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.

Landscape analysis of environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing metrics for consumer nutrition and health in the food and beverage sector.

Introduction: The private sector plays a critical role in influencing food choices and health outcomes of consumers. Among private sector actors, investors are a powerful yet underutilised stakeholder for driving scalable public health impact. There are systems to facilitate investors' involvement, notably environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing, which is well placed to include an assessment of business risks to social well-being. However, nutrition efforts within the ESG agenda (ESG-Nutrition) are nascent. We aimed to critically assess the strength of existing ESG-Nutrition metrics to advance the science of measuring business impacts on consumer nutrition and health. Methods: ESG-Nutrition metrics were extracted from eight ESG frameworks and categorised across four domains: product portfolio healthfulness; product distribution and equity; product marketing and labelling; and nutrition-related governance. The strength of each metric was evaluated and scored 1-3 (best), independently by two researchers, based on six attributes: materiality, objectivity, alignment, activity, resolution and verifiability. The total score (range 6-18) and intercorrelation for each attribute was calculated. Results: Across 529 metrics, most related to product marketing and labelling (n=230, 43.5%), followed by product healthfulness (n=126, 23.8%), nutrition-related governance (n=108, 20.4%) and product distribution and equity (n=65, 12.3%). Across all metrics, average total score was 10.94 (1.58), with average attribute scoring highest for verifiability (mean: 2.36 (SD: 0.57)), objectivity (2.11 (0.61)) and materiality (2.01 (0.68)) and lowest for activity (1.83 (0.74)), alignment (1.37 (0.67)) and resolution (1.26 (0.65)). Most intercorrelations were null, suggesting attributes were measuring distinct characteristics of each metric. Significant heterogeneity across domains and frameworks was also observed. Conclusions: This research identifies a range of nutrition-related metrics used in ESG frameworks with respect to food companies, but with substantial heterogeneity in relevant nutrition domains covered and strength of each metric. Efforts are required to improve the quality of metrics across frameworks, establish standardised reporting and align these with investor priorities.

Integrating nutrition and obesity prevention considerations into institutional investment decisions regarding food companies: Australian investment sector perspectives.

BACKGROUND: There is growing recognition that current food systems are both unhealthy and unsustainable, and are increasingly shifting toward the supply and marketing of unhealthy, ultra-processed foods and beverages. Large food companies hold substantial power within food systems and present a significant barrier to progress on addressing issues related to nutrition and obesity prevention. Institutional investors (such as pension funds) play a key role in influencing corporate governance and practices, and are increasingly incorporating environmental, social and governance (ESG) considerations within investment decisions. By considering nutrition and obesity prevention, institutional investors present a potential avenue for driving increased food industry accountability for their population health impact. This study investigated views of stakeholders in the Australian investment sector on the incorporation of nutrition and obesity prevention considerations within institutional investment decision-making regarding food companies. METHODS: Fifteen in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted in 2020-21. Participants were predominantly Australian-based, and included representatives from asset management companies, superannuation funds, ESG advisory/consultancy firms, ESG research providers, and relevant advocacy groups. Interviews examined challenges and opportunities to the integration of nutrition and obesity prevention considerations within institutional investment decision-making. Interviews were analysed using deductive thematic analysis, informed by a theoretical change model. RESULTS: Several participants reported that their institution factored nutrition and obesity prevention considerations into their investment decisions; however, attention to nutrition-related issues was limited, generally perceived as 'niche', and not yet institutionalised. Key challenges and opportunities were identified at the employee, investment organisation, investment sector, government and non-government levels. These challenges and opportunities centred around experience and knowledge, quality and availability of ESG data and benchmarks, importance of investor coalitions, and demonstration of financial risks related to nutrition and obesity. CONCLUSION: There are a range of steps that could be taken to help ensure more systematic and effective consideration of issues related to nutrition and obesity prevention within institutional investment decision-making in Australia, including: (1) improved nutrition-related reporting metrics and benchmarking criteria for food companies; (2) better articulation of the financial risks that unhealthy diets and obesity pose to investors; (3) enhanced investor advocacy on unhealthy diets and obesity through investor coalitions and; (4) detailed guidance for investors on how to address unhealthy diets and obesity. Better engagement between the Australian public health community, institutional investors and government regulators is critical to drive changed investor practice in this area.

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.

Consumption Frequency and Purchase Locations of Foods Prepared Outside the Home in Australia: 2018 International Food Policy Study.

