In new report in Public Health Nutrition, Lacy Nichols and colleagues used a data set of industry documents published by the Australian Beverages Council (ABC) between 1998 and 2016 to analyze the evolution of the soft drink industry’s use of self-regulation as a response to obesity. They also examined the motivations driving its development and the strategies used to promote it to policy makers.
A new study in Public Health Nutrition analyzed the corporate political activity (CPA) of major food industry actors in France. The analysis shows that the main practices used by Coca-Cola and McDonald’s were the framing of diet and public health issues in ways favorable to the company, and their involvement in the community. The French National Association of Agribusiness Industries primarily used the ‘information and messaging’ strategy (e.g. by promoting deregulation and shaping the evidence base on diet- and public health-related issues), as well as the ‘policy substitution’ strategy. Nestlé framed diet and public health issues and shaped the evidence based on diet- and public health-related issues. Carrefour particularly sought involvement in the community. The authors found that, in 2015, the food industry in France was using CPA practices that were also used by other industries in the past, such as the tobacco and alcohol industries. Because most, if not all, of these practices proved detrimental to public health when used by the tobacco industry, we propose that the precautionary principle should guide decisions when engaging or interacting with the food industry.
A recent commentary in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition offered a “critical appraisal” of NOVA as a system of classifying foods. NOVA (a name not an acronym) classifies all foods and food products into four clearly distinct groups: unprocessed or minimally processed foods, processed culinary ingredients, processed foods and ultra-processed food and drink products. The authors of the AJCN commentary challenge many of the basic arguments of using the NOVA food classification system to examine the link between food and health.
In a response to this commentary in Public Health Nutrition, Carlos Monteiro and other developers of the NOVA system, correct inaccurate statements made about NOVA in the ‘appraisal,’ rebut points raised, and discuss the larger issue of scientific responsibility for publishing opposing views on controversial topics. They conclude, “the NOVA classification system challenges a much older and dominant system of classifying foods based on nutrient composition. Of course, it should be appraised. But scientific advances come from the exchange of well-reasoned and supported arguments, and from balanced debate. We invite further discourse on the topic of ultra-processed foods, for the sake of science and public health. We also respectfully suggest that all journals take on the responsibility of encouraging the informed and constructive exchange of ideas in controversial areas.”