research paper about the food industry

Advertisement

The role of food industries in sustainability transition: a review

• Published: 16 February 2024

Cite this article

• S. Prasanna 1 ,
• Praveen Verma   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4965-668X 1 &
• Suman Bodh 1  

1149 Accesses

5 Citations

Explore all metrics

The global food industry is crucial in promoting sustainability, contributing to environmental degradation but also driving positive change. This review paper explores the significance, methodologies and recent research of food industries in promoting sustainability. The food industry faces sustainability challenges due to climate change, resource depletion, food security and health concerns. Policy makers, consumers and stakeholders are pushing businesses to reduce carbon footprint, adopt ethical sourcing, minimize waste and improve nutritional quality. This paper presents a compiled information of review of literature related to sustainability transition in food industry published worldwide. Shifting consumer preferences towards sustainable and healthy diets is a crucial aspect of the food industry’s role in sustainable transition. Promoting plant based diets, reduced food waste and adopting circular economy principles can significantly contribute to sustainable consumption patterns. The food industry is making significant strides in sustainability, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving supply chain transparency and promoting responsible sourcing, but challenges persist. This review paper serves as both a clarion call and a roadmap, emphasizing the inextricable link between the food industry and sustainability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price excludes VAT (USA) Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Sustainability in Food Science and Food Industry: Where Are We Now? – Viewpoints of the EFFoST Working Group on Sustainable Food Systems

Social sustainability in the food value chain: what is and how to adopt an integrative approach?

Food Sustainability

Data availability.

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Abouzeid, R. E., El-Kader, A., Salama, A. H., Fahmy, A., T. Y., & El-Sakhawy, M. (2022). Preparation and properties of novel biocompatible pectin/silica calcium phosphate hybrids. Cellulose Chemistry and Technology , 56 (3–4), 371–378.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Academy of Sciences , 120 (5), e2216891120.

Acosta-Silva, Y. D. J., Torres-Pacheco, I., Matsumoto, Y., Toledano-Ayala, M., Soto-Zarazúa, G. M., Zelaya-Ángel, O., & Méndez-López, A. (2019). Applications of solar and wind renewable energy in agriculture: A review. Science Progress , 102 (2), 127–140.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Adiguzel, F., Cetin, M., Dogan, M., Gungor, S., Kose, M., Sert, B., E., & Kaya, E. (2022). The assessment of the thermal behavior of an urban park surface in a dense urban area for planning decisions. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment , 194 (7), 519.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Adigüzel, A. D., & Çetin, İ. Z. (2022). Urbanization models suitable for thermal-bioclimatic comfort levels. Kastamonu University Journal of Engineering and Sciences , 8 (1), 78–89.

Google Scholar  

Alonso, M. E., González-Montaña, J. R., & Lomillos, J. M. (2020). Consumers’ concerns and perceptions of farm animal welfare. Animals , 10 (3), 385.

Alonso, A. A., Álvarez-Salgado, X. A., & Antelo, L. T. (2021). Assessing the impact of bivalve aquaculture on the carbon circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production , 279 , 123873.

Ankersmit, L. (2020). The contribution of EU public procurement law to corporate social responsibility. European Law Journal , 26 (1–2), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/eulj.12353 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Annosi, M. C., Brunetta, F., Bimbo, F., & Kostoula, M. (2021). Digitalization within food supply chains to prevent food waste. Drivers, barriers and collaboration practices. Industrial Marketing Management , 93 , 208–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.01.005 .

Ariza-Montes, A., Hernández-Perlines, F., Han, H., & Law, R. (2019). Human dimension of the hospitality industry: Working conditions and psychological well-being among European servers. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management , 41 , 138–147.

Asiaei, K., Bontis, N., Alizadeh, R., & Yaghoubi, M. (2022). Green intellectual capital and environmental management accounting: Natural resource orchestration in favor of environmental performance. Business Strategy and the Environment , 31 (1), 76–93.

Asif, M. S., Lau, H., Nakandala, D., & Hurriyet, H. (2023). Paving the way to net-zero: Identifying environmental sustainability factors for business model innovation through carbon disclosure project data. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems , 7 , 1214490.

Autio, S., & Iivonen, S. (2021). Research data and solutions for the development of organic production in Finland (pp. 2021–2024). Finnish Organic Research Institute’s research strategy for.

Avraamidou, S., Baratsas, S. G., Tian, Y., & Pistikopoulos, E. N. (2020). Circular Economy-A challenge and an opportunity for process Systems Engineering. Computers & Chemical Engineering , 133 , 106629.

Baiano, A. (2021). An overview on sustainability in the wine production chain. Beverages , 7 (1), 15.

Balogh, J. M., & Jámbor, A. (2020). The environmental impacts of agricultural trade: A systematic literature review. Sustainability , 12 (3), 1152.

Bandari, V. (2021). A comprehensive review of AI applications in Automated Container Orchestration, Predictive maintenance, security and compliance, resource optimization, and continuous Deployment and Testing. International Journal of Intelligent Automation and Computing , 4 (1), 1–19. https://research.tensorgate.org/index.php/IJIAC/article/view/1 .

Barcaccia, G., D’Agostino, V., Zotti, A., & Cozzi, B. (2020). Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 on the Italian agri-food sector: An analysis of the quarter of pandemic lockdown and clues for a socio-economic and territorial restart. Sustainability , 12 (14), 5651.

Baur, P. (2022). When farmers are pulled in too many directions: comparing institutional drivers of food safety and environmental sustainability in California agriculture. In Social Innovation and Sustainability Transition (pp. 241–260).

Bazaluk, O., Yatsenko, O., Zakharchuk, O., Ovcharenko, A., Khrystenko, O., & Nitsenko, V. (2020). Dynamic development of the global organic food market and opportunities for Ukraine. Sustainability , 12 (17), 6963.

Benton, T. G., & Bailey, R. (2019). The paradox of productivity: Agricultural productivity promotes food system inefficiency. Global Sustainability , 2 , e6.

Brill, H., Kell, G., & Rasche, A. (2020). Sustainable investing: A path to a New Horizon . Routledge.

Brun, A., Karaosman, H., & Barresi, T. (2020). Supply chain collaboration for transparency. Sustainability , 12 (11), 4429.

Bruzelius, C., & Seeleib-Kaiser, M. (2023). Enforcing outsiders’ rights: Seasonal agricultural workers and institutionalised exploitation in the EU. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 1–18.

Caraka, R. E., Lee, Y., Kurniawan, R., Herliansyah, R., Kaban, P. A., Nasution, B. I., & Pardamean, B. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 large scale restriction on environment and economy in Indonesia. Global Journal of Environmental Science and Management , 6 , 65–84. https://doi.org/10.22034/GJESM.2019.06.SI.07 .

Caratas, M. A. (2023). Corporate social responsibility practices amid Political and Economic Transformation in Europe. Technium Soc Sci J , 43 , 302.

Ceder, A. (2021). Urban mobility and public transport: Future perspectives and review. International Journal of Urban Sciences , 25 (4), 455–479.

Cetin, M. (2019). The effect of urban planning on urban formations determining bioclimatic comfort area’s effect using satellitia imagines on air quality: A case study of Bursa city. Air Quality Atmosphere & Health , 12 (10), 1237–1249.

Chawade, A., van Ham, J., Blomquist, H., Bagge, O., Alexandersson, E., & Ortiz, R. (2019). High-throughput field-phenotyping tools for plant breeding and precision agriculture. Agronomy , 9 (5), 258.

Chen, S., Brahma, S., Mackay, J., Cao, C., & Aliakbarian, B. (2020). The role of smart packaging system in food supply chain. Journal of Food Science , 85 (3), 517–525.

Correani, A., De Massis, A., Frattini, F., Petruzzelli, A. M., & Natalicchio, A. (2020). Implementing a digital strategy: Learning from the experience of three digital transformation projects. California Management Review , 62 (4), 37–56.

Cottrell, R. S., Nash, K. L., Halpern, B. S., Remenyi, T. A., Corney, S. P., Fleming, A., & Blanchard, J. L. (2019). Food production shocks across land and sea. Nature Sustainability , 2 (2), 130–137.

Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Tubiello, F. N., & Leip, A. J. N. F. (2021). Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nature Food , 2 (3), 198–209.

Cunningham, J., & Barclay, S. (2020). Craft beer sector collaboration in North East Scotland: The role of individual success. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation , 21 (4), 263–274.

Dolan, F., Lamontagne, J., Link, R., Hejazi, M., Reed, P., & Edmonds, J. (2021). Evaluating the economic impact of water scarcity in a changing world. Nature communications , 12 (1), 1915.

Dutal, H. (2023). Determining the effect of urbanization on flood hazard zones in Kahramanmaras, Turkey, using flood hazard index and multi-criteria decision analysis. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment , 195 (1), 92.

El Bilali, H., Callenius, C., Strassner, C., & Probst, L. (2019). Food and nutrition security and sustainability transitions in food systems. Food and Energy Security , 8(2), e00154.

Errida, A., & Lotfi, B. (2021). The determinants of organizational change management success: Literature review and case study. International Journal of Engineering Business Management , 13 , 18479790211016273.

Fahmy, T. Y. A., Fahmy, T. Y. A., Mobarak, F., Abouzeid, R. E., Mobarak, F., El-Sakhawy, M., Kassem, M., El-Kader, A., A. H., & Fahmy, Y. (2007). Introducing molasses as a new additive in papermaking. Tappi Journal , 6(8), 23.

Fahmy, T.Y. A. (2007a). Molasses as a new Additive in papermaking: for high alpha-cellulose wood pulp. Professional Papermaking , 4(1), 42.

Fahmy, T. Y. A., & Mobarak, F. (2009). Advanced nano-based manipulations of molasses in the cellulose and Paper discipline: Introducing a master cheap environmentally safe retention aid and strength promoter In papermaking. Carbohydrate Polymers , 77(2), 316.

Fahmy, T. Y. A., Mobarak, F. (2014). Sustainability of Paper & Sugar Industries via Molasses: Novel Green Nanocomposites from Upgraded Recycled Cellulose Fibers. Journal of American Science , 10(9),1.

Fahmy, T. Y. A. (2017). Molasses as A New Additive in Papermaking: for Bagasse and Kaolin Filled Bagasse pulps. Professional Papermaking , 14(1), 26.

Fahmy T. Y. A., Abouzeid, R. E., Mobarak, F., El-Sakhawy, M., Kassem, M., El-Kader, A., A. H., Fahmy, Y. (2020). lntroducing eggshell waste for paper industry: part I Suitability for bagasse pulp. Professional Papermaking , 17(2), 60–63.

Ferns, S., Dawson, V., & Howitt, C. (2019). A collaborative framework for enhancing graduate employability. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning , 20 (2), 99–111.

Francaviglia, R., Almagro, M., & Vicente-Vicente, J. L. (2023). Conservation agriculture and soil organic carbon: Principles, processes, practices and policy options. Soil Systems , 7 (1), 17.

Giller, K. E., Hijbeek, R., Andersson, J. A., & Sumberg, J. (2021). Regenerative agriculture: An agronomic perspective. Outlook on Agriculture , 50 (1), 13–25.

Hartley, K., Roosendaal, J., & Kirchherr, J. (2022). Barriers to the circular economy: The case of the Dutch technical and interior textiles industries. Journal of Industrial Ecology , 26 (2), 477–490.

Hassen, N., Lofters, A., Michael, S., Mall, A., Pinto, A. D., & Rackal, J. (2021). Implementing anti-racism interventions in healthcare settings: A scoping review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 18 (6), 2993.

Herrero, M., Thornton, P. K., & Mason-D’Croz, D. (2020). Innovation can accelerate the transition towards a sustainable food system. Nature Food , 1 (5), 266–272. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0074-1 . ISSN 2662 – 1355.

Hrustek, L. (2020). Sustainability driven by agriculture through digital transformation. Sustainability , 12 (20), 8596.

Hua, K., Cobcroft, J. M., Cole, A., Condon, K., Jerry, D. R., Mangott, A., & Strugnell, J. M. (2019). The future of aquatic protein: Implications for protein sources in aquaculture diets. One Earth , 1 (3), 316–329.

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Huang, I. Y., Manning, L., James, K. L., Grigoriadis, V., Millington, A., Wood, V., & Ward, S. (2021). Food waste management: A review of retailers’ business practices and their implications for sustainable value. Journal of Cleaner Production , 285 , Article 125484.

Jakob, M., Afionis, S., Åhman, M., Antoci, A., Arens, M., Ascensão, F., & Willner, S. (2022). How trade policy can support the climate agenda. Science , 376 (6600), 1401–1403.

Article   CAS   ADS   Google Scholar  

Jamal, T., Zahid, M., Martins, J. M., Mata, M. N., Rahman, H. U., & Mata, P. N. (2021). Perceived green human resource management practices and corporate sustainability: Multigroup analysis and major industries perspectives. Sustainability , 13 (6), 3045.

Jamatia, P. L. (2022). The Role of Youth in Combating Social Inequality: Empowering the Next Generation. Journal of Language and Linguistics in Society (JLLS) ISSN 2815 – 0961 , 2 (06), 11–20.

Jarzębowski, S., Bourlakis, M., & Bezat-Jarzębowska, A. (2020). Short food supply chains (SFSC) as local and sustainable systems. Sustainability , 12 (11), 4715.

Jung, J., Kim, S. J., & Kim, K. H. (2020). Sustainable marketing activities of traditional fashion market and brand loyalty. Journal of Business Research , 120 , 294–301.

Kartoglu, U., & Ames, H. (2022). Ensuring quality and integrity of vaccines throughout the cold chain: The role of temperature monitoring. Expert Review of Vaccines , 21 (6), 799–810.

Khan, N., Ray, R. L., Kassem, H. S., Hussain, S., Zhang, S., Khayyam, M., & Asongu, S. A. (2021). Potential role of technology innovation in transformation of sustainable food systems: A review. Agriculture , 11 (10), 984. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11100984 .

Kouhizadeh, M., Saberi, S., & Sarkis, J. (2021). Blockchain technology and the sustainable supply chain: Theoretically exploring adoption barriers. International Journal of Production Economics , 231 , 107831.

Kpienbaareh, D., Bezner Kerr, R., Luginaah, I., Wang, J., Lupafya, E., Dakishoni, L., & Shumba, L. (2020). Spatial and ecological farmer knowledge and decision-making about ecosystem services and biodiversity. Land , 9 (10), 356.

Kraak, V. I., Rincón-Gallardo Patiño, S., & Sacks, G. (2019). An accountability evaluation for the International Food & Beverage Alliance’s Global Policy on Marketing communications to children to reduce obesity: A narrative review to inform policy. Obesity Reviews , 20 , 90–106.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Krmela, A., Šimberová, I., & Babiča, V. (2022). Dynamics of business models in industry-wide collaborative networks for circularity. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology Market and Complexity , 8 (1), 3.

Kumar, R., Verma, A., Shome, A., Sinha, R., Sinha, S., Jha, P. K., & Vara Prasad, P. V. (2021). Impacts of plastic pollution on ecosystem services, sustainable development goals, and need to focus on circular economy and policy interventions. Sustainability , 13 (17), 9963.

Lajoie-O’Malley, A., Bronson, K., van der Burg, S., & Klerkx, L. (2020). The future (s) of digital agriculture and sustainable food systems: An analysis of high-level policy documents. Ecosystem Services , 45 , 101183.

Lau, J. D., Song, A. M., Morrison, T., Fabinyi, M., Brown, K., Blythe, J., Hallison, E., & Adger, W. N. (2021). Morals and climate decision-making: Insights from social and behavioural sciences. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability , 52 , 27–35.

Lehoux, P., Silva, H. P., Denis, J. L., Miller, F. A., Sabio, P., R., & Mendell, M. (2021). Moving toward responsible value creation: Business model challenges faced by organizations producing responsible health innovations. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 38 (5), 548–573.

Macarthur, & Heading (2019). How the circular economy tackles climate change. Ellen MacArthur Found , 1 , 1–71.

Mohanavelu, A., Naganna, S. R., & Al-Ansari, N. (2021). Irrigation induced salinity and sodicity hazards on soil and groundwater: An overview of its causes, impacts and mitigation strategies. Agriculture , 11 (10), 983.

Monterrosa, E. C., Frongillo, E. A., Drewnowski, A., de Pee, S., & Vandevijvere, S. (2020). Sociocultural influences on food choices and implications for sustainable healthy diets. Food and Nutrition Bulletin , 41 (2_suppl), 59S–73S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0379572120975874 .

Morrison, I. I. I., Scully, W. R., E. D., & Campbell, J. F. (2021). Towards developing areawide semiochemical-mediated, behaviorally‐based integrated pest management programs for stored product insects. Pest Management Science , 77 (6), 2667–2682.

Mykhailichenko, M., Lozhachevska, O., Smagin, V., Krasnoshtan, O., Zos-Kior, M., & Hnatenko, I. (2021). Competitive strategies of personnel management in business processes of agricultural enterprises focused on digitalization. Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development , 43 (3), 403–414.

Ncube, L. K., Ude, A. U., Ogunmuyiwa, E. N., Zulkifli, R., & Beas, I. N. (2021). An overview of plastic waste generation and management in food packaging industries. Recycling , 6 (1), 12.

Negi, A. (2021). Green buildings: Strategies for energy-efficient and eco-friendly designs. Mathematical Statistician and Engineering Applications , 70 (1), 683–689.

Oruma, S. O., Misra, S., & Fernandez-Sanz, L. (2021). Agriculture 4.0: An implementation framework for food security attainment in Nigeria’s post-covid-19 era. Ieee Access , 9 , 83592–83627.

Pacoureau, N., Carlson, J. K., Kindsvater, H. K., Rigby, C. L., Winker, H., Simpfendorfer, C. A., & Dulvy, N. K. (2023). Conservation successes and challenges for wide-ranging sharks and rays. Proceedings of the National .

Panchasara, H., Samrat, N. H., & Islam, N. (2021). Greenhouse gas emissions trends and mitigation measures in Australian agriculture sector—A review. Agriculture , 11 (2), 85. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11020085 .

Pawlak, K., & Kołodziejczak, M. (2020). The role of agriculture in ensuring food security in developing countries: Considerations in the context of the problem of sustainable food production. Sustainability , 12 (13), 5488.

Pereira, L. M., Drimie, S., Maciejewski, K., Tonissen, P. B., & Biggs, R. (2020). Food system transformation: Integrating a political–economy and social–ecological approach to regime shifts. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 17 (4), 1313.

Reguero, B. G., Beck, M. W., Schmid, D., Stadtmüller, D., Raepple, J., Schüssele, S., & Pfliegner, K. (2020). Financing coastal resilience by combining nature-based risk reduction with insurance. Ecological Economics , 169 , 106487.

Rejeb, A., Keogh, J. G., Zailani, S., Treiblmaier, H., & Rejeb, K. (2020). Blockchain technology in the food industry: A review of potentials, challenges and future research directions. Logistics , 4 (4), 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics4040027 .

Sahal, R., Alsamhi, S. H., Brown, K. N., O’shea, D., McCarthy, C., & Guizani, M. (2021). Blockchain-empowered digital twins collaboration: Smart transportation use case. Machines , 9 (9), 193. https://doi.org/10.3390/machines9090193 .

Santos, E. (2023). From neglect to progress: Assessing social sustainability and decent work in the tourism sector. Sustainability , 15 (13), 10329.

Sedykh, V., Pyrchenkova, G., & Radchenko, E. (2020, August). Public-private partnership as a form ensuring food security in Russia.IOP Publishing.In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 548, No. 8, p. 082031).

Shad, M. K., Lai, F. W., Fatt, C. L., Klemeš, J. J., & Bokhari, A. (2019). Integrating sustainability reporting into enterprise risk management and its relationship with business performance: A conceptual framework. Journal of Cleaner Production , 208 , 415–425.

Shafi, U., Mumtaz, R., García-Nieto, J., Hassan, S. A., Zaidi, S. A. R., & Iqbal, N. (2019). Precision agriculture techniques and practices: From considerations to applications. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) , 19 (17), 3796.

Article   PubMed   ADS   Google Scholar  

Sigurdsson, V., Larsen, N. M., Folwarczny, M., Fagerstrøm, A., Menon, R. V., & Sigurdardottir, F. T. (2023). The importance of relative customer-based label equity when signaling sustainability and health with certifications and tags. Journal of Business Research , 154 , 113338.

Siwandeti, M., Mahuwi, L., & Israel, B. (2023). How public procurement can help societies achieve SDGs: A conceptual model. Management of Sustainable Development , 15 (1). https://doi.org/10.54989/msd-2023-0006 .

