The role of regulatory policies on unhealthy commodities to prevent and control noncommunicable diseases in the Americas

ABSTRACT

The growing burden of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) cannot be addressed through clinical interventions alone. Population-level regulatory interventions—such as fiscal measures, marketing restrictions, and labeling regulations—are central to effective NCD prevention and control. This article addresses the role of regulatory policies in preventing NCDs, with a focus on progress and implementation gaps in the Americas. In the context of NCDs, unhealthy commodity industries, including companies that produce and promote tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food products, play a significant role in shaping patterns of NCD risk. Their activities influence not only the availability, access, and affordability of unhealthy commodities but also misinform the public’s perception about what is healthy. These industries shape trends in consumption and harm while actively working to expand markets and influence regulatory environments in ways that may delay or dilute effective public health measures. Although considerable progress has been made in recent years, most Member States have not fully met their international commitments to regulate unhealthy commodities industries, products, practices, and policies. The fabrication of NCD epidemics due to the unhealthy commodities industries moves faster and stronger than the capacity to improve care for NCDs in the absence of effective policies to regulate these corporations’ products, practices, and policies. Therefore, an essential component of the improvement of care for NCDs in the Americas is the strengthening of the regulatory capacities of Member States to regulate tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed products industries and to safeguard policies from their interference.

The growing burden of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) cannot be addressed through clinical interventions alone. Without effective prevention, rising NCD rates will continue to strain health systems, increase costs, and widen existing health, social, and economic inequities (1–3).

Population-level regulatory interventions—such as fiscal measures, marketing restrictions, and labeling regulations—are central to effective NCD prevention and control. These approaches target structural drivers of NCD risk, reducing exposure to tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food (UPF) and drink products, collectively termed unhealthy commodities. The World Health Organization’s (WHO) 2024 Best Buys and Other Recommended Interventions includes many of these regulatory measures as the most cost-effective and feasible actions for governments, particularly in low- and middle- income settings (Table 1) (4).

TABLE 1. WHO “best buys” and other recommended interventions for prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases.

Purpose	Measure
Reduce tobacco use	Increase excise taxes and prices on tobacco products
	Implement large graphic health warnings on all tobacco packages, accompanied by plain/standardized packaging
	Enact and enforce comprehensive bans on tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship
	Eliminate exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke in all indoor workplaces, public places, and public transport
	Implement effective mass media campaigns that educate the public about the harms of smoking/tobacco use and second-hand smoke, and encourage behavior change
	Provision of cost-covered effective population-wide support (including brief advice, national toll-free quit line services, and mCessation) for tobacco cessation to all tobacco users
Reduce the harmful use of alcohol	Increase excise taxes on alcoholic beverages
	Enact and enforce bans or comprehensive restrictions on exposure to alcohol advertising (across multiple types of media)
	Enact and enforce restrictions on the physical availability of retailed alcohol.
Reduce unhealthy diet	Reformulation of policies for healthier food and beverage products (e.g., elimination of trans-fatty acids and/or reduction of saturated fats, free sugars and/or sodium)
	Front-of-pack labeling as part of comprehensive nutrition labeling policies for facilitating consumers’ understanding and choice of food for healthy diets
	Public food procurement and service policies for healthy diets (e.g., to reduce the intake of free sugars, sodium and unhealthy fats, and to increase the consumption of legumes, whole grains, fruits, and vegetables)
	Behavior change communication and mass media campaign for healthy diets (e.g., to reduce the intake of energy, free sugars, sodium and unhealthy fats, and to increase the consumption of legumes, whole grains, fruits, and vegetables)
	Policies to protect children from the harmful impact of food marketing
	Protection, promotion, and support of optimal breastfeeding practices
	Taxation on sugar-sweetened beverages as part of fiscal policies for healthy diets

Despite the critical importance of addressing interventions for those modifiable risk factors, implementation remains limited and heavily fragmented in the region of the Americas. Industries that profit from harmful commodities—tobacco, alcohol, and UPF products—continue to attempt to shape the political and policy environment to protect their markets. Following a common playbook, they seek deregulation and work to weaken, delay, or block public health measures (5–8).

