Sweetening Power? The Influence of the Ultra-processed Food Industry on Presidential Elections

Although presidential campaigns often focus on structural issues such as security, economic growth, and the state of democracy, the role of the private sector and the financial muscle underpinning the path to the Casa de Nariño is rarely discussed openly. This is no minor detail: in Colombia, injections of electoral capital have historically led to conflicts of interest that don’t always come to light.

The 2023 National Electoral Council report revealed that the Ardila Lülle Organization, the parent company of Postobón and sugar refineries such as Incauca, Risaralda, and Providencia, was the largest donor to political parties, with contributions totaling 7.37 billion pesos. Bavaria, owned by the Santo Domingo family, was next, with 5.66 billion pesos; Grupo Aval, owned by Luis Carlos Sarmiento Angulo, contributed 2.53 billion; and Coca-Cola Femsa 2.04 billion. Valorem, the Santo Domingo conglomerate, was also among the main financiers.

Within the Ardila Lülle group, Gaseosas Lux, a subsidiary of Postobón, contributed the most resources, the majority of which went to the Liberal Party (1.695 billion pesos) and the Partido de la U (1.595 billion). The Centro Democrático and the Conservative Party came next, receiving the most resources from private companies.

In the last presidential elections, the Cuentas Claras website reported financial contributions from Alejandro Santo Domingo and Gaseosas Lux to the referendum campaign of Federico Gutiérrez of the Equipo de Colombia coalition, as well as contributions from Bavaria and Manuelita SA to the campaign of Sergio Fajardo of the Centro Esperanza coalition, which they won, respectively. 

National politics and the country’s economy have grown nearly at the same rate, and one of the sectors that best reflects this symbiosis is the ultra-processed food sector. “The (ultra-processed food) industry is very powerful worldwide, but in this country it gets politicians elected; senators, representatives, all kinds of politicians,” warns nutritionist Juan Camilo Mesa . Therefore, with the 2026 presidential elections on the way, VORÁGINE tracked and examined the ties of certain candidates to this industry and their possible influence on the candidates’ eventual rise to power.

David Luna

Pre-candidate David Luna resigned from his seat in Congress and from the Cambio Radical party to run for president representing the “Sí, hay un camino (Yes, there’s a way)” citizen’s movement. Although the financiers behind his bid for the Casa de Nariño are still unknown, the majority of his Senate campaign contributions came from the sugary beverage and ultra-processed food industry. Postobón, the country’s main soft drink bottler, contributed 90 million, according to the Transparencia por Colombia watchdog group. And, the Manuelita SA and Pichichí sugar refineries contributed 18 million each. $207 of the total $250 million —more than 80%— that he received for that race came from this sector, placing him among the senators who received the most donations from that industry.

Once in Congress, it wasn’t long before conflicts of interest started to emerge. During the debate on the Petro administration’s first tax reform in 2022, which included legislation taxing ultra-processed foods and sugary drinks, civil organizations requested that Luna and his party members abstain from voting. He claims he did so voluntarily. Even so, he made his opposition clear: he handed out fortune cookies with the phrase “luck is what we’re going to need if this tax reform is approved,” and on social media, he denounced the measure, claiming it would make basic food supplies more expensive. 

On November 14, 2022, he rejected the reform, justifying his action by claiming it affected the most vulnerable. Two years later, in June 2024, he once again insisted that the taxes were “suffocating” families and increasing the cost of products such as juices, sausages, sauces, cakes, and condiments by as much as 20%.

VORÁGINE spoke with Luna, who affirmed that if he becomes president, he will not dismantle these regulations, but he does propose reviewing and adjusting them. In his words: “We need taxes and warning seals that truly fulfill their purpose: to guide consumers, improve food quality, and do so without the poorest households being hit the hardest.” In his opinion, the current taxes have not discouraged the consumption of ultra-processed foods, but have had a primarily inflationary effect.