Spiegel, S. J., Thomas, S., O’neill, K., Brondgeest, C., Thomas, J., Beltran, J., & Yassi, A. (2020). Visual storytelling, intergenerational environmental justice and indigenous sovereignty: Exploring images and stories amid a contested oil pipeline project. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 17 (7), 2362.

Thanh, N. V., & Lan, N. T. K. (2022). A new hybrid triple bottom line metrics and fuzzy MCDM model: Sustainable supplier selection in the food-processing industry. Axioms , 11 (2), 57.

Tolliver, C., Keeley, A. R., & Managi, S. (2019). Green bonds for the Paris agreement and sustainable development goals. Environmental Research Letters , 14 (6), 064009.

Tomich, T. P., Lidder, P., Coley, M., Gollin, D., Meinzen-Dick, R., Webb, P., & Carberry, P. (2019). Food and agricultural innovation pathways for prosperity. Agricultural Systems , 172 , 1–15.

Tsalis, T. A., Malamateniou, K. E., Koulouriotis, D., & Nikolaou, I. E. (2020). New challenges for corporate sustainability reporting: United Nations’ 2030 agenda for sustainable development and the sustainable development goals. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management , 27 (4), 1617–1629.

Vázquez, J. L., & Lanero, A. (2021). Consumer transition to a green economy: The role of third-party certified eco-labels. EDP Sciences In SHS Web of Conferences Vol. 120, p. 02002. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202112002002 .

Vuong, Q. H., La, V. P., Nguyen, H. K. T., Ho, M. T., Vuong, T. T., & Ho, M. T. (2021). Identifying the moral–practical gaps in corporate social responsibility missions of Vietnamese firms: An event-based analysis of sustainability feasibility. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management , 28 (1), 30–41.

Warhurst, C., & Knox, A. (2022). Manifesto for a new quality of Working Life. Human Relations , 75 (2), 304–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726720979348 .

Watson, R., Baste, I., Larigauderie, A., Leadley, P., Pascual, U., Baptiste, B., & Mooney, H. (2019). Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat: Bonn Germany , 22–47.

Yadav, S. P. S., Lahutiya, V., Ghimire, N. P., Yadav, B., & Paudel, P. (2023). Exploring innovation for sustainable agriculture: A systematic case study of permaculture in Nepal. Heliyon , 9 (5).

Yang, A. (2022). HelloFresh, GoodByeChoice: Losing our choice within the meal kit delivery platform. The iJournal: Student Journal of the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Information , 8 (1). https://doi.org/10.33137/ijournal.v8i1.39911 .

Yigitcanlar, T., Corchado, J. M., Mehmood, R., Li, R. Y. M., Mossberger, K., & Desouza, K. (2021). Responsible urban innovation with local government artificial intelligence (AI): A conceptual framework and research agenda. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology Market and Complexity , 7 (1), 71.

Zeren Cetin, I., Varol, T., Ozel, H. B., & Sevik, H. (2023). The effects of climate on land use/cover: A case study in Turkey by using remote sensing data. Environmental Science and Pollution Research , 30 (3), 5688–5699.

Download references

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Agriculture, Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, Punjab, 144001, India

S. Prasanna, Praveen Verma & Suman Bodh

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Praveen Verma .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Prasanna, S., Verma, P. & Bodh, S. The role of food industries in sustainability transition: a review. Environ Dev Sustain (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04642-1

Download citation

Received : 16 September 2023

Accepted : 12 February 2024

Published : 16 February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04642-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Clean energy integration
• Climate change mitigation
• Plant-based diets
• Reduced food waste
• Sustainable food
• Sustainable packaging
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

The characteristics and extent of food industry involvement in peer-reviewed research articles from 10 leading nutrition-related journals in 2018

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Global Obesity Centre (GLOBE), Institute for Health Transformation, School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia

Roles Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – review & editing

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation School of Public Health, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil

Roles Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing

Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – review & editing

• Gary Sacks, 
• Devorah Riesenberg, 
• Melissa Mialon, 
• Sarah Dean, 
• Adrian J. Cameron

• Published: December 16, 2020
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243144
• Peer Review
• Reader Comments

Introduction

There is emerging evidence that food industry involvement in nutrition research may bias research findings and/or research agendas. However, the extent of food industry involvement in nutrition research has not been systematically explored. This study aimed to identify the extent of food industry involvement in peer-reviewed articles from a sample of leading nutrition-related journals, and to examine the extent to which findings from research involving the food industry support industry interests.

All original research articles published in 2018 in the top 10 most-cited nutrition- and dietetics-related journals were analysed. We evaluated the proportion of articles that disclosed involvement from the food industry, including through author affiliations, funding sources, declarations of interest or other acknowledgments. Principal research findings from articles with food industry involvement, and a random sample of articles without food industry involvement, were categorised according to the extent to which they supported relevant food industry interests.

196/1,461 (13.4%) articles reported food industry involvement. The extent of food industry involvement varied by journal, with The Journal of Nutrition (28.3%) having the highest and Paediatric Obesity (3.8%) having the lowest proportion of industry involvement. Processed food manufacturers were involved in the most articles (77/196, 39.3%). Of articles with food industry involvement, 55.6% reported findings favourable to relevant food industry interests, compared to 9.7% of articles without food industry involvement.

Food industry involvement in peer-reviewed research in leading nutrition-related journals is commonplace. In line with previous literature, this study has shown that a greater proportion of peer-reviewed studies involving the food industry have results that favour relevant food industry interests than peer-reviewed studies without food industry involvement. Given the potential competing interests of the food industry, it is important to explore mechanisms that can safeguard the integrity and public relevance of nutrition research.

Citation: Sacks G, Riesenberg D, Mialon M, Dean S, Cameron AJ (2020) The characteristics and extent of food industry involvement in peer-reviewed research articles from 10 leading nutrition-related journals in 2018. PLoS ONE 15(12): e0243144. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243144

Editor: Quinn Grundy, University of Toronto, CANADA

Received: June 15, 2020; Accepted: November 16, 2020; Published: December 16, 2020

Copyright: © 2020 Sacks et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: GS and AJC were supported by Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowships (102035 and 36357, respectively) from the National Heart Foundation of Australia ( https://www.heartfoundation.org.au/ ). GS and AJC are researchers within a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) ( https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/ ) Centre of Research Excellence in Food Retail Environments for Health (RE-FRESH) (APP1152968) (Australia). GS is also a researcher within a NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence entitled Reducing Salt Intake Using Food Policy Interventions (APP1117300). The authors are solely responsible for the opinions, hypotheses and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication, and they do not necessarily reflect their funders’ vision. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: GS and AJC are academic partners on a publicly funded healthy supermarket intervention trial that includes Australian local government and supermarket retail (IGA) collaborators. GS has been involved in studies to benchmark the policies and commitments of food companies related to obesity prevention and nutrition in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Malaysia and Europe. The authors have not received funding from any organization in the food industry. The authors have no other potential competing interests to declare. The competing interests of the authors do not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Dietary risk factors are associated with more deaths and disability worldwide than any other modifiable factor [ 1 ]. A key driver of poor diets globally has been a nutrition transition characterised by increased consumption of ultra-processed packaged foods [ 2 – 4 ]. These foods are manufactured, marketed and sold by a diverse selection of companies and organisations, collectively referred to as the ‘food industry’ [ 5 ]. Importantly, global food systems are now dominated by a relatively small number of large transnational food companies [ 2 , 6 ]. The continued generation of profit by these large food companies typically relies on aggressive marketing of their products and brands, as well as political strategies to create regulatory environments that facilitate their market power [ 7 ].

Nutrition research is fundamental to efforts to promote healthy eating behaviours and health. However, there is concern regarding how the involvement of the food industry in nutrition research affects the nature of studies conducted, the nutrition research agenda and the findings of individual studies [ 8 – 10 ]. The interests of many commercial food industry actors are misaligned with clinical and public health objectives as the legal mandate of corporations is to return profit for their shareholders, without explicit consideration of broader social impact [ 10 , 11 ]. In recognition of the inherent risks and to preserve the scientific credibility of nutrition-related research, food industry involvement in research is increasingly scrutinized [ 12 , 13 ].

Food industry involvement in research can take many forms. These forms of involvement include, amongst others, the provision of funding and the involvement of food company employees as part of research teams. There are many reasons why food companies might be involved in nutrition-related research. These reasons may include unobjectionable motives such as a willingness to develop new knowledge, assist in research translation and contribute expertise and resources [ 14 ]. However, from a public health perspective, several concerns have been identified regarding food industry involvement in research. These include: 1) the creation of increased marketing opportunities for industry products, many of which are harmful to population health [ 15 ]; 2) the establishment and nurturing of relationships between the food industry and nutrition researchers that serves to increase perceived industry credibility, reduce industry criticism, and encourage increased dependency on the food industry [ 16 , 17 ]; 3) industry influence over research agendas to preferentially focus on topics likely to benefit industry interests, rather than topics of public health importance [ 18 ]; 4) industry influence on the methods, conclusions and impact of research in ways that are likely to favour industry interests over and above other factors [ 9 , 19 – 21 ]; and 5) use of research for political purposes [ 22 , 23 ]. An increased dependence on food industry funding by academics has been documented [ 9 , 12 , 16 , 24 ], with food industry funding sometimes acknowledged as a strategically important funding source for the university sector [ 25 ].

Previous research has investigated the impact of food industry sponsorship on the findings of published research. Several studies have found that papers sponsored by the food industry typically favour industry interests [ 9 , 21 , 26 ], although a recent meta-analysis found that the quantitative difference in conclusions between food industry-sponsored and non–industry-sponsored nutrition studies was not significant [ 8 ]. To date, no study has comprehensively examined the extent and nature of food industry involvement in peer-reviewed research. Better information regarding the extent of food industry involvement, characteristics (e.g., industry sector, company size) of food industry actors that are involved in nutrition-related research, and the ways in which they are involved (e.g., study authorship, different types of funding provided) would assist efforts to assess and manage the potential impact and implications of food industry involvement in research.

This study aimed to contribute to a growing body of empirical evidence related to food industry involvement in peer-reviewed published research by systematically identifying the extent of food industry involvement in research articles from a large sample of leading nutrition-related journals. In addition, this study examined the extent to which research findings support food industry interests for both articles with declared food industry involvement, and those with no declared food industry involvement.

The study examined articles published in 2018 in the top 10 nutrition and dietetics journals as defined by the SCImago Journal ranking (SJR) as at June 2019. The SJR is a measure of a journal’s impact, and expresses the average number of weighted citations received in a selected year by the documents published in the journal in the three previous years [ 27 ]. The selected journals included (in alphabetical order): Advances in Nutrition , Clinical Nutrition , International Journal of Behavioural Nutrition and Physical Activity , International Journal of Obesity , Nutrition Research Reviews , Nutrition Reviews , Obesity , Paediatric Obesity , The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and The Journal of Nutrition .

Details of all articles (n = 1,732) published in the selected journals in 2018 were extracted from Medline, CINAHL, Global Health or PubMed. Article types included in the study were original research articles, reviews, short/brief reports and short communications. Article types excluded were errata/corrections, editorials, perspectives, letters to the editor and other related article types. We also examined the disclosed conflicts of interest of the editorial board of each of the selected journals (based on information provided on the website of each journal), links of the selected journals and their editors to the food industry (based on biographical information provided on the journal website and/or on the website of each editor’s primary affiliation), as well as each journal’s requirements for authors to disclosure conflicts of interest and any other related policies (based on information provided on the website of each journal).

Food industry involvement

Each included article was examined independently by two of the authors (DR and GS) to determine whether there was food industry involvement in the paper. For the purposes of this study, the “food industry” was broadly defined to include all organisations involved in food and non-alcoholic beverage production, distribution, marketing and retail, as well as relevant industry groups and trade associations [ 28 ]. We included manufacturers of dietary supplements and breast-milk substitutes in this definition. In recognition of the known industry tactic of establishing ‘front groups’ (defined as an organisation that purports to represent one agenda while in reality it serves some other party or interest whose sponsorship is hidden or rarely mentioned) [ 29 ], our definition of “food industry” also included organisations that received the majority of their funding from the food industry.

Food industry involvement was determined based on examination of author affiliations, declared funding sources, declarations of interests, and acknowledgements within each article. All organisations identified through these sections of each article were assessed to determine whether they could be classified as part of the food industry. All universities were considered as not part of the food industry. Organisations known by the authors to be part of the food industry as well as those on an established list of known food industry front groups were classified as such [ 30 ]. Searches of the primary websites of all other organisations were conducted to determine the nature of their operations and their funding sources, where relevant, in order to determine if they could be considered as part of the food industry [ 31 ].

Food industry actors identified through the study were classified into one of nine different sectors: 1) dairy; 2) dietary supplement manufacturing; 3) food chemical suppliers and food technology companies; 4) food retail; 5) meat and livestock; 6) non-alcoholic beverage manufacturing; 7) primary production (non-dairy, non-meat); 8) processed food manufacturing; and 9) other food industry organisations (see S1 Table for definitions of what was included in each sector). Categorisations were based on an assessment of the primary areas of activity of the actor, based on the knowledge of the authors and information provided on the website of the actor. In addition, we classified food industry actors into three categories based on the size and nature of their operations. These included large corporations (with annal global revenue > USD1 billion), trade/industry associations, and small corporations/other entities (annual global revenue < USD1 billion). This classification was based on information obtained from the Euromonitor Passport database [ 32 ], supplemented by internet searches of the name of the food industry actor where necessary. All categorisation of food industry actors was performed independently by two of the authors (DR and SD), with any discrepancies discussed and resolved with a third author (GS).

Based on the information extracted, papers were categorised as having food industry involvement if: 1) any of the authors self-affiliated as an employee, member or representative of the food industry; 2) the authors declared funding from the food industry, including direct funding for the study, donation of products to be used for the study, or funding received for other activities (e.g., conference attendance) not directly related to the study; or 3) other stated food industry involvement (e.g., through conflicts noted in the acknowledgments sections or other involvement that did not fit within the other categories). Where an individual article included multiple forms of industry involvement, each form of involvement was noted.

Classification of principal findings

The ‘principal findings’ of all articles that had involvement with the food industry were classified according to whether the findings were: 1) favourable to the interests of the food industry actor; 2) unfavourable to the interests of the food industry actor; 3) mixed; 4) neutral; or 5) not applicable to the food industry actor/s involved (see Table 1 for definition of each classification). The principal findings were operationalised as the results that were reported in the ‘results’ section of the abstract of the paper. If the relevant section of the abstract contained insufficient information to deduce the nature of the principal findings, the ‘results’ and ‘discussion’ sections of the paper were also examined to understand the nature of the principal reported findings. This approach was based on methods previously used for similar types of analyses [ 8 , 33 ].

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243144.t001

For each of the ten journals, a sample of randomly selected original research articles that did not report food industry involvement was also selected. The process for selection of these articles was that, first, the number of articles with food industry involvement for each journal was calculated. Then, the matching number of articles from each journal, but without food industry involvement, was selected randomly from the list of included articles using the RAND function in Excel. Accordingly, an equal number of articles with and without industry involvement in each journal was selected for analysis. The principal findings of all selected articles without food industry involvement were examined and classified in the same way as the principal findings of the articles with food industry involvement. As there was no specific industry actor involved in these articles, a broad interpretation of food industry interests was taken when assessing the extent to which articles favoured food industry interests. For example, a favourable finding for any food product or nutrient was considered favourable to the food industry, whereas a negative finding for any food product or nutrient was considered unfavourable. The primary topic area of each of the articles was noted, including the particular foods, food components or nutrients (as relevant).

Assessments of principal findings were conducted independently by two of the authors (DR and SD), with any discrepancies discussed and resolved with a third author (GS). Results were analysed by type of food industry involvement and by journal. For the purposes of this analysis of ‘type of food industry involvement’, author affiliations with the food industry and direct funding for the study from the food industry were grouped together (as they were considered more direct involvement) and compared to other types of food industry funding (that were considered less direct involvement).

Statistical analysis

All articles with food industry involvement were identified from each of the ten included journals, with the frequency and percentage in each category of favourability calculated. For the randomly selected matched sample of research articles with no food industry involvement, we calculated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the proportion of articles in each category of favourability (e.g., favourable or unfavourable to food industry interests) using Stata 15.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA).

Of the 1,732 articles published in the selected journals, 1,461 peer-reviewed research articles met our inclusion criteria (n = 271 excluded) ( Fig 1 ) . Amongst these, 196/1,461 (13.4%) were classified as having food industry involvement ( Table 2 ). Refer to S2 Table for details of food industry actors identified.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243144.g001

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243144.t002

The most common form of involvement was the provision of direct funding for the study (n = 120/196, 61.2%). Other involvement (including acknowledgments and information listed in the conflict of interests section and not related to other categories) represented the second most common form of involvement (82/196, 41.8%) followed by industry funding received for other research not directly related to the study (70/196, 35.7%) and authorship (59/196, 30.1%) ( Table 2 ).

Food industry involvement was noted across all 10 journals included in the sample. The Journal of Nutrition (28.3%), Nutrition Reviews (24.5%), and The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (16.7%) published the highest proportion of articles with food industry-involvement. Paediatric Obesity (3.8%), International Journal of Behavioural Nutrition and Physical Activity (4.0%), and International Journal of Obesity (4.9%) published the lowest proportion of articles with food industry involvement ( Table 2 ). Each journal had similar policies in place that required authors to disclose conflicts of interest. Four journals ( Advances in Nutrition , The Journal of Nutrition , Obesity , Paediatric Obesity ) included statements regarding conflicts of interest of their editorial board on the journal website. Editors from six journals ( The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition , Advances in Nutrition , International Journal of Obesity , Nutrition Reviews , The Journal of Nutrition , Obesity ) were identified as having involvement with the food industry (see S3 Table ). No other relevant policies regarding studies with food industry involvement were identified by any journal.

A diverse range of sectors of the food industry were involved in the research assessed ( Table 3 ). The sectors most often represented were processed food manufacturing (39.3%), dietary supplement manufacturing (28.6%) and dairy (27.0%). Food retailers (including supermarkets) were involved in the fewest papers (2.6%). Of the 161 food industry actors identified as involved in research articles, the highest proportion (41.6%) were classified as trade/industry associations, 35.4% were classified as small corporations/other entities, and 23.0% were classified as large corporations ( S4 Table ). However, these large corporations were the most frequently involved (47.8% of identified instances of food industry involvement), followed by trade/industry associations (36.4% of identified instances of food industry involvement) and small corporations/other entities (15.8% of identified instances of food industry involvement) ( S4 Table ). Refer to S5 Table for further information on the industry actors identified as being involved in more than 1% of articles.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243144.t003

The majority of papers with food industry involvement reported findings that were considered favourable to the food industry (n = 109, 55.6%) ( Table 4 ). The proportion of articles with findings considered favourable to the food industry was even higher (66.2%) where study authors reported either affiliations related to the food industry or direct funding for the study from the food industry ( Table 4 ). In contrast, of the 196 randomly selected articles with no identified food industry involvement, 19 (9.7%, 95% CI: 7.0–12.4) reported findings classified as favourable to the food industry. The vast majority (n = 15/19, 78.9%) of these articles related to particular nutrients and/or food components (e.g., protein, vitamins), with the remaining four articles (21.1%) relating to foods and food products (e.g., coffee, green tea) ( S6 Table ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243144.t004

Only a small proportion (n = 13, 6.6%) of papers with food industry involvement reported results that were unfavourable to the food industry ( Table 4 ). The percentage of articles with findings unfavourable to the food industry or mixed findings were similar for those articles with and without food industry involvement ( Table 4 ). 117 (59.7%, 95% CI: 54.5–65.7) articles with no food industry involvement had findings considered not applicable to the food industry, compared to 50 (25.5%) of the articles with food industry involvement. Similar patterns were observed across each journal ( S7 Table ).

This study found that 13.4% of peer-reviewed research articles in the top 10 most-cited nutrition- and dietetics-related journals from 2018 reported food industry involvement. Food industry involvement spanned a number of industry sectors, with processed food manufacturing, dietary supplement manufacturing and dairy most often represented. The vast majority of industry involvement was from large corporations and trade/industry associations, rather than smaller corporations. The proportion of articles with findings considered favourable to the food industry was substantially higher among those articles with food industry involvement (55.6%) compared to a random sample of those without (9.7%), with the difference even more marked where industry involvement in studies was more direct (author affiliations or direct funding for the study). The percentage of articles considered unfavourable to the interests of the food industry was similar among the articles with food industry involvement and the random sample of those articles without.