This report addresses the role of regulatory policies in preventing NCDs, with a focus on the progress and implementation gaps in the Americas. It also examines pathways for stronger regulation of harmful commodities to support more comprehensive, efficient, and integrated national NCD responses.

Drivers of NCDs

Social and commercial determinants of health play a central role in shaping the distribution and burden of NCDs. Structural inequities and the actions by commercial actors of unhealthy commodities influence patterns of exposure, vulnerability, and outcomes across populations.

The WHO defines social determinants as “the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age, and people’s access to power, money and resources” (9). These circumstances are closely related to the health status of the population. Individuals with limited access to adequate health care services, education, income, employment, and other social conditions face a higher risk of illness, including NCDs (3). Individuals living under more vulnerable socioeconomic and environmental conditions are more likely to consume tobacco, alcohol, or unhealthy food products. They often bear a greater burden of NCDs and displacement of expenditures in other necessary goods and services compared to higher-income groups (10–13).

Commercial determinants are another important cluster of factors influencing the exposure to unhealthy commodities. These are defined as systems, practices, and pathways through which commercial actors drive (ill) health and (in)equity (14). In the context of NCDs, unhealthy commodity industries, including companies that produce and promote tobacco use, alcohol, and UPF products, play a significant role in shaping patterns of NCD risk. It has been estimated that their commodities caused at least 14.5 million deaths in 2019 (14). These industries’ activities—including marketing strategies and corporate political activities to interfere in political and regulatory systems— influence not only the availability, access, and affordability of unhealthy commodities but also misinform the public’s perception about what is healthy. These industries shape trends in consumption and harm while actively working to expand markets and influence regulatory environments in ways that may delay or dilute effective public health measures (5–8).

For example, the tobacco industry uses aggressive advertising and promotional campaigns targeting new consumers (especially young people). Sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) companies, as well as other UPF industries, engage in corporate political activities that include strategies to associate them with well-being promotion (e.g., promoting physical activity initiatives), with the actual aim of sustaining or increasing profit margins, and to improve a firm’s standing with the public and policymakers and ultimately to moderate the risk of regulation (13, 15).

Unhealthy commodity industries also employ strategies to discourage policymakers from implementing regulatory measures to address NCD risk factors. Tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed products industries frequently claim that such policies will result in job losses, hurt small businesses, and disproportionately affect low-income populations (10–12). However, these misleading allegations are based on selective, nonindependent, or inconclusive studies and can serve to divert attention from the robust body of evidence supporting effective measures and delay or impede their implementation (5–8, 10–12). Other tactics and strategies that industries apply have been well documented (16). Those include leveraging information to gain access to policymakers, building alliances with influential political figures, promoting voluntary and alternative policies, legal strategies including litigation, and financial incentives (17, 18). Industry opposition and practices reflect efforts to safeguard commercial interests, which conflict with broader public health and development goals. An assessment of industry tactics in Latin America and the Caribbean captured more than 200 different examples of corporate political activities from the 12 largest UPF corporations operating in the region. Those included attempts to lobby governments during the development of health policies, to build alliances with academics and communities, as well as litigation against regulation and propositions of self-regulation (5). In 2023, an assessment of 19 countries in the Americas revealed that only six (Argentina, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, and Panama) made progress in addressing tobacco industry interference compared to 2021. The remaining countries experienced greater levels of interference (19). A similar pattern emerged globally: of the 90 countries evaluated, 43 recorded lower scores (20).

Although social and commercial determinants operate across all regions, their interaction has created a particularly acute burden in the Americas, where rising consumption of unhealthy products presents a growing public health challenge. According to WHO (21), among world regions, the Americas ranks second in the prevalence of heavy episodic drinking among the adult population (25.7%), with rates of 35.9% for men and 15.8% for women. As for tobacco, despite a global decline in use since 2000, there is a signal of feminization of the epidemic as the difference in prevalence between men and women is one of the smallest in the Americas compared to other regions (22). The UPF industry has expanded rapidly, harming dietary patterns, health, and food systems, while also displacing foods recommended as part of healthy diets (23, 24). With markets stagnating at very high levels of consumption in the countries where transnational UPF corporations originated, they invest heavily on sharp penetration of such products in low- and middle-income countries where diets are still based on unprocessed or minimally processed foods and healthy, sustainable, and equitable food systems have been less disrupted (25). Despite the scale of this challenge, there is strong evidence that regulatory measures targeting commercial determinants can not only reduce exposure to these harmful commodities but also contribute to alleviating the social inequalities that shape NCD risk in the Americas.

