Citerank: (10) 351042Strategies of some companies are fuelling the obesity crisisSome companies and industries are fuelling the obesity crisis, through a variety of strategies that prioritise profitability and corporate brand value over public health, and, in the process, externalise significant costs.555CD992, 351051Some degree of public regulation is necessarySome degree of public regulation is necessary to achieve public health targets on obesity – and this needs to be supported by standards set and monitored by public health expert committees to improve industry performance in the nutritional quality of food products and in marketing the products to children.1198CE71, 351336Insufficient countervailing checks to oligopoly in food supply chainsThe majority of what most people eat is driven increasingly by the production and distribution decisions of a few multinational food companies, whose oligopolistic interest are not necessarily aligned with the public health interest. Successive governments have failed to establish sufficient countervailing public policy measures to ensure that, where these interests are not aligned, the oligopolistic interests of the companies don't impact negatively on public health.555CD992, 368179Production and marketing choices favour profit over diet optimisationDecisions made by many food and beverage companies tend to be shaped more by the immediate corporate financial interests of shareholders (and the associated interests of corporate officers) rather than the social goal of achieving optimal human diets; as reflected in, for example, the production and marketing a high volume of low-cost, highly processed foods that are rich in sugar, salt, and saturated fats.555CD992, 368180Resisting public health interventionsEvidence suggests that some food and beverage companies are adopting similar tactics to those adopted earlier by the tobacco companies to avoid public health interventions (such as taxation and regulation) that might threaten their profits.555CD992, 399591Some degree of public regulation is necessarySome degree of public regulation is necessary to achieve public health targets on obesity – and this needs to be supported by standards set and monitored by public health expert committees to improve industry performance in the nutritional quality of food products and in marketing the products to children.1198CE71, 399888Strategies of some companies are fuelling the obesity crisisSome companies and industries are fuelling the obesity crisis, through a variety of strategies that prioritise profitability and corporate brand value over public health, and, in the process, externalise significant costs.555CD992, 399894Public health interventions are often resistedEvidence suggests that, for example, some food and beverage companies are adopting similar tactics to those adopted earlier by the tobacco companies to avoid public health interventions (such as taxation and regulation) that might threaten their profits.555CD992, 399895Production and marketing choices favour profit over diet optimisationDecisions made by many food and beverage companies tend to be shaped more by the immediate corporate financial interests of shareholders (and the associated interests of corporate officers) rather than the social goal of achieving optimal human diets; as reflected in, for example, the production and marketing a high volume of low-cost, highly processed foods that are rich in sugar, salt, and saturated fats.555CD992, 399901Insufficient countervailing checks to oligopoly in food supply chainsThe majority of what most people eat is driven increasingly by the production and distribution decisions of a few multinational food companies, whose oligopolistic interest are not necessarily aligned with the public health interest. Successive governments have failed to establish sufficient countervailing public policy measures to ensure that, where these interests are not aligned, the oligopolistic interests of the companies don't impact negatively on public health.555CD992

We need food, but the obesity crisis is made worse by the way industry formulates and markets its products. The food industry, like other industries must be regulated to prevent excesses and to protect the public good. Left to regulate itself, industry has the opportunity, if not the mandate from shareholders, to sell more products irrespective of their impact on consumers. Government, foundations, and other powerful institutions should be working for regulation, not collaboration.

If history is to look back positively on current times, the future must bring several things. Respectful dialogue with industry is desirable, and to the extent industry will make voluntary changes that inch us forward, the public good will be served. But there must be recognition that this will bring small victories only and that to take the obesity problem seriously will require courage, leaders who will not back down in the face of harsh industry tactics, and regulation with purpose.

