Background: As part of efforts to address high levels of overweight and obesity, the provision of nutrition information (e.g., through nutrition labels and nutrition claims) on food packages has increasingly become an important policy option. This study aimed to assess the influence of nutrition claims relating to fat, sugar, and energy content on product packaging on several aspects of food choices to understand how they contribute to the prevention of overweight and obesity.Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted using the online databases EBSCOhost Global Health, EBSCOhost Medline, ScienceDirect, Scopus, PsycINFO and Embase. Studies were included if they measured the influence of nutrition claims relating to fat, sugar, and energy content on outcomes related to body weight, and were published between January 2003 and April 2018.Results: Eleven studies were included in the review. Results showed that nutrition claims can influence the knowledge of consumers with respect to perceived healthfulness of products, as well as expected and experienced tastiness of food products – making food products with nutrition claims seem healthier and less tasty. Nutrition claims can make the appropriate portion size appear to be larger and lead to an underestimation of the energy content of food products. Nutrition claims can also influence food purchase intentions, moderated by the perceived healthfulness of the relevant food products and the health consciousness of individuals. Nutrition claims were also found to have an impact on food purchases, to influence ‘consumption guilt’ (i.e., feeling of guilt associated with eating), and to increase consumption, moderated by the weight status of individuals. These influences were shown to vary depending on the type of claim and food carrying the claim.Conclusions: There is evidence that, while nutrition claims may lead some consumers to improve their nutrition knowledge and select healthier options, it may also lead consumers to increase food consumption and overall energy intake. This may run counter to efforts to address overweight and obesity.

The aim of this systematic review of reviews was to synthesise the evidence on factors influencing the implementation, sustainability and scalability of food retail interventions to improve the healthiness of food purchased by consumers. A search strategy to identify reviews published up until June 2020 was applied to four databases. The Risk of Bias in Systematic Review tool was used. Review findings were synthesised narratively using the socio-ecological model. A total of 25 reviews met the inclusion criteria. A number of factors influenced implementation; these included retailers’ and consumers’ knowledge and preferences regarding healthy food; establishing trust and relationships; perceived consumer demand for healthy food; profitability; store infrastructure; organizational support, including resources; and enabling policies that promote health. Few reviews reported on factors influencing sustainability or scalability of the interventions. While there is a large and rapidly growing body of evidence on factors influencing implementation of interventions, more work is needed to identify factors associated with their sustainability and scalability. These findings can be used to develop implementation strategies that consider the multiple levels of influence (individual, intrapersonal and environmental) to better support implementation of healthy food retail interventions.

Summary: Addressing obesity and improving the diets of populations requires a comprehensive societal response. The need for broad‐based action has led to a focus on accountability of the key factors that influence food environments, including the food and beverage industry. This paper describes the Business Impact Assessment—Obesity and population‐level nutrition (BIA‐Obesity) tool and process for benchmarking food and beverage company policies and practices related to obesity and population‐level nutrition at the national level. The methods for BIA‐Obesity draw largely from relevant components of the Access to Nutrition Index (ATNI), with specific assessment criteria developed for food and nonalcoholic beverage manufacturers, supermarkets, and chain restaurants, based on international recommendations and evidence of best practices related to each sector. The process for implementing the BIA‐Obesity tool involves independent civil society organisations selecting the most prominent food and beverage companies in each country, engaging with the companies to understand their policies and practices, and assessing each company's policies and practices across six domains. The domains include: “corporate strategy,” “product formulation,” “nutrition labelling,” “product and brand promotion,” “product accessibility,” and “relationships with other organisations.” Assessment of company policies is based on their level of transparency, comprehensiveness, and specificity, with reference to best practice.

Objective: The current study aimed to investigate availability and placement of healthy and discretionary (less healthy) food in supermarkets in Victoria, Australia, and examine variation by supermarket chain and area-level socio-economic disadvantage.Design: Cross-sectional supermarket audit. Measures included: (i) proportion of shelf space (in square metres) allocated to selected healthy and discretionary food and beverages; (ii) proportion of end-of-aisle, checkout and island bin displays containing discretionary food and beverages and (iii) proportion of space within end-of-aisle, checkout and island bin displays devoted to discretionary food and beverages.Setting: Metropolitan areas of Melbourne and Geelong, Australia. Assessment: June–July 2019.Participants: Random sample of 104 stores, with equal numbers from each supermarket group (Coles, Woolworths, Aldi and Independent stores) within strata of area-level socio-economic position.Results: Proportion of shelf space devoted to selected discretionary foods was greater for Independent stores (72·7 %) compared with Woolworths (65·7 %), Coles (64·8 %) and Aldi (63·2 %) (all P < 0·001). Proportion of shelf space devoted to selected discretionary food for all Coles, Woolworths and Aldi stores was 9·7 % higher in the most compared with the least disadvantaged areas (P = 0·002). Across all stores, 90 % of staff-assisted checkout displays and 50 % of end-of-aisle displays included discretionary food. Aldi was less likely to feature discretionary food in end-of-aisle and checkout displays compared with other supermarket groups.Conclusions: Extensive marketing of discretionary food in all Australian supermarket chains was observed, which is likely to strongly influence purchasing patterns and population diets. Findings should be used to inform private and public sector policies to reduce marketing of discretionary food in supermarkets.

The food industry has an important role to play in efforts to improve population diets. This study aimed to benchmark the comprehensiveness, specificity and transparency of nutrition-related policies and commitments of major food companies in Australia. In 2018, we applied the Business Impact Assessment on Obesity and Population Level Nutrition (BIA-Obesity) tool and process to quantitatively assess company policies across six domains. Thirty-four companies operating in Australia were assessed, including the largest packaged food and non-alcoholic beverage manufacturers (n = 19), supermarkets (n = 4) and quick-service restaurants (n = 11). Publicly available company information was collected, supplemented by information gathered through engagement with company representatives. Sixteen out of 34 companies (47%) engaged with data collection processes. Company scores ranged from 3/100 to 71/100 (median: 40.5/100), with substantial variation by sector, company and domain. This study demonstrated that, while some food companies had made commitments to address population nutrition and obesity-related issues, the overall response from the food industry fell short of global benchmarks of good practice. Future studies should assess both company policies and practices. In the absence of stronger industry action, government regulations, such as mandatory front-of-pack nutrition labelling and restrictions on unhealthy food marketing, are urgently needed.