Estimating the environmental impacts of 57,000 food products.

Understanding and communicating the environmental impacts of food products is key to enabling transitions to environmentally sustainable food systems [El Bilali and Allahyari, Inf. Process. Agric. 5, 456-464 (2018)]. While previous analyses compared the impacts of food commodities such as fruits, wheat, and beef [Poore and Nemecek, Science 360, 987-992 (2018)], most food products contain numerous ingredients. However, because the amount of each ingredient in a product is often known only by the manufacturer, it has been difficult to assess their environmental impacts. Here, we develop an approach to overcome this limitation. It uses prior knowledge from ingredient lists to infer the composition of each ingredient, and then pairs this with environmental databases [Poore and Nemecek Science 360, 987-992 (2018); Gephart et al., Nature 597, 360-365 (2021)] to derive estimates of a food product's environmental impact across four indicators: greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water stress, and eutrophication potential. Using the approach on 57,000 products in the United Kingdom and Ireland shows food types have low (e.g., sugary beverages, fruits, breads), to intermediate (e.g., many desserts, pastries), to high environmental impacts (e.g., meat, fish, cheese). Incorporating NutriScore reveals more nutritious products are often more environmentally sustainable but there are exceptions to this trend, and foods consumers may view as substitutable can have markedly different impacts. Sensitivity analyses indicate the approach is robust to uncertainty in ingredient composition and in most cases sourcing. This approach provides a step toward enabling consumers, retailers, and policy makers to make informed decisions on the environmental impacts of food products.

Do calorie labels change energy purchased in a simulated online food delivery platform? A multi-arm randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: As rates of obesity and overweight continue to increase in the UK, calorie labels have been introduced on menus as a policy option to provide information to consumers on the energy content of foods and to enable informed choices. This study tested whether the addition of calorie labels to items in a simulated food delivery platform may reduce the energy content of items selected. METHODS: UK adults (n = 8,780) who used food delivery platforms were asked to use the simulated platform as they would in real life to order a meal for themselves. Participants were randomly allocated to a control condition (no calorie labels) or to one of seven intervention groups: (1) large size calorie labels adjacent to the price (LP), (2) large size label adjacent to the product name (LN), (3) small label adjacent to price (SP), (4) small label adjacent to product name (SN), (5) LP with a calorie label switch-off filter (LP + Off), (6) LP with a switch-on filter (LP + On), or, (7) LP with a summary label of the total basket energy content (LP + Sum). Regression analysis assessed the impact of calorie labels on energy content of foods selected compared to the control condition. RESULTS: The mean energy selected in the control condition was 1408 kcal (95%CI: 93, 2719). There was a statistically significant reduction in mean energy selected in five of the seven intervention trial arms (LN labels (-60 kcal, 95%CI: -111, -6), SN (-73, 95%CI: -125, -19), LP + Off (-110, 95%CI: -161, -57), LP + On (-109, 95%CI: -159, -57), LP + Sum (-85 kcal, 95%CI: -137, -30). There was no evidence the other two conditions (LP (-33, 95%CI: -88, 24) and SP (-52, 95%CI: -105, 2)) differed from control. There was no evidence of an effect of any intervention when the analysis was restricted to participants who were overweight or obese. CONCLUSION: Adding calorie labels to food items in a simulated online food delivery platform reduced the energy content of foods selected in five out of seven labelling scenarios. This study provides useful information to inform the implementation of these labels in a food delivery platform context.

Do promotions of healthier or more sustainable foods increase sales? Findings from three natural experiments in UK supermarkets.

BACKGROUND: Dietary changes are necessary to improve population health and meet environmental sustainability targets. Here we analyse the impact of promotional activities implemented in UK supermarkets on purchases of healthier and more sustainable foods. METHODS: Three natural experiments examined the impact of promotional activities on sales of a) no-added-sugar (NAS) plant-based milk (in 199 stores), b) products promoted during 'Veganuary' (in 96 stores), and c) seasonal fruit (in 100 non-randomised intervention and 100 matched control stores). Data were provided on store-level product sales, in units sold and monetary value (£), aggregated weekly. Predominant socioeconomic position (SEP) of the store population was provided by the retailer. Analyses used interrupted time series and multivariable hierarchical mixed-effects models. RESULTS: Sales of both promoted and total NAS plant-based milks increased significantly during the promotional period (Promoted:+126 units, 95%CI: 105-148; Overall:+307 units, 95%CI: 264-349). The increase was greater in stores with predominately low SEP shoppers. During Veganuary, sales increased significantly for plant-based foods on promotion (+60 units, 95%CI: 37-84), but not for sales of plant-based foods overall (dairy alternatives: -1131 units, 95%CI: -5821-3559; meat alternatives: 1403 units, 95%CI: -749-3554). There was no evidence of a change in weekly sales of promoted seasonal fruit products (assessed via ratio change in units sold: 0.01, 95%CI: 0.00-0.02), and overall fruit category sales slightly decreased in intervention stores relative to control (ratio change in units sold: -0.01, 95%CI: -0.01-0.00). CONCLUSION: During promotional campaigns there was evidence that sales of plant-based products increased, but not seasonal fruits. There was no evidence for any sustained change beyond the intervention period.