Citerank: (18) 351052Corporate interests are often in tension with public health interestSelf-regulatory measures often struggle to accomplish sufficient public health impact, as corporate financial interests are often in tension with the public health interest.13EF597B, 368180Resisting public health interventionsEvidence suggests that some food and beverage companies are adopting similar tactics to those adopted earlier by the tobacco companies to avoid public health interventions (such as taxation and regulation) that might threaten their profits.555CD992, 368618Place onus of proof on industryThe onus should be on companies to demonstrate rigorously and independently that the self-regulatory measures and/or private–public partnerships are improving public health as well as private profit. Where this is found to be case, the specific methods should be extended and replicated.565CA4D9, 370365Unhealthier foods are engineered to be tastierFood scientists have become adept at understanding how our brains respond to, and react to, and crave tastes, smells and textures, and have become adept at engineering and processing foods to take advantage of that – largely by adding lots of salt, sugar and fat – and to make these foods almost irresistible to our brains.555CD992, 371073Self-regulation and public-private partnerships have worked beforeIndustry self-regulation and public-private partnerships have worked successfully in the public interest in a number of cases.1198CE71, 371074Self-regulation in the forestry and fisheries industries62C78C9A, 371075Pharmaceutical company drug donationsDonations by pharmaceutical companies of mectizan for river blindness, mebendazole to eliminate intestinal parasites, and azithromycin to treat trachoma have supported health agencies and benefited millions of persons with debilitating diseases – and illustrate who public-private partnerships can also promote health.62C78C9A, 371077Folate fortification of flour and bread productsFolate fortification of flour and bread products to help reduce rates of neural tube defects is an example of the way in which public-private collaborations with the food industry can boost public health.62C78C9A, 371078Shaping public understanding and scientific researchWell-resourced food companies are able to recruit leading nutritional scientist, experts and researchers to guide and justify product development, reformulation and health impact. Research suggests that studies funded by industry are 4- to 8-fold more likely to support conclusions favourable to the industry.555CD992, 399703Corporate interests are often in tension with public health interestSelf-regulatory measures often struggle to accomplish sufficient public health impact, as corporate financial interests are often in tension with the public health interest.13EF597B, 399709Place onus of proof on industryThe onus should be on companies to demonstrate rigorously and independently that the self-regulatory measures and/or private–public partnerships are improving public health as well as private profit. Where this is found to be case, the specific methods should be extended and replicated.565CA4D9, 399710Self-regulation and public-private partnerships have worked beforeIndustry self-regulation and public-private partnerships have worked successfully in the public interest in a number of cases.1198CE71, 399788Self-regulation in the forestry and fisheries industries62C78C9A, 399789Pharmaceutical company drug donationsDonations by pharmaceutical companies of mectizan for river blindness, mebendazole to eliminate intestinal parasites, and azithromycin to treat trachoma have supported health agencies and benefited millions of persons with debilitating diseases – and illustrate who public-private partnerships can also promote health.62C78C9A, 399790Folate fortification of flour and bread productsFolate fortification of flour and bread products to help reduce rates of neural tube defects is an example of the way in which public-private collaborations with the food industry can boost public health.62C78C9A, 399894Public health interventions are often resistedEvidence suggests that, for example, some food and beverage companies are adopting similar tactics to those adopted earlier by the tobacco companies to avoid public health interventions (such as taxation and regulation) that might threaten their profits.555CD992, 399916Shaping public understanding and scientific researchWell-resourced food companies are able to recruit leading nutritional scientist, experts and researchers to guide and justify product development, reformulation and health impact. Research suggests that studies funded by industry are 4- to 8-fold more likely to support conclusions favourable to the industry.555CD992, 399920Unhealthier foods are engineered to be tastierFood scientists have become adept at understanding how our brains respond to, and react to, and crave tastes, smells and textures, and have become adept at engineering and processing foods to take advantage of that – largely by adding lots of salt, sugar and fat – and to make these foods almost irresistible to our brains.555CD992

To avoid public criticism and forestall government intervention, the food and beverage industry hopes that self-regulation is sufficient1 and also seeks to establish public-private partnerships. This reaction is common in industries under threat and can take helpful or harmful forms.

Industry self-regulation can sometimes work in the public interest, with forestry and fisheries serving as examples.1,2 Public-private partnerships can also promote health. For instance, donations by pharmaceutical companies of mectizan for river blindness, mebendazole to eliminate intestinal parasites, and azithromycin to treat trachoma have supported health agencies and benefited millions of persons with debilitating diseases. The food industry has demonstrated its ability to contribute to the public's health through folate fortification of flour and bread products, a productive public-private collaboration aimed at reducing rates of neural tube defects. In other cases, such as tobacco, self-regulation and public-private partnerships have a long history of undermining public health.3

The 2011 UN high-level meeting on non-communicable diseases (NCDs) called for multisectoral action including with the private sector and industry. However, through the sale and promotion of tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food and drink (unhealthy commodities), transnational corporations are major drivers of global epidemics of NCDs. What role then should these industries have in NCD prevention and control? We emphasise the rise in sales of these unhealthy commodities in low-income and middle-income countries, and consider the common strategies that the transnational corporations use to undermine NCD prevention and control. We assess the effectiveness of self-regulation, public–private partnerships, and public regulation models of interaction with these industries and conclude that unhealthy commodity industries should have no role in the formation of national or international NCD policy. Despite the common reliance on industry self-regulation and public–private partnerships, there is no evidence of their effectiveness or safety. Public regulation and market intervention are the only evidence-based mechanisms to prevent harm caused by the unhealthy commodity industries.