The plastic waste generated by ultra-processed foods (UPFs) is a key driver of the global plastics crisis. Recognizing the integral role of plastics in UPF production is essential to developing a more socio-ecological perspective on these food products. This Comment identifies the linkages between the rise of UPFs and the rise of plastic packaging, calling for a renewed research agenda.

ISSUE ADDRESSED:Australia is a high meat-producing and consuming country, yet little Australia-specific research has examined how news media frame meat's health and environmental impacts and related solutions. METHODS:We analysed 147 Australian print and online news articles published between 15 May 2020 and 15 May 2025 across 12 major outlets. Articles were coded for topic, headline and body framing, calls to action and cited sources, then examined using content analysis and descriptive and inferential statistics. RESULTS:Coverage focused mainly on environmental impacts (98/147), especially greenhouse gas emissions, while health-only coverage was less common (33/147). Most articles included a call to action, most often focused on industry action (56) or technological solutions (53), whereas policy change and individual choice were rare (14 each). Industry representatives were the most common sources (91/147) and their inclusion predicted more favourable framing, more technological and industry-led responses and lower odds of dietary-change calls. Framing also varied by outlet, with The Australian and Daily Telegraph more favourable towards meat and the Sydney Morning Herald more unfavourable. CONCLUSIONS:Australian news coverage tended to privilege incremental, supply-side responses over broader dietary and policy approaches recommended in public health and sustainable food systems research. SO WHAT?: Australian news coverage may normalise industry-friendly and technology-led responses to meat-related harms while marginalising dietary and policy solutions, narrowing public and policy understanding of what effective health promotion requires. Strategic media engagement may help health promoters increase the visibility of evidence-based, structural solutions and support a more balanced public debate about meat-related harms. Greater government focus on meat-related harms could help advance public health objectives and policy action.

OBJECTIVE:To identify interactions between the food, beverage and nutrition supplement industry and nutrition professionals (NP) in Australia. DESIGN:The study employed a cross-sectional analysis of interactions by using an online survey including open and closed questions. SETTING:Australia. PARTICIPANTS:156 practicing NP were recorded, 118 of them included in the analysis, 86 of which were dietitians. RESULTS:Among respondents, eighty-eight (75 %) reported having previously received promotional material from industry, and seventy-four (66 %) have attended industry-sponsored educational events for professional development. Fifty-six (47 %) reported receiving gifts from industry in the past year. Of those who have received promotional or educational material, eleven (12 %) found it not useful at all, while others declared it slightly to extremely useful. Further analysis revealed that professional bodies and networks acted as intermediaries between industry and NP and that there were differences in judgement based on the specific industry they receive the material from. CONCLUSION:The Australian food, beverage and nutrition supplement industry is attempting to actively engage with NP to promote their products through trusted sources. NP' opinions on this vary, and further research is needed to examine the scope and impact of these interactions.

INTRODUCTION:The meat industry's role in funding and influencing scientific research raises concerns about its impact on evidence used to inform public health policy. Although industry influence on other food and beverage sectors is well-documented, its effects on studies of meat consumption remain understudied. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to investigate the influence of meat industry involvement on study conclusions of research examining the health impacts of meat consumption. METHODS:A meta-research review of relevant studies published between 2014 and 2023 was conducted using PubMed and Scopus. Studies investigating the nutritional health impacts of meat consumption were included. Study characteristics, author affiliations, declared funding sources, declared conflicts of interest, and study conclusions were extracted. Association tests were used to assess the relationship between industry ties and study conclusions. RESULTS:Of 500 included studies, 78 (15.6%) reported industry involvement. Studies with industry ties were 16 times more likely to report favorable conclusions regarding meat consumption (odds ratio [OR] = 16.4, 95% CI: 7.5-35.8), and there was a significant association (p < 0.001) between industry involvement and study conclusion. CONCLUSION:Meat industry involvement significantly increases the likelihood of favorable study conclusions in nutrition research. These findings underscore the need for caution when interpreting research funded or associated with the meat industry and emphasize the importance of minimizing conflicts of interest in nutrition research. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Prospero: ID CRD42024526116.

EAT-Lancet 2.0 places justice and power at the center of food system transformation. This commentary examines how concentrated corporate and financial power enables agri-food industries to externalize social, environmental, and health harms, and it highlights the structural reforms and collective action needed to rebalance power toward more just and sustainable food systems.