Considerable variation in the percentage of articles with industry involvement was observed between journals. The Journal of Nutrition and Nutrition Reviews published the highest proportion of articles with industry involvement. Both of these journals have declared connections to the food industry. Several members of the board of The Journal of Nutrition have declared conflicts of interest involving food companies [ 34 ]. The Journal of Nutrition is published by the American Society of Nutrition (ASN), which has formal partnerships with multiple food companies [ 35 ] and has been criticised for supporting food industry objectives over public health interests [ 24 ]. Other journals included in the sample ( The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and Advances in Nutrition ) are also published by ASN, and had lower proportions of articles with food industry involvement compared to The Journal of Nutrition . Nutrition Reviews is published by the International Life Science Institute (ILSI), who were founded and are solely funded by large food industry companies including Mars, Nestlé, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo with the majority of their members’ interests opposing public health policy and objectives [ 36 , 37 ]. Future research should explore the extent to which a journal’s connections to the food industry influence their publication priorities and editorial processes.

The findings in this study support existing evidence that research with food industry involvement is generally favourable to the interests of the food industry [ 8 , 11 , 15 , 18 , 21 , 24 , 26 , 38 , 39 ]. In particular, this study adds to the growing empirical evidence that food industry involvement in nutrition research likely influences research agendas to focus disproportionately on topics of importance to the industry, potentially at the expense of topics of greater public health importance [ 8 , 18 ]. A recent scoping review by Fabbri and colleagues [ 18 ] demonstrated the impact of industry involvement across a range of diverse sectors (including medicine and nutrition), finding that industry-funded research was more often focused on products, processes or activities that can be commercialised and marketed, rather than non-market based activities. They concluded that “corporate interests can drive research agendas away from questions that are the most relevant for public health” [ 18 ]. In addition, food industry-funded research has been noted as often focusing on a specific nutrient, potentially enabling the funder to market the benefits of particular nutrients [ 24 ]. While it has previously been reported that nutrition research funded by the food industry typically respects scientific standards for conducting and reporting scientific studies [ 17 ], the food industry was itself involved in that assessment, and the issue warrants further detailed exploration.

It has been well documented that a range of industries, including the food industry, seek involvement in research, develop research that is favourable to their interests, and make use of scientific evidence as part of broader efforts to influence public health policy [ 19 , 22 , 29 , 40 – 42 ]. Moreover, there is evidence that major corporations have pushed for policy making systems that provide a route for feeding corporate evidence into policy making [ 42 , 43 ]. There are several examples of topic areas in which research funded by the food industry favours particular products or diverts attention away from a public health issue. For example, with respect to sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), a body of research suggests that the involvement of the SSB sector in research has resulted in research that reports favourable findings for the industry [ 11 , 44 ]. In addition, researchers have documented instances where Coca-Cola maintained control over study data and the disclosure of results for research it funded. Some research agreements between the company and their contracted researchers stated that Coca-Cola had the ultimate choice regarding publication of research findings [ 45 ].

Study limitations

To date, this is the first study to systematically examine the extent of involvement of the food industry in peer-reviewed research articles published in the leading nutrition and dietetics journals. Importantly, much peer-reviewed nutrition research is published outside of the selected nutrition and dietetics journals. Moreover, the study was not designed to identify research with food industry involvement that is published in topic areas outside of nutrition and dietetics, outside of peer-reviewed journals, or that is funded or conducted by the industry but remains unpublished. Accordingly, the study represents only a small and selected analysis of the extent of food industry involvement in nutrition research. Future studies should investigate nutrition-related articles from journals with both a nutrition and non-nutrition focus (including, for example, journals in medicine and public health). Ways to automate methods for comprehensively identifying different types of food industry involvement in published studies need to be explored.

The classification of the principal findings of studies as favourable or unfavourable to the interests of the food industry was based on the knowledge of the researchers involved, which may have led to instances of unintended misclassification. Given the magnitude of the differences observed between articles with and without food industry involvement, unintended misclassifications are highly unlikely to have impacted the overall conclusions.

We did not perform any analysis by study design of the included articles or in relation to the appropriateness and rigour of the research methods used in each article. Accordingly, we did not assess the influence of food industry involvement on scientific methods or the way in which they were applied. Aspects of study design and specific mechanisms by which food industry involvement may influence study focus areas and results should be included in future studies.

The analysis relied primarily on the self-disclosure of food industry involvement (through declared conflicts of interests, funding acknowledgments, and author affiliations), with different journals having different disclosure requirements. We did not conduct an analysis of the veracity of each journal’s conflict of interest disclosure requirements, but this warrants further exploration. Importantly, undisclosed food industry involvement cannot be captured using the approach we adopted in this study. There is evidence that the disclosure of conflict of interest is under-reported in research [ 45 , 46 ], indicating that the percentage of articles with food industry involvement may be larger than that observed here. In addition, our identification of food industry organisations involved in the included studies may have been incomplete. While we made use of an established list of food industry front groups as well as online searches of identified organisations to determine the nature of their operations and funding sources, it has previously been noted that financial links to the food industry are often not publicly available [ 30 ].

Finally, we did not conduct a detailed examination of the extent to which the editors of each journal have links to the food industry. Future research should further explore links between journal editors and the food industry and the role of journal editors in assessing conflicts of interest with the food industry.

Implications of the findings

The finding that food industry involvement is commonplace in peer-reviewed research in leading nutrition-related journals has several implications. With increased recognition of food industry bias within research, it is important to consider ways of maximising the integrity of research published in respected peer-reviewed nutrition journals and ensuring that research focused on issues of public health relevance is prioritized. One option could be to limit industry funding of research to a government- or independently-controlled pool of money that supports a research agenda developed independent of industry, with strict processes to ensure freedom from industry influence [ 47 ]. A similar model for pharmaceutical research already operates in Italy [ 48 ], and in relation to the tobacco and alcohol industry in California and Thailand [ 49 ].

Further, it is important that research institutions have strict, regularly updated and transparent guidelines and policies to regulate and report on their engagement with industry, including specifying the level of engagement permitted with different actors. For those institutions with food industry involvement, processes need to be put in place to ensure that the potential influence of the food industry on research agendas and research methods are managed [ 50 ]. Example of guidelines for managing engagement with industry include those from the Charles Perkins Centre at the University of Sydney [ 51 ] and the Global Obesity Centre at Deakin University in Australia [ 52 ].

Journals could also consider adopting detailed policies regarding articles with declared food industry involvement. Such policies could place limits on the number of articles that the journal will accept for review, specific topic areas where food industry involvement is discouraged, or specific sections in journals for studies with industry involvement [ 24 ]. Based on the findings of this study, all articles that include any type of food industry involvement warrant close scrutiny from journals, with a particular focus on more direct types of involvement (e.g., author affiliations and direct funding for a study). Journals should also have clear policies on disclosing editorial conflicts of interest, including any links between editors and the food industry. Moreover, any such conflicts need to be actively managed or eliminated. Further, research that investigates appropriate standards of disclosure and involvement can guide policy and practice in this area.

Food industry involvement in peer-reviewed nutrition research is commonplace, and the results of the majority of studies with food industry involvement favour the interests of the food industry. Given the potential competing interests of the food industry on the one hand, and scientific and population health interests on the other, it is important to explore mechanisms that can safeguard the integrity and public relevance of nutrition research, and ensure they are not undermined by the influence of the food industry.

Supporting information

S1 table. definitions of categories used to classify organisations from the food industry..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243144.s001

S2 Table. Food industry actors identified as involved in research studies in the top 10 most-cited nutrition- and dietetics-related journals in 2018, by food industry sector and actor classification.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243144.s002

S3 Table. The top 10 most-cited nutrition- and dietetics-related journals in 2018 and their declared involvement with the food industry.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243144.s003

S4 Table. Food industry actors identified as being involved in the top 10 most-cited nutrition- and dietetics-related journals in 2018.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243144.s004

S5 Table. Food industry actors identified as being involved in more than 1% of articles examined in the top 10 most-cited nutrition- and dietetics-related journals in 2018.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243144.s005

S6 Table. Primary topic area of the random sample of articles without food industry involvement 1 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243144.s006

S7 Table. Nature of the findings in articles with and without 1 food industry involvement, by journal.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243144.s007

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of Benjamin Sullivan, an Honours student in the School of Health and Social Development at Deakin University in 2015, whose research informed the design of this study.

• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 6. Oxfam. Behind the Brands: Food Justice and the ‘Big 10’ Food and Beverage Companies: Oxfam International; 2013. [cited 20 August 2020]. Available from: https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/bp166-behind-the-brands-260213-en_2.pdf
• 24. Nestle M. Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health: University of California Press; 2013.
• 27. SCImago. SCImago Journal & Country Rank. [cited 10 June 2020]. Available from: http://www.scimagojr.com
• 28. Albala K, Allen G. The business of food: encyclopedia of the food and drink industries: Greenwood; 2007.
• 30. Simon M. Best Public Relations that Money Can Buy: A Guide to Food Industry Front Groups. Center for Food Safety. 2013. [citied 21 August 2020]. Available from: http://www.eatdrinkpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/Front_Groups_Report_CFS_Simon.pdf
• 32. Euromonitor International. Passport. 2018. [cited 12 August 2020]. Available from: http://go.euromonitor.com/passport.html .
• 35. American Scoiety for Nutrition. Sustaining Partners. [cited 5 May 2020]. Available from: https://nutrition.org/sustaining-partners/ .
• 51. Charles Perkins Centre Engagement With Industry- Committee Members 2016. Engagement with industry guidelines. [cited 20 May 2020]. Available from: https://www.sydney.edu.au/charles-perkins-centre/our-research/partnerships.html .

Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > Journals
• > Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
• > Volume 72 Issue 1
• > Food sustainability: problems, perspectives and solutions

Article contents

The food sustainability challenge, addressing the food sustainability challenge: three perspectives, food sustainability: problems, perspectives and solutions.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2013

The global food system makes a significant contribution to climate changing greenhouse gas emissions with all stages in the supply chain, from agricultural production through processing, distribution, retailing, home food preparation and waste, playing a part. It also gives rise to other major environmental impacts, including biodiversity loss and water extraction and pollution. Policy makers are increasingly aware of the need to address these concerns, but at the same time they are faced with a growing burden of food security and nutrition-related problems, and tasked with ensuring that there is enough food to meet the needs of a growing global population. In short, more people need to be fed better, with less environmental impact. How might this be achieved? Broadly, three main ‘takes’ or perspectives, on the issues and their interactions, appear to be emerging. Depending on one's view point, the problem can be conceptualised as a production challenge, in which case there is a need to change how food is produced by improving the unit efficiency of food production; a consumption challenge, which requires changes to the dietary drivers that determine food production; or a socio-economic challenge, which requires changes in how the food system is governed. This paper considers these perspectives in turn, their implications for nutrition and climate change, and their strengths and weaknesses. Finally, an argument is made for a reorientation of policy thinking which uses the insights provided by all three perspectives, rather than, as is the situation today, privileging one over the other.

greenhouse gas

Food is essential to our survival, yet its production is undermining the environment upon which this survival is based. Clean air and water, healthy soils, the presence of a diverse range of other living species and a climate to which we are adapted, collectively constitute our life-support system. They are essential to our survival as a species. However, numerous studies have shown that the food supply chain is jeopardising their functioning: it is a major cause of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), unsustainable water extraction and pollution, deforestation and biodiversity loss. All these effects have major, and negative, consequences for human well-being ( 1 ) .

At the same time the food system appears not to be especially successful at performing its primary function: feeding people effectively. Some eat too much and suffer the health consequences thereof, while others go hungry. Many more suffer from the hidden hunger of micronutrient deficiencies. Compounding the problems of unsustainability and nutritional imbalance are population growth, meaning more mouths to feed, and changing climatic and environmental conditions which will make food production increasingly difficult and unpredictable in coming years.

The challenge is clear, if monumental. On the one hand, we are faced with the urgent need to address the major environmental consequences of our current systems of food production, while adapting to those same consequences. On the other, and in the context of these environmental constraints, policy makers are tasked with developing food provisioning systems that ensure that world's growing population has access to enough of the right kind of food to meet their nutritional needs. The challenge in short, is as follows: how to make food production more environmentally sustainable and resilient while feeding more people more effectively?

A problem as multifaceted as this elicits a very broad range of suggestions as to the way forward. It is argued here that broadly three ‘frames’ or perspectives on the issues are emerging, through which the options are considered and solutions proposed. The purpose here is to describe these perspectives, examine how each engages with the nutritional aspect of the food sustainability challenge and consider how things would look, nutritionally speaking, under each perspective, were it to dominate the policy agenda and future activity. It is shown that much hinges on stakeholders’ different approaches to livestock and to meat and dairy consumption. Finally, the strengths and weaknesses found within these perspectives are assessed and an argument made for a reorientation of policy thinking which uses the insights provided by all three perspectives, rather than, as is the situation today, privileging one over the other.

First, however, to provide context and a few numbers, a brief summary of the food sustainability problem is provided as follows.

Food and its environmental impacts

For many policy makers, climate change is the major environmental problem we face, and here the food system's contribution is considerable. Estimates find that the food system as a whole contributes between 15 and 28 % to overall GHG emissions in developed countries, with all stages in the supply chain, from agricultural production through processing, distribution, retailing, home food preparation and waste, playing a part ( Reference Garnett 2 ) . Agricultural production makes the single largest contribution to overall impacts, accounting for nearly half of food-related GHG emissions in developed countries and more (in relative terms) in developing regions where post-harvest supply chains are less developed. While the direct impacts of farming (from CH 4 and N 2 O emissions) contribute around 10–12 % of global emissions ( Reference Smith, Martino, Cai, Metz, Davidson, Bosch, Dave and Meyer 3 ) , there are also indirect impacts to consider. Agriculturally induced deforestation causes the release of CO 2 into the atmosphere, and taking this into account adds a further 6–17 % to agriculture's share of the burden. Once all direct and indirect impacts are summed, agriculture's contribution to the global emissions total has been estimated to account for as much as 30 % ( Reference Bellarby, Foereid and Hastings 4 ) ( Fig. 1 ).

Fig. 1. (colour online) Source: Bellarby et al. ( Reference Bellarby, Foereid and Hastings 4 ) .

In addition to CO 2 release, agriculturally induced deforestation is the main cause of biodiversity loss worldwide. It is also responsible for 70–80 % of all human water withdrawals (water scarcity is becoming more widespread in many parts of the world) and is a significant cause of water pollution ( Reference Jägerskog and Jønch Clausen 5 ) . The use of fertilisers, manure and N-fixing legumes have disrupted global N and P cycles, with negative impacts on water quality, aquatic ecosystems and marine fisheries ( Reference Foley, Ramankutty and Brauman 6 ) .

Not all foods make an equal contribution to these linked problems of climate, biodiversity loss, resource depletion and pollution. Numerous assessments of individual food products find that meat and dairy products carry a disproportionately high environmental burden, with GHG emissions a particular concern ( Reference Williams, Audsley and Sandars 7 – Reference Westhoek, Rood and van den Berg 10 ) . Global estimates suggest that livestock production accounts for about 12–18 % of global GHG emissions ( 11 , 12 ) and about half of the food system's total impacts, more when land use change impacts are included ( Reference Audsley, Brander and Chatterton 13 ) . Since consumption of these foods is high in developed nations, growing rapidly in industrialising, and starting to increase among urban consumers in low income countries, their contribution is set to rise.

Livestock farming is responsible for other environmental impacts too. The sector uses 70 % of agricultural land overall and a third of arable land, and as such plays a leading role in CO 2 release and biodiversity loss from deforestation. For example, cattle ranching and soya production (grown for animal feed) are the key drivers of deforestation in the fragile Amazon region ( Reference McAlpine, Etter and Fearnside 14 , Reference Nepstad, Soares-Filho and Merry 15 ) . Livestock are also the largest source of water pollution in the agricultural sector and a major user of finite irrigation water; much of the anticipated increase in irrigation water in coming years will be attributable to increasing production of animal feed to meet rising demand for livestock products ( 12 , 16 ) .

The impacts of livestock farming, and agriculture in general, are a consequence of the way farming is practised both in the developed and the developing worlds. They reflect both the problems associated with wealth and excess; and of poverty and insufficiency. Thus the high-input–high output industrial agriculture found in the wealthier countries has enabled and fostered excessive use of environmentally damaging non-renewable inputs and has made possible diets high in resource- and GHG-intensive foods such as meat and dairy products. At the same time, the farming practices of the world's poorest peoples are characterised by insufficiency: by a lack of agricultural inputs, irrigation water and land. This ‘malnourishment’ of the land gives rise to soil degradation, while attempts to compensate for low yields may trigger further land clearance; or, where additional land is not available, population pressures on existing land.

The nutrition food security challenge

The environmental problems caused both by excess and insufficiency are played out in the nutritional arena too. Globally about 35 % of adults are overweight, with half a billion of them obese ( 17 ) . Obesity is affecting people at ever younger ages: today 43 million preschool children or nearly 7 % of all under fives, are overweight ( 18 ) . Obesity and its attendant health consequences are, moreover, no longer only rich world problems. The majority of overweight and obese people today are citizens of low and middle income countries, largely living in urban areas, and many of them are poor. Thus while a quarter of deaths in developed countries are attributable to diet and physical inactivity-related risks, they are linked to 18 % of deaths low- and middle-income countries; many more people in absolute terms ( 19 ) .

The causes of obesity are multifaceted ( 20 ) , but energy rich diets combined with sedentary lifestyles are major risk factors. Today's agricultural system has increased access for many to energy- and fat-dense foods; these include not just high sugar processed foods and vegetable oils but also, critically, GHG-intensive meat and dairy products ( Reference Popkin and Gordon-Larsen 21 – Reference Zhai, Wang and Du 23 ) . It is worth noting the link between vegetable oils and livestock farming: oilseeds are grown both for their oil fraction and for the oilseed cake that is used as animal feed. The synergistic relationship between these two production patterns may help increase availability of both, so ratcheting up consumption.

Coexistent with ill health caused by excess consumption, about 850 million people are undernourished; their diets lack sufficient energy ( Reference Swinburn, Sacks and Hall 24 , 25 ) . A total of 3·5 million children under five die each year from under nutrition ( Reference Black, Allen and Bhutta 26 ) . An even greater proportion of people worldwide, including many who are overweight, have diets that are imbalanced, and lack the right mix of essential nutrients for healthy development, such as vitamin A, folate, Fe and Ca. For example, approximately one-third of the world's preschool-age population is estimated to be vitamin A deficient; up to 50 % in Africa and South-East Asia. Ca deficiency is the main cause of rickets in many parts of the world. An estimated 35–80 % of children in countries such as Turkey, India, Egypt, China, Libya and Lebanon are vitamin D deficient. Anaemia, much of it Fe-deficiency related, affects about 25 % of the global population, including 47 % of preschool children and one in two pregnant women, with the prevalence much higher in Africa ( 18 , 26 – 28 ) .

It should be noted that the food system (agriculture in particular) affects not only people's nutritional status but also other aspects of their health too. Millions of people worldwide suffer from environmental health problems arising from agrochemicals (pesticides and fertilisers) and other pollutants in ground water (such as manure); from livestock-related zoonoses and food-borne pathogens; from water-borne diseases such as malaria that are linked to agricultural water use; and exposed to a wide range of agricultural occupational health hazards, from respiratory diseases to accidents, UV radiation and mental health problems. Poor health status due to other factors in turn undermines people's ability to absorb the nutrients available in food, which further increases their vulnerability to disease. Poor people, particularly those who are most marginalised, are most likely to be affected by the negative health effects of food production ( Reference Hawkes and Ruel 29 ) .

What can be done to address the problem of food system sustainability? The solutions proposed very much depend upon how the problem is conceptualised, and broadly speaking three main ‘takes’ or perspectives, on the issues and their interactions, appear to be emerging. One perspective places emphasis on the negative consequences of food production; through this framing, there is a need to address these impacts by developing farming and post-harvest supply chain approaches that cause less damage. A second highlights the consumption patterns that drive production of high-impact foods, such as meat and dairy products; the way forward is therefore to seek to try and alter these. And a third picks out the problem of inequality, the coexistence of excess with insufficiency, that characterises both the environmental damage caused by production and the health problems linked to consumption, arguing for a more equitable food system.

To summarise, depending on one's view point, the problem can be conceptualised as a production challenge, in which case there is a need to change how food is produced by improving the unit efficiency of food production, termed here the ‘production efficiency’ perspective; a consumption challenge, which requires changes to the dietary drivers that determine food production (and may also include a focus on population growth) and ‘demand restraint’; or a socio-economic challenge, which requires changes in how the food system is governed i.e. ‘food system transformation.’

