How can food and beverage industry interference be countered? How can food and beverage industry interference be countered?
There are many players along the food supply chain, but when it comes to food policy, the central actors are large transnational manufacturers of foods high in fat, salt and sugar that are often ultra-processed. These transnational players are often colloquially referred to as “Big Food” and “Big Soda.” Just 11 manufacturers—predominantly based in high-income countries—control most (80%+) ultra-processed products sold in stores worldwide.
Learn more about what the food and beverage industry looks like:
This concentration has allowed companies to generate large profits and exert significant market and policy influence. Aided by global trade agreements, crop subsidies, foreign investment, and mergers and acquisitions to develop regional and local brands, these companies have continued to expand their reach worldwide.
- Learn how Big Soda takes over local markets: 37-47 of the Center for Science in the Public Interest’s CARBONATING THE WORLD The Marketing and Health Impact of Sugar Drinks in Low- and Middle-income Countries
Beyond manufacturers, other important local players in the food supply chain include agribusiness, farmers, distributers, importers, exporters and retailers.1 Industry interests are often advanced locally through trade associations, industry-funded foundations and front groups that pose as independent organizations but are in fact industry-sponsored.
- Examples of industry trade organizations, front groups and more: 3 of UNICEF’s Addressing food and beverage industry interference in policy-making
- Analysis of interest groups associated with the global ultra-processed product industry: Slater et al.’s Corporate interest groups and their implications for global food governance: mapping and analysing the global corporate influence network of the transnational ultra-processed food industry
- Key industry actors in the baby food industry: P. 9 of UNICEF’s Protecting Infant and Young Child Nutrition from Industry Interference and Conflicts of Interest
Mapping the global and local actors in your local context is a good place to start.
- How to map the food and beverage industry:
Resources:
- Center for Science in the Public Interest: CARBONATING THE WORLD The Marketing and Health Impact of Sugar Drinks in Low- and Middle-income Countries
- Food Policy Hub: Countering industry interference evidence page
- Mialon et al.: A proposed approach to systematically identify and monitor the corporate political activity of the food industry with respect to public health using publicly available information
- Slater et al.: Corporate interest groups and their implications for global food governance: mapping and analysing the global corporate influence network of the transnational ultra-processed food industry
- UNICEF: Addressing food and beverage industry interference in policy-making
The food and beverage industry views regulation of its products as a threat to its bottom line, creating conflicts of interest with governments’ nutrition-focused policymaking. Adequate measures must be in place to prevent, mitigate or manage the conflicts of interest and ensure that public health remains the paramount consideration in policymaking and implementation.1
The industry will fight aggressively to block, weaken and stall public health measures.8 Under growing public health pressure, its tactics have shifted from outright opposition toward more subtle efforts to weaken policies.9,10
Tactics generally look like this:1,7,8,11,12
Actions
- Attack the policy design and its evidence while proposing watered-down measures, such as voluntary self-regulation, weaker nutrition criteria or a less effective front-of-package labeling design.
- Evidence on how industry self-regulation has detracted from public health goals: Global Food Research Program at UNC Chapel-Hill’s Industry Self-regulation: Empty pledges
- Present itself as part of the solution through corporate responsibility initiatives on health, economic, social and environmental issues.
- Lobby governments and international bodies for favorable decisions and push for seats at policymaking tables.
- Framework to categorize the industry’s public health-related political activity: Table 1 on p. 522 of Mialon et al’s A proposed approach to systematically identify and monitor the corporate political activity of the food industry with respect to public health using publicly available information
- Seek out policy loopholes to continue promoting harmful products, such as reformulating products to fall below regulatory thresholds without improving nutritional quality, or shifting marketing to channels not covered by restrictions, such as digital media.
- Threaten or pursue legal action against governments or civil society.
- Influence science and research to cast doubt on the harms of products.
- Learn more about the food and beverage industry’s corporate scientific activities: Scrinis’ Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition
- Cultivate media coverage sympathetic to its position.
Narratives
- Shift blame for health and social harms onto individuals or parents rather than industry products, for example, by attributing rising rates of overweight and obesity to lack of physical activity.
- Intimidate and discredit civil society organizations and activists pushing for healthy food policies.
- Frame regulation as government overreach that undermines personal choice (“nanny state”).
- Claim that its products, including breast milk substitutes and follow-up formulas, help address malnutrition—despite evidence to the contrary.
- Overstate its economic contributions and warn that regulation would harm the economy.