Calls have been growing for government interventions to address diets high in ultra-processed foods (i.e., ultra-processed diets), which are associated with a large and rising burden of preventable death and disease. To date, however, government action relating to ultra-processed foods (UPFs) has been mostly insufficient. In this paper, we argue that one of the key reasons behind this lacklustre response has been the dominance of ‘UPF fetishism’ in scientific, public, and policy discussions. Adapting Marx’s concept of ‘commodity fetishism’, we refer to UPF fetishism as the tendency to view UPFs only in terms of their final qualities or characteristics at the point of purchase (e.g., price, quality, convenience), while failing to consider all the socio-ecological processes, relations, and activities involved in their provisioning (e.g., intensive agriculture, widespread value extraction). UPF fetishism, we argue, undermines efforts seeking healthy, equitable, and sustainable diets worldwide by obscuring the wide range of harms and inequities generated along the entire UPF value chain, and by undermining and potentially foreclosing discussions on alternative visions and solutions for improving population diets. Researchers and advocates can help to challenge UPF fetishism by turning their focus to the structural and systemic drivers of ultra-processed diets. Taking this critical systems-level view ultimately draws attention the need to confront the very systems – particularly corporate food systems, late capitalism, and imperialism – that structure and sustain the harmful processes, relations, and activities underpinning the current system of UPF provisioning. While some trade-offs may be required, particularly with respect to pragmatism and political feasibility, a strategic advantage of moving beyond UPF fetishism is that it may help to illuminate meaningful opportunities for collaboration within the vast ecology of values-aligned movements seeking better diets, food systems, and economies for people and planet.

'Building Healthy Public Policy' is one of the five strategic action areas in the 1986 Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion, highlighting the role of governments in enabling equitable access to the basic prerequisites for health, including food and income. Yet, 40 years later, 2.6 billion people worldwide are unable to afford a healthy diet, and more than 1 in 8 households in Australia experience food insecurity. In this perspective piece, we draw on the latest data to: (i) discuss the ongoing discordance between the primary drivers of household food insecurity and Australia's predominant means of addressing the issue; (ii) examine trends in social welfare spending and food insecurity in other high-income countries; and (iii) discuss opportunities for reducing food insecurity in Australia by increasing social welfare spending. In Australia, emergency food relief plays a crucial role in alleviating hunger in the short term and should continue to receive support. However, Australia's over-reliance on emergency food relief demonstrates the failure of welfare policies in allocating resources equitably. In line with international commitments, Australia's National Food Security Strategy must be underpinned by the human right to food. Actions to reduce food prices by tackling industry concentration and market power must be combined with actions to increase household incomes (e.g. by increasing social welfare payments) to enable ongoing access to affordable healthy food for all.

Ultra-processed food (UPF) production and consumption, associated with chronic disease and environmental degradation, is increasing globally. The UPF concept has gained public attention in recent years and has raised concerns of confusion among the public. This study aimed to explore Reddit-a popular online forum platform-discussions about UPFs to identify the main topics of discussion and how UPFs are discussed. A descriptive constructivist approach to qualitative content analysis was used to analyse threads from the r/ultraprocessedfood subreddit, with over 34 000 subscribers. The 'top' 50 threads from the subreddit (i.e. threads with highest engagement) were collected in January 2025. A coding framework was developed deductively to capture a range of UPF issues, including impacts and causal mechanisms. Two authors coded 50 threads comprised of 2730 comments and posted between 2023 and 2025. The most frequently discussed topic was food [n = 45 (90%) threads, n = 1188 (43.5%) comments], followed by dietary patterns [n = 37 (74%) threads, n = 415 (15.2%) comments], health [n = 43 (86%) threads, n = 404 (14.8%) comments], food system [n = 34 (68%) threads, n = 323 (11.8%) comments], and nutri-biochemical components [n = 34 (68%) threads, n = 322 (11.8%) comments]. The least discussed topic was planetary health [n = 13 (26%) threads, n = 25 (0.9%) comments]. Most comments contained information (n = 2,088, 76.5%) or personal strategies/experiences (n = 901, 33%), with a smaller number containing questions (n = 315, 11.5%) or expressing confusion (n = 15, 0.01%). Reddit users often expressed a love for cooking and anger towards unethical food industry practices and UPF harms. Public health communications may benefit from framing UPF messaging around social justice. This paper includes discussion of disordered eating.