Many observers recognise that the problem requires a multifaceted approach and it would be simplistic to divide them into separate camps. However, there are certainly differences of emphasis: stakeholders tend to feel more comfortable with one framing of the problem over the other, and argue for action accordingly. These different emphases in turn reflect divergent beliefs about the role of technology and the potential it holds to address the problems we face; the extent to which it is possible to alter human behaviours; and the malleability of global institutions and the global economy. More fundamentally, however, which frame stakeholders choose to privilege will reflect their different visions of what sustainability actually ‘looks’ like, based on deeper ethical and aesthetic convictions in relation to our role in the natural world, the nature of human progress, definitions of freedom and ultimately what constitutes the ‘good life’.

The section that follows describes these different perspectives, investigates the implications for nutrition and explores some of the underpinning values driving these three approaches.

The production challenge: improve efficiency

The challenge is conceptualised as follows: the human population is growing and urbanising; we are increasingly becoming net consumers and a dwindling proportion of the world's people will be engaged in farming in coming years, at least as their main activity. As incomes rise, people's food preferences are changing, with demand for meat and dairy foods on the rise. To meet this demand, food production may need to rise by as much as 60–110 % by 2050 overall ( Reference Conforti 30 – 32 ) . At the same time, environmental damage caused by food production (both direct impacts and those related to deforestation) needs to be reduced.

More food must therefore be produced to feed urban consumers on existing farmland in ways that do not incur excessive environmental costs. Technological innovations and managerial changes are seen as key to reducing environmental impacts and increasing supply. For agriculture, the main strategies include: measures to improve efficiency such as the precise matching of inputs (fertilisers, water and pesticides) to outputs (plant or livestock requirements); technologies to recover energy from agricultural ‘waste’ (such as anaerobic digestion); and farming practices that sequester carbon in soils ( 33 , Reference Shafer, Walthall and Franzluebbers 34 ) . Post harvest, emissions can be reduced through the development of refrigeration, manufacturing and transport technologies that are more energy efficient or based on renewable energy sources. Waste is minimised through better inventory management, by modifying packaging and portion sizes and through other approaches that either prolong the shelf life of foods or help consumers reduce food waste in other ways ( 35 ) .

This perspective currently dominates the discourse on food sustainability. Its ‘more for less’ agenda constitutes the main, albeit not the only, focus of concern for governments ( 36 ) and for food industry actors such as agricultural input businesses, farming unions, manufacturers and retailers ( 37 , 38 ) . Demand projections are based on assumptions about income growth and its relationship with demand for certain foods, particularly meat ( 32 ) and there is little expectation that such demand could be significantly influenced or moderated. For some, moves towards moderation may pose a threat, given the economic importance of livestock and their nutritional value ( 39 , 40 ) .

While the other dimensions of food security (access, utilisation and stability over time) ( 41 ) and the quality of food are also recognised as important, in practice relatively less attention is paid to these other concerns.

As regards the nutritional quality of what is being produced: the task of agriculture is to supply the commodities that the market demands, based on the laws of supply and demand that in turn reflect individual consumer choices. Nutritional objectives can be met through other means, retrospectively as it were. For example, just as environmental efficiencies can be achieved through more optimised farming practices, so ‘health efficiencies’ can be secured through product reformulations that deliver foods similar in taste to the originals but lower in fat, sugar or salt, or with enhanced nutrition (prebiotics, n -3 fatty acids). Portion resizing can also reduce energy intakes per unit. Supported by appropriate information such as labelling, the consumer is then free to choose the healthier option without fundamentally needing to change their diet ( 42 – 44 ) . Physical activity is also promoted as a way to address the demand side of the energy balance, while pharmaceutical approaches may also be considered ( Reference Caveny, Caveney and Somaratne 45 , Reference Halpern, Oliveira and Faria 46 ) .

The high GHG intensity of meat and dairy products, and their association through complex health pathways with various negative health outcomes are recognised (although importantly the health benefits of animal products are also emphasised). However, both environmental and health concerns, from this perspective, can be addressed through technological means. Breeding, feeding and housing strategies, together with research into ways of inhibiting methane emissions from ruminant livestock, can reduce the per unit environmental footprint of meat and dairy production ( Reference Shafer, Walthall and Franzluebbers 34 , 47 ) . The corollary, nutritional approach is to provide consumers with meat that is leaner and dairy products that are lower in fat (through animal breeding and feeding strategies, or by removing the fat after production) and to encourage people to choose these foods over higher fat options. Such an approach offers the promise of providing consumers with essential micronutrients (Fe, Ca, Zn and so forth) without the ‘downsides’ of fat and energy ( 48 – Reference Wyness, Weichselbaum and O'Connor 50 ) .

In low income contexts, increased production of all foods can help address the problem of hunger caused by energy deficiencies and the need to produce ‘more food’ is sometimes considered as a moral imperative by farming interests. The importance of meat and dairy foods to consumers in low income countries, where diets are often grain based and lacking in diversity, is underlined. In addition to increased livestock production, post harvest food fortification and supplementation as well as biofortification (breeding crops higher in target nutrients) offer routes to addressing micronutrient deficiencies, with the food industry playing a key role ( 51 , 52 ) . Biofortification is considered particularly promising: while initial research investment costs are high, ex ante assessments suggest their cost effectiveness in addressing deficiencies is even greater ( Reference Meenakshi, Johnson and Manyong 53 ) .

To summarise: this is a globalised, ‘macro’ vision of a food system, and, of all the three perspectives, is the one most in keeping with current economic and political trends. It addresses the food security–environmental challenge primarily as an urban-oriented supply side problem. Market signals suggest that people want Western-style food that is convenient to prepare, often processed and reliant on sophisticated supply chains, and that includes substantial quantities of animal products. Since this is the ‘problem’, the solution is to deliver what people apparently want in ways that have lower negative impacts.

Globalised systems of production and distribution and larger food industry players, from agri-business to multinational manufacturers and retailers, can meet demand for food at lower environmental cost since they offer not just economies but also ecologies of scale ( Reference Schlich and Fleissner 54 ) . Efficient production of economically important commodities can also reduce the unit cost of food, making it more affordable, thus helping combat the problem of absolute hunger.

This perspective also sees a key role for the food industry in providing foods that meet current preferences at less ‘cost’ to health or that even positively enhance health, both in the developed and developing world. Fortification, biofortification, supplementation and an increase in low cost livestock production will improve the nutrient density of the foods available, while obesity can be addressed through product reformulations, information, and medical interventions where appropriate. Less attention is paid to the concept of dietary diversity, except in so far as increases in meat production will, for some, increase the range of foods consumed.

Consumers are rational beings who can make decisions based on the weighting of different preferences. Their choices should not be proscribed; consumption patterns should not be influenced by ‘nanny statist’ regulations and such like. While efforts are made to improve the environmental and health profile of foods through the approaches outlined earlier, consumer choice in relation to these foods i.e. how much of them they eat, is not a subject for consideration.

There a strong strand of optimism underlying this approach: it presents a positive vision of human ingenuity and of our ability to develop technological solutions to our problems. There is also a strong belief in freedom and individual agency, defined as the primacy of consumer choice, manifested through the workings of the market. Freedom is the freedom to consume, to attain a better life defined in terms of increased material possessions and more of the foods currently consumed in the developed world.

However, the efficiency vision may also be upheld by those with a less democratic orientation. Powerful interest groups may support this perspective because it reinforces existing power structures. Others may support the efficiency approach because they are essentially pessimistic about human nature: human subjects are incapable of restraining their desires and current socio-political inequities are entrenched and immutable. All that can be done is to shave away at the problem through technological improvements.

The consumption challenge: demand restraint

In a second framing of the food sustainability challenge, the end point in the supply chain, the consumer, becomes the focus of concern. Central to this perspective lies the conviction that excessive consumption, particularly of high-impact foods such as meat and dairy products, is a leading cause of the environmental crisis we face. Technological improvements alone will not be able to address the problem.

This view is shared by many within the animal welfare and environmental movements ( 55 – 57 ) . These stakeholders base their arguments on academic studies that argue, to varying degrees, for demand restraint ( Reference Foley, Ramankutty and Brauman 6 , Reference Williams, Audsley and Sandars 7 , Reference Audsley, Brander and Chatterton 13 , Reference Goodland 58 – Reference Garnett 61 ) .

For example, one study concludes that if consumption is not curbed globally, then given current dietary trends in demand, agricultural emissions are set to rise even when a broad range of production-side mitigation measures are deployed ( Reference Popp, Lotze-Campen and Bodirsky 62 ) . Another argues that by 2050, livestock sector growth could push the planet to the point where humanity's biological existence is threatened. It concludes that per capita meat consumption in 2050 may therefore need to be between 20 and 40 % of what it is today ( Reference Pelletier and Tyedmers 63 ) .

While demand may need to be restrained for environmental reasons, this perspective also highlights research finding that reduced consumption of livestock products would actually benefit health ( Reference Friel, Dangour and Garnett 64 ) . Unlike the production efficiency framing, the demand restraint perspective very explicitly links the health and environmental agendas, often viewing the relationship as synergistic. Thus, the GHG intensity of livestock farming is presented in tandem with arguments that excessive meat and dairy consumption undermines health. Support for this position is found from studies (generally undertaken in developed countries and in urban areas) finding an association between diets rich in animal products (specifically red and processed meat) and various negative health outcomes ( 65 – Reference Pan, Sun and Bernstein 67 ) .

Demand restraint stakeholders argue that largely plant-based diets are healthier, citing studies showing that people who eat fewer animal products, and vegetarians, are often healthier across a range of indicators, although the reasons for this may be complex; for example, they tend to be more health conscious in general ( Reference Millward and Garnett 68 ) . They also cite studies showing that plant-based diets can supply an adequate balance of key nutrients at lower GHG ‘cost’ than meat-dominated diets ( 69 – Reference Edwards and Roberts 72 ) . It has also been argued that how much as well as what kind of food people eat also has environmental relevance; obesity carries an environmental cost. For example, studies conclude that a reduction in obesity could yield environmental benefits through the following main pathways: less consumption means that less food (especially livestock) production is needed; reduced passenger weight reduces the amount of energy required to fuel vehicles; and finally, less food is wasted since less food is produced overall (wasted food represents a waste of embedded emissions) ( Reference Edwards and Roberts 72 , Reference Michaelowa and Dransfeld 73 ) . Measures to address the problem could yield both environmental and health dividends.

Notably, while this perspective strongly emphasises the diet-related chronic diseases that are associated with animal products and widespread in many parts of the world (particularly cities), ( Reference Popkin 74 ) it focuses less on the ongoing problem of hunger and micronutrient deficiencies that still affect millions of poor people worldwide, especially in rural communities. Importantly, the context for studies comparing vegetarians or low-meat eaters with their high meat-eating counterparts, is one where citizens typically have access to a diverse range of plant-based foods including vegetables, fruits, legumes and meals specifically formulated for vegetarians. The situation is very different in low income developing countries: diets are often monotonous and lack diversity. The positive nutrients found in animal products such as Ca, Fe and Zn, are often of critical importance, particularly to children ( Reference Dror and Allen 75 ) while livestock can support livelihoods in other ways, with beneficial consequences for health (discussed later). Hence the health–environment synergies obtainable from reduced animal product consumption are highly context dependent. Much depends on what else is, or is not, being eaten and advocates of the demand restraint perspective do not, as yet, have a coherent vision of what a ‘healthy sustainable’ diet looks like in very low income settings.

Finally, much is made, by restraint advocates, of the point that there is enough food in the world to feed everyone, in contrast to the ‘more food’ emphasis in the efficiency perspective. The challenge is therefore to address inequitable and resource-intensive consumption patterns ( 76 ) , a view developed further in the third perspective, later, but a sophisticated analysis of how structural inequalities might be addressed is lacking. Nor is it clear as to what mechanisms are needed to alter behaviour, apart from some preliminary advocacy of health- or livestock-related taxes ( Reference Mytton, Clarke and Rayner 77 , Reference Wirsenius, Hedenus and Mohlin 78 ) . Both these gaps reflect the lack of attention that this perspective has received from within the mainstream research and policy community. There are signs, however, that this may change. Increasingly, generally cautious international observers, including the United Nations Development Programme ( 79 ) , the United Nations Environment Programme ( Reference Hertwich, van der Voet and Suh 80 ) the Convention on Biodiversity ( 81 ) and the UK Government's Foresight Programme ( 82 ) some of whom are more traditionally ‘productionist’ in their views ( 83 ) , are starting to recognise that consumption issues merit further consideration.

Thus, for the demand restraint perspective, the ‘problem’ reframed is a demand-side one. The efficiency perspective's use of technology to, on the one hand, provide people with the food they want at lower environmental cost and then, on the other, to remove the nutrients from those foods that are causing them harm, is seen as overly complex. A simpler, holistic solution would be to reduce production and associated consumption of the animal products that are causing damage both to health and the environment. A world dominated by this perspective would therefore see a much reduced role for livestock production in agricultural systems and a greater emphasis on producing a diverse range of plant based foods. Land previously used to grow livestock feed would be set to producing grains and other plant foods for human subjects, while grazing land could be left to rewild or afforested ( Reference Goodland and Anhang 84 ) . Production could be dominated either by larger industry players or by smallholders (the perspective lacks specificity here, reflecting its overwhelming consumption focus). Dietary patterns would be re-oriented through fiscal and regulatory measures such as taxes and subsidies on certain foods, and perhaps even bans on some, or on certain farming practices such as intensive livestock production.

The values underpinning this demand restraint perspective are varied. For some, the conclusion that demand needs to be moderated is simply the inescapable conclusion to be drawn from the data: without reductions in livestock consumption and associated consumption, the mitigation figures simply do not add up. However, others may have a more overtly moral agenda: greed, the perceived insatiability of human desire itself, is the core issue. Freedom is, by this framing, defined as freedom from the ills of consumption. Thus, for many demand restraint advocates their vision of a good life is one that explicitly challenges the status quo, with its emphasis on consumption and growth.

For some too, technological approaches to reducing environmental impact may themselves be problematic: technologies such as genetic modification are ‘part of the problem’ rather than, as for the efficiency perspective, a solution. Technology is being used to broach ‘natural’ limits, whereas the priority should be to respect these limits by shrinking the space which human subjects take up within it. Concerns around animal rights and animal welfare are often added to the mix; stakeholders may reject the industrialised farming that is being advocated as a way of improving the environmental unit efficiency of production or, more fundamentally, even the idea of killing animals for food.

The socio-economic challenge: improve governance

The production efficiency focuses on changing patterns of production; the demand restraint perspective on excessive consumption. The food system transformation perspective considers both production and consumption in terms of the relationships among actors in the food system, interpreting the problem as one of ‘imbalance.’ The concern lies not just with production, and not just with consumption: it is the outcome of unequal relationships between and among producers and consumers, across and within countries and communities. This inequality gives rise to the twin problems of excess and insufficiency that are played out both in the environment (over- as well as under-application of agricultural inputs) and in health (obesity and hunger). The problems we face are thus socio-economic rather than simply technical or a consequence of individual decisions: they are the outcome of the dynamic interactions among natural, technological, behavioural and economic systems.

Within this perspective can be found a broad spectrum of opinions, some more radical than others in their analysis of the problems and vision of the solutions. Some adopt a macro perspective, focusing on trading relations between nations, while others are concerned with local contexts. For all, though, the central argument here is that food system sustainability can only be achieved by changing the socio-economic governance of the food system. A full spectrum of interventions will be needed, including ‘hard’ measures such as regulations and fiscal instruments, as well as ‘soft’ approaches such as voluntary agreements, awareness raising and education ( 82 , 85 – Reference Lang 87 ) .

Since food sustainability problems are rooted in imbalances and inequities, a focus on increasing production on its own is unlikely to improve food security. Hunger today is not a consequence of insufficient supply but of in sufficient access; poor people cannot afford to eat adequately ( Reference Sen 88 ) . While some increase in production may be needed, the requirement depends on context: it is necessary to increase production in particular regions, in relation to particular consumers and particular producers, but not everywhere.

This framing of these issues is markedly more rural-centric than the other two perspectives which are essentially concerned with the supply-side needs and consumption patterns of urban populations. The system transformation perspective is focused to a far greater extent on low income rural populations in developing countries, the poorest of the poor.

It also places strong emphasis on all four key dimensions of food security ( 41 ) . Unlike the efficiency perspective it privileges not just the ‘technical’ supply of nutrients but also the requirements of accessibility (incorporating affordability), utilisation (local environmental conditions and pre-existing health status) and the stability of these factors over time. Differing from the demand perspective too, it emphasises that nutritional outcomes are not just the consequence of what foods are or are not consumed, but also of who produces them, where and for whom. Thus, an argument is often made for altering the terms of trade between nations, and particularly for ending subsidies paid out to food producers in developed countries. For low-income countries, the focus is on production to improve self-sufficiency and on fostering intra-regional trading.

Many within this perspective advocate a central role for smallholders (particularly women) in farming a diverse range of indigenous crops and livestock breeds for local markets ( 86 , 89 ) . More localised, diverse systems are seen as better able to deliver the full range of micronutrients needed for good health than global supply chains which produce and distribute a simplified range of processed, energy- and fat-dense commodities ( Reference Toledo and Burlingame 90 , 91 ) however fortified. Moreover, these systems of provisioning (encompassing all food chain stages and actors rather than just the technical act of production) generate income for smallholders, who can then spend their earnings on food or on other essentials, including health care and education, fostering a positive cycle of health and development ( Reference De Schutter 92 ) .

The development of institutional and social capacity through the creation of local food provisioning systems is seen as critical; it is the key to good nutrition and human well-being. Fortification and biofortification strategies are supply-side approaches that may have a role, but the larger challenge is to address the inequality inherent in the food system which gives rise to these fundamental problems of dietary simplification and inadequacy ( Reference Johns and Eyzaguirre 93 ) . Similarly, the activities of ‘big food’ to address micronutrient deficiencies through public–private partnerships are often treated with suspicion for this perspective because they are seen as perpetuating power imbalances: destroying local production, undermining local relationships and provisioning systems, eroding local food cultures and selling processed foods, whose processing is cynically designed to increase the profits of the companies themselves ( Reference Nestle 94 , 95 ) .

As to the nutritional role of meat and dairy products: the framing here differs from the other perspectives in that it looks beyond nutrition to consider the role that livestock plays in the livelihoods of poor people, and the effect that this in turn has upon health. The nutritional contribution that livestock provide for people in low-income countries is not necessarily a simple relationship along the lines of ‘more production equals better nutrition.’ Health outcomes are mediated through impacts of livestock production on household incomes and the knock-on effects of income generation on health generally, for example on people's ability to pay for health care or education, both of which have independent positive effects on health. In other words, the system transformation approach urges a more complex understanding of agri-health linkages ( Reference Hawkes and Ruel 29 ) .

As regards the environment, many within this perspective argue for organic or ‘agro-ecological’ approaches as these generally incorporate social objectives around principles of fairness and are assumed to be more environmentally benign ( Reference Toledo and Burlingame 90 , Reference Fischer, Batáry and Bawa 96 ) . The latter assumption has, however, been challenged since yields from these systems tend to be lower, meaning that more land is needed for a given volume of food production. This in turn has implications for CO 2 release and biodiversity loss ( Reference Phalan, Onial and Balmford 97 , Reference Burney, Davis and Lobell 98 ) . Moreover, the environmental implications of a scaling up of smallholder production are not given much consideration: while an increase in small-scale livestock production may benefit local communities, it will nevertheless generate GHG emissions and other environmental impacts. Similarly, while greater production and access to local indigenous foods may offer benefits for smallholder livelihoods and people's health, consumers may nevertheless choose to reject these foods in favour of mass marketed, processed products.

In conclusion, the priority for this perspective is to alter the terms of trade between nations, between producers, and between producers and consumers. There is a stronger emphasis on fair trade between nations, greater self-sufficiency, and on the development of local food systems and markets producing a diverse range of nutritious foods. More support is advocated for rural development, with agriculture a central plank in this agenda. Food consumption is more closely linked to what regions are able to produce and there is greater diversity, across the world, in local food cultures. Greater regulation of multinational corporations is needed, together with a greater role for publicly supported research and development, agricultural extension and other initiatives. Freedom, for this perspective, is freedom from injustice.