More details on industry tactics:
Global examples of tactics as they relate to specific policy areas:
- Global Health Advocacy Incubator’s
How to counter common industry tactics and arguments:
- See Food Policy Hub’s evidence pages for evidence on the effectiveness of specific policies
- Global Health Advocacy Incubator and Global Food Research Program at UNC-Chapel Hill’s Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxation – Industry Arguments
- World Bank’s Countering Common Arguments Against Taxes on Sugary Drinks
Front-of-package warning labels:
- Global Health Advocacy Incubator’s Front-of-Package Warning Labeling
- HEALA’s Big Food’s tactics against unhealthy food environment regulation
Food and beverage marketing restrictions:
- UNICEF’s Countering industry arguments against laws restricting unhealthy food marketing
- Learn more:
- Food Policy Hub’s marketing restrictions evidence page
- Global Health Advocacy Incubator’s Marketing Exposed: A Global Public Health Threat for Food Policy
- Examples of how Big Soda has marketed its sugary drinks, especially to children: 26-35 of the Center for Science in the Public Interest’s CARBONATING THE WORLD The Marketing and Health Impact of Sugar Drinks in Low- and Middle-income Countries
- How the food and beverage industry is using artificial intelligence to reach consumers: Brooks et al.’s Use of artificial intelligence to enable dark nudges by transnational food and beverage companies: analysis of company documents
The food and beverage industry also uses marketing and corporate social responsibility tactics on an ongoing basis to normalize and sell its products and cultivate a reputation as a good corporate citizen that cares about people, the economy and the environment.
Resources:
- Brook et al.: Use of artificial intelligence to enable dark nudges by transnational food and beverage companies: analysis of company documents
- Center for Science in the Public Interest: CARBONATING THE WORLD The Marketing and Health Impact of Sugar Drinks in Low- and Middle-income Countries
- Food Policy Hub: marketing restrictions evidence page
- Global Health Advocacy Incubator: Behind the labels: Big Food’s War on Healthy Food Policies
- Global Health Advocacy Incubator: Front-of-Package Warning Labeling
- Global Health Advocacy Incubator: Marketing Exposed: A Global Public Health Threat for Food Policy
- Global Health Advocacy Incubator, Global Food Research Program at UNC-Chapel Hill: Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxation – Industry Arguments
- Global Health Advocacy Incubator: Sweetened Profits: The Industry’s Playbook to Fight Sweetened Beverage Taxes
- HEALA: Big Food’s tactics against unhealthy food environment regulation
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health: Advocating for Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxation A Case Study of Mexico
- Lauber et al.: Big food and the World Health Organization: a qualitative study of industry attempts to influence global-level non-communicable disease policy
- Mialon et al: A proposed approach to systematically identify and monitor the corporate political activity of the food industry with respect to public health using publicly available information
- Moodie: What Public Health Practitioners Need to Know About Unhealthy Industry Tactics
- Scrinis: Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition
- Global Food Research Program at UNC Chapel-Hill: Industry Self-regulation: Empty pledges
- UNICEF: Countering industry arguments against laws restricting unhealthy food marketing
- World Bank: Countering Common Arguments Against Taxes on Sugary Drinks
Monitoring of the food and beverage industry should be an ongoing, iterative process; it is especially important in the lead-up to a policy, as well as during and after its introduction.
Media monitoring, social listening, and analysis of public statements, documents and activities by industry players—including trade associations and front groups—can help identify patterns of interference. Findings should be documented in published reports, publicized in the media, shared with policymakers, and used in communication campaigns to advance government-led health policies.
- The Global Health Advocacy Incubator has collected examples of industry actions from more than 50 countries and analyzed them for patterns, view their reports to learn more about their methodology and review findings.
- Methodological approach to identify and monitor the industry’s corporate political activity: Mialon et al.’s A proposed approach to systematically identify and monitor the corporate political activity of the food industry with respect to public health using publicly available information
- The researchers have used the approach to identify activities in Australia, Colombia, Fiji, France and Latin America and the Caribbean, as part of the INFORMAS network.
Resources:
Coalition-building
A coalition of civil society organizations presents the strongest front to counter industry interference and advance healthy food policies. Effective coalitions bring together organizations with diverse expertise, including legal, media and advocacy, to mount a coordinated response.
- See Food Policy Hub’s case studies:
Media advocacy
- Get ahead of industry narratives by building a strong communication strategy that frames the policy debate in terms of public values—protecting children’s health, transparency, etc.
- Run de-normalization campaigns that expose harmful industry practices and shift public attitudes.
- Use industry documents to expose interference tactics and fuel media campaigns and legal action.
- How advocates are using University of California at San Francisco’s Industry Documents Library: Global Health Advocacy Incubator’s webinar Using UCSF’s Food Industry Documents Archive to Support Food Policy Advocacy
- Example campaigns:
- Caribbean: Healthy Caribbean Coalition’s “Make it Make Sense”
- Colombia: El Colectivo de Abogados José Alvear Restrepo (CAJAR)’s Dulce Veneno website
- Sample communication strategy framework (for front-of-package labels): 37 of Vital Strategies, Global Health Advocacy Incubator and O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law’s What’s In Our Food?