The role of regulatory policies

Tobacco

Effective tobacco control measures can reduce tobacco use and positively impact health for both smokers and those exposed to smoke. The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) includes effective measures, such as high taxation, large graphic health warnings, total bans on advertising, promotion and sponsorship, smoke-free environments, among others. Evidence shows that 10 years after FCTC ratification, the number of current smokers decreased by 15%, and smoking prevalence among those younger than 25 years of age fell by 7.5% in 170 countries (26). Moreover, implementing tobacco demand reduction measures in line with FCTC mandates is associated with a 7% reduction in smoking prevalence (27), and most of those measures are highly cost-effective, with health outcomes outweighing implementation costs (4).

Per 2021 data, tobacco use is a leading preventable risk factor for NCDs, responsible for 11% of deaths from cardiovascular diseases, 17% of cancer deaths, and 34% of deaths from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the Americas (28). Reducing tobacco consumption can yield substantial health outcomes. It has been estimated for eight Latin American countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, and Peru) that increasing tobacco taxes to 75% of the final price could prevent 271 000 deaths over 10 years; plain packaging could prevent 78 000 deaths; advertising bans, 71 000 deaths; and smoke-free environments, 39 000 deaths (29).

The burden attributable to tobacco smoking also imposes high costs on health care systems. Globally, tobacco use costs US$1.4 trillion annually, equivalent to 1.8% of global GDP, with nearly 30% representing health care costs. In the Americas, tobacco use accounts for 2.4% of GDP, while health care costs related to tobacco use represent 6.7% of total health expenditures (30). Additionally, tobacco use generates caregiver costs for households and loss of productivity, further impacting both national and family economies.

Investing in FCTC measures yields high returns. Tobacco control investment cases conducted in Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, and Suriname show that for every dollar invested in tobacco control, between US$13 and US$305 in benefits can be generated over 15 years. In these countries, these measures could reduce tobacco-attributable deaths by an annual average of 29% (31). In eight Latin American countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, and Peru), implementing these measures in line with best practices could generate up to US$63.8 billion in economic benefits over 10 years through effective tobacco taxation, or US$12.3 billion through plain packaging (29). Effective tobacco control measures help ease the economic burden on health systems and national economies while improving population health.

These compelling results in both health and economic goals support advancing tobacco control measures implementation. As of 2025, out of 35 countries in the Americas, 24 have adopted smoke-free environments in indoor public places, workplaces, and public transportation, while 21 have established graphic health warnings covering at least 50% of packaging. However, the region still needs to accelerate efforts to implement taxes representing at least 75% of the retail sale price; establish total bans on advertising, promotion, and sponsorship; and ensure fully covered cessation services, including nicotine replacement therapy and national quit lines (see Figure 1).

FIGURE 1. Status of policies aimed at regulating the unhealthy commodities driving noncommunicable diseases by country and subregions of the Americas.

Source: Adapted from Pan American Health Organization. Noncommunicable diseases progress monitor 2025. Scorecard for the Region of the Americas. Washington, DC: PAHO; 2025.

* Due to pending regulations, WHO considers that Antigua and Barbuda has only partially achieved this indicator. However, it has enacted legislation to establish large graphic health warnings, in force since 2018.

** The interpretation of the alcohol excise tax indicator used in this analysis differs from that applied in the WHO NCD Progress Monitor Report, owing to a different treatment of the inflation-adjustment criterion. In this study, ad valorem excise taxes are coded as “not applicable” under the inflation-adjustment criterion, consistent with the WHO Fiscal Policies for Health Global Database on Alcohol Prices and Taxes (World Health Organization, 2022; available at: https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/topics/taxes-on-alcoholic-beverages), where data validated by national Ministries of Finance follow the same classification. Accordingly, countries relying solely on ad valorem systems are not considered to have achieved the highest level of implementation. This interpretation aligns with WHO’s normative guidance, as outlined in the WHO Manual on Fiscal Policies for Health (WHO, 2023), which identifies ad valorem excise taxes as structurally weaker and less desirable from a public health perspective than specific taxes.