This perspective shares the redistributive morality of the demand restraint perspective but perhaps goes further in its assumption that the ‘underdog’ is somehow inherently more likely to farm and consume within environmental limits; an assumption that is certainly open to challenge. It can romanticise the small scale and local, failing to subject these systems to the same critical scrutiny as it does to commercial systems. Thus, while emphasis on improving rural livelihoods at one level reflects pragmatic recognition of how millions of people live today, for many within this perspective, agrarianism is perhaps synonymous with the good life. Both well-being and sustainability are achieved through the harmonious integration of human subjects with nature through rural living and yet people are flocking in their millions to the cities in the hope of a better life.

Each of these three frames on the food sustainability problem has insights to offer, as well as weaknesses and inconsistencies. These may sometimes go unrecognised by stakeholders, who are too immersed in a particular frame to recognise its shortfalls or the merits of an alternative approach. Entrenched positions, ongoing disagreements, and inaction are the result.

A key strength of the efficiency perspective is its pragmatism. It focuses attention on what can be done now, through better technologies and good management, to address immediate nutritional and environmental problems. It injects a much needed optimism into the discussion on food. However, its equation of more food with greater food security is too simplistic, as is its assumption that increases in the unit efficiency of production will compensate for the environmental impacts of increased demand. The effects of product reformulations and so forth on obesity are unclear; such approaches may simply entrench patterns of over-consumption that drive further environmental damage. While in some ways, the efficiency approach suggests a highly democratic vision, a better material life for more people, its implementation may have the effect of strengthening existing power relations in the supply chain that perpetuate inequalities.

The value of the demand restraint approach lies in its emphasis on the need for absolute rather than just relative reductions in emissions; on highlighting the role of consumption patterns on environmental impacts, and on the need to address environmental and nutritional problems together. These together represent important challenges to the production efficiency approach. However, it can lack nuance in its approach to livestock, while the problem of undernutrition in low-income countries requires far more attention. If environmental sustainability is only possible in a situation of severely reduced livestock production, then we need to consider carefully what systems of food production are needed to deliver such low impact, healthy diets and what policies are needed to effect the necessary changes.

The food system transformation offers a necessary critique both of the efficiency and demand restraint perspectives. It focuses on the structures, systems and relationships that underpin food production and consumption, highlighting the way that unequal power relations influence both environmental and health outcomes. However, it can at time romanticise smallholder production and while this perspective is good at identifying the complex nature of food system interactions, this very complexity makes it difficult to identify specific ways forward.

Policy makers are starting to recognise that the ‘reality’ is a composite of perspectives ( 82 ) and, as emphasised earlier, these framings do not represent ideological positions (at least for most people) but rather inclinations or tendencies that stakeholders manifest when discussing the food problem. Most institutions or individuals will not adopt one perspective alone, to the exclusion of the others.

This said, within most mainstream circles the production efficiency approach still tends to overwhelm the others. Far too little attention is paid to the nutritional quality of what people consume, to the potential that dietary changes can play in addressing health and environmental problems together, or the inequities in the food system.

This imbalance needs to be addressed. The priority for the future is a nutrition-driven food system that sits within environmental limits. This will certainly require efforts to increase the environmental efficiency of food production. However, this approach on its own will not deliver a sustainable food system. Equal attention needs to be paid to issues raised by the other framings. How can demand for foods with high environmental impact be moderated and the supply and consumption of more diverse plant-based foods increased? How can we develop systems of governance that deliver on production and consumption objectives while promoting fairness and justice? These are politically far more challenging. To address them demands a broad interdisciplinary research effort, drawing upon the skills of nutritionists, social scientists, the international development community and economists. It is essential, too, to pay more attention to the values that different stakeholders bring to the debate on food sustainability. These are the source of much disagreement and miscommunication; but by identifying values that are common among apparently very different stakeholders it may be possible to resolve some differences and make progress.

Acknowledgements

The author declares no conflicts of interest. T. Garnett's work at the Food Climate Research Network is supported by a grant from the Climate Change Agriculture and Food Programme of the CGIAR and the Oxford Martin Programme for the Future of Food.

Fig. 1. (colour online) Source: Bellarby et al. ( 4 ) .

This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref .

• Google Scholar

View all Google Scholar citations for this article.

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

• Volume 72, Issue 1
• Tara Garnett (a1)
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665112002947

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

Reply to: Submit a response

- No HTML tags allowed - Web page URLs will display as text only - Lines and paragraphs break automatically - Attachments, images or tables are not permitted

Your details

Your email address will be used in order to notify you when your comment has been reviewed by the moderator and in case the author(s) of the article or the moderator need to contact you directly.

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests.

Please list any fees and grants from, employment by, consultancy for, shared ownership in or any close relationship with, at any time over the preceding 36 months, any organisation whose interests may be affected by the publication of the response. Please also list any non-financial associations or interests (personal, professional, political, institutional, religious or other) that a reasonable reader would want to know about in relation to the submitted work. This pertains to all the authors of the piece, their spouses or partners.

• Open access
• Published: 20 April 2021

Beyond nutrition and physical activity: food industry shaping of the very principles of scientific integrity

• Mélissa Mialon   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9883-6441 1 ,
• Matthew Ho 2 ,
• Angela Carriedo 3 ,
• Gary Ruskin 4 &
• Eric Crosbie 5 , 2  

Globalization and Health volume  17 , Article number:  37 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

12k Accesses

14 Citations

157 Altmetric

Metrics details

There is evidence that food industry actors try to shape science on nutrition and physical activity. But they are also involved in influencing the principles of scientific integrity. Our research objective was to study the extent of that involvement, with a case study of ILSI as a key actor in that space. We conducted a qualitative document analysis, triangulating data from an existing scoping review, publicly available information, internal industry documents, and existing freedom of information requests.

Food companies have joined forces through ILSI to shape the development of scientific integrity principles. These activities started in 2007, in direct response to the growing criticism of the food industry’s funding of research. ILSI first built a niche literature on COI in food science and nutrition at the individual and study levels. Because the literature was scarce on that topic, these publications were used and cited in ILSI’s and others’ further work on COI, scientific integrity, and PPP, beyond the fields of nutrition and food science. In the past few years, ILSI started to shape the very principles of scientific integrity then and to propose that government agencies, professional associations, non-for-profits, and others, adopt these principles. In the process, ILSI built a reputation in the scientific integrity space. ILSI’s work on scientific integrity ignores the risks of accepting corporate funding and fails to provide guidelines to protect from these risks.

Conclusions

The activities developed by ILSI on scientific integrity principles are part of a broader set of political practices of industry actors to influence public health policy, research, and practice. It is important to learn about and counter these practices as they risk shaping scientific standards to suit the industry’s interests rather than public health ones.

Actors in the tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food industries use a broad range of political strategies to protect and expand their markets [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]. These practices include direct influence on public health policy, and more subtle actions like cultivating support from communities and the media [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]. The shaping of science is one of these political practices [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ], as science can be used to influence policy [ 9 , 10 , 11 ]. Studies that link the consumption of harmful products to ill-health, or those which provide evidence on the effectiveness of a policy that limits consumption, are systematically questioned, attacked, or undermined by companies and third parties working on their behalf [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ]. Industry actors are also shaping the research agenda by funding commercially-driven science (research supported by the industry) to support their products or practices [ 12 ].

When evidence emerged about cigarette smoking’s harmfulness in the 1960s, tobacco companies mounted an attack on science to bury that evidence [ 13 ]. However, the tobacco industry understood that it could not credibly question scientific evidence criticizing its products. In the 1980s and 1990s, tobacco companies developed a “ sound science ” program, hiring respected academics and scientists and using third parties to deny secondhand smoke’s harmful effects [ 14 , 15 ]. Through this program, tobacco companies intended to shape scientific proof standards so that no study could prove that secondhand smoking was harmful [ 14 , 15 ]. In response, in 2003, the World Health Organization adopted a Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, in which Article 5.3 insulated public health policymaking from the tobacco industry [ 16 ]. Although the implementation of Article 5.3 is successful in some contexts [ 17 ] and could serve as a model for other industries [ 18 ], the tobacco industry is still able to participate in the development of principles for using scientific evidence in policy along with academics and government officials [ 19 ].

Similar to the tobacco industry, the food industry also shapes science, through the funding and dissemination of research and information serving its interests and criticizes evidence that may thwart these interests [ 3 , 12 , 20 ]. The food industry established and funded scientific-sounding groups such as the International Life Science Institute (ILSI), set up in 1978 by a former executive from Coca-Cola, to push for its agenda in the scientific and policy spaces [ 21 ]. ILSI also represented tobacco companies in the 1980–90s [ 22 , 23 ]. ILSI is currently composed of fifteen branches [ 24 ], each with a broad range of industry and academic members. The global branch of ILSI is governed by a Board of Trustees that mixes employees from the food industry, including the agribusiness sector (Ajinomoto, PepsiCo, Cargill) and academics [ 25 ]. Industry-supported research is also subject to peer-review by the industry itself. ILSI has its own journal, Nutrition Reviews, amongst the most popular journals in nutrition [ 26 ]. A recent study found that Nutrition Reviews has the highest proportion of articles with industry involvement (a quarter of all articles from that journal) amongst the top top 10 journals in nutrition [ 26 ].

From a public health perspective, somehow, the food industry’s involvement in science and policy is not seen as controversial and harmful as that of the tobacco industry [ 27 , 28 ]. Some think there is a space for collaboration with that industry, as illustrated in a recent study that tried to build consensus on the interactions between researchers and the food industry [ 29 ]. When criticism of the food industry’s involvement in science grew in the 2000s [ 30 , 31 , 32 ], ILSI developed guidelines on conflicts of interest (COI) and scientific integrity [ 20 ]. These principles call for the involvement of all actors in science, including those from industry actors, and are, not surprisingly, silent on the risks associated with such engagement with industry actors [ 20 , 33 ]. While there is growing evidence of the food industry’s involvement in science on nutrition and physical activity, little is known of their broader influence on the very principles of scientific integrity.

Our objective was to study the extent of the food industry’s involvement in developing scientific integrity principles, with a case study of ILSI as a key actor in that space.

We conducted a qualitative document analysis between February–November 2020, where we triangulated multiple sources of information. We started with initial searches based on an existing scoping review on principles for the interactions between researchers and the food industry. MH conducted searches on the industry’s websites, their social media, and in the Food Industry Documents Library of the University of California, San Francisco [ 34 ], an archive containing previously secret internal industry documents. We also used documents from existing freedom of information (FOI) requests made by U.S. Right to Know, a nonprofit investigative public health group. MH and GR independently conducted an initial review of the material for their inclusion against our research objective. MM led the searches on Web of Science and data analysis for all sources of information.

We searched these sources for information related to the development of principles, codes of conduct, frameworks, standards, or other scientific integrity guidelines and responsible research. An analysis of the content and implementation of those principles was beyond the scope of our study.

For the present study, we used the definition of ‘scientific integrity’ from the U.S. National Research Council: “ Integrity characterizes both individual researchers and the institutions in which they work. For individuals, it is an aspect of moral character and experience. For institutions, it is a matter of creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct by embracing standards of excellence, trustworthiness, and lawfulness that inform institutional practices. For the individual scientist, integrity embodies above all a commitment to intellectual honesty and personal responsibility for one’s actions and to a range of practices that characterize responsible research conduct ” [ 35 ].

Initial identification of industry actors

In 2019, MM conducted a backward search, using a recent scoping review by Cullerton et al. and a commentary published in response to that review [ 36 , 37 ]. The scoping review was purposively selected for our initial searches because it represented the most recent and comprehensive summary of existing principles “ to guide interactions between population health researchers and the food industry ” [ 36 ]. The publications identified in the scoping review included work that was funded independently but also work that was supported by the food industry. A response to that review identified additional material from the review sponsored by the food industry [ 37 ]. These publications constituted our initial samples of scientific integrity documents developed with industry support (Table  1 ). This initial sample only included documents where the food industry had direct involvement, through the declarations of interest sections or funding acknowledgments sections or institutions to which the authors were affiliated. By ‘food industry’, we meant any actor along the food supply chain, in the production of raw material, manufacturing, marketing, retailing, and public relations sectors, as well as third parties working on their behalf. We only included those publications that proposed scientific integrity principles, not those broadly discussing the industry’s involvement in science, without providing any guidelines (such as [ 47 , 48 ]). We also excluded publications on the implementation of such principles at the organizational level, as falling outside the present study’s scope.

With these initial searches, we identified five documents: three scientific articles and two reports. The North American branch of ILSI published four of the five publications, with support from large US-based food manufacturers. Two authors from ILSI also published a fifth article with an author from DuPont Nutrition (DuPont), a dietary supplement manufacturer for the food industry. Therefore, we decided to restrict our following searches to ILSI and DuPont, as they were the only industry actors publishing in the peer-reviewed literature on the topic of scientific integrity.

Systematic searches on web of science

As a second step, we conducted a literature search to identify further publications on the topic by the ILSI and DuPont, based on the findings of our initial search. On 14 November 2020, MM searched Web of Science Core Collection (Web of Knowledge interface) (our search strategy is available in Additional file  1 ).

We used the terms (principle* or guid* or ‘codes of conduct’ or framework* or standard* or transparen* or fund*) AND (partner* or integrity or ethic* or inter*) as identified in the titles of publications. We refined the search to publications from ILSI and DuPont, as stated in the declarations of interest sections; funding acknowledgments sections; or institutions to which the authors were affiliated. We had no restriction on the publication time.

All data were extracted from WoS and managed on Mendeley. The publications retrieved from that search were screened for eligibility, based on their titles and abstracts. All data were independently double-screened by A.C. There was no disagreement on the inclusion of documents.

From these systematic searches, no relevant work by DuPont was identified; we, therefore, further restricted our searches for the next steps and focused on ILSI only.

Industry websites and twitter accounts

MH, with support from EC, identified all websites and Twitter accounts of ILSI Global and its fifteen branches. ILSI’s websites are presented in Additional file  2 . MH searched these websites, and social media accounts, for information related to the development of scientific integrity principles. MM then analyzed all data. Our data collection was limited to data available on these websites, and we did not use internet archives to retrieve data that may have been published and then subsequently deleted. In February 2021, ILSI North America transformed into the “Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences” (IAFNS), a “a non-profit organization that catalyzes science for the benefit of public health” [ 49 ]. The URLs for ILSI NA’s webpages in Additional file 2 now redirect to the new IAFNS website. The webpages consulted during data collection could still be consulted using internet acrchives tools like the Wayback Machine [ 50 ].

Archive from industry documents library

Between February and July 2020, MH searched food industry documents in the Food Industry Documents Library of the University of California, San Francisco [ 34 ], using standard snowball search methods [ 51 ]. Initial keyword search terms included ‘ILSI’, ‘International Life Sciences Institute’, ‘research integrity’, and ‘research transparency’. Twenty-one documents between 2012 and 2018 were located, with most records dated between 2015 and 2017. Documents were screened (MH) and analyzed (MH and MM) for the direct mentioning of information outlining ILSI’s development of scientific integrity principles. Sixteen documents were deemed relevant based on how applicable their contents were to the research objective.

Documents from existing FOI requests

Additionally, we drew upon nine U.S. federal and state FOI data sets to triangulate our other sources of information: (1) Louisiana State University (Tim Church); (2) University of Colorado (John Peters); (3) Louisiana State University (Peter Katzmarzyk); (4) Texas A&M University (Joanne Lupton); (5) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Maureen Culbertson); (6) University of Colorado (James Hill); (7) University of South Carolina (Steven Blair); (8) Louisiana State University (Pennington Biomedical Research Center); (9) U.S. Department of Agriculture (David Klurfeld). U.S. Right to Know filed these FOI requests between 17 July 2015 and 27 December 2017. The requests covered issues regarding sugar sweetened beverages, candy and food companies, and their public relations firms, trade associations, and other allied organizations. The identification of relevant documents for our study was made by GR and his colleague Rebecca Morrison, for their relevance to our research objective.

In November 2020, MM reviewed all data from the sources mentioned above and mapped the actors, timeline of events, and other relevant information related to the food industry’s involvement in the development of scientific integrity principles. In the present manuscript, we present a narrative synthesis of our findings. All authors reviewed the analysis and presentation of findings in the manuscript. We had regular meetings during data collection and analysis, and any disagreement was resolved through discussion within the team. Our existing knowledge informed our analysis of industry influence on science. In the present document, we use the acronym ‘ILSI’ to refer to ILSI North-America, unless otherwise stated. In the results section, we use a code starting with the letter A to refer to our data, all available in Additional file  3 .

Our Web of Science systematic searches yielded 42 publications, 33 of which were excluded as not meeting our inclusion criteria. In addition, one article from 2014, by an author from DuPont, discussed funding by the food industry but did not provide any specific guidelines, so it was excluded [ 52 ]. There were eight publications relevant to our research objective on WoS, for our sample of food industry actors. Amongst these eight publications, five were already identified through our initial searches (Table 1 - [ 38 , 44 , 46 ]) with three copies of the same article by ILSI published in different scientific journals simultaneously. The three other studies were also published by ILSI [ 53 , 54 , 55 ]. With our searches in internal documents, we found two other publications from the food industry on scientific integrity, both supported by ILSI [ 56 , 57 ].

In total, we found eight scientific papers from ILSI on scientific integrity, published between 2009 and 2019. In Nov 2020, when writing the current manuscript, these documents were, when combined, cited 364 times (Google Scholar). ILSI also presented its principles in scientific events, reports, and other platforms, as described in Table 1 and below.

Additional file  4 presents a list of authors who published these scientific papers: 63 authors in total, 24 (38%) were from the food industry (as disclosed in the publications). Other authors were from academia, government agencies, and professionals associations, amongst other institutions (see Additional file 4 ). The majority of the authors were U.S.-based (70%). Five individuals authored four publications (the maximum for a single author), four of them from ILSI and one from academia.

Of note, ILSI promotes these publications on its website, stating, “ILSI North America has become a leader in scientific integrity and public-private research partnerships for the food and nutrition community. Our work has been published in peer-reviewed journals, endorsed by Federal agencies and professional nutrition and food science societies, and cited broadly throughout the scientific community ” [ 58 ].

Figure  1 summarizes our findings.

Food industry’s development of scientific integrity principles overtime

In the period 2009–2015, ILSI published articles on conflicts of interest that mainly covered food science, of relevance to food companies, and nutrition, a sub-field of health sciences. During that period, the target audience was researchers. In 2013, a shift occurred, from publishing recommendations on conflicts of interest and the good conduct of research, particularly at the individual and study levels, to proposing guidelines for public-private partnerships (PPP), assuming that PPP would benefit nutrition research. Then, from 2015, ILSI began to target a broader audience, outside academia, such as government agencies and civil society organizations, in its development of scientific integrity principles. At that time, ILSI also started targeting the entire scientific field, and not only the area of nutrition and health.

2007–2012: addressing COI in food science and nutrition research

Based on the information we collected, ILSI’s development of scientific integrity principles started in 2007. At that time, the organization “ initiated a program to address COI issues ”, with the rationale that “ despite a wealth of benefits industry sponsored research and science programs have provided, there continues to be significant public debate on the credibility of such support ” [A1]. Over the period 2007–2012, ILSI published COI principles focusing on food science and nutrition research. These publications resulted from different meetings of individuals from the food and agro-industries and academia. At that time, ILSI published on financial conflicts and scientific integrity in food science and nutrition research [ 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 ].

The first publication is from 2009. The paper originated from a working group at ILSI, the “COI and scientific integrity” working group, and was supported by ten food companies through “ educational grants ” to ILSI [ 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 ]. Its authors included a mix of employees from ILSI, food companies (Coca-Cola, Kraft, PepsiCo, Cadbury, and Mars), and academics in food science, nutrition, and pediatrics from the U.S. and Canada [ 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 ]. ILSI said it published this material in six different scientific journals [A2], although we found no trace of the publication in the Journal of Food Science. The article was published in Nutrition Reviews, a journal run by ILSI, the only one of the six journals where the article underwent peer-review. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly American Dietetic Association), who published one copy in its journal, and the American Society for Nutrition (ASN), who published three copies in its American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Journal of Nutrition, and Nutrition Today, are known to be industry-friendly and receive funding from the food industry [ 20 , 59 , 60 ], which may explain their willingness to publish the paper. The 2009 publication was also adapted, in 2012, into a report of the International Union of Food Science and Technology [ 38 ].