The impact of altering restaurant and menu option position on food selected from an experimental food delivery platform: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Overconsumption is one of the most serious public health challenges in the UK and has been linked to increased consumption of food ordered through delivery platforms. This study tested whether repositioning foods and/or restaurant options in a simulated food delivery platform could help to reduce the energy content of users' shopping basket. METHODS: UK adult food delivery platform users (N = 9,003) selected a meal in a simulated platform. Participants were randomly allocated to a control condition (choices listed randomly) or to one of four intervention groups, (1) food options listed in ascending order of energy content, (2) restaurant options listed in ascending order of average energy content per main meal, (3) interventions 1 and 2 combined (4) interventions 1 and 2 combined, but food and restaurant options repositioned based on a kcal/price index to display options lower in energy but higher in price at the top. Gamma regressions assessed the impact of interventions on total energy content of baskets at checkout. RESULTS: The energy content of participants' baskets in the control condition was 1382 kcals. All interventions significantly reduced energy content of baskets: Compared to control, repositioning both foods and restaurants purely based on energy content of options resulted in the greatest effect (-209kcal; 95%CIs: -248,-168), followed by repositioning restaurants (-161kcal; 95%CIs: -201,-121), repositioning restaurants and foods based on a kcal/price index (-117kcals; 95%CI: -158,-74) and repositioning foods based on energy content (-88kcals; 95%CI: -130,-45). All interventions reduced the basket price compared to the control, except for the intervention repositioning restaurants and foods based on a kcal/price index, which increased the basket price. CONCLUSIONS: This proof-of-concept study suggests repositioning lower-energy options more prominently may encourage lower energy food choices in online delivery platforms and can be implemented in a sustainable business model.

The development of a method for the global health community to assess the proportion of food and beverage companies' sales that are derived from unhealthy foods.

CONTEXT: Corporate engagement with food and beverage companies who produce food associated with health harms is a divisive topic in the global nutrition community, with high-profile cases of conflict of interest increasingly coming under scrutiny. There is a need for an agreed method to support health organizations in deciding whether and how to engage with large food and beverage manufacturers. AIM: The aim of this study was to develop a method to quantify the proportion of sales from food and beverage companies that are derived from unhealthy foods to support organizations in determining which companies might be considered high-risk for engagement. METHODS: The 2015 WHO Euro nutrient profile model was applied to 35,550 products from 1294 brands manufactured by the top 20 global food and beverage companies from seven countries (Australia, Brazil, China, India, South Africa, UK and USA). For the purpose of this study, products that met the WHO Euro criteria were classified as "healthier" and those that failed were classified as "unhealthy". Products were grouped by brand and weighted by the brand's value sales for 2020. The primary outcome was the proportion of each company's sales that were classified as unhealthy and healthier by company and category. RESULTS: Overall, 89% of the top 20 companies' brand sales were classified as unhealthy. For every USD$10 spent on the top 20 companies' brands, only $1.10 was spent on products considered healthier. All companies saw the majority of their sales come from unhealthy foods, including soft drinks, confectionery and snacks. None of Red Bull or Ferrero's sales were classified as healthier and less than 5% of total sales were healthier for Mondelez, Mars, and PepsiCo. Some companies had higher proportions of sales deriving from healthier products, including Grupo Bimbo (48%), Danone (34%) and Conagra (32%), although the majority of their sales were still derived from unhealthy foods. DISCUSSION: The results presented in this study highlight the reliance the leading food and beverage companies have on sales of unhealthy products that are contributing to diet-related disease globally. The method and steps we have laid out here could be used by organizations in the global health community to identify companies that have conflicts of interest when it comes to engaging with governments, international organizations and public health bodies on issues of policy and regulation.

The impact of price promotions on confectionery and snacks on the energy content of shopping baskets: A randomised controlled trial in an experimental online supermarket.

