Strategies used by the Canadian food and beverage industry to influence food and nutrition policies

Abstract

Background: Unhealthy food environments contribute to the rising rates of obesity and diet-related diseases. To improve the Canadian nutritional landscape, Health Canada launched the Healthy Eating Strategy in October 2016 which involved several initiatives including the restriction of unhealthy food marketing to children, the reduction of sodium in the food supply and the introduction of front-of-package labelling. Subsequently, various stakeholders engaged in discussions with Health Canada. This study sought to describe the interactions between Health Canada and industry and non-industry stakeholders and to identify the strategies used by industry to influence food and nutrition policy in Canada. Methods: Documents such as correspondences and presentations exchanged in interactions between HealthCanada and stakeholders regarding the Healthy Eating Strategy were obtained from Health Canada's Openness and Transparency website. The participating stakeholders of each interaction and the topics discussed were determined and described quantitatively. A directed content analysis was then conducted to identify the strategies employed by industry to influence policy. This was guided by a previously developed coding framework that was adapted during analysis.Results: A total of 208 interactions concerning the Healthy Eating Strategy occurred between October 2016 and June 2018. Of the interactions for which documents were received (n = 202), 56% involved industry stakeholders, 42% involved non-industry stakeholders and 2% involved both. Industry stakeholders were more likely to initiate interactions with Health Canada (94% of their interactions) than non-industry stakeholders (49%). Front-of-package labelling was the most frequently discussed topic by industry stakeholders (discussed in 49% interactions involving industry) while non-industry stakeholders most frequently discussed the Healthy Eating Strategy as a whole (discussed in 37% of interactions involving non-industry). A wide variety of strategies were used by industry in their attempts to influence policy. Those most frequently identified included: "framing the debate on diet-and public health-related issues", "promoting deregulation", "shaping the evidence base", "stressing the economic importance of industry", and "developing and promoting alternatives to proposed policies". Conclusion: Industry stakeholders are highly active in their attempts to influence Canadian nutritional policies. Policymakers and public health advocates should be aware of these strategies so that balanced and effective food and nutrition policies can be developed.

Stakeholder interactions with the federal government related to Bill S-228 and marketing to kids in Canada: a quantitative descriptive study

“…10,11 Stakeholders employ powerful strategies -not dissimilar to those of the tobacco industry -to influence policy-makers, and understanding Stakeholder interactions with the federal government related to Bill S-228 and marketing to kids in Canada: a quantitative descriptive study these influences is critical to the development of unbiased nutrition policies. [12][13][14][15][16] Canadian research has shown that industry stakeholders are actively attempting to influence the nutrition-related policies articulated in the Healthy Eating Strategy. 12 However, the extent to which stakeholders influenced the development of Canada's restrictions on children's marketing, specifically, is unknown.…”

Food Industry Donations to Academic Programs: A Cross-Sectional Examination of the Extent of Publicly Available Data

“…The website for the Columbia Water Center at Columbia University discloses that PepsiCo was a previous supporter, but we were not able to identify any documents on the website that disclose Pepsi's level of involvement in the Center's research. These four donations reinforce concerns raised by public health experts regarding the food industry's involvement with health-related science, policy, and education [8,9,27].…”

“…The strengths of our study include the large number of companies in our sample and our extensive data collection methods, which enabled us to generate new insights on the types of academic programs that receive donations (e.g., preschools, universities) and create a comprehensive catalogue of reasons for donations among the 1667 donations that were earmarked for a specific purpose. In contrast, most previous studies on food companies' contributions to academia have largely been limited to case studies [19], studies with small samples [13,27], commentaries [8,9,22,28,29], or summaries of academic institutions' recommendations regarding the management of conflicts of interest [38].…”

“…Although the recipients of industry donations benefit from these contributions, the lack of transparency regarding industry donations to academic programs has recently received considerable scrutiny [3,4]. One concern is that industries marketing harmful products have a vested Despite increasing attention to the need for transparency regarding partnerships between the food industry and academic programs [3], studies on food companies' contributions to academia have largely been limited to case studies [19], those with small samples [13,27], or commentaries [8,9,22,28,29]. These studies provide valuable insights on the food industry's donation practices, but there are currently four gaps in this literature.…”

The Development and Application of a Tool for Quantifying the Strength of Voluntary Actions and Commitments of Major Canadian Food Companies to Improve the Nutritional Quality of Their Products

“…Many food companies in Canada and elsewhere actively attempt to influence public health nutrition policy ( 69 – 71 ). For example, an analysis of the food industry's responses to a 2014 US government consultation on product (re)formulation found that companies commonly emphasized the costs and challenges involved in reformulation and argued for voluntary (rather than mandatory) governance of product (re)formulation policies ( 70 ).…”