In 2011, the ILSI Europe’s Functional Foods Task Force published “ guidelines for the design, conduct and reporting of human intervention studies to evaluate the health benefits of foods ” [ 53 ]. The paper named 38 food (including agribusiness) and pharmaceutical companies as members of the taskforce [ 53 ]. Amongst the list of authors of the article, six were from the food industry (ILSI, Danone, DuPont (Danisco), Nestlé, and Beneo), three were consultants, and five were academics [ 53 ].

In a 2012 letter to ILSI members, Rhona Applebaum, then ILSI’s President and Coca-Cola’s chief health- and science officer, concluded ‘ the program has been highly successful in developing “guiding principles” for industry funding of research ’ [A2]. The success was in the guidelines being “ endorsed by the leadership of three major professional societies. Results of this work have been published in six different peer-reviewed journals and presented at numerous scientific conferences ” [A2]. In that same correspondence, Applebaum sent a list of ILSI’s publications on scientific integrity, where one additional article published in 2011 was included. The latter discussed funding in nutrition research and was published with support from ILSI [ 56 ]. The publication was written by four individuals: two from the AND, a consultant, and an academic [ 56 ].

2012–2015: pushing for public-private partnerships in nutrition research

The period 2012–2013 was a turning point for ILSI, where the discussion on COI in science shifted to the use of science in policy. In her 2012 letter mentioned above to ILSI members, Applebaum stated that there was a “ demand by some that all industry-funded research, whether conducted at contract research organizations or universities, be denied consideration in the formulation of public policy. Furthermore, scientists who have conducted industry-funded research have been barred from serving on public advisory committees ” [A2]. Applebaum, therefore, called ILSI’s food companies members for the “ development of criteria for participation on scientific advisory panels and establishment of appropriate protocols for successful public/private partnerships to advance public health ” [A2]. Food companies were asked to contribute to this task by paying a fee of US$10,000 each [A2].

Therefore, a series of ILSI’s publications on PPP appeared in the scientific literature between 2012 and 2015. In 2012, ILSI’s “ COI and scientific integrity ” working group produced two publications. The first provided suggestions on selecting experts to advise in public policy decision making [ 57 ]. The second publication, published in Nutrition Reviews, proposed “ principles for building public-private partnerships to benefit food safety, nutrition, and health research ” [ 44 ]. The authors of both publications were a mix of academic experts on the topic, industry employees, and ILSI’s staff.

In January 2014, in a personal communication to prominent physical activity researchers from the US, Applebaum explained that she “ asked ILSI to consider drafting a set of principles on civil discourse in science by scientists similar to what they have done for conflict of interest and public private partnerships .” She also mentioned: “ There must be a set of guidelines to avoid the current demonizing. They [ILSI] had also been asked to work on principles re selection on gov’t panels since our own U.S. gov’t has raised the issue of working w/ industry as a criterion for non-inclusion ” [A4].

This idea soon translated into concrete action. ILSI first published an article that “ offers counsel on meeting [challenges] in communicating about the work of emerging public-private partnerships ” [ 61 ]. This article does not set principles on scientific integrity per se. Still, it is to be understood as part of ILSI’s work in promoting PPP as a means to pursue industry interests.

In 2014, ILSI also started working with third parties on PPP principles, thus accelerating the translation of their work into practice and policy. ILSI proposed to “have a manuscript to share with FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] on best practices for advisory committees”, when the FDA was developing its own COI guidelines [A9].

In parallel, during late 2013, the ASN “ approached ILSI North America to collaborate ” [A109] on activities that would “ stimulate the expansion, accessibility, and acceptance of PPPs by unifying and moving existing principles for food and nutrition research PPPs forward ” [A49]. The ASN convened representatives from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, ASN, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, American Heart Association, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, FDA, Grocery Manufacturers Association, and National Institutes for Health, amongst others [A50]. An individual from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Klurfeld, and Rowe, a consultant for ILSI, co-chaired a newly formed “ Working Group on Conflict of Interest & Scientific Integrity ” [a name similar to that of ILSI’s “COI and scientific integrity” working group] [A10–1, A14–5]. In 2014, the working group had regular emails, calls, and a face-to-face group meeting in December [later called the “ COI Summit Consortium ”], to agree on a set of PPP principles [A10–5, A29–30]. An ad-hoc steering group was also formed with three USDA staff and a consultant from ILSI, and an ASN staff member [A29].

The whole project was formally led through a “ U.S. government-wide Interagency Committee on Human Nutrition Research ” [A29]. It was formed in 2011 and included a component on PPP, “ in part in response to [a] 2011 Presidential memo directing agencies to develop public-private partnerships in areas of importance to an agency’s mission ” [A29]. In our FOI documents and when justifying the PPP, the ASN made further reference to President Obama, who “ issued a Presidential memorandum in July 2014 encouraging government at all levels to work with private partners on developing infrastructure to lay the foundation for future prosperity ” [A41].

In May 2014, an employee from ILSI sent an email to lead American researchers and employees of federal agencies (U.S. Government Accountability Office and National Institutes for Health), describing the proposed outcome of the newly formed PPP project, a “ summit or collection of major professional societies and federal agencies coming together in support of PPP principles ( … ). At the conclusion of the summit, the professional societies would agree to a consensus statement on private funding for research and general acceptance of principles for PPPs ( …). it might be helpful for societies who publish journals to have their editors participate in summit ” [A8].

Soon after, in 2015, a peer-reviewed paper outlining the PPP principles in food and nutrition research was published in the Journal of Clinical Nutrition [ 46 ] and “ an excerpt of the article appeared in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Journal of Food Science, Nutrition Reviews, and Nutrition Today ” [A66]. In the publication, the authors made clear that the group took “ the ILSI North America published principles as a starting point ” [ 46 ], given that “ most reports were not readily accessible in the public domain until, in 2013, a group organized by ( … ) ILSI North America ( …) published proposed criteria ” [ 46 ]. The principles were endorsed by the “ ASN, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, American Gastroenterological Association, Institute of Food Technologists, International Association for Food Protection, and ILSI, collectively representing approximately 113,000 professionals ” [A31]. The American Public Health Association declined to endorse the principles but did not justify its decision [A24].

On 16 June 2015, the PPP principles were launched at the National Academy of Sciences. ILSI, in its internal communication, talked of the event and principles as its own: “ There is a meeting today at the National Academies to discuss [PPP] as defined by work that ILSI North America did. ASN and U.S. Department of Agriculture organized the meeting and we expect a number of scientific organizations to adopt the ILSI North America principles ” [A26, A34]. Speakers at that event included the U.S. Department of Agriculture Chief Scientist and Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics Dr. Catherine Woteki (keynote address), as well as an ILSI consultant, and an Institute of Medicine Senior Scholar, amongst others [A15, A31].

ILSI and the ASN also had other avenues for disseminating the PPP principles, as detailed in Table  2 . The ASN and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics were also keen to support a “ Conclave on public-private partnerships ”, where a Declaration would be issued “ to provide a transparent and actionable framework for interested public and private organizations that will minimize external criticism ” [A110].

Therefore, by having built its own literature on COI principles, scientific integrity, and PPP, and by reaching out to potential allies outside the industry, ILSI naturally became a central and pivotal actor in that discussion.

Hereafter, ILSI took yet another step in disseminating its principles into the scientific and policy spheres, beyond that of nutrition research.

2015–2019: beyond nutrition, influencing the very principles of scientific integrity

Hence, after having developed principles for research, and having these principles used to create PPP, ILSI started to evaluate the efforts made by a range of actors to implement scientific integrity principles.

Indeed, in parallel to the work undertaken by the “ U.S. government-wide Interagency Committee on Human Nutrition Research ” working group, ILSI, in 2015, through its own working group, proposed to “ seek a broader group of collaborators than we have previously worked with in order to have a greater impact; ones that have impeccable reputations and are not focused on only one area of science. Possible candidates are: a. American Association for the Advancement of Science; b. Association of Public and Land-grant Universities; c. Association of American Universities; d. The National Academies ” [A80]. ILSI’s working group also suggested that ILSI’s focus “ should be on implementation of these principles/best practices” [A80]. The group also proposed that when the COI Summit Consortium “reconvene [s] in two years to reassess the PPP principles ( …) ILSI North America could introduce the principles/best practices for scientific integrity and seek endorsement from the nutrition, food science, and food safety professional societies ” [A80].

As part of that work, in 2017, ILSI set up an “ Assembly on Scientific Integrity ”, whose steering committee included three academics from the University of Illinois, the University of Wisconsin, and Tufts Medical Center, and five employees from Coca Cola, General Mills, Abbott Nutrition, Ocean Spray Cranberries and Biofortis [A79]. The Assembly was made of “ ILSI North America Board of Trustees, all Member Companies of ILSI North America, and the ILSI North America Canadian Advisory Committee ” [A58, A84]. The Assembly was also “ hoping to include government liaisons in the Assembly on Scientific Integrity and it is likely that the ILSI North America Mid-Year meeting in Washington, DC is a better location for government officials to be able to join in-person ” [A107]. In 2017, the budget of the Assembly was US$122,000 [A107].

Then, two authors from ILSI and one from academia, also on the newly formed steering committee and author of other ILSI publications, produced a review of “ efforts by federal agencies, foundations, nonprofit organizations, professional societies, and academia in the United States ” [ 54 ]. The review was then translated into a Resource Guide and regularly updated, and similar activity was planned for Canada [A85–6, A98]. Here, the focus was not on food science and nutrition anymore, and the article reported on efforts made by a broad range of institutions like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Committee on Publication Ethics, the Institute Of Medicine, and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation [ 54 ]. The article was published in Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. ILSI seems to have opened a discussion that is meant to last in that space by inviting readers to “ help keep this document current by pointing out areas that need to be expanded or updated or additional organizations that should be included ” [ 54 ].

ILSI’ scientific integrity working group also proposed to “develop and publish a second paper in collaboration with [the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, and the Association of American Universities] that builds on the first manuscript ( …) to establish the first” rulebook “ on scientific integrity ” [A81]. ILSI convened a meeting in March 2017, where a broad range of actors would discuss the new scientific integrity principles [A86, A101]. The new “ Scientific Integrity Consortium ” was made of “ representatives from four U.S. government agencies, three Canadian government agencies, eleven professional societies, six universities, and three nonprofit scientific organizations ” [A57, A86, A101]. The meeting was organized at the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine as part of the “ Government University Industry Research Roundtable ” [A86, A101], in the same venue used for the launch of the 2015 PPP principles. The group then continued to meet virtually and in-person in 2017 and 2018 [A57, A69, A86]. The “ Scientific Integrity Principles and Best Practices ” were finally published in 2019 in Science and Engineering Ethics [ 55 ], reaching a broader audience than merely the nutrition space. ILSI was satisfied that “ the convening of the Scientific Integrity Consortium was a significant step for ILSI North America in building upon our work on scientific integrity and engaging the scientific community beyond the nutrition and food safety community ” [A86]. The long COI section in that publication reports on the many interactions between several of its authors and industry actors [ 55 ]. Here again, the Consortium used ILSI’s 2017 findings “ as the basis of the discussion and reconstructed them to form the final set of recommended principles and best practices for scientific integrity ” [ 55 ], in combination to some work of the American Society for Microbiology on that topic.

The scientific integrity principles, like those for PPP, were disseminated through different scientific events, in what ILSI called a “ roadshow ” [A104] (see Table  3 for a list of events), with the goal of “ educating attendees (with a focus on young researchers/post docs) on the components of scientific integrity ” [A81]. This time, the audience reached beyond that of nutrition.

In some of these events, ILSI’s official role in developing the principles was presented as a Consortium member, not its convener [A71]. In October 2017, ILSI shared its Resource Guide directly with the World Conferences on Research Integrity Foundation, who considered using the material for their work [A73, A87]. ILSI, at that time, was seeking to collaborate with the Foundation to further expand its principles globally [A73, A87]. ILSI also planned to develop a training module to implement the new scientific integrity principles and “ a certification program or accreditation ( …) for individuals or organizations to certify their use of the principles and best practices. ( …). It would be beneficial if government agencies would require the certification or accreditation in order to apply for a grant ” [A106].

ILSI is now planning to “ share what we’ve learned with the entire federation of global ILSI entities ” [A67]. ILSI NA’s 2019 Mid-Year Science Program included a presentation on the “ Benefits of More Transparent Research Practices and Bias Reduction Tools ” from a speaker from the Center for Open Science [A59]. ILSI started collaborating with that Center in 2017 [A74, A78]. In 2017 as well, ILSI Argentina formed a new Scientific Integrity Group [A107]. In 2019, the Brazilian branch of ILSI put the question of scientific integrity in the food area as the main topic of its annual congress [A64], with speakers from different Brazilian federal agencies and universities. That same year, an academic from Chile gave a presentation on scientific integrity for the South Andean branch of ILSI [A65].

ILSI continues to try to drive the discussion on scientific integrity in the present COVID-19 pandemic context. In November 2020, ILSI held a webinar where “ invited experts [discussed] some of the challenges that exist for scientists and journals when attempts are made to correct the scientific record - through retractions, corrections or letters/commentaries ”, in response to the “ heightened visibility of retracted publications during the COVID-19 pandemic ” [A68]. The experts in question included some of the authors of the ILSI’s publications presented in our study.

In our study, we found that ILSI is a leading actor, not only in the food industry but more broadly in the scientific community, on the development of scientific integrity standards and principles. Internal and FOI documents revealed the food companies’ motives in developing scientific integrity principles. Food companies have joined forces through ILSI, funded its first activities on COI, and have 38% of the authorship of its scientific integrity publications. We have shown that ILSI built a niche literature, one that would become useful for the food industry, when criticism of its funding of researchers emerged in the U.S. in the mid-2000s [ 30 , 32 ]. ILSI first focused on COI in food science and nutrition at the individual and study levels, from 2007. Because the literature was scarce on that topic, its publications were used and cited in ILSI’s and others’ further work on COI, scientific integrity and PPP, beyond the field of nutrition and food science. In the past few years, ILSI started to shape the very principles of scientific integrity then and to propose that government agencies, professional associations, non-for-profits, and others, adopt these principles. In the process, ILSI built a reputation in the scientific integrity space. Our study found that ILSI proposed a compulsory certification or accreditation, based on the adoption of its scientific integrity principles, for anyone willing to apply for a research grant. If that were to happen, then ILSI could make it impossible to avoid adhering to its principles. Transparency is often prioritized as per ILSI’s current scientific integrity principles and by government agencies and scientific journals. Transparency should, however, be understood as only one aspect of scientific integrity. It is reasonable to promote the involvement of a broad range of actors in science and to promote good principles for the use of evidence in policy, but ILSI’s work on scientific integrity ignores the risks associated with accepting industry funding [ 20 , 37 ] and fails to provide guidelines to protect from these risks [ 19 , 37 ].

It may be that not all individuals and organizations cited in our manuscript were aware that ILSI was founded and is funded by food companies, and that it is food companies that are shaping scientific integrity principles. ILSI, in its publications and communications, presents itself as an independent organization. However, in several of the documents consulted for our study, such as minutes of meetings and emails, and in the scientific publications mentioned here, industry actors were omnipresent. This reveals a state of affairs where the food industry is seen as a legitimate actor in science and policy and where academics see no problem in working with industry actors [ 28 ]. In the very process of developing scientific integrity principles, food companies may use their connections with these reputable individuals and organizations to further their influence on science and policy [ 62 , 63 ].

What we describe here will not be a surprise for ILSI, as they are transparent on these activities, the researchers they fund and indeed promote these principles widely. Some of the information we found during our study was indeed made public. However, internal and FOI documents revealed the true intentions of ILSI behind their development of scientific integrity principles.

This study is novel and builds on several sources to triangulate its findings. Internal industry documents provide a unique behind the scenes look at industry activity and reveal and expose industry behavior rather than speculating about it. This study also has limitations. First, it was beyond the article’s scope to examine all the COI that the individuals identified in our study had with ILSI or other actors in the food industry. Hence, it is highly likely that their relationships extend beyond their authorship on the publications identified here. It is also possible that these authors have published on scientific integrity elsewhere without disclosing their links with ILSI and the food industry. For example, Rowe, a consultant for ILSI on scientific integrity since 2009, published in 2015 a summary of the activities undertaken by ILSI in that space, in one of the chapters, entitled “Principles for Building Public/Private Partnerships to Benefit Public Health”, in the book “Integrity In The Global Research Arena” [ 64 ]. In the chapter, there is no reference to the fact that Rowe worked for ILSI and that ISLI has ties with food industry actors. Nevertheless, a broader extent of industry participation would not change the essence of the current findings. Second, this study neither evaluated the content and scientific merit of the scientific integrity principles developed by ILSI and others, nor their implementation. Lastly, our primary focus was ILSI’s work, as our initial searches pointed in that direction, hence potentially leaving out some other work on scientific integrity from other companies and industries, like the pharmaceutical industry. This could be the subject of future investigations.

Our study goes beyond what we know of the food industry’s nutrition and physical activity research funding. It shows that the food industry, like the alcohol and tobacco industries [ 19 ], tries to influence science’s very principles, such as scientific integrity and the good conduct of research. Similar to the findings of Ong and Glantz, published 20 years ago on the tobacco industry, the activities described in our paper reflect “ sophisticated public relations campaigns controlled by industry executives ( …) whose aim is to manipulate the standards of scientific proof to serve the corporate interests of their clients ” [ 14 ]. Importantly, public health professionals should understand the activities presented here as only one of many practices through which the food industry tries to influence science and policy [ 15 ]. This reinforces the call for considering researching the political practices undertaken across industries [ 65 ].

ILSI’s work on scientific integrity, conflicts of interest and public-private partnerships waters down independent work in that space, puts profits before science, and undermines efforts to address undue influence of industry actors on public policy, research, and practice. The industry-established principles have already shaped the evidence on scientific integrity. In the scoping review we identified as a starting point for our searches by Cullerton et al. [ 36 ], 14 of the 54 documents included in the review were funded or had involvement of the food industry, despite the clear vested interests that the food industry has in that discussion [ 37 ]. Mc Cambridge et al. recently wrote that “ calls for research integrity reflect core values of the research community. They should not be used as instruments to undermine science or to assist harmful industries ” [ 19 ]. Therefore, it is crucial that the public health community monitors this work done by ILSI and others and recognizes that seemingly independent organizations like ILSI may represent industry’s interests [ 15 , 19 ]. This is even more crucial now that ILSI North America transformed itself nto the “Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences”, a new organization that lacks transparency about its ties with the industry and whose current and future activities remain to be studied [ 49 ]. It risks shaping public agencies’ work, which may not be aware of the issues discussed in our paper. The literature we have described here must be understood not to have emerged from within the dietetics or nutrition or even medical professions, but rather from the food industry [ 14 ].

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

Savell E, Gilmore AB, Fooks G. How does the tobacco industry attempt to influence marketing regulations? A systematic review. PLoS One. 2014;9(2):e87389. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087389 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Savell E, Fooks G, Gilmore AB. How does the alcohol industry attempt to influence marketing regulations? A systematic review. Addiction. 2016;111(1):18–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13048 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Mialon M, Swinburn B, Sacks G. A proposed approach to systematically identify and monitor the corporate political activity of the food industry with respect to public health using publicly available information. Obes Rev. 2015;16(7):519–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12289 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Moodie R, Stuckler D, Monteiro C, Sheron N, Neal B, Thamarangsi T, et al. Profits and pandemics: prevention of harmful effects of tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food and drink industries. Lancet. 2013;381(9867):670–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62089-3 .

Gilbert SG. Doubt is their product: how Industry’s assault on science threatens your health. Vol. 117, environmental health perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009. p. 372.

Google Scholar  

Goldberg RF, Vandenberg LN. Distract, delay, disrupt: examples of manufactured doubt from five industries. Rev Environ Health. 2019;34(4):349–63. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2019-0004 .

Oreskes N, Conway EM. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming; 2010.

Rampton S, Stauber J. Trust Us, We’re Experts PA: how industry manipulates science and gambles with your future. New York: Penguin; 2002. p. 368.

McCambridge J, Mialon M. Alcohol industry involvement in science: A systematic review of the perspectives of the alcohol research community. Drug and Alcohol Review. 2018;37:565–79.

Article   Google Scholar  

Fooks GJ, Williams S, Box G, Sacks G. Corporations’ use and misuse of evidence to influence health policy: A case study of sugar-sweetened beverage taxation. Glob Health. 2019;15(1):56 Available from: https://globalizationandhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12992-019-0495-5 .

Ulucanlar S, Fooks GJ, Hatchard JL, Gilmore AB. Representation and Misrepresentation of Scientific Evidence in Contemporary Tobacco Regulation: A Review of Tobacco Industry Submissions to the UK Government Consultation on Standardised Packaging. PLoS Med. 2014;11(3):e1001629. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001629 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Fabbri A, Lai A, Grundy Q, Bero LA. The influence of industry sponsorship on the research agenda: a scoping review. Am J Public Health. 2018;108(11):e9–16. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304677 .