Background Food environments have substantial impacts on broader environmental sustainability. Studies have measured these impacts in public settings (education, health, recreation, retail) and private households. However, no comprehensive analysis of assessment tools that measure sustainability within these food environments exists. This scoping review aims to address this gap by identifying, analysing and summarising available tools, including outcomes measured and strengths/limitations of use. Methods A systematic search was conducted in April 2024 across six databases. From included studies (n=143), data were extracted and narratively synthesised to identify assessment tools, outcomes measured, methodological features and strengths/limitations of each tool. Results Most studies were conducted in high income countries (70%) and assessed food environments in education settings (40%) and households (23%). In total, 205 assessment tools were identified. These were categorised into three groups, most commonly, tools to investigate food waste mass (e.g., weighed measures) (47%); followed by tools to investigate broad environmental impacts (e.g., Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)) (29%); and tools to investigate sustainable food-related practices (e.g., audits) (24%). There was variability in the accuracy, validity, reliability, and scalability of tools identified. For instance, some tools for measuring food waste mass were validated and self-administered, whilst LCA methods were robust but required experienced researchers and current data. Conclusion This review provides a repository of 205 assessment tools that can be purposefully selected by practitioners, researchers and policymakers to enhance evidence-based actions towards sustainable food environments. Future research should consider practical and scalable tools that can be feasibly implemented across countries and settings.

In South-East Asia, government implementation of policies recommended for addressing unhealthy diets has generally been slow and fragmented, largely due to food industry opposition and a lack of effective cross-sectoral policy action. To help government policy-makers and other interest-holders address these issues, this study aimed to identify key arguments that undermine implementation of policies for addressing unhealthy diets in the region, and to propose a set of counter-strategies. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 interest-holders based in India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Thailand, and performed a scoping review of diverse literature. Data analysis was guided by the ‘Policy Dystopia Model’, initially used to study the corporate political activity of the tobacco industry. Identified arguments were categorized into six themes: (i) questioning the policy design and development process; (ii) misrepresenting or distorting the supporting evidence, and/or presenting counter evidence; (iii) exaggerating and/or fabricating unintended consequences for health and equity; (iv) raising concerns about effects on the economy; (v) querying the policy’s compatibility with trade and investment agreements and national laws; and (vi) raising concerns about restrictions on personal ‘freedom’. To help counter these arguments, along with key material and structural factors that may increase their salience, we proposed the following set of counter-strategies: (i) develop a communication strategy to counter opposing arguments; (ii) implement governance measures to mitigate corporate influence on public health policy, research, and practice; (iii) implement governance measures to enable effective health-promoting intersectoral and interdepartmental coordination; and (iv) strengthen research, advocacy, and capacity-building on the determinants of health. Successful implementation of these counter-strategies will require extensive organization and collaboration among diverse interest-holders in South-East Asia and beyond.

Issues with current food systems have been problematised through various lenses, including concerns about the dominance of intensively produced animal-source foods (ASFs) or ultra-processed foods (UPFs) in diets on health, environmental sustainability and/or justice grounds. In this commentary, we argue that there is value in adopting a more common framing and approach for these food systems issues based on the understanding that ASFs and UPFs are interlinked manifestations of financialised food systems prioritising the interests of a select few large corporations and their shareholders. Firstly, we outline some of the common drivers of the proliferation of UPFs and ASFs in current food systems, including a regulatory environment that prioritises the interests of large corporations and financiers above other considerations. Based on ecological regulation theory, we then propose multi-sectoral policy options and collective actions to improve both human and planetary health. These include (but are not limited to): re-orienting agricultural subsidies toward more agroecological operations; prioritising equity-focused measures, such as a universal basic income; land use value taxes; and revitalising competition policy to address agri-food industry consolidation. Implementing the proposed actions will likely require strong coordination and advocacy from various civil society groups. We suggest that a framing centred on financialised food systems may create space for allies to mobilise and effectively draw on collective resources, including public health, food sovereignty alliances, labour unions, farmers, small-scale agri-food businesses and retailers, consumer groups, animal welfare groups, governments without vested interests, and intergovernmental organisations.

