Find Actions
What we know: There is limited but suggestive evidence on the efficacy of reformulation at the food supply chain level (e.g., by reforming the diet of cows). One cited study found this type of reformulation was associated with reduced levels of saturated fats and increased amounts of monounsaturated fats and poly-unsaturated fats within milk and dairy products (see Livingstone et al., 2012 in Hyseni et al., 2017).
Types of identified mandatory restrictions: mandatory bans and/or restrictions of direct/indirect promotion of food or non-alcoholic drink that is high in fat, salt, and/or sugar (HFSS) on public property and assets (e.g., outdoor advertising, public transport).
What we know: Restrictions on HFSS food and beverage marketing and advertising have been widely implemented globally and are likely to have beneficial effects considering the known influence of HFSS marketing and advertising on increasing consumption and negative health outcomes (e.g., obesity, dental caries) but there are few evaluations of existing policies to make conclusive statements about the individual efficacy of these policies (Pereira et al., 2021; Hyseni et al., 2017; Burgaz et al., 2023; Chung et al., 2021; Love et al., 2022; MacKenbach et al., 2022). Part of the challenge in evaluating the effects of specific restrictions on marketing and advertising, particularly outdoor advertising, is that it is difficult to isolate the individual effects of the policy from other wider contextual changes and/or policies being implemented at the same time (Chung et al., 2021). Where evidence is available though, positive effects on improving diets has been indicated for policies that seek to ban or limit exposure to unhealthy food products (Burgaz et al., 2023). Current evidence also suggests that banning advertising for energy drinks, which can have high levels of caffeine and sugar, can reduce energy drink consumption (Rostami et al., 2024). Evidence also suggests that bans and restrictions on the advertising of unhealthy F&B are very cost-effective (Love et al., 2022; McKinnon et al., 2016), with Chung et al., (2021) stating that no evidence has suggested regulation of outdoor advertising is associated with negative financial impacts to governments and recent findings proposing the opposite, with Transport for London’s advertising revenue going slightly up one-year post-implementation their HFSS ban.
Examples of implementation: Along with London’s HFSS ban in its Transport for London premises, Chung et al., (2021) reported that Australian Capital Territory also has policies specifically focused on restricting HFSS advertising on public transportation.
Types of identified policies: ban on billboard advertisements for unhealthy products targeted at children and teenagers (up to 18y/o); bans on any commercial advertising (including outdoor) directed at children <13 years, including food and beverage marketing; restrictions on food and beverage product TV ads appealing to children; bans on unhealthy food and drinks sponsorship of sports event where more than 25% of the audience are children (Amsterdam).
What we know: Restrictions on HFSS food and beverage marketing and advertising have been widely implemented globally and are likely to have beneficial effects considering the known influence of HFSS marketing and advertising on increasing consumption and negative health outcomes (e.g., obesity, dental caries) for children but there are few evaluations of existing policies to make conclusive statements about the individual efficacy of these policies (Pereira et al., 2021; Hyseni et al., 2017; Burgaz et al., 2023; Chung et al., 2021; Love et al., 2022; MacKenbach et al., 2022). Where evidence is available, positive effects on improving diets has been indicated for policies that seek to ban or limit exposure to unhealthy food products (Burgaz et al., 2023). Restricting food and beverage TV ads targeting children appears to be a cost-effective, with a evidence from Australia suggesting avoided DALYs and significant potential savings in future healthcare costs (McKinnon et al., 2016, Appendix Table 1).
Examples of implementation: Since 2018, Amsterdam has banned billboard advertisements for unhealthy products targeted at children and teenagers (up to 18 y/o) in its 58 metro stations (Chung et al., 2021), and as noted by Danielli et al., (2021), Amsterdam also bans unhealthy food and drink sponsorship of sports events where more than 25% of the audience are children. The Canadian region of Quebec goes even further with its Consumer Protection Act (1980), which is a broader-based policy that enables regulation of marketing in outdoor spaces and publicly owned assets, and bans any commercial advertising (indoor and outdoor) directed at children under 13 years old including food and beverage marketing (Chung et al., 2021). Sweden has banned TV commercials/advertisements targeting children under 12 and restrictions on advertising to children are present in Norway, Denmark, Austria, Ireland, Australia, Greece and Portugal (Pereira et al., 2021).
What we know: Comparisons of voluntary and mandatory marketing restrictions have all shown that voluntary marketing restrictions by the food industry are less effective than mandatory government regulations (Burgaz et al., 2023). While mandatory approaches have been associated with decreases in sales per capita of unhealthy products, voluntary self-regulatory approaches have been associated with either no changes (Chung et al., 2021) or increases in sales (Burgaz et al., 2023). Voluntary self-regulatory pledges have been shown to have weaker, limited scopes such as only apply to programming with a certain percentage of children viewers and/or certain groups of children (e.g., not applying to adolescents), not applying to family programming or other forms of promotion (e.g., youth-targeted product packaging or in-store promotions) and having no and/or limited mechanisms for independent monitoring and evaluation (Musicus et al., 2020).
Further description of action: These receipts provide personalised suggestions for consumers that are designed to reduce fat and calorie consumption by suggesting healthier item substitutions.
What we know: There is limited evidence but a cited evaluation of a receipt-based intervention indicated that personalised receipts were associated with increased healthier item substitutions (e.g., frozen yogurt for ice cream) and a small increase in revenue for the participating businesses but no significant changes were noted in total energy or total fat content per transaction (see Bedard and Kuhn 2013 in Hillier-Brown et al., 2017a).
What we know: There is limited evidence demonstrating the efficacy of energy drink labelling policies, with Rostami et al., (2024) stating that available evidence indicates that labelling has no impact on the purchase and consumption of energy drinks (Rostami et al., 2024). The lack of specific frameworks and guidelines for energy drinks presents a regulatory gap, which enables companies to exploit loopholes and engage in inadequate labelling practices (Rostami et al., 2024).
What we know: There is limited evidence demonstrating the efficacy of compulsory income management. Cited evaluations of the implementation of this policy within Australia, in which 50% of Indigenous people's social security payments were reserved for essential items including groceries, found no impact on their purchasing of fruits, vegetables and soft drink purchases and negative effects on birth outcomes (i.e., reductions to birth weights by over 100g and increase probability of low birth weight by 30%) (see Brimblecombe et al., 2010 and Doyle, Schurer and Silburn 2017 in Browne et al., 2020).
Examples of implementation: The small city of Stevenson (Washington, USA) implemented this intervention by hosting a nutrition and food label education booth at a local grocery store on weekends (see Tran 2010 in Danielli et al., 2021).
Examples of implementation: The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene developed two databases to monitor the nutrient content of packaged and restaurant foods over time as a way to measure the progress of the National Salt Reduction Initiative (NSRI) - a New York City Department of Health-led public-private partnership coalition involving 100+ state and local health authorities and national health organisations with food manufacturers and restaurants focused on promoting salt reduction in packaged and restaurant foods (Musicus et al., 2020).
Examples of implementation: Several local Food Policy Groups and Councils have developed educational and capacity building opportunities for people experiencing food insecurity to improve their health (Godrich et al., 2023). The Brighton and Hove Food Partnership (UK) partnered with Moneyworks to deliver financial counselling on food budgeting to people experiencing food poverty as well as Possibility People to develop employment projects for increasing employment among people at risk of food poverty (Godrich et al., 2023).