BACKGROUND: Foods prepared outside the home (e.g., fast-food chains, restaurants) represent increasing proportions of diets worldwide, and have been associated with higher energy intakes and BMIs. To improve the healthiness of population diets, it is important to understand patterns of consumption of these foods, and whether related policy measures are effective. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to identify the frequency and sources of consumption of foods prepared outside the home in Australia, and to understand the impact of nutrition information in restaurants on related food choices. METHODS: Data were from a web-based survey (the International Food Policy Study) completed in 2018 by Australian adults aged ≥18 years (n = 4103). The number of meals prepared outside the home, their purchase locations, and the extent to which nutrition information was noticed and influenced purchasing decisions were each analyzed by sociodemographic characteristics and BMI, with linear models also adjusted for sex, age group, education, ethnicity, and BMI. RESULTS: An average of 2.73 (95% CI, 2.61-2.86) meals per week were prepared outside the home, with higher frequencies among men, younger ages, and more highly educated participants. A wide variety of sources for these foods was observed, with fast-food outlets being most common. Around one-quarter of all foods prepared outside the home were delivered. A small percentage (14.9%; 95% CI, 13.3%-16.7%) of participants reported noticing nutrition information, but among those who did, around half reported that it influenced their behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Foods prepared outside the home are commonly purchased in Australia, particularly by young adults, from a variety of outlet types. While current menu energy labeling regulations may provide some population health benefit, a broader policy focus on foods prepared outside the home is needed as part of efforts to improve population diets.

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.

Latest Trends in Investing for Improved Nutrition and Obesity Prevention.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this paper is to summarise current trends and new developments with regard to institutional investor actions related to nutrition and obesity prevention. RECENT FINDINGS: Investor-related activity related to improving population diets is building, with several recent initiatives aiming to accelerate achievement of global nutrition goals. There is increasing civil society and investor activism focused on leveraging investor influence to improve nutrition-related food company actions. There are multiple sustainability-related reporting standards; however, few include comprehensive nutrition-related metrics. There is increasing interest from institutional investors in addressing nutrition-related issues; however, investor activity in the area is piece-meal. There is a need for further integration of nutrition within current reporting frameworks. Methodological alignment across the increasing number of food industry accountability initiatives would likely help galvanise increased investor action. Some jurisdictions are introducing relevant mandatory reporting requirements, which are likely to play a key role in enhancing transparency by the food industry and financial institutions.

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.

Benchmarking Food and Beverage Companies on Obesity Prevention and Nutrition Policies: Evaluation of the BIA-Obesity Australia Initiative, 2017-2019.

BACKGROUND: The potential role of the food and beverage industry in addressing diet-related disease is much debated, particularly amidst evidence of the targeted strategies, including voluntary self-regulation, used by the industry to influence policy in their favour. At the same time, the need for more comprehensive action to address unhealthy diets has led to a focus on increasing the accountability of different stakeholders. However, there has been limited evaluation of the impact of accountability initiatives on food and beverage company policies and practices. This study evaluated the impact of the BIA-Obesity (Business Impact Assessment - Obesity and population nutrition) Australia Initiative that benchmarked major Australian food and beverage companies on their nutrition-related policies. METHODS: Evaluation was conducted against the pre-specified logic model for BIA-Obesity and established frameworks for analysing organisational change and corporate political activity. Outcomes evaluated included company engagement with the Initiative, level of media coverage, and impact of the Initiative on company policies and practices based on the perspectives of company representatives. A mixed methods design was employed, including surveys and in-depth interviews with company representatives, and media reports. RESULTS: Approximately half of invited companies participated in the evaluation of the BIA-Obesity Australia Initiative. A number of company representatives indicated that the Initiative had influenced their company's nutrition policies, strategies, and disclosure practices, and had raised their company's awareness of the importance of addressing nutrition issues. CONCLUSION: Company representatives perceive benchmarking and accountability initiatives as helpful for provoking improvements in nutrition-related policies and practices in their companies. However, the benefits of these initiatives need to be assessed in the context of the broader political and economic environment. Whilst the focus of accountability initiatives, such as BIA-Obesity, are on industry self-regulation efforts, they can also play an important role in drawing attention to the need for increased government regulation.

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.

The Development and Application of a Tool for Quantifying the Strength of Voluntary Actions and Commitments of Major Canadian Food Companies to Improve the Nutritional Quality of Their Products.

