What is the evidence on food and beverage industry interference?

What is the evidence on food and beverage industry interference? What is the evidence on food and beverage industry interference?

What is the evidence on food and beverage industry interference?

Key Information:

  • Commercial interests shape everyday environments and health—including those of the food and beverage industry, which manufactures and sells foods high in fat, salt and sugar that are often ultra-processed.
  • In recent decades, food and beverage industry profits have grown exponentially, and with them, the industry’s control over global food environments, with serious consequences for public health.
  • To protect its profits, the food and beverage industry lobbies policymakers, shapes public opinion and challenges health regulations, making industry interference a leading barrier to food policy development.
  • The food and beverage industry also promotes self-regulation to avoid government regulation and position itself as a responsible partner in public health. But research consistently shows that self-regulation fails and that government regulation is essential for protecting public health.
  • Countering industry interference is essential to passing health policies and achieving public health goals, with growing evidence of where and how this has been done successfully.

This page provides global evidence and guiding questions to help collect local evidence. Where resources are limited, global, regional and comparable-country evidence may be used.

Rates of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are rising, driven in large part by poor diets, tobacco and alcohol use. The industries behind these risk factors—including the food and beverage industry—wield significant power over everyday environments and health. Their practices and products, driven by commercial interests that often come at the expense of health, have been designated the “commercial determinants of health.” Efforts by these industries to undermine health policies that regulate their products are described as “industry interference.”

What are/is…

commercial determinants of health? Private sector activities that shape people’s environments and affect their health, directly or indirectly. This includes the strategies and approaches the private sector uses to promote products and behaviors that are detrimental to health, encompassing not just marketing and sales, but the wider systems and practices, including political activity, through which commercial actors shape health and health inequity.

commercial interests? The financial and market-related priorities of a company or industry that drive corporate decisions, including lobbying, research funding and marketing, in ways that come into tension with public health goals.

the food and beverage industry? Commercial entities involved in the production, processing and distribution of foods and beverages, including businesses that service the industry and entities representing its interests, such as trade associations. The industry is dominated by large corporations producing ultra-processed products, which shape global food systems and significantly affect public health.

  • Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are the leading cause of death and disability globally.
  • Each year, there are 41 million deaths from NCDs; this number is expected to rise to 52 million by 2030.
  • The products of just four industries—tobacco, ultra-processed products, fossil fuels and alcohol—are responsible for 41% of NCD deaths or a little over one-third of total global deaths.
  • Unhealthy diets—driven by the rise of foods high in fat, salt and sugar that are often ultra-processed—are responsible for approximately 11 million premature deaths each year.

Guiding questions to collect local evidence:

  • How prevalent are noncommunicable diseases?
    • What proportion is attributable to poor diet?
  • To what extent do commercial actors shape local food environments?

Over the last several decades, food environments have shifted toward being dominated by products high in fat, salt and sugar that are often ultra-processed. The food and beverage industry, marked by a small number of powerful companies at the helm, wields enormous influence over these environments and public health. The rise of unhealthy products has driven higher rates of diet-related chronic diseases, including Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases, contributing to millions of preventable deaths each year.

89% of brand sales of the top 20 global food and beverage companies come from products high in fat, salt and sugar. Source: Source
  • In 2020, for every US $10.00 consumers spent on these companies’ products, only $1.10 was spent on products considered healthy enough to market to children under the WHO Euro Nutrient Profile Model.
  • The top 10 manufacturers of food and beverage products control 80% of store-bought ultra-processed products globally. These transnational players are commonly referred to as “Big Food” and “Big Soda.”
  • Between 1989 and 2019, the revenue of the ultra-processed product industry almost doubled in real terms, from US$570 billion to US$1.1 trillion.
  • The global soft drink market (or “Big Soda”) is the largest ultra-processed product market, reaching nearly US$540 billion in 2019 in retail sales revenue.
  • The most comprehensive review of the risks of ultra-processed products to date found that high consumption is associated with 32 harmful health effects, including a 50% higher likelihood of dying from cardiovascular disease and a 12% higher risk of Type 2 diabetes.
  • Cardiovascular disease accounts for upwards of 18 million deaths annually and this number is projected to increase to 23 million per year by 2030.
  • Type 2 diabetes is one of the fastest-growing global health threats. An estimated 589 million adults live with diabetes today and by 2050, this number is projected to rise to 853 million.

Guiding questions to collect local evidence:

  • Who are the primary players in the food and beverage industry?
    • Who holds the major market share across different categories (e.g., salty snacks, sweetened beverages, dairy, fast food)?
    • How has the industry changed or expanded in recent years (e.g., mergers and acquisitions)?
  • What is the current burden of diet-related chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease and Type 2 diabetes—and is it growing?