He does however acknowledge that excessive consumption of sugar, sodium, and saturated fats is a serious public health problem associated with diseases such as diabetes, obesity, and hypertension, which generate “an enormous cost for the healthcare system.” In response to questions about the influence of his financiers, he responded that “no economic sector can influence public policy decisions; these must be designed based on evidence and the general interest of Colombians.”

Victoria Eugenia Dávila

Journalist Vicky Dávila is one of the few pre-candidates to have brought the debate on ultra-processed foods to the table. On April 6 of this year, the presidential candidate for the Valiente citizen’s movement proposed eliminating the current 20% tax on these products. Her justification was categorical: “The tax is gouging the pockets of the most vulnerable and bankrupting neighborhood stores.”

Dávila maintains, without providing sources, that the tax is “clunky,” “absurd,” and a simple “invention” to raise revenue, which ends up hurting the poorest sectors by raising the price of “good, cheap food,” which, she says, is necessary in a developing country like Colombia. In return, she proposed campaigns to promote healthy eating habits and physical exercise.

What Dávila didn’t mention at the time is that her ties to the industry go way back. She worked for four years, until November 2024, as director of Revista Semana, owned by the Gilinski Group, the largest shareholder in the Nutresa conglomerate, owner of 29 brands in Colombia, 25 of which ––including Zenú, Rica, Noel, Festival, Jet, and Chocolisto–– focus on ultra-processed products.

Jaime Gilinski, the richest man in Colombia according to Forbes, controls, along with his son Gabriel, an empire that includes Nutresa, Grupo Semana, and the GNB Sudameris bank, and his ties to the political world have been anything but distant. In fact, one of Dávila’s campaign proposals first appeared on the cover of Revista Semana, under the title “Vicky Dávila’s 10-10-10” . And in February 2025, in an interview with W Radio, the pre-candidate stated: “If I ever need to ask Gabriel Gilinski for help, I hope he’ll give it to me. I’m sure he can give it to me.”

Mylena Gualdrón, an expert at FIAN, an organization that promotes the human right to food, believes “this is an issue that is heating up political debate. Opportunistic and populist candidates find it easier to say they’re going to tear them down and eliminate taxes.” VORÁGINE sought more detailed information regarding Dávila’s position on this issue, but received no response.

María Fernanda Cabal

Senator María Fernanda Cabal, co-founder of the Centro Democrático party, has joined the list of pre-candidates who oppose the regulation of ultra-processed foods. “ Is being a drug addict less serious than eating sugar? ” she asked in August 2022, while the tax reform was being debated. She also claimed that legalizing marijuana and “imposing exorbitant prices on food” was part of a “leftist logic.”

Cabal, like several of her opponents, argues ––without stating her sources–– that the so-called healthy taxes target the most vulnerable households and calls them a “perversity against the Colombian people.” What’s missing from her speeches, however, is the fact that both her campaign and those of other members of the Centro Democrático have received sizable financial support from sugar refineries, precisely those most affected by these measures.

According to Alejandra Niño, an expert at FIAN, monitoring shows that the Centro Democrático and Cambio Radical parties receive the most funding from the sugar industry and, at the same time, are the most averse to any regulations in this sector.

In Cabal’s case specifically, reports from Transparencia por Colombia state that in her 2022 Senate campaign she received 16 million pesos from Riopaila Agrícola, a company dedicated to the production and marketing of sugarcane and its derivatives. Balsilla SAS, which carries out the same economic activity, donated an additional five million pesos.

After this article was published, on September 7, 2025, the candidate responded to VORÁGINE through a video posted on her social media. Without hesitation, she stated: “When I’m president, we have to repeal the health tax. We have to repeal it. It put the grocers out of business. Imagine asking the ‘mamertos’ for permission to see if you can get something to eat.”

Sergio Fajardo

With the endorsement of the Dignidad y Compromiso party, Professor Sergio Fajardo officially announced his presidential candidacy on July 20, 2025. His agenda has focused on the fight against corruption and on security, education, and reducing public spending. Although he has yet to comment on ultra-processed foods in this campaign, in his 2018 campaign he proposed a tax reform that would include “taxes on junk food and sugary drinks.”