BACKGROUND: Canada's food supply is high in nutrients of public health concern, contributing to poor diet quality and increased noncommunicable disease risk. Food companies shape the healthfulness of the food supply, yet little is known about companies' voluntary actions and commitments concerning product (re)formulation. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop and apply a tool for quantifying the strength of voluntary actions and commitments of major food companies in Canada to improve the healthfulness of their products. METHODS: Twenty-two top packaged food and beverage companies were selected based on Canadian market share. Recent actions and/or commitments to reduce energy/portion sizes, sodium, saturated fat, trans fat, and sugars were identified from company websites and public documents, verified by company representatives (where possible), and scored based on breadth of application across the product portfolio, magnitude(s) of reduction, measurability, nutritional significance, national/global applicability, and transparency using the Food Company Reformulation scoring tool. Companies offering beverages only (n = 4) were not assessed for sodium, saturated fat, or trans fat (re)formulation. RESULTS: Seventeen of 22 companies reported reductions and/or commitments concerning sodium (72.2%, n = 13/18), trans fat (61.1%, n = 11/18), sugars (59.1%, n = 13/22), saturated fat (55.6%, n = 10/18), and/or energy/portion sizes (50.0%, n = 11/22). Scores ranged from 0/155 to 122/155 for food companies (median = 49/155) and 0/65 to 42/65 for beverage companies (median = 17/65). Companies generally performed best for sodium reduction (median = 21/32; range = 0-32) and poorest for energy/portion-size reductions (median = 2/30; range = 0-24). Multinational companies had significantly higher total scores than domestic companies (P = 0.004). Higher total scores were associated with greater market shares in the beverage manufacturing sector (P = 0.04), but not packaged food (P = 0.50). CONCLUSIONS: Many of Canada's leading food companies report limited or no action to reduce nutrients of concern in their products, suggesting a need for government intervention and strengthened accountability mechanisms to encourage alignment of reformulation efforts with government and expert recommendations.

Benchmarking the Nutrition-Related Policies and Commitments of Major Food Companies in Australia, 2018.

The food industry has an important role to play in efforts to improve population diets. This study aimed to benchmark the comprehensiveness, specificity and transparency of nutrition-related policies and commitments of major food companies in Australia. In 2018, we applied the Business Impact Assessment on Obesity and Population Level Nutrition (BIA-Obesity) tool and process to quantitatively assess company policies across six domains. Thirty-four companies operating in Australia were assessed, including the largest packaged food and non-alcoholic beverage manufacturers (n = 19), supermarkets (n = 4) and quick-service restaurants (n = 11). Publicly available company information was collected, supplemented by information gathered through engagement with company representatives. Sixteen out of 34 companies (47%) engaged with data collection processes. Company scores ranged from 3/100 to 71/100 (median: 40.5/100), with substantial variation by sector, company and domain. This study demonstrated that, while some food companies had made commitments to address population nutrition and obesity-related issues, the overall response from the food industry fell short of global benchmarks of good practice. Future studies should assess both company policies and practices. In the absence of stronger industry action, government regulations, such as mandatory front-of-pack nutrition labelling and restrictions on unhealthy food marketing, are urgently needed.

Benchmarking the transparency, comprehensiveness and specificity of population nutrition commitments of major food companies in Malaysia.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the commitments of food companies in Malaysia to improving population nutrition using the Business Impact Assessment on population nutrition and obesity (BIA-Obesity) tool and process, and proposing recommendations for industry action in line with government priorities and international norms. METHODS: BIA-Obesity good practice indicators for food industry commitments across a range of domains (n = 6) were adapted to the Malaysian context. Euromonitor market share data was used to identify major food and non-alcoholic beverage manufacturers (n = 22), quick service restaurants (5), and retailers (6) for inclusion in the assessment. Evidence of commitments, including from national and international entities, were compiled from publicly available information for each company published between 2014 and 2017. Companies were invited to review their gathered evidence and provide further information wherever available. A qualified Expert Panel (≥5 members for each domain) assessed commitments and disclosures collected against the BIA-Obesity scoring criteria. Weighted scores across domains were added and the derived percentage was used to rank companies. A Review Panel, comprising of the Expert Panel and additional government officials (n = 13), then formulated recommendations. RESULTS: Of the 33 selected companies, 6 participating companies agreed to provide more information. The median overall BIA-Obesity score was 11% across food industry sectors with only 8/33 companies achieving a score of > 25%. Participating (p < 0.001) and global (p = 0.036) companies achieved significantly higher scores than non-participating, and national or regional companies, respectively. Corporate strategy related to population nutrition (median score of 28%) was the highest scoring domain, while product formulation, accessibility, and promotion domains scored the lowest (median scores < 10%). Recommendations included the establishment of clear targets for product formulation, and strong commitments to reduce the exposure of children to promotion of unhealthy foods. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first BIA-Obesity study to benchmark the population nutrition commitments of major food companies in Asia. Commitments of companies were generally vague and non-specific. In the absence of strong government regulation, an accountability framework, such as provided by the BIA-Obesity, is essential to monitor and benchmark company action to improve population nutrition.

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.

The Extent to Which Obesity and Population Nutrition Are Considered by Institutional Investors Engaged in Responsible Investment in Australia - A Review of Policies and Commitments.