The food and beverage industry sees health policy as a threat to its profits, and fights to weaken, delay or halt policies using tactics it adapts to different places and situations. These tactics undermine political and public support for such policies and understanding of the harms they address, and actively weaken the design and efficacy of measures proven to reduce obesity, diabetes and other diet-related diseases, making industry interference itself a public health issue.

Common food and beverage industry interference tactics include:

  • Corporate washing, including promoting environmental or philanthropic commitments to improve public image
  • Lobbying governments and regional and international bodies to prevent food policies from being adopted or pushing for alternatives like self-regulation
  • Threatening or taking legal action against countries and jurisdictions that introduce health policies
  • Intimidating and discrediting civil society organizations and activists pushing for healthy food policies
  • Creating narratives that redirect blame for noncommunicable diseases away from products and toward consumers (e.g., blaming lack of physical activity)
  • Funding research and campaigns to support these narratives and manufacture the appearance of scientific debate
70% of respondents in a survey of food policy stakeholders across 24 countries identified industry interference as a major barrier to food marketing policy development. Source: Source
  • A global study found at least 268 interest groups associated with the ultra-processed product industry. The companies with the most memberships—indicating the greatest influence over this network—were Nestlé, The Coca-Cola Company, Unilever, PepsiCo and Danone.
  • A study using 23 years of data from the OpenSecrets database found that the ultra-processed product industry spent more on lobbying in the United States (US $1.15 billion) than other harmful industries including gambling, tobacco and alcohol.
  • Email leaks in 2016 revealed a coordinated Coca-Cola campaign to oppose sugary drink taxes and other public health policies across 14 countries.
  • A study found that systematic reviews with financial conflicts of interest, including industry funding, were five times more likely to conclude there was no positive association between sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain or obesity than those without them.
  • In response to increased consumer awareness about the health and environmental harms of ultra-processed products, the industry is attempting to rebrand: Between 2000 and 2019, the number of products with nutritional claims jumped from approximately 2,000 to nearly 40,000, while products making ethical or environmental claims jumped from approximately 300 to nearly 30,000.

Guiding questions to collect local evidence:

  • What tactics does the food and beverage industry use to create a positive image of its products and influence food policies?
    • How does it use marketing to build political and public support for its products?
    • What corporate social responsibility initiatives does it engage in?
    • What evidence is there for the types of lobbying it engages in?
    • Which interest groups are active?
    • What kind of research has it funded?
    • What kinds of narratives does it use?
    • Has it threatened or taken legal action against any health policies?

Industry self-regulation is a process whereby the industry pledges to abide by its own rules and standards, often in the place of government regulation. The food and beverage industry pushes self-regulation as a strategy to avoid government regulation and to position itself as a responsible partner in public health. Yet research consistently shows that industry self-regulation fails to meet public health goals and that government regulation is essential to protect public health.

-> Visit Food Policy Hub’s solutions page to learn more about government-led policies for healthier food environments and why they work

  • A review of 22 studies found that food and beverage industry self-regulation commitments tend to be vague and permissive, with few measurable effects on public health outcomes.
  • A 22-country study found higher rates of television advertising for unhealthy foods and beverages during children’s viewing times in countries with industry self-regulation compared to countries with no policy at all (3.8 ads vs. 2.6 ads per hour)—and statutory government regulation outperformed both.
  • Evaluations of the U.K.’s Public Health Responsibility Deal, a public-private partnership to address public health issues including poor diet, found it was largely ineffective at addressing food issues and was associated with an estimated 9,900 additional cases of cardiovascular disease and 1,500 of gastric cancer, due to a slowdown in sodium reduction progress compared to the previous government-led policy.
  • A 2024 study found that even after the U.S. self-regulatory program strengthened its nutrition criteria for marketing to children in 2020, the products companies chose to advertise to children were significantly less nutritious than the “healthier” products they were permitted to advertise under the program.
  • In Spain, industry compliance with pledges to reduce unhealthy food and beverage marketing to children worsened over time from 51% in 2008 to just 12% in 2012. About nine in 10 ads on children’s and youth television channels did not meet commitments.

Guiding questions to collect local evidence:

  • Does the industry self-regulate food policies? (E.g., marketing or front-of-package labeling)
    • Is there independent evidence on whether these self-regulatory efforts have been effective?
    • What opportunities are there to counter industry self-regulatory efforts with advocacy and evidence on mandatory approaches?

Guidance on countering industry interference and conflicts of interest: