightening regulations in this area. India’s landmark step was the 2019 ban on colistin (a last-resort antibiotic) in food-animal production, following warnings from medical experts about antimicrobial resistance linked to its misuse. Investigations had indicated that large quantities were being supplied to farms, including without prescription. The ban prohibits its use in food-producing animals, citing serious risks to human health. This underscores how protein markets intersect with public health: the use of antibiotics to boost yields in meat and dairy production carries long-term costs for human immunity.
Even as governments deal with current supply pressures (e.g. India’s fertiliser supply), attention is slowly shifting to a new frontier in food systems: alternative proteins. This category includes plant-based meat substitutes, cultivated meat, and precision-fermented proteins produced through engineered microbes. Their appeal lies in the possibility of producing protein with lower environmental pressure and fewer animal welfare concerns than conventional livestock systems. The more consequential issue, however, is control over this emerging sector. For the Global South, that issue carries particular weight. Most of the world’s population lives there, as do large numbers of farmers and workers who already sustain existing protein chains.
Animal health is another critical dimension. Intensive livestock systems often rely on significant use of antibiotics and hormones to sustain low-cost protein production. Over the past decade, many countries have begun tightening regulations in this area.
So far, the sector has been driven largely by firms, capital, and regulatory experimentation in higher-income economies. Many of its most visible products have emerged from ecosystems in the US, Singapore, or Israel rather than in low- and middle-income countries. A 2025 United Nations Development Programme report argues that alternative proteins in the context of developing countries should be assessed through the lenses of climate resilience, nutrition security, and inclusive livelihoods. In India, for instance, products based on millets, chickpeas, or other locally relevant crops may be more appropriate than reliance on proprietary pea-protein systems developed elsewhere. In parts of Africa, small-scale fermentation or insect-based protein production may offer stronger local linkages than imported, processed substitutes.
Without deliberate policy, the familiar asymmetry of global value chains could easily reappear. Countries in the Global South may supply raw material, while intellectual property, processing capacity, branding, and margins remain concentrated elsewhere. A more credible path would place public research, regional adaptation, and local enterprise at the centre.
Ultimately, ‘protein politics’ is a shorthand for the fact that nutrition, trade, animal health and planetary risk are now interlinked. A protein-driven future will only be sustainable if nutrition science, veterinary medicine, agriculture and environmental policy work together, just as World Health Day 2026 urges us all to stand with science. In practice, this means that truthful science about protein needs must inform not only diets, but also farming practices, wildlife protection and global trade rules. It is not enough to sell high-protein snacks or to erect tariffs; what is needed is joint monitoring of microbes and ecosystems, shared investment in sustainable farming, and transparent policy dialogue that includes nutritionists, farmers and ecologists.
The answer lies in the kind of science-driven, One Health collaboration that the World Health Organization (WHO) champions, including global research networks and public-private partnerships that build resilient protein chains across people, animals and the planet. For countries like India, this means shaping protein systems that are not only affordable but also ecologically sound and scientifically managed, so that one of our most basic nutrients does not deepen the planetary question even as it seeks to address a nutritional one.
K.S. Uplabdh Gopal is an Associate Fellow with the Health Initiative at the Observer Research Foundation.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Dr. K. S. Uplabdh Gopal is an Associate Fellow with the Health Initiative at the Observer Research Foundation. He writes and researches on how India’s ...
Read More +
PREV