Overconsumption of foods high in fat, sugars, and salt (HFSS) poses a significant risk to health. The government in England has passed legislation that would limit some price promotions of HFSS foods within supermarkets, but evidence regarding likely impacts of these policies, especially in online settings, is limited. This study aimed to determine whether there were any differences in the energy and nutrient content of shopping baskets after removing promotions on HFSS foods in an online experimental supermarket. UK adults (n = 511) were asked to select food from four categories with a £10 budget in an online experimental supermarket: confectionery; biscuits and crackers; crisps, nuts and snacking fruit; cakes and tarts. They were randomly allocated to one of two trial arms: (1) promotions present (matched to promotion frequency seen in a major UK retailer) (n = 257), or (2) all promotions removed from all products within the target food categories (n = 254). The primary outcome analysis used linear regression to compare total energy (kcal) of items placed in shopping baskets when promotions were present vs. absent, while secondary analyses investigated differences in nutrients and energy purchased from individual food categories. Mean energy in food selected without promotions was 5156 kcal per basket (SD 1620), compared to 5536 kcal (SD 1819) with promotions, a difference of -552kcal (95%CIs: -866, -238), equivalent to 10%. There were no significant differences in energy purchased for any individual category between groups. No evidence was found of other changes in nutritional composition of baskets or of significant interactions between the impact of promotions and participant characteristics (gender, age, ethnicity) on energy purchased. Removing promotions on HFSS foods resulted in significantly less total energy selected in an online experimental supermarket study.

Changes in the salt content of packaged foods sold in supermarkets between 2015-2020 in the United Kingdom: A repeated cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Excess consumption of salt is linked to an increased risk of hypertension and cardiovascular disease. The United Kingdom has had a comprehensive salt reduction programme since 2003, setting a series of progressively lower, product-specific reformulation targets for the food industry, combined with advice to consumers to reduce salt. The aim of this study was to assess the changes in the sales-weighted mean salt content of grocery foods sold through retail between 2015 and 2020 by category and company. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Information for products, including salt content (g/100 g), was collected online from retailer websites for 6 consecutive years (2015 to 2020) and was matched with brand-level retail sales data from Euromonitor for 395 brands. The sales-weighted mean salt content and total volume of salt sold were calculated by category and company. The mean salt content of included foods fell by 0.05 g/100 g, from 1.04 g/100 g in 2015 to 0.90 g/100 g in 2020, equivalent to -4.2% (p = 0.13). The categories with the highest salt content in 2020 were savoury snacks (1.6 g/100 g) and cheese (1.6 g/100 g), and the categories that saw the greatest reductions in mean salt content over time were breakfast cereals (-16.0%, p = 0.65); processed beans, potatoes, and vegetables (-10.6%, p = 0.11); and meat, seafood, and alternatives (-9.2%, p = 0.56). The total volume of salt sold fell from 2.41 g per person per day to 2.25 g per person per day, a reduction of 0.16 g or 6.7% (p = 0.54). The majority (63%) of this decrease was attributable to changes in mean salt content, with the remaining 37% accounted for by reductions in sales. Across the top 5 companies in each of 9 categories, the volume of salt sold decreased in 26 and increased in 19 cases. This study is limited by its exclusion of foods purchased out of the home, including at restaurants, cafes, and takeaways. It also does not include salt added at the table, or that naturally occurring in foods, meaning the findings underrepresent the population's total salt intake. The assumption was also made that the products matched with the sales data were entirely representative of the brand, which may not be the case if products are sold exclusively in convenience stores or markets, which are not included in this database. CONCLUSIONS: There has been a small decline in the salt content of foods and total volume of salt sold between 2015 and 2020, but observed changes were not statistically significant so could be due to random variations over time. We suggest that mandatory reporting of salt sales by large food companies would increase the transparency of how individual businesses are progressing towards the salt reduction targets.

The sugar content of foods in the UK by category and company: A repeated cross-sectional study, 2015-2018.

