Trust and responsibility in food systems transformation. Engaging with Big Food: marriage or mirage?

Abstract

Concentration of power among transnational ‘Big Food’ companies has contributed to food systems that are unsustainable, unhealthy and inequitable for people and planet. Given these commercial determinants of health, if ‘food systems transformation’ is to be authentic—more than a passing narrative—then leveraging Big Food is paramount. To this end, researchers, practitioners and policy-makers are increasingly encouraged to engage with these powerful entities. However, given the conflicts of interest at stake, engagement relies on trust and transparency, that all stakeholders take responsibility for their actions and demonstrate commitment to do no harm. Given Big Food’s track record in influencing policy, shifting costs and responsibility for their harms—and while profit primarily drives business decision making—we question whether it is logical to expect trust.This analysis explores concepts of responsibility and trust in relation to food systems transformation involving public-private partnerships. Through short cautionary case studies—looking at the United Nations Food Systems Summit, and Big Food’s plastic burden—it argues that unless such companies take responsibility for their cross-cutting effects and earn authentic trust through demonstrably doing no harm, their participation in evidence generation and policy processes should be limited to responding to information requests and adhering to regulation. Any involvement in research agenda-setting or formulating policy solutions introduces conflicts of interest, legitimises corporate irresponsibility and jeopardises scientific integrity. Big Food has dynamism and power to address food system problems, but while it contributes to so many of these problems it should follow—not formulate—transformational evidence, policies and regulations.

Plastic pollution: how can the global health community fight the growing problem?

“…6 Moreover, the plastic industry’s colossal economic and political power allows large multinational plastic producers to transfer the cost and burden of pollution to the public, despite their role as the primary polluters. 43 44 In this dynamic, the burden of pollution is the highest among the least powerful and most vulnerable groups, such as children, workers in the informal waste sector, communities living near burning sites and marginalised communities who are at the receiving end of most unmanaged plastic wastes and their polluting effects. 8 45 46 …”

The time is ripe for ESG + Nutrition: evidence-based nutrition metrics for Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investing

“…For example, regulatory risks for food sector businesses to address nutrition are rapidly growing, such as national front-of-package labels, warning labels, taxation, procurement policies, limitations on additives, and marketing restrictions [10,11]. Reputational risks are similarly mounting, through societal pressure to hold private sector actors accountable for their role in diet-related health and advocacy efforts to expose tactics used by food sector businesses that harm public health [12]. Market forces mirror these trends, as many consumers, in particular younger consumers, are demanding healthier, more authentic food and beverage products as well as greater transparency around these priorities [12][13][14].…”

“…Reputational risks are similarly mounting, through societal pressure to hold private sector actors accountable for their role in diet-related health and advocacy efforts to expose tactics used by food sector businesses that harm public health [12]. Market forces mirror these trends, as many consumers, in particular younger consumers, are demanding healthier, more authentic food and beverage products as well as greater transparency around these priorities [12][13][14]. The negative externalities of poor nutrition and associated disease burdens, including lost work productivity and increased healthcare spending, likewise present major financial risks for not only the food sector, but all private sector enterprises and national economies [15].…”

The elephant in the room is really a cow: using consumption corridors to define sustainable meat consumption in the European Union

“…Inclusion is especially important for the transformation of the food system (Bui et al 2019) where power asymmetries, including the vested interests of big agri-food corporations, have been widely documented (Fuchs et al 2016;Morgan et al 2008;Yates et al 2021). It has been argued that concentrated corporate power in the food system tends to shape the direction of change in ways that maintain the status quo, hindering transformation towards more sustainable and inclusive outcomes (Conti et al 2021).…”