That same year, in an interview with the El Espectador newspaper , he was emphatic: “We are in favor of the healthy taxes. We believe they are an essential public health policy tool to prevent disease and reduce obesity rates in the country, a positive effect that has already been demonstrated in other countries.”

However, in the 2018 election —in which he finished third in the first round, with 4.6 million votes—, his campaign received funding from large business conglomerates. According to Colombia Check, Gabriel Gilinski contributed 200 million pesos; Alejandro Santo Domingo, 100 million; Bavaria, 285 million; and Manuelita SA, 100 million. Another contributor was Carlos Arcesio Paz Bautista, owner of Harinera del Valle, a producer of ultra-processed foods like Brownie Mamamía, Mantequillas Canola, and Premiere, among others, who donated 200 million pesos.

VORÁGINE contacted Fajardo to find out his current position on the issue, but he declined to provide answers.

Gustavo Bolívar and María José Pizarro

Inside the Pacto Histórico, President Gustavo Petro’s party, positions have remained in line with the administration’s. Gustavo Bolívar, presidential candidate and former senator, openly defended the healthy taxes during the 2022 tax reform debate.

“These ultra-processed foods generate between 12 and 15 billion pesos for the treasury or the country to treat the diseases they cause. We need to follow the results closely; I did not agree with imposing all these taxes at the same time,” the current pre-candidate told W Radio.

Amid the tensions, he asserted that the opposition was propagating the idea that the legislation aimed at “taxing those with the greatest need,” which, he said, is not true. Bolívar spoke as an independent since, based on reports, his 2023 mayoral campaign was carried out with voluntary donations from private individuals and without the support of large business owners. 

Bolívar didn’t respond to VORÁGINE’s questions either, but in a recent interview with Tercer Canal he stated that during his pre-candidacy he reached out to a broad group of business sectors and was willing to sit down with members of the business community to talk and reach agreements.

“I would maintain a very good relationship with business owners. The country needs them in order to grow (…) We, businesspeople and the government, have to sit down and talk seriously about how we can move the country forward and grow,” said the presidential candidate. 

For her part, María José Pizarro, who officially announced her candidacy in August, has been a staunch promoter of the healthy taxes. In 2018, she helped draft a bill to tax junk food, which ultimately failed.

More recently, in May 2025, she responded firmly to the lawsuit filed by former Senator Miguel Uribe and Councilwoman Sandra Forero before the Constitutional Court, in which they attacked 13 articles of the 2022 reform, including those regulating the healthy taxes.

Uribe argued that the measure made products more expensive and affected the country’s 500,000 neighborhood stores. Pizarro responded by claiming that Uribe’s real reason was the economic interests of his financial backers and not the protection of children: “And they say they care about the children of Colombia? What’s really behind it is a multi-million dollar business for his backers, with devastating consequences for children’s health: a pandemic of obesity, sugar, salt, and saturated fat addictions, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease,” she posted to her X account.

The Senator insisted that ultra-processed foods, “cheap but harmful,” displace nutritious diets, causing deficiencies that affect the growth, cognitive development, and emotional well-being of children in Colombia.

With the 2026 presidential elections coming up, the debate over ultra-processed foods not only tests the candidates’ coherence but also exposes the interests underlying their campaigns. Those hoping to dismantle the taxes and those who defend them as a matter of public health have one thing in common: the political and economic weight of an industry that not only finances candidates but also influences the course of society’s most delicate decisions. Ultimately at stake here is not just who will occupy the Casa de Nariño, but whether the country’s food policies will continue to be dictated by financiers or public interest.

* This content is funded by support provided, in part, by Vital Strategies. Content is editorially independent and its purpose is to shine a light on both the food and beverage industry illegal or unethical practices and the Colombian most vulnerable populations, who disproportionately bear the brunt of the global health crisis resulting from the unhealthy food and beverages consumption. Unless otherwise stated, all statements and materials posted on this article, including any statements regarding specific legislation, reflect the views of the individual contributors and not those of Vital Strategies.