Alcohol

Alcohol control policies play a vital role in reducing per capita alcohol consumption and thus mitigating NCDs. Strategies such as limiting availability, enforcing the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA), regulating marketing, and implementing drink-driving countermeasures have proven effective across diverse populations and outcomes and are promoted by WHO and the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) as part of the SAFER initiative (32).

According to WHO, among world regions, the Americas ranks second in the prevalence of heavy episodic drinking among the adult population (25.7%), with rates of 35.9% for men and 15.8% for women. This phenomenon contributes significantly to the burden of disease and injury attributable to alcohol use, with 32.7 deaths and 1 747 DALYs per 100 000 people in the region, including both intentional and unintentional injuries, as well as digestive diseases and malignant neoplasms (21).

Alcohol consumption is causally linked to more than 200 health conditions, including infectious diseases, malignant neoplasms, mental and behavioral disorders, neurological disorders, cardiovascular diseases, gastrointestinal diseases, and injuries. Individuals who engage in heavy episodic drinking experience an increased incidence of diabetes mellitus, ischemic heart disease, and ischemic stroke, even if their average alcohol consumption is low (33–35).

One of the policies consists of restricting physical availability through outlet density and trading hour restrictions. Outlet density restrictions refer to limits on the number and proximity of licensed premises authorized to sell alcohol within a defined geographic area (usually expressed per population unit or per square kilometer), while trading hour restrictions limit the time those premises are allowed to sell alcohol. Systematic reviews (36) have found how limiting days and hours of alcohol sales as well as the density of alcohol purchasing outlets decreases per capita consumption. These policies impact the most alcohol use among women, young people, and people with heavy drinking patterns; for instance, hospital admissions for injuries or acute intoxications related to alcohol.

Regulating trading hours has also reduced harm. Night-time sales restrictions have resulted in fewer hospitalizations for alcohol intoxication (37). Similar restrictions have also correlated with declines in traffic injuries and crashes (38).

MLDA laws have effectively reduced underage and risky alcohol consumption. Changes increasing MLDA to 21 years old, for instance, have resulted in significant reduction in traffic fatalities among 18–20-year-olds and lowered rates of suicide and violent crime (39).

Marketing restrictions also reduce youth exposure and drinking. Comprehensive advertising bans had led to important decrease in alcohol sales and drinking among teenagers (40). Studies have also estimated how reducing alcohol advertising time in mass media can lower youth drinking (41).

Drink-driving laws, especially random breath testing and sobriety checkpoints, have shown strong impacts. Some meta-analyses have found a reduction in alcohol-involved crashes as well as traffic fatalities (42).

Screening and brief interventions (e.g., WHO-AUDIT) also reduce alcohol-related issues across age groups (43). Rehm et al. (44) projected that increasing treatment coverage for alcohol dependence to 40% could cut alcohol-attributable mortality by 13% in men and 9% in women. In the Americas, most of the overall alcohol policies evaluated are focused on these interventions (45).

Although patterns of use indicate alcohol use should be a major public health priority, only a few countries in the Americas have a national policy or plan dedicated to alcohol, reflecting a low political commitment to considering alcohol as a public health priority (19). In the Region of the Americas, 12 countries (Argentina, Bahamas, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Saint Lucia, and the United States of America) have adopted a written national policy on alcohol, although only some of them have advanced in implementing effective regulatory measures to reduce its consumption (Figure 1). Eighteen countries in the region (Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Cuba, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, and Venezuela) do not require alcoholic beverages to feature health warning labels on their containers (46). Many countries (n = 29) have no or only partial restrictions for advertisement of alcoholic beverages on national television, and although most countries (n = 33) apply excise taxes on alcoholic beverages, only a few (n = 13) use an amount-specific excise tax, and out of these, one-third only regularly adjust the tax to avoid erosion (Figure 1) (46).

