Poor nutrition-related policies and practices of global food companies under the spotlight

Assessment of the Commitments and Performance of the European Food Industry to Improve Population Nutrition

Objectives: Food companies could play an important role in improving population diets, but often escape accountability through unspecific commitments. This study evaluated nutrition-related commitments and estimated performance of the largest packaged food and non-alcoholic beverage manufacturers, supermarkets and quick-service restaurants (QSR) in Europe.

Methods: To quantitatively assess companies’ publicly available commitments in 2020, the “Business Impact Assessment on Obesity and Population Nutrition” was applied. The proportion of sales from ultra-processed and “unhealthy” food categories (product categories not-permitted to be marketed to children) and over time changes in the number of QSR transactions and QSR and supermarket outlets were calculated.

Results: Company commitments fell short of best practice recommendations (median overall score of 21%, range: 1%–62%). Food and beverage companies generated 82% (15%–100%) and 58% (1%–100%) sales from ultra-processed and “unhealthy” products, respectively. The number of QSR outlets and transactions substantially increased in Europe since 2011, while QSR commitments to improve population nutrition remained limited.

Conclusion: Whilst most companies made some nutrition-related commitments, they did not comply with best practice recommendations. A large proportion of sales was generated from ultra-processed/unhealthy products and QSR outlets increased. Government regulations are urgently needed.

BIA-Obesity (Business Impact Assessment-Obesity and population-level nutrition): A tool and process to assess food company policies and commitments related to obesity prevention and population nutrition at the national level

Addressing obesity and improving the diets of populations requires a comprehensive societal response. The need for broad-based action has led to a focus on accountability of the key factors that influence food environments, including the food and beverage industry. This paper describes the Business Impact Assessment-Obesity and population-level nutrition (BIA-Obesity) tool and process for benchmarking food and beverage company policies and practices related to obesity and population-level nutrition at the national level. The methods for BIA-Obesity draw largely from relevant components of the Access to Nutrition Index (ATNI), with specific assessment criteria developed for food and nonalcoholic beverage manufacturers, supermarkets, and chain restaurants, based on international recommendations and evidence of best practices related to each sector. The process for implementing the BIA-Obesity tool involves independent civil society organisations selecting the most prominent food and beverage companies in each country, engaging with the companies to understand their policies and practices, and assessing each company's policies and practices across six domains. The domains include: "corporate strategy," "product formulation," "nutrition labelling," "product and brand promotion," "product accessibility," and "relationships with other organisations." Assessment of company policies is based on their level of transparency, comprehensiveness, and specificity, with reference to best practice.

Benchmarking the commitments related to population nutrition and obesity prevention of major food companies in New Zealand

OBJECTIVES

To benchmark comprehensiveness, specificity and transparency of the nutrition-related commitments of major food companies in New Zealand.

METHODS

We applied the Business Impact Assessment on Obesity and Population Level Nutrition (BIA-Obesity). The largest 25 New Zealand companies in each of the packaged food (n = 15), non-alcoholic beverage (n = 2), supermarket (n = 2) and quick-service restaurant (n = 6) sectors were selected. Publicly available information on commitments was collected through an online search. Representatives from each company were asked to review and/or supplement the information collected. Commitments were then assessed, and recommendations made at the company and sector levels.

RESULTS

Overall scores ranged from 0 to 75% across all companies with a median score of 38%. The best-performing domain was 'corporate nutrition strategy' (median score = 55%), and the worst-performing domain was 'product accessibility' (median score = 0%). Twelve out of 25 companies fully engaged with the process.

CONCLUSIONS

The comprehensiveness, specificity and transparency of company commitments varied but were low overall. In the absence of strong industry commitments, government regulations, such as restrictions on unhealthy food marketing, are urgently needed. Future assessments should incorporate performance measures.