BACKGROUND: Consumption of free sugars in the UK greatly exceeds dietary recommendations. Public Health England (PHE) has set voluntary targets for industry to reduce the sales-weighted mean sugar content of key food categories contributing to sugar intake by 5% by 2018 and 20% by 2020. The aim of this study was to assess changes in the sales-weighted mean sugar content and total volume sales of sugar in selected food categories among UK companies between 2015 and 2018. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used sales data from Euromonitor, which estimates total annual retail sales of packaged foods, for 5 categories-biscuits and cereal bars, breakfast cereals, chocolate confectionery, sugar confectionery, and yoghurts-for 4 consecutive years (2015-2018). This analysis includes 353 brands (groups of products with the same name) sold by 99 different companies. These data were linked with nutrient composition data collected online from supermarket websites over 2015-2018 by Edge by Ascential. The main outcome measures were sales volume, sales-weighted mean sugar content, and total volume of sugar sold by category and company. Our results show that between 2015 and 2018 the sales-weighted mean sugar content of all included foods fell by 5.2% (95% CI -9.4%, -1.4%), from 28.7 g/100 g (95% CI 27.2, 30.4) to 27.2 g/100 g (95% CI 25.8, 28.4). The greatest change seen was in yoghurts (-17.0% [95% CI -26.8%, -7.1%]) and breakfast cereals (-13.3% [95% CI -19.2%, -7.4%]), with only small reductions in sugar confectionery (-2.4% [95% CI -4.2%, -0.6%]) and chocolate confectionery (-1.0% [95% CI -3.1, 1.2]). Our results show that total volume of sugars sold per capita fell from 21.4 g/d (95% CI 20.3, 22.7) to 19.7 g/d (95% CI 18.8, 20.7), a reduction of 7.5% (95% CI -13.1%, -2.8%). Of the 50 companies representing the top 10 companies in each category, 24 met the 5% reduction target set by PHE for 2018. The key limitations of this study are that it does not encompass the whole food market and is limited by its use of brand-level sales data, rather than individual product sales data. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show there has been a small reduction in total volume sales of sugar in the included categories, primarily due to reductions in the sugar content of yoghurts and breakfast cereals. Additional policy measures may be needed to accelerate progress in categories such as sugar confectionery and chocolate confectionery if the 2020 PHE voluntary sugar reduction targets are to be met.

The impact of the English calorie labelling policy on the energy content of food offered and purchased in worksite cafeterias: a natural experiment.

BACKGROUND: On 6 April 2022, legislation came into effect in England requiring calorie labels to be applied to food items on menus of larger food businesses. This study aimed to assess the impact of calorie labelling on (a) food purchased and (b) energy content of menu options in worksite cafeterias. METHODS: Product-level sales data and energy content of available items was obtained from 142 worksite cafeterias from January 2022-October 2022. Interrupted-time-series (ITS) analysis with level and slope change evaluated daily energy (kcal) purchased per item, and ITS with level change assessed mean energy per option available on menus before and after calorie labelling. Each analysis was conducted 6 weeks and 6 months from implementation. A post-hoc ITS examined weekly energy purchased per item over a longer period (March 2021-October 2022; 135 sites). RESULTS: There was no evidence calorie labelling changed the energy content of foods purchased (6-week: + 0.60 cal/product, 95%CI:-2.54, + 3.75; 6-month: + 1.59 cal/product, 95%CI:-0.96, + 4.16). Post-hoc analyses suggested calorie labels were associated with a reduction in mean energy of items purchased over time (-0.65 kcal/week, 95%CI:-0.81,-0.49), but a significant increase (+ 3 kcal, 95%CI: + 0.43, + 5.60) at the point of implementation. There was a reduction in the mean energy content of menu options at each seasonal menu change (April 2022:-1.79 kcal, 95%CI:-3.42,-0.15; July 2022:-4.18 kcal, 95% CI:-7.65,-0.73). CONCLUSION: This large observational study in worksite cafeterias found no evidence to indicate the introduction of calorie labelling led to any immediate reduction in energy purchased by customers. There was some evidence of increasing impact over time, possibly associated with changes in menu offerings, but this effect was small and cannot be directly attributed to calorie labelling.

The impact of the UK soft drink industry levy on the soft drink marketplace, 2017-2020: An interrupted time series analysis with comparator series.

