What is the purpose of ultra-processed food? An exploratory analysis of the financialisation of ultra-processed food corporations and implications for public health.

BACKGROUND: In recent decades there has been a global rise in consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) to the detriment of population health and the environment. Large corporations that have focused heavily on low-cost manufacturing and extensive marketing of UPFs to maximise profits have driven this dietary transition. The same corporations claim to serve the interests of multiple 'stakeholders', and that they are contributing to sustainable development. This paper aimed to test these claims by examining the degree to which UPF corporations have become 'financialised', focusing on the extent to which they have prioritised the financial interests of their shareholders relative to other actors, as well as the role that various types of investors have played in influencing their governance. Findings were used to inform discussion on policy responses to improve the healthiness of population diets. METHODS: We adopted an exploratory research design using multiple methods. We conducted quantitative analysis of the financial data of U.S. listed food and agricultural corporations between 1962 and 2021, share ownership data of a selection of UPF corporations, and proxy voting data of a selection of investors between 2012 and 2022. We also conducted targeted narrative reviews using structured and branching searches of academic and grey literature. RESULTS: Since the 1980s, corporations that depend heavily on manufacturing and marketing UPFs to generate profits have been increasingly transferring money to their shareholders relative to their total revenue, and at a level considerably higher than other food and agricultural sectors. In recent years, large hedge fund managers have had a substantial influence on the governance of major UPF corporations in their pursuit of maximising short-term returns. In comparison, shareholders seeking to take steps to improve population diets have had limited influence, in part because large asset managers mostly oppose public health-related shareholder proposals. CONCLUSIONS: The operationalisation of 'shareholder primacy' by major UPF corporations has driven inequity and undermines their claims that they are creating 'value' for diverse actors. Measures that protect population diets and food systems from the extractive forces of financialisation are likely needed as part of efforts to improve the healthiness of population diets.

A comparative analysis of nutrition-related assessment criteria and associated nutrition performance scores of food companies across three prominent corporate sustainability assessment tools.

OBJECTIVE: Corporate sustainability assessment tools are increasingly used to evaluate company performance on environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria. Given the growing burden of diet-related disease and nutrition-related business risks, it is important to understand the scope of nutrition-related ESG data currently available. This study aimed to compare the nutrition-related assessment criteria and associated food company performance across three prominent assessment tools. DESIGN: Key attributes and assessment criteria of two civil society-led and one commercially available corporate sustainability assessment tools were extracted and compared for the year 2021. Company performance scores for twenty-five major food and beverage manufacturers using these three tools were analysed by nutrition domain: 'Product Portfolio', 'Labelling', 'Marketing', 'Accessibility and Affordability', 'Governance and Reporting', 'Stakeholder Engagement' and 'Employee Health'. To enable comparison between tools, company performance scores were assigned to categories of low (score = 0-25 % score or D), moderately low (25-50 % or C), moderately high (50-75 % or B) and high (75-100 % or A). SETTING: Global. PARTICIPANTS: N/A. RESULTS: The tools covered similar nutrition domains; however, there was heterogeneity in the assessment criteria used to evaluate each domain. When applied to assess the performance of twenty-five major food and beverage manufacturers, a median nutrition-related performance score of moderately low or low was observed across all tools. The highest scoring domain was 'Governance and Reporting', and the lowest scoring domains were 'Product Portfolio' and 'Accessibility and Affordability'. CONCLUSIONS: Greater standardisation of the nutrition-related criteria against which food companies are assessed is needed as part of efforts to drive improvements in food company practices.

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.

Cost-Benefit and Cost-Utility Analyses to Demonstrate the Potential Value-for-Money of Supermarket Shelf Tags Promoting Healthier Packaged Products in Australia.

