Sugars, Salt, Saturated Fat and Fibre Purchased through Packaged Food and Soft Drinks in Europe 2015-2018: Are We Making Progress?

The availability, purchase and consumption of foods high in fat, sugars and salt and low in fibre are linked to the high health and economic burden of noncommunicable diseases, including cancer, in Europe. Therefore, assessing the quality of the food offer is key as feedback to decision makers, as well as to identify good practices and areas of the food supply still requiring urgent action. We combined detailed market share and sales data with nutrition composition data to evaluate the nutritional quality of 14 packaged food and soft drinks categories sold across 22 European countries over the 2015-2018 period. Our analysis shows great variability of the nutritional composition within and among packaged food and soft drinks categories across European countries. Our estimates of the market-share weighted mean, a measure that integrates possible changes in nutrient content with the amount of a product sold to consumers, as well as daily per capita nutrient sale estimates, suggest a small but statistically significant progress in certain food categories only. Overall, the amounts of sugars, saturated fat, salt and fibre being sold to European citizens through these products is not improving to an extent to meet public health objectives.

Corporations' use and misuse of evidence to influence health policy: a case study of sugar-sweetened beverage taxation.

BACKGROUND: Sugar sweetened beverages (SSB) are a major source of sugar in the diet. Although trends in consumption vary across regions, in many countries, particularly LMICs, their consumption continues to increase. In response, a growing number of governments have introduced a tax on SSBs. SSB manufacturers have opposed such taxes, disputing the role that SSBs play in diet-related diseases and the effectiveness of SSB taxation, and alleging major economic impacts. Given the importance of evidence to effective regulation of products harmful to human health, we scrutinised industry submissions to the South African government's consultation on a proposed SSB tax and examined their use of evidence. RESULTS: Corporate submissions were underpinned by several strategies involving the misrepresentation of evidence. First, references were used in a misleading way, providing false support for key claims. Second, raw data, which represented a pliable, alternative evidence base to peer reviewed studies, was misused to dispute both the premise of targeting sugar for special attention and the impact of SSB taxes on SSB consumption. Third, purposively selected evidence was used in conjunction with other techniques, such as selective quoting from studies and omitting important qualifying information, to promote an alternative evidential narrative to that supported by the weight of peer-reviewed research. Fourth, a range of mutually enforcing techniques that inflated the effects of SSB taxation on jobs, public revenue generation, and gross domestic product, was used to exaggerate the economic impact of the tax. This "hyperbolic accounting" included rounding up figures in original sources, double counting, and skipping steps in economic modelling. CONCLUSIONS: Our research raises fundamental questions concerning the bona fides of industry information in the context of government efforts to combat diet-related diseases. The beverage industry's claims against SSB taxation rest on a complex interplay of techniques, that appear to be grounded in evidence, but which do not observe widely accepted approaches to the use of either scientific or economic evidence. These techniques are similar, but not identical, to those used by tobacco companies and highlight the problems of introducing evidence-based policies aimed at managing the market environment for unhealthful commodities.