Food manufacturer policies and commitments

• While some food companies have nutrition-related policies and commitments in place, the overall response from the food industry to unhealthy diets and obesity falls short of global benchmarks of good practice.
• Between 2018 and 2024 food manufacturers showed progress in some areas including having a stated commitment to improve nutrition, product formulation and nutrition labelling.
• Areas where there remains considerable room for improvement include those related to corporate reporting, marketing to children, and affordability and accessibility of healthy products.
• In the absence of stronger food industry action, government regulations, such as mandatory front-of-pack nutrition labelling and restrictions on unhealthy food marketing, are urgently needed.

Nutritional quality of packaged products and uptake of Health Star Rating (HSR)

• There is large variation in the healthiness of the product portfolios of the largest packaged food and beverage manufacturers in Australia.
• A five-year review from 2019 to 2023 found 11 of the top 20 manufacturers improved the average Health Star Rating of their product portfolio, while the remaining 9 company portfolios remained unchanged or became less healthy.
• McCain Foods was the only manufacturer from the top 20 to display a HSR on 100% of their products by 2023. Manufacturers with the greatest increase in proportion of products displaying a Health Star Rating were The Smith’s Snackfood Company, Bega Cheese and Arnott’s Biscuits. There was no uptake on pack for Lactalis, Mondelēz and Peters Ice Cream.
• Across the food industry, only 36% of intended packaged food products displayed a HSR in 2023, falling well short of the 50% target set by the Australian government by November 2023, and future targets of 60% by November 2025 and 70% by November 2025.

Corporate political activity

• Many large packaged food and beverage manufacturers use a wide-range of strategies to influence public policy and public opinion in their favour, often at the expense of public health.
• Several studies have documented how food companies in Australia engage in diverse and extensive practices, such as political donations, involvement in scientific research, and corporate philanthropy, that are designed to avoid, weaken or delay policy actions that would improve public health.

• Packaged food and beverage manufacturers have a responsibility to implement a broad range of actions as part of societal efforts to create healthier food environments. Key actions required include:
  • Prioritising population nutrition as part of overall company strategies, and aligning company nutrition-related policies with global health and sustainability goals.
  • Setting measurable targets and timelines to reduce sodium, sugars, saturated fat, and artificially produced trans fat, in conjunction with government-led programs (e.g., the Healthy Food Partnership).
  • Committing to implement the Health Star Rating system across all relevant products.
  • Implementing policies on marketing to children that effectively restrict the exposure of children and adolescents (up to the age of 18) to the promotion of ‘less healthy’ products and brands.
  • Working with retailers to increase the prominence of healthier products relative to ‘less healthy’ products in-store (e.g., through shelf space and strategic placement) and in promotional catalogues.
• Governments need to closely monitor changes in company policies and practices, as well as the extent to which companies meet Healthy Food Partnership reformulation targets and Health Star Rating uptake targets. If insufficient improvements are made, governments need to consider stronger policy action and / or greater incentivisation to encourage implementation.
• Governments need to adopt strong measures to limit the influence of food companies on the process of developing policies related to nutrition and public health. Mechanisms to limit industry influence include active management of conflicts of interest, greater transparency in policy development processes, and restrictions on political donations and the ‘revolving door’ (whereby individuals move between senior positions in government and industry).
• Other stakeholder groups, including investors, need to monitor company action, particularly as part of evaluation of company contributions to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

Websites

Inside Our Food Companies

Visit the Obesity Evidence Hub for key evidence on obesity trends, impacts, prevention & treatment in Australia. Access evidence related to corporate political activity and industry influence.

Journal Articles

• Sacks G, Robinson E, Cameron AJ, Vanderlee L, Vandevijvere S, Swinburn B. (2020) Benchmarking the Nutrition-Related Policies and Commitments of Major Food Companies in Australia, 2018. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Aug 22;17(17):6118
• White M, Aguirre E, Finegood D T, Holmes C, Sacks G, Smith R et al. (2020). What role should the commercial food system play in promoting health through better diet? BMJ 2020; 368:m545
• Mialon M, Swinburn B, Allender S, Sacks G. (2016) Systematic examination of publicly-available information reveals the diverse and extensive corporate political activity of the food industry in Australia. BMC Public Health 16, 283
• Mialon M, Swinburn B, Allender S, Sacks G (2017) ‘Maximising shareholder value’: a detailed insight into the corporate political activity of the Australian food industry. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 41: 165-171
• Mialon M, Vandevijvere S, Carriedo-Lutzenkirchen A, et al. (2020) Mechanisms for addressing and managing the influence of corporations on public health policy, research and practice: a scoping review. BMJ Open 2020;10:e034082
• Robertson NM, Sacks G, Miller PG. (2019). The revolving door between government and the alcohol, food and gambling industries in Australia. Public Health Res Pract. 2019;29(3):e2931921

Reports

• Deakin University: Inside our Food Manufacturers: assessing company policies and practices for supporting healthier food environments and improving population nutrition, Australia 2024
• Deakin University: Inside our Food and Beverage Manufacturers Australia 2018: Assessment of company policies and commitments related to obesity prevention and nutrition
• The George Institute for Global Health: FoodSwitch State of the Food Supply, a five year review, Australia 2023
• The George Institute for Global Health: FoodSwitch State of the Food Supply Australia 2022
• The George Institute for Global Health: FoodSwitch State of the Food Supply Australia 2021
• The George Institute for Global Health: FoodSwitch State of the Food Supply Australia 2020