BACKGROUND: In April 2018, the UK government implemented a levy on soft drinks importers and manufacturers, tiered according to the amount of sugar in drinks. The stated aim was to encourage manufacturers to reduce sugar and portion sizes. Previous evidence suggests that the policy has been successful in reducing sugar in drinks in the short-term since implementation, but their sustained effects have not been explored. This study aimed to assess the impact of the soft drink industry levy (SDIL) on sugar levels, price, portion size and use of non-sugar sweeteners in the medium-term. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Product data from 30 November 2017 to 14 March 2020 from one major UK retail supermarket were analysed (112,452 observations, 126 weekly time points). We used interrupted time series analysis, to assess the impact of the soft-drink industry levy (SDIL) on levy-eligible soft drinks, with exempt drinks (i.e. 100% fruit juices, milks, flavoured milks) acting as a comparator series. At the point of implementation of the SDIL (April 2018) there was a step change in the proportion of eligible drinks with sugar content below the SDIL levy threshold (5g per 100ml) (+0.08, 95%CI: +0.04, +0.12), with a similar sized decrease in the proportion in the highest levy category (> = 8g sugar per 100ml) (-0.06, 95%CI: -0.10, -0.03). Between April 2018 and March 2020, the proportion of eligible drinks below the SDIL levy threshold continued to gradually increase (p = 0.003), while those in the highest levy category decreased (p = 0.007). There was a step change in price of eligible drinks in the higher levy category at the point of implementation of +£0.049 (95%CI: +£0.034, +£0.065) per 100mL (for comparison, the levy is set at £0.024 per 100mL for this group). Trends in price for the high levy category were not altered by the SDIL. In the no levy category, there was a step change in price at the implementation (+£0.012 per 100mL, 95%CI: +£0.008, +£0.023), followed by a second step change in October 2018 (-£0.018p per 100mL, 95%CI: -£0.033, -£0.001p). The volume of products in the higher levy group decreased at the time of the implementation (-305mL on average including multipacks, 95%CI: -511, -99). The change in trend for the product volume of drinks in the higher levy group between April 2018 and March 2020 was in the increasing direction (+704mL per year, 95%CI: -95, 1504), but it did not meet our threshold for statistical significance (p = 0.084). There were no changes observed in the volume of lower levy drinks or no levy drinks. There was a step change in the proportion of drinks with non-sugar sweeteners at the implementation of the SDIL (+0.04, 95%CI: +0.02, +0.06). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the SDIL was successful in [1] producing reductions in sugar levels that were maintained over the medium term up to March 2020 and [2] a reduction in product volume for higher tier drinks that may be diminishing over time. Our results also show that the SDIL was associated with a maintained price differential between high and low sugar drinks.

Assessing the healthiness of UK food companies' product portfolios using food sales and nutrient composition data.

BACKGROUND: The provision and over-consumption of foods high in energy, saturated fat, free sugars or salt are important risk factors for poor diet and ill-health. In the UK, policies seek to drive improvement through voluntary reformulation of single nutrients in key food groups. There has been little consideration of the overall progress by individual companies. This study assesses recent changes in the nutrient profile of brands and products sold by the top 10 food and beverage companies in the UK. METHODS: The FSA/Ofcom nutrient profile model was applied to the nutrient composition data for all products manufactured by the top 10 food and beverage companies and weighted by volume sales. The mean nutrient profiling score, on a scale of 1-100 with thresholds for healthy products being 62 for foods and 68 for drinks, was used to rank companies and food categories between 2015 and 2018, and to calculate the proportion of individual products and sales that are considered by the UK Government to be healthy. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2018 there was little change in the sales-weighted nutrient profiling score of the top 10 companies (49 to 51; p = 0.28) or the proportion of products classified as healthy (46% to 48%; p = 0.23). Of the top five brands sold by each of the ten companies, only six brands among ten companies improved their nutrient profiling score by 20% or more. The proportion of total volume sales classified as healthy increased from 44% to 51% (p = 0.07) driven by an increase in the volume sales of bottled water, low/no calorie carbonates and juices, but after removing soft drinks, the proportion of foods classified as healthy decreased from 7% to 6% (p = 33). CONCLUSIONS: The UK voluntary reformulation policies, setting targets for reductions in calories, sugar and salt, do not appear to have led to significant changes in the nutritional quality of foods, though there has been progress in soft drinks where the soft drink industry levy also applies. Further policy action is needed to incentivise companies to make more substantive changes in product composition to support consumers to achieve a healthier diet.

The use of commercial food purchase data for public health nutrition research: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Traditional methods of dietary assessment have their limitations and commercial sources of food sales and purchase data are increasingly suggested as an additional source to measuring diet at the population level. However, the potential uses of food sales data are less well understood. The aim of this review is to establish how sales data on food and soft drink products from third-party companies have been used in public health nutrition research. METHODS: A search of five electronic databases was conducted in February-March 2018 for studies published in peer-reviewed journals that had used food sales or purchase data from a commercial company to analyse trends and patterns in food purchases or in the nutritional composition of foods. Study quality was evaluated using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Quality Assessment Tool for Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. RESULTS: Of 2919 papers identified in the search, 68 were included. The selected studies used sales or purchase data from four companies: Euromonitor, GfK, Kantar and Nielsen. Sales and purchase data have been used to evaluate interventions, including the impact of the saturated fat tax in Denmark, the soft drink and junk food taxes in Mexico and supplemental nutrition programmes in the USA. They have also been used to identify trends in the nutrient composition of foods over time and patterns in food purchasing, including socio-demographic variations in purchasing. CONCLUSION: Food sales and purchase data are a valuable tool for public health nutrition researchers and their use has increased markedly in the last four years, despite the cost of access, the lack of transparency on data-collection methods and restrictions on publication. The availability of product and brand-level sales data means they are particularly useful for assessing how changes by individual food companies can impact on diet and public health.