Chile represents a recent example of progress in the Region of the Americas. Until 2021, the country lacked a legal framework to regulate alcohol advertising; however, legislation introduced in 2023 established mandatory health warnings on all alcoholic beverages and their advertisements, restrictions on advertising hours on television and radio, as well as a total ban on sponsorship and advertising in sports activities and media directed at minors. These measures, which entered into force in July 2024 for labeling and will be fully implemented in July 2026 for advertising, reflect a growing regulatory commitment to reduce alcohol-related harm and protect public health in Latin America (46).

Ultra-processed food products

Effective policies aimed at reducing the demand for and offer of UPF products also include the regulation of labeling, marketing, and school food and other environments. Front-of-package octagonal warning labels have shown to perform best in improving consumers’ food choices when compared to other front-of-package labeling schemes. These labels are octagonal-shaped textual warnings, with black color background and white color capital fonts placed on the front of the package of processed and ultra-processed products to alert consumers when products contain excessive amounts of nutrients- and ingredients-to-limit, such as sugars, sodium, and fats (Figure 2). Evidence from pre-implementation studies carried out in the Americas, including randomized control trials, has demonstrated that octagonal warning labels have multiple benefits associated with making healthier purchase choices. These include increased consumer capacity to correctly identify processed and ultra-processed products with excessive content of nutrients-to-limit, such as sugars, sodium, saturated fats, and to avoid choosing such products more often (47–50). In addition, post-implementation evidence has confirmed most of the population changes their purchase decisions to a healthier one and that the actual purchase of products featuring octagonal warning labels are reduced (51). Studies have also projected the future impact of such a policy tool in the reduction of NCDs. In Mexico, a 14.7% reduction in obesity and US$1.8 billion savings on obesity-related costs are expected due to the implementation of octagonal warning labels based on the PAHO nutrient profile model (NPM) (52). In Barbados, the implementation of octagonal warning labels using PAHO NPM could prevent 16% of diet-related NCD and save the country US$732.8 million in mortality costs (53). PAHO NPM is a food classification tool that defines which products are excessive in ingredients- and nutrients-to-limit. It is based on WHO nutrition guidelines, so when adopted to apply octagonal warning labels, and other regulatory policies, it ensures most ultra-processed products are regulated and increases the chances of consumers meeting WHO recommendations for a healthy diet (54–56).

FIGURE 2. Front-of-package octagonal warning labels for processed and ultra-processed products containing excessive amounts of nutrients-to-limit.

In addition to the effectiveness attributed to octagonal warning labels, this policy tool has demonstrated to be a powerful catalyzer of policy synergy. It facilitates the adoption and implementation of other cost-effective policies such as the regulation of marketing and school food environment and other settings to be applied to products carrying warning labels. Their salience and ease to be detected, besides helping consumers, also facilitate regulatory agency officials to monitor and enforce these different policy tools comprising such a regulatory system.

There has been great and fast progress in the Americas in advancing the octagonal warning labels, now adopted in seven countries (Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela) (57), as well as of regulations of the school food environment that aim at restricting unhealthy food products, now adopted in 23 countries (58). Conversely, the adoption of marketing restrictions has been moving much slower, facing interference from the media industry as well as the unhealthy food industry (59). In addition, gaps in policy design and implementation due to industry interference and regulatory capacity are also to be overcome. This means that when the industry succeeds in weakening a policy in the design or implementation stages, the resulting adopted policy becomes less effective or ineffective compared to the recommended policy. Therefore, there is a continuous need to amend the policy when those weakening elements get introduced by industry. In addition, in some instances the adoption of a policy may not follow instant capacity readiness for regulatory agencies to monitor and enforce it. Some companies may decide not to comply with the legislation, assuming there is a readiness gap and that the government will not be able to capture such violations at initial stages of implementation. As the evidence, best practices, and guidance from PAHO/WHO evolve, countries can gather more support to close such gaps and also reduce the time spent on designing and adopting such policies (57).

The regulation of UPF products also requires mandatory elimination of harmful additives found in those products, such as industrially produced trans fatty acids (i-TFA). i-TFA have been invented and used for many decades by UPF product corporations. The Region of the Americas has been expediting its response to the global call to eliminate i-TFA from the food supply and save lives that are prematurely lost due to this harmful substance (60). In 2019, Member States unanimously adopted PAHO’s Plan of Action for the Elimination of Industrially Produced Trans-Fatty Acids 2020–2025, and since then, the number of people in the Americas living in a country that have eliminated i-TFA has doubled. Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, the United States of America, and Uruguay have adopted WHO/PAHO best practices for the elimination of i-TFA (61–63).