INTRODUCTION: Responsible investment (RI), in which environmental, social and governance (ESG) considerations are incorporated into investment decision making, is a potentially powerful tool for increasing corporate accountability and improving corporate practices to address broad societal challenges. Whilst the RI sector is growing, there is limited understanding of the extent to which pressing social issues, such as obesity and unhealthy population diets, are incorporated within RI decision making. This study aimed to investigate the extent to which obesity prevention and population nutrition are considered by Australian institutional investors engaged in responsible investment. METHODS: A desk-based review was conducted of investment approaches of prominent Australian asset managers and superannuation funds identified as engaged in responsible investment. Relevant information on the incorporation of ESG issues related to obesity and population nutrition was extracted for each investor, drawing on websites, published policy documents and annual reports. Strategies were categorized as: (1) negative/exclusionary screening; (2) positive/best-in-class screening; (3) norms-based screening; (4) ESG integration; (5) sustainability-themed investing; (6) impact/community investing; and (7) corporate engagement and shareholder action. These strategies were compared across investors and by themes related to obesity and population nutrition. RESULTS: Eighteen of the 35 investors indicated that they applied investment strategies that considered issues related to obesity and population nutrition. The most commonly identified strategy was ESG integration (n = 12), followed by sustainability-themed investing (n = 6), and positive screening (n = 4). The ways in which obesity and population nutrition were considered as part of these approaches included relatively high-level general health considerations (n = 12), considerations around the healthiness of food company product portfolios (n = 10), and consideration of specific company nutrition policies and practices (n = 4). The specificity and depth to which RI strategies were disclosed varied. CONCLUSION: There is significant potential for investment decisions to contribute to efforts to address key social issues, such as obesity and unhealthy diets. Some institutional investors in Australia have recognized the potential importance of incorporating obesity- and population nutrition-related issues into decision-making processes. However, the extent to which these considerations translate into investment decisions and their impact on companies in the food sector warrant further exploration.

A systematic review of the Australian food retail environment: Characteristics, variation by geographic area, socioeconomic position and associations with diet and obesity.

There is strong support across multiple sectors for the implementation of policies to create healthier food environments as part of comprehensive strategies to address obesity and improve population diets. The existing evidence base describing food retail environments and their relationship with health outcomes is limited in several respects. This systematic review examines the current evidence regarding food retail environments in Australia, including associations with diet and people with obesity, and socioeconomic and geographic disparities. Three databases were searched and independently screened. Studies were included if they were undertaken in Australia and objectively measured the food retail environment. Sixty papers were included. The broad range of methodological approaches used across studies limited the ability to synthesize the evidence and draw conclusions. Results indicated that there is some evidence that disparities exist in food retail environments across measures of socioeconomic position and geographic area in parts of Australia. Overall, there were inconsistent findings regarding the association between the healthiness of food retail environments and diet or people with obesity. Findings support previous calls for standardized tools and measures for monitoring the healthiness of food retail environments. This is imperative to inform evidence-based policy and evaluation in this critical component of recommended obesity prevention strategies.

Systematic review of the impact of nutrition claims related to fat, sugar and energy content on food choices and energy intake.

BACKGROUND: As part of efforts to address high levels of overweight and obesity, the provision of nutrition information (e.g., through nutrition labels and nutrition claims) on food packages has increasingly become an important policy option. This study aimed to assess the influence of nutrition claims relating to fat, sugar, and energy content on product packaging on several aspects of food choices to understand how they contribute to the prevention of overweight and obesity. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted using the online databases EBSCOhost Global Health, EBSCOhost Medline, ScienceDirect, Scopus, PsycINFO and Embase. Studies were included if they measured the influence of nutrition claims relating to fat, sugar, and energy content on outcomes related to body weight, and were published between January 2003 and April 2018. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included in the review. Results showed that nutrition claims can influence the knowledge of consumers with respect to perceived healthfulness of products, as well as expected and experienced tastiness of food products - making food products with nutrition claims seem healthier and less tasty. Nutrition claims can make the appropriate portion size appear to be larger and lead to an underestimation of the energy content of food products. Nutrition claims can also influence food purchase intentions, moderated by the perceived healthfulness of the relevant food products and the health consciousness of individuals. Nutrition claims were also found to have an impact on food purchases, to influence 'consumption guilt' (i.e., feeling of guilt associated with eating), and to increase consumption, moderated by the weight status of individuals. These influences were shown to vary depending on the type of claim and food carrying the claim. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that, while nutrition claims may lead some consumers to improve their nutrition knowledge and select healthier options, it may also lead consumers to increase food consumption and overall energy intake. This may run counter to efforts to address overweight and obesity.

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.