The supermarket environment impacts the healthiness of food purchased and consumed. Shelf tags that alert customers to healthier packaged products can improve the healthiness of overall purchases. This study assessed the potential value-for-money of implementing a three-year shelf tag intervention across all major supermarket chains in Australia. Cost-benefit analyses (CBA) and cost-utility analyses (CUA) were conducted based on results of a 12-week non-randomised controlled trial of a shelf tag intervention in seven Australian supermarkets. The change in energy density of all packaged foods purchased during the trial was used to estimate population-level changes in mean daily energy intake. A multi-state, multiple-cohort Markov model estimated the subsequent obesity-related health and healthcare cost outcomes over the lifetime of the 2019 Australian population. The CBA and CUA took societal and healthcare sector perspectives, respectively. The intervention was estimated to produce a mean reduction in population body weight of 1.09 kg. The net present value of the intervention was approximately AUD 17 billion (B). Over 98% of the intervention costs were borne by supermarkets. CUA findings were consistent with the CBA-the intervention was dominant, producing both health benefits and cost-savings. Shelf tags are likely to offer excellent value-for-money from societal and healthcare sector perspectives.

Factors Influencing Implementation, Sustainability and Scalability of Healthy Food Retail Interventions: A Systematic Review of Reviews.

The aim of this systematic review of reviews was to synthesise the evidence on factors influencing the implementation, sustainability and scalability of food retail interventions to improve the healthiness of food purchased by consumers. A search strategy to identify reviews published up until June 2020 was applied to four databases. The Risk of Bias in Systematic Review tool was used. Review findings were synthesised narratively using the socio-ecological model. A total of 25 reviews met the inclusion criteria. A number of factors influenced implementation; these included retailers' and consumers' knowledge and preferences regarding healthy food; establishing trust and relationships; perceived consumer demand for healthy food; profitability; store infrastructure; organizational support, including resources; and enabling policies that promote health. Few reviews reported on factors influencing sustainability or scalability of the interventions. While there is a large and rapidly growing body of evidence on factors influencing implementation of interventions, more work is needed to identify factors associated with their sustainability and scalability. These findings can be used to develop implementation strategies that consider the multiple levels of influence (individual, intrapersonal and environmental) to better support implementation of healthy food retail interventions.

Availability and placement of healthy and discretionary food in Australian supermarkets by chain and level of socio-economic disadvantage.

OBJECTIVE: The current study aimed to investigate availability and placement of healthy and discretionary (less healthy) food in supermarkets in Victoria, Australia, and examine variation by supermarket chain and area-level socio-economic disadvantage. DESIGN: Cross-sectional supermarket audit. Measures included: (i) proportion of shelf space (in square metres) allocated to selected healthy and discretionary food and beverages; (ii) proportion of end-of-aisle, checkout and island bin displays containing discretionary food and beverages and (iii) proportion of space within end-of-aisle, checkout and island bin displays devoted to discretionary food and beverages. SETTING: Metropolitan areas of Melbourne and Geelong, Australia. Assessment: June-July 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Random sample of 104 stores, with equal numbers from each supermarket group (Coles, Woolworths, Aldi and Independent stores) within strata of area-level socio-economic position. RESULTS: Proportion of shelf space devoted to selected discretionary foods was greater for Independent stores (72·7 %) compared with Woolworths (65·7 %), Coles (64·8 %) and Aldi (63·2 %) (all P < 0·001). Proportion of shelf space devoted to selected discretionary food for all Coles, Woolworths and Aldi stores was 9·7 % higher in the most compared with the least disadvantaged areas (P = 0·002). Across all stores, 90 % of staff-assisted checkout displays and 50 % of end-of-aisle displays included discretionary food. Aldi was less likely to feature discretionary food in end-of-aisle and checkout displays compared with other supermarket groups. CONCLUSIONS: Extensive marketing of discretionary food in all Australian supermarket chains was observed, which is likely to strongly influence purchasing patterns and population diets. Findings should be used to inform private and public sector policies to reduce marketing of discretionary food in supermarkets.

The Healthiness of Food and Beverages on Price Promotion at Promotional Displays: A Cross-Sectional Audit of Australian Supermarkets.