Taxation can effectively reduce the affordability of SSBs and has been proven to reduce the exposure of the population to such harmful products. Taxation of other UPF products that are also price elastic have been presented as a promising policy innovation (11, 64). Evidence from Mexico has shown that the increase of excise taxes to SSBs can increase price and reduce affordability and consumption of such products as well as of energy-dense processed and ultra-processed products (64). Increasing taxation of SSBs from the 1 to 3 pesos per liter in Mexico would also raise the net economic benefits from US$7.1 billion to US$15.3 billion (65). Most countries in the Americas apply taxes to SSBs, but a few have designed them with the public health purpose of reducing their consumption (66). Therefore, there is still much to improve both in expanding the adoption of this measure and in strengthening and aligning them to PAHO/WHO recommendations.

Conclusions

The massification of unhealthy commodities, and the industry’s tactics to influence consumers’ choices and public health governance, have greatly affected the current trends of NCDs in the Americas. The experience of tobacco control and the fast development and implementation of front-of-package warning labels following PAHO’s guidance to regulate UPF products show that these are evidence-based policies for which political consensus has been achieved for their implementation in several countries in the region.

Although considerable progress has been made in recent years in the fight against the tobacco epidemic, and the economic, political, legal, and social feasibility of measures to combat it has been demonstrated, most Member States have not fully met their international commitments in this area. PAHO’s Strategy and Plan of Action to Strengthen Tobacco Control in the Region of the Americas 2025–2030 (67) represents the reiteration of Member States’ commitment and also serves as a guide to prioritize key actions to accelerate the implementation of the FCTC and close those gaps.

Since the adoption of the Global Strategy to Reduce the Harmful Use of Alcohol in 2010 (68), per capita alcohol consumption has declined to some extent globally (with significant variation across WHO regions). However, current trends indicate that the global target for alcohol reduction will not be met by 2030. Achieving this target will require political commitment, strong advocacy, and resource mobilization to implement the Global Alcohol Action Plan 2022–2030, with particular emphasis on high-impact policies included in the SAFER package. These projections are consistent with the limited progress in the adoption of effective population-level alcohol policies, especially in the Region of the Americas, where most countries have reported minimal or no progress in implementing the WHO “best buys” for alcohol policy since 2010.

The high and/or rising shares of UPF products in populations’ diets across the Americas have been the major driver of both obesity and diet-related NCDs. Despite the region’s work in leading the world in adopting effective regulatory measures to reduce the demand for and offer of such products, there are still improvements in the scale and strength of those measures to be achieved in the region as well as major subregional gaps to be closed. Most of the progress has been due to policy action in Latin America, yet even within these countries there is a lot to be improved. These improvements include the use of PAHO/WHO recommendations and best practices in adopting definitions of food products to be subject to regulations (to not miss products that need to be regulated and avoid undesirable substitutions), and in adopting parameters for restriction or taxation to be imposed, such as tax rate and tax structure, warning labels design, and the exposure and power of marketing.

The tobacco, alcohol, and UPF industries use a similar playbook to hinder the progress of effective regulatory policies, which include corporate political activities that consist of attempts to shape public policy in ways that favor business interests (17). They might also even be a single industry clustering the three unhealthy commodities. Therefore, a comprehensive mechanism to counter their interference should be adopted as an integral part of regulatory policies or as a regulatory cross-cutting policy, applying safeguards to policy making, implementation, and enforcement.

The fabrication of NCD epidemics due to the unhealthy commodity industries moves faster and stronger than the capacity to improve care for NCDs in the absence of effective policies to regulate these corporations’ products, practices, and policies. Therefore, an essential component of the improvement of care for NCDs in the Americas is the strengthening of the regulatory capacities of Member States to regulate tobacco, alcohol, and UPF industries and to safeguard policies from their interference.

Disclaimer.

Authors hold sole responsibility for the views expressed in the manuscript, which may not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of the RPSP/PAJPH and/or PAHO.