Proctor RN. Golden holocaust: origins of the cigarette catastrophe and the case for abolition; 2012. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520950436 .

Book   Google Scholar  

Ong EK, Glantz SA. Constructing “sound science” and “good epidemiology”: tobacco, lawyers, and public relations firms. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(11):1749–57. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.91.11.1749 .

Samet JM, Burke TA. Turning science into junk: The tobacco industry and passive smoking. Am J Public Health. 2001;91:1742–4.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

World Health Organization. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Geneva; 2003. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/42811/9241591013.pdf?sequence=1

Fooks GJ, Smith J, Lee K, Holden C. Controlling corporate influence in health policy making? An assessment of the implementation of article 5.3 of the World Health Organization framework convention on tobacco control. Glob Health. 2017;13(1):12. [cited 2019 Jun 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-017-0234-8 .

Mialon M, Vandevijvere S, Carriedo-Lutzenkirchen A, Bero L, Gomes F, Petticrew M, et al. Mechanisms for addressing and managing the influence of corporations on public health policy, research and practice: a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2020;10(7):e034082. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034082 .

McCambridge J, Daube M, McKee M. Brussels declaration: a vehicle for the advancement of tobacco and alcohol industry interests at the science/policy interface? Tob Control. 2019;28(1):7–12. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054264 .

Nestle M. Unsavory truth: how food companies skew the science of what we eat. In: Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, vol. 53. 1st ed. New York: Basic Books; 2017. p. 323.

McKee M, Steele S, Stuckler D. The hidden power of corporations. BMJ. 2019;364:l4. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4 .

World Health Organization. The Tobacco Industry and Scientific Groups ILSI: a case study. 2001. Available from: http://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/ILSI.pdf

Shatenstein S. Letters to the editor. Addiction. 2001t;96(10):1509–10 Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2001.9610150914.x .

International Life Sciences Institute. One ILSI. 2020. Available from: https://ilsi.org/one/

International Life Science Institute. Staff & Leadership. 2020. Available from: https://ilsi.org/about/staff-leadership/

Sacks G, Riesenberg D, Mialon M, Dean S, Cameron AJ. The characteristics and extent of food industry involvement in peer-reviewed research articles from 10 leading nutritionrelated journals in 2018. PLoS One. 2020;15(12):e0243144.

Collin J, Hill SE, Eltanani MK, Plotnikova E, Ralston R, Smith KE. Can public health reconcile profits and pandemics? An analysis of attitudes to commercial sector engagement in health policy and research. PLoS One. 2017;12:9.

Smith K, Dorfman L, Freudenberg N, Hawkins B, Hilton S, Razum O, et al. Tobacco, Alcohol, and Processed Food Industries - Why Do Public Health Practitioners View Them So Differently? Front Public Health. 2016;4:64. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00064 .

Cullerton K, Adams J, Francis O, Forouhi N, White M. Building consensus on interactions between population health researchers and the food industry: Two-stage, online, international Delphi study and stakeholder survey. PLoS One. 2019;14:8.

Nestle M. Food politics: how the food industry influences nutrition and health. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2013. p. 457.

Ludwig DS, Nestle M. Can the food industry play a constructive role in the obesity epidemic? JAMA. 2008;300(15):1808–11. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.300.15.1808 .

Brownell KD, Warner KE. The perils of ignoring history: Big tobacco played dirty and millions died. how similar is big food. Milbank Q. 2009;87(1):259–94. Available from:. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00555.x .

Marks JH. The perils of partnership : industry influence, institutional integrity, and public health. New York: Oxford University Press; 2019. p. 236. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190907082.001.0001 .

University of California San Francisco. Industry Documents Library. 2020. Available from: https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/

National Research Council. Integrity in scientific research: creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct Washington, DC; 2002. https://doi.org/10.17226/10430 .

Cullerton K, Adams J, Forouhi N, Francis O, White M. What principles should guide interactions between population health researchers and the food industry? Systematic scoping review of peer-reviewed and grey literature. Obes Rev. 2019;20(8):1073–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12851 .

Mialon M, Fabbri A, Fooks G. Reply to the article: “What principles should guide interactions between population health researchers and the food industry? Systematic scoping review of peer-reviewed and grey literature.”. Obes Rev. 2019;20:1504–6.

Rowe S, Alexander N, Clydesdale F, Applebaum R, Atkinson S, Black R, et al. Funding food science and nutrition research: financial conflicts and scientific integrity. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;109(5):929–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2009.02.003 .

Rowe S, Alexander N, Clydesdale FM, Applebaum RS, Atkinson S, Black RM, et al. Funding food science and nutrition research: Financial conflicts and scientific integrity. J Nutr. 2009;139:1051–3.

Rowe S, Alexander N, Clydesdale F, Applebaum R, Atkinson S, Black R, et al. Funding food science and nutrition research: Financial conflicts and scientific integrity. Nutr Rev. 2009;67:264–72.

Rowe S, Alexander N, Clydesdale FM, Applebaum RS, Atkinson S, Black RM, et al. Funding food science and nutrition research: Financial conflicts and scientific integrity. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;89:1285–91.

Rowe S, Alexander N, Clydesdale FM, Applebaum RS, Atkinson S, Black RM, et al. Funding food science and nutrition research: financial conflicts and scientific integrity. Nutr Today. 2009;44(3):112–3. https://doi.org/10.1097/NT.0b013e3181a4b304 .

Rowe, Sylvia; Alexander N. International Union of Food Science and Technology Scientific Information Bulletin: Ensuring Scientific Integrity: Guidelines for Managing Conflicts. 2012 Jan [cited 2019 Apr 14]. Available from: http://iufost.org/iufostftp/IUF.SIB.EnsuringScientificIntegrity.pd .

Rowe S, Alexander N, Kretser A, Steele R, Kretsch M, Applebaum R, et al. Principles for building public-private partnerships to benefit food safety, nutrition, and health research. Nutr Rev. 2013;71(10):682–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/nure.12072 .

International Life Science Institute. Principles and Philosophies for Development of Ongoing Partnerships to Support Food-Health Research - Food for Health Workshop at the Canadian Nutrition Society Annual Meeting. 2014 [cited 2019 Apr 14]. Available from: https://ilsi.org/event/food-for-health-workshop-at-the-canadian-nutrition-society-annual-meeting/

Alexander N, Rowe S, Brackett RE, Burton-Freeman B, Hentges EJ, Kretser A, et al. Achieving a transparent, actionable framework for public-private partnerships for food and nutrition research. Am J Clin Nutr. 2015;101(6):1359–63. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.115.112805 .

Zachwieja J, Hentges E, Hill JO, Black R, Vassileva M. Public-private partnerships: the evolving role of industry funding in nutrition research. Adv Nutr. 2013;4(5):570–2. https://doi.org/10.3945/an.113.004382 .

Woteki CE. Ethics opinion: conflicts of interest in presentations and publications and dietetics research. J Am Diet Assoc. 2006;106(1):27–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2005.11.011 .

Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences. Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences. 2021 [cited 2021 Mar 4]. Available from: https://iafns.org/

The Internet Archive. Wayback Machine. 2021 [cited 2021 Mar 4]. Available from: https://archive.org/web/

Malone RE, Balbach ED. Tobacco industry documents: treasure trove or quagmire? Tob Control. 2000;9(3):334–8 Available from: https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/tc.9.3.334 .

Sale J. Funding from industry for research: cash cow or professional partnership? Can Assoc Radiol J. 1994;45(4):267–9.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Welch RW, Antoine J-M, Berta J-L, Bub A, de Vries J, Guarner F, et al. Guidelines for the design, conduct and reporting of human intervention studies to evaluate the health benefits of foods. Br J Nutr. 2011 Nov;106(2):S3–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114511003606 .

Kretser A, Murphy D, Dwyer J. Scientific integrity resource guide: efforts by federal agencies, foundations, nonprofit organizations, professional societies, and academia in the United States. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2017;57(1):163–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2016.1221794 .

Kretser A, Murphy D, Bertuzzi S, Abraham T, Allison DB, Boor KJ, et al. Scientific integrity principles and best practices: recommendations from a scientific integrity consortium. Sci Eng Ethics. 2019;25(2):327–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00094-3 .

Myers EF, Parrott JS, Cummins DS, Splett P. Funding source and research report quality in nutrition practice-related research. PLoS One. 2011;6:12.

Rowe S, Alexander N, Weaver CM, Dwyer JT, Drew C, Applebaum RS, et al. How experts are chosen to inform public policy: Can the process be improved? Health Policy. 2013;112:172–8.

ILSI North America. Scientific Integrity Review. [cited 2020 Nov 18]. Available from: https://ilsina.org/scientific-integrity-review/

Simon M. And now a word from our sponsors. Eat Drink Politics; 2013.

Simon M. Nutrition scientists on the take from big food: has the American Society for Nutrition lost all credibility? Eat drink politics,; 2015. Available from: http://www.eatdrinkpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/ASNReportFinal.pdf

Rowe S, Alexander N. Public-private partnerships in nutrition: meeting the public-private communication challenge. Nutr Today. 2014;49(2):83–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/NT.0000000000000023 .

Greenhalgh S. Inside ILSI: How Coca-Cola, Working through Its Scientific Nonprofit, Created a Global Science of Exercise for Obesity and Got It Embedded in Chinese Policy (1995–2015). J Health Polit Policy Law. 2020 Sep [cited 2020 Sep 25]; Available from: https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-8802174

Maani Hessari N, Ruskin G, McKEE MARTIN, Stuckler D. Public meets private: conversations between Coca-Cola and the CDC. Milbank Q. 2019;97(1):74–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12368 .

Steneck N, Anderson M, Kleinert S, Mayer T, Rowe S. Principles for Building Public/Private Partnerships to Benefit Public Health. In: Steneck NH, Mayer T, Anderson MS, Kleinert S, editors. Integrity in the Global Research Arena. World Scientific; 2015. p. 295–301.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Maani N, McKee M, Petticrew M, Galea S. Corporate practices and the health of populations: a research and translational agenda. Lancet Public Health. 2020;5(2):e80–1. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2468266719302701 . https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(19)30270-1 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

This work received funding from U.S. Right to Know, via a grant from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. The sponsor had no input in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the report’s writing; and in the decision to submit the article for publication. All authors are independent of funders and had full access to all of the data in the study. They can take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

GR is an employee of U.S. Right to Know, whose major donors have been: Organic Consumers Association ($907,500); Dr. Bronner’s Family Foundation ($500,000); Laura and John Arnold Foundation ($392,600); U.S. Small Business Administration (loans) ($119,970); Westreich Foundation ($85,000); Schmidt Family Foundation ($50,000); CrossFit Foundation ($50,000); Thousand Currents ($42,500); Community Foundation of Western North Carolina ($25,000); Panta Rhea Foundation ($20,000); ImpactAssets ReGen Fund ($10,000); Aurora Foundation ($5,000); Janet Buck ($5,000).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Trinity Business School, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

Mélissa Mialon

School of Community Health Sciences, University of Nevada, Reno, USA

Matthew Ho & Eric Crosbie

World Public Health and Nutrition Association, London, UK

Angela Carriedo

U.S. Right to Know, Oakland, USA

Gary Ruskin

Ozmen Institute for Global Studies, University of Nevada, Reno, USA

Eric Crosbie

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

MM led the conception of the work. MH, GR, and MM led data collection, with support from EC and AC. MM led data analysis, with support from all authors and the manuscript’s writing. All authors have substantively revised it. All authors have approved the submitted version. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mélissa Mialon .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable, we only used publicly available information.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1..

Search strategy.

Additional file 2.

Websites and Twitter accounts of the different branches of ILSI.

Additional file 3.

Authors on ILSI’s publications on scientific integrity, 2009-2019.

Additional file 4.

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Mialon, M., Ho, M., Carriedo, A. et al. Beyond nutrition and physical activity: food industry shaping of the very principles of scientific integrity. Global Health 17 , 37 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-021-00689-1

Download citation

Received : 08 January 2021

Accepted : 18 March 2021

Published : 20 April 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-021-00689-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Conflitct of interest
• Commercial determinants of health
• Food industry
• Corporate political activity

Globalization and Health

ISSN: 1744-8603

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Journal Proposal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

A bibliometric analysis of the literature on food industry supply chain resilience: investigating key contributors and global trends.

1. Introduction

2. data source and methodology, 3. findings: bibliometric analysis results, 3.1. publication by year, 3.2. contribution by journals, 3.3. research areas on food industry supply chain resilience, 3.4. country analysis, 3.5. influence of authors, 3.6. most relevant contributions, 4. analysis of research trends, 4.1. keyword analysis of research hotspots on food supply chain study, 4.2. cluster analysis, 5. research gaps and future research opportunities, 6. conclusions, author contributions, informed consent statement, conflicts of interest.

• Ivanov, D. Viable supply chain model: Integrating agility, resilience and sustainability perspectives—Lessons from and thinking beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Ann. Oper. Res. 2020 , 319 , 1411–1431. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Aday, S.; Aday, M.S. Impact of COVID-19 on the food supply chain. Food Qual. Saf. 2020 , 4 , 167–180. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mu, W.; van Asselt, E.; van der Fels-Klerx, H. Towards a resilient food supply chain in the context of food safety. Food Control. 2021 , 125 , 107953. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Reddy, V.R.; Singh, S.K.; Anbumozhi, V. Food Supply Chain Disruption due to Natural Disasters: Entities, Risks, and Strategies for Resilience. ERIA Discuss. Pap. 2016 , 18 , 1–37. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peck, H. Drivers of supply chain vulnerability: An integrated framework. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2005 , 35 , 210–232. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marusak, A.; Sadeghiamirshahidi, N.; Krejci, C.C.; Mittal, A.; Beckwith, S.; Cantu, J.; Morris, M.; Grimm, J. Resilient regional food supply chains and rethinking the way forward: Key takeaways from the COVID-19 pandemic. Agric. Syst. 2021 , 190 , 103101. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sarker, N.I.; Wu, M.; Chanthamith, B.; Yusufzada, S.; Li, D.; Zhang, J. Big Data Driven Smart Agriculture: Pathway for Sustainable Development. In Proceedings of the 2019 2nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Big Data (ICAIBD), Chengdu, China, 25–28 May 2019; pp. 60–65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Astill, J.; Dara, R.A.; Campbell, M.; Farber, J.M.; Fraser, E.D.; Sharif, S.; Yada, R.Y. Transparency in food supply chains: A review of enabling technology solutions. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019 , 91 , 240–247. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ali, I.; Arslan, A.; Chowdhury, M.; Khan, Z.; Tarba, S.Y. Reimagining global food value chains through effective resilience to COVID-19 shocks and similar future events: A dynamic capability perspective. J. Bus. Res. 2021 , 141 , 1–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wagner, S.M.; Neshat, N. Assessing the vulnerability of supply chains using graph theory. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2010 , 126 , 121–129. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ouko, K.O.; Gwada, R.O.; Alworah, G.O.; Onganga, Z.M.; Ochieng, S.V.; Ogola, J.R.O. Effects of COVID-19 pandemic on food security and household livelihoods in Kenya. Rev. Agric. Appl. Econ. RAAE 2020 , 23 , 72–80. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Savary, S.; Akter, S.; Almekinders, C.; Harris, J.; Korsten, L.; Rötter, R.; Waddington, S.; Watson, D. Mapping disruption and resilience mechanisms in food systems. Food Secur. 2020 , 12 , 695–717. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rueda, X.; Garrett, R.D.; Lambin, E.F. Corporate investments in supply chain sustainability: Selecting instruments in the agri-food industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2017 , 142 , 2480–2492. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Maghsoudi, A.; Zailani, S.; Ramayah, T.; Pazirandeh, A. Coordination of efforts in disaster relief supply chains: The moderating role of resource scarcity and redundancy. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2018 , 21 , 407–430. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Okello, J.O.; Were, S. Influence of supply chain management practices on performance of the Nairobi Securities Exchange’s listed, food manufacturing companies in Nairobi. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Entrep. 2014 , 11 , 107–128. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hecht, A.A.; Biehl, E.; Barnett, D.J.; Neff, R.A. Urban Food Supply Chain Resilience for Crises Threatening Food Security: A Qualitative Study. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2019 , 119 , 211–224. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• hossein Nikou, S.; Selamat, H. Risk management capability within Malaysian food supply chains. Int. J. Agric. Econ. Dev. 2013 , 1 , 37–54. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dania, W.A.P.; Xing, K.; Amer, Y. Collaboration behavioural factors for sustainable agri-food supply chains: A systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018 , 186 , 851–864. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fischer, C. Trust and communication in European agri-food chains. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2013 , 18 , 208–218. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aruoma, O.I. The impact of food regulation on the food supply chain. Toxicology 2006 , 221 , 119–127. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vlajic, J.V.; van der Vorst, J.G.; Haijema, R. A framework for designing robust food supply chains. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2012 , 137 , 176–189. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ishfaq, R. Resilience through flexibility in transportation operations. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2012 , 15 , 176–189. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kumar, P.; Singh, R.K. Strategic framework for developing resilience in Agri-Food Supply Chains during COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2021 , 25 , 1401–1424. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mateo-Fornés, J.; Soto-Silva, W.; González-Araya, M.C.; Plà-Aragonès, L.M.; Solsona-Tehas, F. Managing quality, supplier selection, and cold-storage contracts in agrifood supply chain through stochastic optimization. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 2021 , 30 , 1901–1930. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hobbs, J.E. Food supply chain resilience and the COVID-19 pandemic: What have we learned? Can. J. Agric. Econ. Can. Agroecon. 2021 , 69 , 189–196. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sunny, J.; Undralla, N.; Pillai, V.M. Supply chain transparency through blockchain-based traceability: An overview with demonstration. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2020 , 150 , 106895. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ali, M.H.; Suleiman, N.; Khalid, N.; Tan, K.H.; Tseng, M.-L.; Kumar, M. Supply chain resilience reactive strategies for food SMEs in coping to COVID-19 crisis. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021 , 109 , 94–102. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Davis, K.F.; Downs, S.; Gephart, J.A. Towards food supply chain resilience to environmental shocks. Nat. Food 2020 , 2 , 54–65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rejeb, A.; Rejeb, K.; Appolloni, A.; Iranmanesh, M.; Treiblmaier, H.; Jagtap, S. Exploring Food Supply Chain Trends in the COVID-19 Era: A Bibliometric Review. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12437. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ellegaard, O.; Wallin, J.A. The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics 2015 , 105 , 1809–1831. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Akın, M.; Eyduran, S.P.; Rakszegi, M.; Yıldırım, K.; Rocha, J.M. Statistical Modeling Applications to Mitigate the Effects of Climate Change on Quality Traits of Cereals: A Bibliometric Approach ; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2023; pp. 381–396. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Parmentola, A.; Petrillo, A.; Tutore, I.; De Felice, F. Is blockchain able to enhance environmental sustainability? A systematic review and research agenda from the perspective of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021 , 31 , 194–217. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, S.; Zhang, X.; Feng, L.; Yang, W. Disruption risks in supply chain management: A literature review based on bibliometric analysis. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020 , 58 , 3508–3526. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Béné, C. Resilience of local food systems and links to food security–A review of some important concepts in the context of COVID-19 and other shocks. Food Secur. 2020 , 12 , 805–822. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dubbeling, M.; Santini, G.; Renting, H.; Taguchi, M.; Lançon, L.; Zuluaga, J.; de Paoli, L.; Rodriguez, A.; Andino, V. Assessing and Planning Sustainable City Region Food Systems: Insights from Two Latin American Cities. Sustainability 2017 , 9 , 1455. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fanzo, J.; Bellows, A.L.; Spiker, M.L.; Thorne-Lyman, A.L.; Bloem, M.W. The importance of food systems and the environment for nutrition. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2021 , 113 , 7–16. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Love, D.C.; Allison, E.H.; Asche, F.; Belton, B.; Cottrell, R.S.; Froehlich, H.E.; Gephart, J.A.; Hicks, C.C.; Little, D.C.; Nussbaumer, E.M.; et al. Emerging COVID-19 impacts, responses, and lessons for building resilience in the seafood system. Glob. Food Secur. 2021 , 28 , 100494. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hoffmann, E.; Schöpflin, P. Climate Change Risk Assessment and Adaptation Measures in the Food Supply Chain—Perceptions and Responses of Buying Firms. In Handbook of Climate Change across the Food Supply Chain ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 285–304. [ Google Scholar ]
• Prompatanapak, A.; Lopetcharat, K. Managing changes and risk in seafood supply chain: A case study from Thailand. Aquaculture 2020 , 525 , 735318. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khan, N.; Ray, R.L.; Kassem, H.S.; Hussain, S.; Zhang, S.; Khayyam, M.; Ihtisham, M.; Asongu, S.A. Potential role of technology innovation in transformation of sustainable food systems: A review. Agriculture 2021 , 11 , 984. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Almalki, F.A. Utilizing Drone for Food Quality and Safety Detection using Wireless Sensors. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Information Communication and Signal Processing (ICICSP), Shanghai, China, 12–15 September 2020; pp. 405–412. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lajoie-O’Malley, A.; Bronson, K.; van der Burg, S.; Klerkx, L. The future (s) of digital agriculture and sustainable food systems: An analysis of high-level policy documents. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020 , 45 , 101183. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gull, S.; Bajwa, I.S.; Anwar, W.; Rashid, R. Smart eNose food waste management system. J. Sens. 2021 , 2021 , 9931228. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yiannas, F. A new era of food transparency powered by blockchain. Innov. Technol. Gov. Glob. 2018 , 12 , 46–56. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cattaneo, A.; Sánchez, M.V.; Torero, M.; Vos, R. Reducing food loss and waste: Five challenges for policy and research. Food Policy 2021 , 98 , 101974. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Liu, Y.; Ma, X.; Shu, L.; Hancke, G.P.; Abu-Mahfouz, A.M. From Industry 4.0 to Agriculture 4.0: Current status, enabling technologies, and research challenges. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2020 , 17 , 4322–4334. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Morella, P.; Lambán, M.P.; Royo, J.; Sánchez, J.C. Study and analysis of the implementation of 4.0 technologies in the agri-food supply chain: A state of the art. Agronomy 2021 , 11 , 2526. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Corallo, A.; Latino, M.E.; Menegoli, M. From industry 4.0 to agriculture 4.0: A framework to manage product data in agri-food supply chain for voluntary traceability. Int. J. Nutr. Food Eng. 2018 , 12 , 146–150. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sakadevan, K.; Nguyen, M.L. Livestock production and its impact on nutrient pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Adv. Agron. 2017 , 141 , 147–184. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sewell, C. REMOVING THE MEAT SUBSIDY. J. Int. Aff. 2019 , 73 , 307–318. [ Google Scholar ]
• Koneswaran, G.; Nierenberg, D. Global farm animal production and global warming: Impacting and mitigating climate change. Environ. Health Perspect. 2008 , 116 , 578–582. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wolk, A. Potential health hazards of eating red meat. J. Intern. Med. 2017 , 281 , 106–122. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stehfest, E.; Bouwman, L.; van Vuuren, D.P.; den Elzen, M.G.J.; Eickhout, B.; Kabat, P. Climate benefits of changing diet. Clim. Chang. 2009 , 95 , 83–102. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Van Huis, A.; Oonincx, D.G. The environmental sustainability of insects as food and feed. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2017 , 37 , 43. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fritz, M.; Matopoulos, A. Sustainability in the agri-food industry: A literature review and overview of current trends. In Proceedings of the Conference: 8th International Conference on Chain Network Management in Agribusiness the Food Industry, Ede, The Netherlands, 26–28 May 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Agnusdei, G.P.; Coluccia, B. Sustainable agrifood supply chains: Bibliometric, network and content analyses. Sci. Total Environ. 2022 , 824 , 153704. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, L.; Chi, R.; Liu, Y. The Data Visualization Analysis in Global Supply Chain Resilience Research During 2012–2022. In Proceedings of the Services Computing–SCC 2022: 19th International Conference, Held as Part of the Services Conference Federation, SCF 2022, Honolulu, HI, USA, 10–14 December 2022 ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; Volume 13738, pp. 1–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Ababou, M.; Chelh, S.; Elhiri, M. A Bibliometric Analysis of the Literature on Food Industry Supply Chain Resilience: Investigating Key Contributors and Global Trends. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 8812. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118812