The World Health Organization and public health experts are calling for urgent restrictions on the online marketing of unhealthy food. The harmful effects of exposure to advertising for 'unhealthy foods', including discretionary foods high in fat, salt or sugar, particularly for children, has prompted a proposed policy action in Australia to prohibit all online unhealthy food marketing. We used a novel data donation infrastructure, the Australian Ad Observatory, to create a dataset of 1703 ads promoting top-selling unhealthy food brands that had been placed by 141 different advertisers on 367 individual Australians' Facebook feeds. We used this dataset to identify any targeting of unhealthy food ads towards young people (18-24), investigate harmful marketing practices by four of the top advertisers (KFC, McDonald's, Cadbury and 7-Eleven); and demonstrate how online advertising may be made observable and accountable. We find indications that young people (18-24), especially young men, are being targeted by unhealthy food, especially fast food, ads. We also find that unhealthy food brands use potentially harmful marketing strategies to appeal to children, young people, parents and the broader community, including cartoon characters, and associations with popular sports and greenwashing. The policy implications of our findings are that a broad prohibition on all forms of unhealthy food advertising online is desirable to protect not only children but also young people and the broader community. Such a prohibition will go one step towards addressing the commercial and digital determinants of health caused by harmful industries' use of online automated advertising.

Retail food environments play a pivotal role in influencing dietary behaviors, and therefore have huge potential as settings for promoting good nutrition and preventing obesity. Conducting research in retail settings can be challenging due to the varied motivations of the parties involved and the complex nature of retail environments. To improve the quality and consistency of research in this field, we have identified 16 thematic topics aimed at guiding researchers and public health practitioners on how to conduct healthy food retail research. A summary for each topic, encompassing existing methodologies, best practice examples, and knowledge gaps, was developed based on available literature and the collective experience and expertise of 32 multidisciplinary researchers from a high-income perspective engaged in healthy food retail research in a diverse range of retail settings. A summary checklist describing key considerations at each stage of conducting healthy food retail research was also developed.

BACKGROUND:The fast-food industry has transformed substantially in recent decades - from diverse, locally rooted providers into a globalised, and increasingly corporate-led industry. Corporate fast-food retailers (FFRs) represent a key retail channel through which both ultra-processed foods and intensively produced animal source foods are consumed and normalised within corporate-industrial food systems. These dietary patterns are strongly associated with increased risks of diet-related diseases and contribute significantly to environmental degradation, including greenhouse gas emissions, land use change, and biodiversity loss. Despite the growing significance of FFRs, there has been limited analysis of their financial strategies and implications for global food system transformation. RESULTS:We conducted a global analysis of market data from 54 countries and financial data of publicly listed FFRs, examining trends in FFR sales (2009-2023), market dominance, and the financial performance of leading publicly listed firms (1980-2023). We found that while sales in high-income countries were stagnating, leading firms maintained stable net profit margins and delivered relatively high shareholder returns, facilitated by financial strategies such as franchising and private equity ownership. U.S.-based corporations dominated the global market, with substantial expansion into countries outside the global North. These trends reflect the consolidation of power within the corporate food regime. CONCLUSIONS:The global expansion of corporate FFRs underscore their growing influence over diets and food systems, with critical implications for public health, ecological sustainability, and social justice. Policies targeting structural leverage points, for example, democratising corporate governance, reducing the influence of private equity, and re-orienting agri-food subsidies, are essential to countering the entrenchment of this model and supporting more democratic and sustainable food systems. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER:Not applicable.

Competition regulation plays a key role in determining firm size, market structure, and what firms can do with their market power. In this paper, we explore how competition regulation in many countries has largely tolerated rising industry concentration and market power in harmful consumer product industries, which, in turn, has likely facilitated an increase in preventable death and disease associated with such industries (ie. industrial epidemics). One important reason for this tolerance has been the rise of the 'consumer welfare' standard, which contends that competition regulators should only focus on a narrow set of concerns mostly relating to consumer price and output. Yet, recent developments shed light on potential avenues through which competition regulation could work more synergistically with public health policies and programmes. While discussions on how to leverage competition regulation along these lines are invariably contested and complex, we argue that it is critical that public health advocates engage with these discussions.

National champion policies in BRICS countries pose challenges for governance in global meat processing markets as they increase concentration, reduce competition and enhance corporate power in food systems. We investigate the degree to which these shifts benefit sponsoring governments and citizens relative to intervention levels. By analysing mergers and acquisitions involving these firms, we unveil coordinated growth strategies benefiting primarily transnational capitalist investors. Our findings underscore the need for heightened scrutiny of national champion mergers and consideration of stronger international antitrust regulation. Understanding the evolving corporate power dynamics in meat supply chains is essential for improved ecological and social outcomes.