Supermarket environments can strongly influence purchasing decisions. Price promotions are recognised as a particularly persuasive tactic, but the healthiness of price promotions in prominent in-store locations is understudied. This study compared the prevalence and magnitude of price promotions on healthy and unhealthy food and beverages (foods) displayed at prominent in-store locations within Australian supermarkets, including analyses by supermarket group and area-level socio-economic position. A cross-sectional in-store audit of price promotions on foods at key display areas was undertaken in 104 randomly selected stores from major Australian supermarket groups (Woolworths, Coles, Aldi and independents) in Victoria, Australia. Of the display space dedicated to foods with price promotions, three of the four supermarket groups had a greater proportion of display space devoted to unhealthy (compared to healthy) foods at each promotional location measured (end of aisles: 66%; island bins: 53%; checkouts: 88%). Aldi offered very few price promotions. Few measures varied by area-level socio-economic position. This study demonstrated that price promotions at prominent in-store locations in Australian supermarkets favoured unhealthy foods. Marketing of this nature is likely to encourage the purchase of unhealthy foods, highlighting the need for retailers and policy-makers to consider addressing in-store pricing and placement strategies to encourage healthier food environments.

Increasing the Price of Alcohol as an Obesity Prevention Measure: The Potential Cost-Effectiveness of Introducing a Uniform Volumetric Tax and a Minimum Floor Price on Alcohol in Australia.

The objective of this study was to estimate, from an obesity prevention perspective, the cost-effectiveness of two potential policies that increase the price of alcohol in Australia: a volumetric tax applied to all alcohol (Intervention 1) and a minimum unit floor price (Intervention 2). Estimated changes in alcoholic drink consumption and corresponding changes in energy intake were calculated using the 2011-12 Australian Health Survey data, published price elasticities, and nutrition information. The incremental changes in body mass index (BMI), BMI-related disease outcomes, healthcare costs, and Health Adjusted Life Years (HALYs) were estimated using a validated model. Costs associated with each intervention were estimated for government and industry. Both interventions were estimated to lead to reductions in mean alcohol consumption (Intervention 1: 20.7% (95% Uncertainty Interval (UI): 20.2% to 21.1%); Intervention 2: 9.2% (95% UI: 8.9% to 9.6%); reductions in mean population body weight (Intervention 1: 0.9 kg (95% UI: 0.84 to 0.96); Intervention 2: 0.45 kg (95% UI: 0.42 to 0.48)); HALYs gained (Intervention 1: 566,648 (95% UI: 497,431 to 647,262); Intervention 2: 317,653 (95% UI: 276,334 to 361,573)); and healthcare cost savings (Intervention 1: $5.8 billion (B) (95% UI: $5.1B to $6.6B); Intervention 2: $3.3B (95% UI: $2.9B to $3.7B)). Intervention costs were estimated as $24M for Intervention 1 and $30M for Intervention 2. Both interventions were dominant, resulting in health gains and cost savings. Increasing the price of alcohol is likely to be cost-effective from an obesity prevention perspective in the Australian context, provided consumers substitute alcoholic beverages with low or no kilojoule alternatives.

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.

Investing for Health: Potential Mechanisms for the Investment Community to Contribute to Obesity Prevention and Improved Nutrition.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There is a critical need for corporations to be part of the solutions to major societal issues, such as obesity. Investment decisions can have a substantial impact on both corporate practices and population health. This paper aimed to explore potential mechanisms for incorporating obesity and related nutrition considerations into responsible investment (RI) approaches. RECENT FINDINGS: We found that there are a number of available strategies for the investment community to incorporate obesity considerations into their decisions. However, despite some recent efforts to improve company disclosure in the area and the emergence of new tools for assessing food company nutrition policies, the inclusion of obesity and related nutrition considerations as part of RI is currently extremely limited. There appears to be substantial scope to apply approaches already in widespread use for other RI considerations to the area of obesity. Ways in which to apply measurement frameworks across different markets and sectors need to be explored.