- Tools to create a comprehensive communication strategy: Global Health Advocacy Incubator’s Communications and Media Advocacy Action Guide
Resources:
- Global Health Advocacy Incubator: Communications and Media Advocacy Action Guide
- Global Health Advocacy Incubator: Effective Advocacy Through Public Comments to Agencies
- Global Health Advocacy Incubator: Using UCSF’s Food Industry Documents Archive to Support Food Policy Advocacy
- Vital Strategies, Global Health Advocacy Incubator and O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law: What’s In Our Food A guide to introducing effective front-of-package nutrient labels
Civil society should:
- Stay attuned to global and local policy and guidelines discussions and expose industry efforts to undermine them. For global guidelines like those released by WHO, organizations should comment on draft guidelines and engage member states in discussions to support their positions.
- Prepare robust evidence-backed arguments to protect policy, including making the case against self-regulation.
- Build legal preparedness early and be prepared to go on offense—anticipate industry legal threats and explore proactive litigation strategies to compel governments to meet their human rights obligations, expose industry deception and hold companies accountable for health harms.
- Searchable database of food laws and court decisions: Global Health Advocacy Incubator and O’Neill Institute at Georgetown University’s FULL database
- Comprehensive guide to legal advocacy: Global Health Advocacy Incubator’s Legal Advocacy Action Guide Legal Strategies for Public Health and Industry Accountability
- The food and beverage industry routinely submits comments during public consultation periods to weaken policies. Civil society organizations should coordinate to submit comments in response, ensuring policymakers hear from health advocates alongside industry.
- Guidance on submitting effective public comments: Global Health Advocacy Incubator’s Effective Advocacy Through Public Comments to Agencies
- If a policy is legally challenged, encourage supportive organizations to submit amicus briefs based on their areas of expertise.
- Ensure civil society leaders participating in advocacy or policymaking processes are free from conflicts of interest with the food and beverage industry.
- Demand that governments be transparent throughout the policy process and offer support by highlighting the best practices below.
Guidance on managing conflicts of interest:
- Practical framework for identifying and managing conflicts of interest in nutrition policy: PAHO’s Preventing and Managing Conflicts of Interest in Country-Level Nutrition Programs
- Management of conflicts of interest in nutrition policy: Food and Agriculture Organization’s Management of potential conflicts of interest in nutrition policy
Regulating corporations, not just products
Researchers are increasingly calling for food policy to move beyond regulating individual products and instead target the full operational scope of ultra-processed products corporations, including their brand portfolios, marketing strategies and sales structures. Proposed measures include restricting the proportion of ultra-processed products in corporate portfolios and supermarket sales, anti-trust regulations and restrictions on mergers and acquisitions to limit corporate monopolization and enforcing tax obligations to curb excessive corporate profits and restore governments’ fiscal capacity to fund food and nutrition policies.
Read more: Scrinis et al.’s Policies to halt and reverse the rise in ultra-processed food production, marketing, and consumption
Resources:
- Food and Agriculture Organization: Management of potential conflicts of interest in nutrition policy
- Global Health Advocacy Incubator: Effective Advocacy Through Public Comments to Agencies
- Global Health Advocacy Incubator and O’Neill Institute at Georgetown University: FULL database
- Global Health Advocacy Incubator: Industry Watch Reports
- Global Health Advocacy Incubator: Legal Advocacy Action Guide Legal Strategies for Public Health and Industry Accountability
- PAHO: Preventing and Managing Conflicts of Interest in Country-Level Nutrition Programs
- Scrinis et al.: Policies to halt and reverse the rise in ultra-processed food production, marketing, and consumption
Reviewing food and beverage industry responses to policies enacted elsewhere can help policymakers build stronger, more comprehensive policies with fewer loopholes. Once a policy is implemented, robust monitoring and evaluation should be used to track industry interference and inform any necessary revisions. This interference may include legal action, misleading media narratives about a policy’s “negative consequences,” product reformulation as a strategy to appear responsive while resisting stronger measures, and marketing strategies such as those outlined below.
- Ongoing tracking of industry strategies used to undermine healthy food policies globally: Global Health Advocacy Incubator’s Industry Watch Reports
- For more examples of marketing interference: Food Policy Hub’s marketing restriction pages
Changes in distribution, packaging and placement
Companies have adapted product packaging and displays to circumvent policies. For example, manufacturers have continued using banned marketing tools, such as cartoon characters on elements other than product packaging or snippets of recognizable characters, or redesigned reformulated products to look nearly identical to the originals.
Changes in product size or composition
Changing portion sizes or reformulating products is a common industry response to undermine food policies such as taxes or front-of-package labels. The industry may then use new messaging in its marketing materials to emphasize that its products were reformulated to be “healthier.”
- More on why reformulation may undermine public health: Scrinis and Monteiro’s Ultra-processed foods and the limits of product reformulation
Resources:
- Global Health Advocacy Incubator: Industry Watch Reports
- Scrinis and Monteiro: Ultra-processed foods and the limits of product reformulation