Mexico is facing a serious obesity crisis. More than 35% of school-aged children are overweight or obese, placing the country among those with the highest rates in the world. The trend worsens with age: 2 in 5 adolescents and 7 in 10 adults suffer from the same condition.
President Claudia Sheinbaum presented Live Healthy, Live Happy, a health initiative that includes a ban on the sale of sweets, salty snacks, and sugary drinks in schools. The internet was quick to dub her the “almond mom” of Mexico, about diet-obsessed parents who are often the target of online ridicule.
Images of empty shelves and refrigerators stocked exclusively with water bottles flooded social media when the policy went into effect on March 29.
The ban has even extended to university cafeterias, affecting students who are already legal adults. Several campuses have reported drastic drops in snack and beverage sales, and some establishments are considering closing altogether to avoid fines or financial losses.
Is this ban the solution to Mexico’s obesity problem?
Mexico’s processed food and beverage industry is a key economic driver, with food production valued at around 1.8 trillion pesos in 2023 and a beverage contribution of approximately 639 billion pesos. At the center of this sector is FEMSA, the world’s largest Coca-Cola bottler by sales volume.
Previous regulatory attempts to curb unhealthy consumption, such as the front-of-package warning labeling implemented in 2020, have had little impact. These black octagon-shaped labels warn of excess sodium, sugar, saturated fat, or high calories, but consumers mostly ignore them. Some even joke, “The more octagons a snack has, the better it tastes,” as if someone expected a bag of Doritos to be a low-calorie food.
This public policy is based on the false premise that restricting access will significantly change behavior. In practice, children may no longer be able to buy Takis and soda at the school convenience store, but they can still stop by an OXXO or 7-Eleven. History shows that prohibition doesn’t eliminate demand; it simply forces consumers to seek alternative (and sometimes more inconvenient or even dangerous) ways to get what they want.
Ironically, the federal government itself is now competing in the chocolate industry with its Chocolate del Bienestar (Wellness Chocolate), promoted as a “healthier and socially conscious” alternative, which carries three warning labels for excess calories, sugar, and saturated fat. Sheinbaum defended it by saying it has “only a little sugar” and more cocoa than commercial brands. But the contradiction is hard to ignore: the same government that bans snacks in schools now distributes its own chocolate, which cannot be sold on those same campuses. If it’s state-made, sugar doesn’t count.
Sheinbaum’s policy comes at a delicate moment for the Mexican economy. The country is on the verge of a slowdown, while its main trading partner, the United States, is increasing tariffs on key Mexican exports. The last thing Mexico needs is additional internal restrictions that generate market uncertainty.
Regulations like these not only burden businesses with more obstacles but also distort economic incentives. Instead of fostering a culture of personal responsibility, the government imposes top-down mandates that are likely to backfire.
Combating childhood obesity—and any type of obesity—is not the government’s job. While Mexico’s cultural affinity for junk food makes it difficult for parents to promote healthy habits, the answer is not an interventionist state acting as a diet policeman.
Sheinbaum’s “mama almendra” approach may generate buzz on social media, but it is unlikely to achieve significant health improvements. Real change comes from informed decisions, not government bans.
Source: Panam Post
