The development of a method for the global health community to assess the proportion of food and beverage companies' sales that are derived from unhealthy foods.

CONTEXT: Corporate engagement with food and beverage companies who produce food associated with health harms is a divisive topic in the global nutrition community, with high-profile cases of conflict of interest increasingly coming under scrutiny. There is a need for an agreed method to support health organizations in deciding whether and how to engage with large food and beverage manufacturers. AIM: The aim of this study was to develop a method to quantify the proportion of sales from food and beverage companies that are derived from unhealthy foods to support organizations in determining which companies might be considered high-risk for engagement. METHODS: The 2015 WHO Euro nutrient profile model was applied to 35,550 products from 1294 brands manufactured by the top 20 global food and beverage companies from seven countries (Australia, Brazil, China, India, South Africa, UK and USA). For the purpose of this study, products that met the WHO Euro criteria were classified as "healthier" and those that failed were classified as "unhealthy". Products were grouped by brand and weighted by the brand's value sales for 2020. The primary outcome was the proportion of each company's sales that were classified as unhealthy and healthier by company and category. RESULTS: Overall, 89% of the top 20 companies' brand sales were classified as unhealthy. For every USD$10 spent on the top 20 companies' brands, only $1.10 was spent on products considered healthier. All companies saw the majority of their sales come from unhealthy foods, including soft drinks, confectionery and snacks. None of Red Bull or Ferrero's sales were classified as healthier and less than 5% of total sales were healthier for Mondelez, Mars, and PepsiCo. Some companies had higher proportions of sales deriving from healthier products, including Grupo Bimbo (48%), Danone (34%) and Conagra (32%), although the majority of their sales were still derived from unhealthy foods. DISCUSSION: The results presented in this study highlight the reliance the leading food and beverage companies have on sales of unhealthy products that are contributing to diet-related disease globally. The method and steps we have laid out here could be used by organizations in the global health community to identify companies that have conflicts of interest when it comes to engaging with governments, international organizations and public health bodies on issues of policy and regulation.

Law matters - assessment of country-level code implementation and sales of breastmilk substitutes in South Asia.

Objectives: This study examines the status of implementation of the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes of eight countries in the South Asia region (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka), and describes the sales value and volume of commercial milk formula (CMF) marketed as breastmilk substitutes (BMS) and baby food in four countries (Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka). Design: A mix of descriptive methods is used to assess national status of Code implementation, including a desk review of the 2022 WHO/UNICEF/IBFAN Code Status Report, systematic content analysis of national Code measures, and insights generated from the participation of key government and UNICEF/WHO actors in a regional workshop that aimed to identify each country's barriers, gaps, and the status of Code implementation. Data on the sales value and volume of CMF and baby food between 2007 to 2021 and with the prediction to 2026 in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka were obtained from Global Data. Findings: There are major gaps in Code implementation in countries even with legal measures considered substantially aligned with the Code, such as the inadequate age range of CMF covered in the scope, insufficient safeguards against conflicts of interest in the health system, lack of warning of risks of intrinsic contamination of powdered milk formula, and an absence of effective monitoring and enforcement mechanisms. Data on CMF sales shows health facilities and pharmacies sustain the highest sales. Lower sales volume of infant formula (including special formula), compared to other CMF such as follow-up formula and growing-up milk, has been observed in three of the four countries (Bangladesh, India, and Sri Lanka). Overall, GUM, followed by baby cereals, accounted for a large portion of CMF and baby foods sales in the same three countries. Recommended actions include: (1) Closing the gaps between national measures and the Code, (2) Ensuring effective monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, (3) Strengthening conflicts of interest safeguards in the health system, (4) Tackling digital marketing, and (5) Galvanizing political support and support from in-country public health and women's rights jurist networks.

Don't Ask a Neuroscientist about Phases of the Moon.

Ongoing developments in neuroscientific techniques and technologies-such as neuroimaging-offer potential for greater insight into human behavior and have fostered temptation to use these approaches in legal contexts. Neuroscientists are increasingly called on to provide expert testimony, interpret brain images, and thereby inform judges and juries who are tasked with determining the guilt or innocence of an individual. In this essay, we draw attention to the actual capabilities and limitations of currently available assessment neurotechnologies and examine whether neuroscientific evidence presents unique challenges to existing frameworks of evidence law. In particular, we focus on (1) fundamental questions of relevance and admissibility that can and should be posed before the tests afforded in Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals or Frye v. U.S. are applied and (2) how these considerations fit into the broader contexts of criminal law. We contend that neuroscientific evidence must first be scrutinized more heavily for its relevance, within Daubert and Federal Rule of Evidence 702, to ensure that the right questions are asked of neuroscientists, so as to enable expert interpretation of neuroscientific evidence within the limits of their knowledge and discipline that allows the judge or jury to determine the facts at issue in the case. We use the analogy provided by the Daubert court of an expert on the phases of the moon testifying to an individual's behavior on a particular night to ensure that we are, in fact, asking the neuroscientific expert the appropriate question.