Abstract Background and methods Competition regulation has a strong influence on the relative market power of firms. As such, competition regulation can complement industry-specific measures designed to address harms associated with excessive market power in harmful consumer product industries. This study aimed to examine, through a public health lens, assessments and decisions made by competition authorities in four jurisdictions (Australia, South Africa, the United States (US), and the European Union (EU)) involving three harmful consumer product industries (alcoholic beverages, soft drinks, tobacco). We analysed legal case documents, sourced from online public registers and dating back as far as the online records extended, using a narrative approach. Regulatory decisions and harms described by the authorities were inductively coded, focusing on the affected group(s) (e.g., consumers) and the nature of the harms (e.g., price increases) identified. Results We identified 359 cases published by competition authorities in Australia (n = 202), South Africa (n = 44), the US (n = 27), and the EU (n = 86). Most cases (n = 239) related to mergers and acquisitions (M&As). Competition authorities in Australia, the US, and the EU were found to make many decisions oriented towards increasing the affordability and accessibility of alcohol beverages, soft drinks, and tobacco products. Such decisions were very often made despite the presence of consumption-reduction public health policies. In comparison, South Africa’s competition authorities routinely considered broader issues, including ‘Black Economic Empowerment’ and potential harms to workers. Conclusion Many of the competition regulatory decisions assessed likely facilitated the concentration of market power in the industries we explored. Nevertheless, there appears to be potential for competition regulatory frameworks to play a more prominent role in promoting and protecting the public’s health through tighter regulation of excessive market power in harmful consumer product industries.

The private sector, including food manufacturers, retailers, and quick-service restaurants, has an important role to play in reducing the environmental impact of food systems. Monitoring and benchmarking of company actions can identify areas of good practice and contribute to increasing the accountability of the food industry in this area. This study aimed to assess major food companies in Australia on their policies and practices related to environmental sustainability. We conducted the assessment by pilot testing a monitoring framework developed by the global INFORMAS network. The framework was designed to assess the comprehensiveness, specificity and transparency of company policies and practices in 10 domains: ‘overarching environmental sustainability strategy’; ‘packaging’; ‘greenhouse gas emissions'; ‘energy’; ‘water’; ‘biodiversity’; ‘food loss and waste’; ‘environmental compliance’; ‘animal-sourced products'; and ‘relationships with other organisations'. We selected 19 of the most prominent food companies operating in Australia for assessment. Each company was allocated a score (out of 100) using the assessment framework. Company scores ranged from 2 to 58 (median: 31/100). Companies generally had strong commitments in place across several domains, but reporting of their performance associated with those commitments was limited. Companies scored highest in the ‘greenhouse gas emissions' domain (median: 58/100), and lowest in the ‘animal-sourced products' (median: 10/100) and ‘water’ domains (median: 23/100). Overall, the study identified considerable variability in company reporting practices related to environmental sustainability. The findings indicate that food companies in Australia are falling well short of good practice in implementing a comprehensive approach to addressing environmental sustainability.

Global corporate-industrial meat production is associated with harms to social, animal, and planetary health. Although national policy discussions are lacking, some studies suggest addressing these harms through taxation and supply chain standards. However, these proposals overlook the potential role of corporate power in creating and perpetuating these harms. Our study addresses this gap by examining how political, economic, and structural features of food systems enable the meat industry to externalize costs of production and perpetuate ecological and social harms. Here, we analyze three case studies from different stages of global supply chains, revealing a highly concentrated meat industry, close industry-government ties, reduced regulatory oversight, and entrenched cultural norms about meat’s significance to food security. It calls for policy responses that address the economic and political power of the meat industry and the enabling of social and ecological externalities. Finally, it recommends adoption of a whole-of-food system approach to addressing unaccountable industry power.

IntroductionInstitutional investors have considerable potential to positively contribute to shifts towards healthier, more sustainable food systems. However, food systems issues are not systematically taken into account by investors as part of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations. This study aimed to identify current approaches to investment decision making regarding food systems issues and ways to facilitate increased consideration of food systems issues as part of investment decision-making in Australia.MethodsWe conducted focus groups (15 participants) supplemented by in-depth interviews (19 participants) with financial sector and related civil society stakeholders. Data was thematically analysed, guided by an investment decision-making framework.ResultsParticipants saw opportunity to include food systems issues as part of investment decision-making processes, including screening, engagement and divestment. Greater investor action could be accelerated by a clear investment case for action; cohesive metrics and reporting; and strong advocacy and coalition building.ConclusionHolistic incorporation of food systems issues as part of ESG considerations has substantial potential to drive positive food systems transformation.