Ababou M, Chelh S, Elhiri M. A Bibliometric Analysis of the Literature on Food Industry Supply Chain Resilience: Investigating Key Contributors and Global Trends. Sustainability . 2023; 15(11):8812. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118812

Ababou, Mariame, Sara Chelh, and Mariam Elhiri. 2023. "A Bibliometric Analysis of the Literature on Food Industry Supply Chain Resilience: Investigating Key Contributors and Global Trends" Sustainability 15, no. 11: 8812. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118812

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Nutr Res Pract
• v.15(Suppl 1); 2021 Dec

Food service industry in the era of COVID-19: trends and research implications

1 School of Hospitality Management, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA 16802, USA.

2 Department of Food and Nutrition, Yonsei University, Seoul 03722, Korea.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a new type of respiratory disease that has been announced as a pandemic. The COVID-19 outbreak has changed the way we live. It has also changed the food service industry. This study aimed to identify trends in the food and food service industry after the COVID-19 outbreak and suggest research themes induced by industry trends. This study investigated the industry and academic information on the food and food service industry and societal trends resulting from the COVID-19 outbreak. The most noticeable changes in the food industry include the explosive increase in home meal replacement, meal-kit consumption, online orders, take-out, and drive-through. The adoption of technologies, including robots and artificial intelligence, has also been noted. Such industry trends are discussed in this paper from a research perspective, including consumer, employee, and organizational strategy perspectives. This study reviews the changes in the food service industry after COVID-19 and the implications that these changes have rendered to academia. The paper concludes with future expectations that would come in the era of COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) captured public attention as a new type of respiratory disease. The World Health Organization (WHO) announced it as a pandemic on March 11, 2020 [ 1 ]. Although most people heard “corona virus” for the first time, humans have experienced seven types of coronaviruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003 and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) in 2015. COVID-19, like SARS and MERS, is a respiratory disease with similar symptoms. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes COVID-19, is genetically 80% similar to SARS-CoV, the virus that causes SARS [ 2 ]. The viruses for COVID-19, SARS, and MERS are stable and active at 4 °C [ 3 ]; they become inactive as the temperature increases to 65–70°C [ 4 ]. As COVID-19 is transmitted via droplets, aerosols, and direct contact, wearing masks and washing hands with disinfectants are the foremost defensive methods. The COVID-19 virus also come out of human activities like breathing, speaking, coughing, and sneezing [ 5 ]. As a major route of COVID-19 transmission is droplets, human contact should be avoided to prevent infection. Furthermore, eating food together, such as Korean soup and side dishes, should be avoided, because the droplets can transmit the COVID-19 virus [ 6 ]. Therefore, foodservice operations have been one of the primary sources of COVID-19 transmission. During the COVID-19 era, people look for healthy foods and adopt behaviors to prevent virus transmission. The COVID-19 outbreak has resulted in novel trends in the foodservice industry.

FOOD SERVICE INDUSTRY TRENDS

Emergence of covid-19 new normal era.

The COVID-19 outbreak brought a situation that people have never experienced. A new word, “a new normal era after COVID-19,” was coined. The era of Before Corona (B.C.) was separated from that of After Corona (A.C.) because people can never get back the days before the pandemic struck. The word “new normal” was used at the time of the global economic crises initiated by the US sub-prime mortgage during 2007–2008 [ 7 ]. A new normal indicates a new norm for the economic standards. The new normal After Corona described the situation as H (healthcare), O (Online), M (manless), and E (economy at home): healthcare as heightened public interest in health and safety; online as a core essence of digital economies with the advantages of artificial intelligence, big data, and 5G; manless as a proven safety and efficiency during the course of prevention from coronavirus transmission; economic activities at home while staying long hours at home [ 7 ]. Such “new normal” also took place in the food service industry.

Non-human contact (untact) purchasing

Most of all, an explosive increase has been observed in the foodservice purchasing using untact methods. Contrary to the dramatic decrease in the sales of restaurants and institutional foodservices, Starbucks Korea experienced a sales increase of 32% from January to February 2020, compared to the same months in 2019 [ 8 ]. In fact, the orders made via Siren contributed to a 25% increase in terms of the purchase number, compared to the previous year [ 9 ]. The outcome explains consumers’ intention to use untact services to minimize human contact, which will be expanded in the future. Since the order could be made online, the drive-through pick-up of the ordered products increased, from café, bakery, and fast foods to all kinds of restaurants, including even Sish-shop [ 10 ]. McDonalds expanded drive-through stores in the US and China, which resulted in a double-digit increase in sales in September 2020, compared to the same month of 2019 [ 11 ].

Explosive increase in home meal replacement (HMR) and meal-kit

One of the segments that has benefitted most from the COVID-19 outbreak is the meal-kit and HMR products [ 12 ]. While people stay at home, they care more about health and have time to cook. In the US, the sales of meal-kit products in 2020 became 2 times higher than in the previous year [ 13 ]. The major players in the meal-kit industry, Blue Apron, HelloFresh, and Home Chef, experienced a 49% increase in the number of customers. The meal-kit products satisfy the needs of a variety of customers, including vegan, gluten-free, children, and patients with diabetes [ 14 ]. In Korea, since the COVID-19 outbreak, the sales of meal-kit brands have rapidly increased, while offline retail brands rushed into the meal-kit segments with the names of Simply Cook (GS Retail), ChefBox (Hyundai Department Store), Yorihada (Lotte Mart), Gourmet 494 (Galleria), and Peacock Meal Kit (E-mart) [ 14 ]. The delivery of online order food and HMR food services increased by 77.5% in 2020, compared to the previous year [ 15 ]. Further, people are more concerned about health and look for healthy foods. Consumers purchased more high-protein salads with low calories, health-protection HMR, and fresh ingredient meal-kit [ 16 ].

Acceleration of food tech

COVID-19 resulted in the acceleration of food technology. Robotics in foodservice operations has been expanded significantly. Manless cafés, such as Briggo in USA, Lounge X in Korea, and Chowbotics in California, are its good examples [ 17 , 18 , 19 ]. Chowbotics is the first manless café to purchase fresh produce. Cooking robots work at various positions, such as making hamburgers in a fast-food chain (Miso Robotics in White Castle Burger in California), working at a pasta kitchen (DaVinci Kitchen, Germany), and serving in chicken restaurants (Robert Chicken, Korea) [ 20 , 21 , 22 ]. Moley is the first robot to cook gourmet cuisines using artificial intelligence techniques [ 23 ]. Robotics has also been applied to serving (Royal Palace, Netherlands) and deliveries (PepsiCo's, USA) [ 24 , 25 ]. TUG, as a delivery robot for patient meals at the Reading HealthPlex in Pennsylvania, reduced labor costs by 80% [ 26 ]. The UVD Robotics Techniques have been utilized to prevent COVID-19 transmission, while Blue Ocean Robotics played a role in disinfection at the Heathrow International Airport, UK [ 27 ].

New government project

In Korea, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (MAFRA) launched a new project called “Korean Eating Culture Improvement” in May 2020 [ 6 ]. The project aimed to change Koreans' eating behavior of sharing cuisines, which can cause diseases that are transmitted via droplets [ 28 ]. Thus, COVID-19 can be transmitted through such food-sharing behavior. To accomplish this change, MAFRA proposed three activities: one-person portion meal setting, sanitary management of spoons and chopsticks, and employees wearing masks. The project spread all over the country. Authorities of respective provinces supported the restaurants that abided by the above-mentioned activities by rendering certification to the restaurants. The project is expected to construct a safe eating culture with a high level of safety among Koreans.

RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS

COVID-19 has drastically changed the world, and many believe that some of those changes may last even after the pandemic is over [ 29 , 30 ]. This reality and future expectations certainly apply to the food service industry as well. This study discusses the kinds of research implications that can be drawn from these changes and future expectations. Such changes can be related to the behaviors and perceptions of consumers and employees, as well as the strategic responses of food service businesses. Considering these primary constituencies of the food service industry, this study attempts to provide meaningful research implications related to COVID-19.

Consumer perspectives

Consumer confidence in dining-in.

Consumers of food service businesses have been through and will continue to undergo tremendous changes due to COVID-19. First, due to lockdown or heavy restrictions on in-dining food services during the pandemic, consumers have been unable to enjoy in-dining experiences, either in a complete or at least a partial manner [ 31 , 32 ]. Even in the absence of government restrictions on the in-dining food service, many consumers were and are reluctant to dine out in a confined food service setting, because of the possibility of COVID-19 transmission [ 33 ]. Moreover, although the vaccination rate is significantly increasing, some consumers either refuse inoculation, thus avoiding dining out, or do not feel safe to dine out in a confined place even after getting vaccinated [ 34 , 35 ]. This lingering concern is understandable because of the high level of uncertainty regarding COVID-19 and its vaccines, especially among the general public [ 36 ]. Accordingly, it is important to understand the real consumer confidence in dining in food service establishments as the COVID-19 development continues and how such confidence can be boosted from the perspective of food service management.

Therefore, food service researchers should pay close attention to the status of consumers' confidence in dining at food service establishments. An important aspect of this examination would be a constant or timely update because since everyone is experiencing this type of pandemic for the first time, how people psychologically recover from and respond to this event is unknown. In particular, as vaccination rate accelerates globally, consumer confidence may recover quickly in a non-linear fashion, or it may first recover quickly but later possibly stall at a certain level due to a particular group of consumers who are either too concerned about the possibility of full recovery or skeptical of vaccination programs, which raise legitimate empirical questions for the food service industry.

Next, the food service business should have a better understanding of how they can improve consumer confidence in in-dining food services. There are various ways that can be implemented to boost consumer confidence in this matter, such as cleaning and sanitizing, restructuring the dining table layout to ensure social distancing, requiring employees and customers to wear face masks, installing transparent plastic panels at the counter and/or between tables, and minimizing human interactions (e.g., use of an electronic tablet for menu ordering or even robots to take orders). Restaurant businesses need to understand which practices to prioritize or emphasize because they do not have unlimited resources to implement them all. An efficient allocation of resources is essential for the food service industry to achieve a more desirable level of profitability because they have a tight profit margin. Furthermore, even when all or most of the possible implementations are feasible and can be done, proper prioritization of these implementations can go a long way to enhance consumer confidence in in-dining services more effectively, which can directly or indirectly impact the establishment's or brand's image, and consumer loyalty and revisit intention eventually.

Accordingly, researchers in the food service literature are recommended to explore, first, the practices that restaurant businesses should consider implementing to improve consumer confidence in in-dining services. In addition, it would be interesting to investigate differing degrees of consumers' perceptions of the importance of such practices to assist the food service business to prioritize relevant practices more efficiently and effectively, especially in terms of resource allocation. It would also be critical to study how to disseminate the information of those practices to the target markets (i.e., a marketing strategy). Some potential questions to answer in this matter may include which marketing media should be used, which practices or messages should be emphasized, and how these messages should be delivered (e.g., with more detailed information in an educational format or with more visual representations of actual practices). To accomplish these research goals, researchers should seek responses from consumers as primary data by utilizing a survey method in an observational or experimental manner. Laboratory experiments and follow-up field studies are desirable. In addition to examining the main effects of the aforementioned factors, researchers would be encouraged to test potential moderating factors such as gender, age, perceptions of COVID-19, having children, pre-existing health conditions, tendency to general risks, and so on in relation to some characteristics of consumers, but also food service types (e.g., fast food, full-service, etc.), franchised vs. independent, size of the food service establishment, managerial abilities, location of the business, and so on in relation to the business characteristics. Understanding these contingent boundaries will help untangle the proposed main relationships among the mentioned factors in a more detailed and comprehensive way.

Untact service

Another interesting topic is the contact-free service, which can be represented by the marketing term “untact service” in the recent literature (from 2017 to be precise) [ 37 ]. The untact service for the food service business includes drive-through, curbside pickup, and delivery. All these forms of untact services have become a norm in the food service industry during the current pandemic and they have helped many businesses in the industry survive the global health and economic crisis [ 38 , 39 ]. It would be important to reveal, first, how untact services have been helped the industry, for example, its impact on sales and profits, and second, how such positive impacts have been heterogeneous contingent on various factors from both consumer (e.g., gender and age) and business perspectives (e.g., location and type of food service).

Post-pandemic change

Lastly, food service researchers should pay attention to which mentioned factors would stick around even after the pandemic is over. Many believe that these new norms during the pandemic, such as the popularity of untact services, fewer interactions with service providers (e.g., service by robotics), and some cleaning and sanitization practices will continue even after the pandemic. However, it is clearly an empirical question that needs to be examined and verified with actual data and rigorous analyses. Even when consumers may anticipate that these practices will still be important and influence their decisions even after the pandemic, their perceptions can certainly change once the pandemic is over. Although we strongly believe that some of these practices will still be important even after the pandemic, which practices will be significant remains to be answered empirically. Understanding the matter will help the food service business to develop more appropriate and timely strategies.

Employee perspectives

Employee turnover.

Similar to consumers of the food service business, employees of the food service business have been experiencing tremendous changes and hardships. For example, the current pandemic has revealed a high level of risk embedded in the food service industry regarding job security from an employee's perspective. Due to the lockdowns and rigid restrictions on food service operations due to COVID-19, countless food service employees have been laid off or furloughed or have experienced a reduced number of working hours. In fact, the food service industry has been one of the hardest hits in the economy by the pandemic [ 33 ]. Since the food service industry is known for a high turnover rate of employees, the added hardship on employees in the industry has been devastating for both employees and employers. Some employees are considering switching to a new career in a different industry because of this hardship, which requires the business to decide what it needs to do to retain and recruit talented employees during and after the pandemic. This is a critical issue even for those employees who stay with their company because they have witnessed a high level of risk and uncertainty in the food service business, which is volatile to external forces such as the pandemic. The industry needs to convince its employees that the industry is still viable and has great potential to grow in the future, especially after the crisis.

Employee attitudes

Understanding the factors during the pandemic that significantly influence employees' various perceptions, such as satisfaction, commitment, and loyalty, is critical for food service management. Employee perceptions play an important role in shaping employees' intention to remain with the company at the end [ 40 , 41 ]. Despite the extreme operational hardships faced by food service employers during the pandemic, they still need to ensure that they show their employees that they care for them and are trying their best to provide them with job security during the pandemic. Such practices can go a long way, possibly making significantly positive impacts on employees' satisfaction with and commitment to their organization because employees also understand how challenging those practices can be during the current pandemic. This kind of positive impact may eventually have an aftereffect on organizational culture and its long-term success. Accordingly, it is suggested that researchers may explore how employers' caring and transparency in their communication influence employees' perceptions and behaviors during the pandemic.

Human resources allocation

Another important issue that needs to be considered regarding employees in the food service business during the pandemic is human resource allocation. As discussed earlier, the food service business had to adapt to a new business environment during the pandemic by extensively implementing untact services, such as drive-through, curbside pickup, and delivery. In doing so, many food service businesses had to deviate from their traditional in-dining services. Such a dramatic transition requires reallocation of human resources to different tasks and related new training. It would be interesting to research how this reallocation impacted the food service business and, in particular, employees' various perceptions about their job and productivity. Additionally, an extension of this research to the post-pandemic period should be encouraged because such investigations may reveal possible lasting benefits (e.g., improved human capital with multiple capabilities) and/or drawbacks (e.g., dissatisfied employees with too many or less focused job responsibilities) in a long-term manner.

Organizational strategy perspectives

Corporate social responsibility strategy and more.

In addition to the customer and employee perspectives, there are potential research topics from an organizational strategy perspective that need attention. Food service businesses can implement or might have implemented certain organizational strategies to cope with the pandemic. Accordingly, it is important for researchers to investigate which business strategies (e.g., corporate social responsibility [CSR], franchising, internationalization, and diversification) generate positive benefits during the pandemic. For example, previous studies found that a firm's engagement in CSR activities can enhance employees' commitment to and satisfaction with their organization, improve their productivity, and reduce turnover intention [ 42 , 43 ]. Furthermore, many previous studies have found that CSR positively impacts consumers [ 44 ] and firm performance [ 45 ]. Hence, it can be interesting to see whether the food service business's CSR investment during the pandemic has the same positive impact (e.g., on customers, employees, and/or business performance). Interestingly, some may argue that an investment in CSR activities during the pandemic has an opposite impact (i.e., a negative impact) on employees, customers, and performance because such investments will cause the cash flow of the business to become even tighter in an extremely difficult time, thus making the probability of its survival slimmer.

It would also be interesting to explore whether a company's pre-existing reputation of being socially responsible can generate business benefits during the pandemic. The pre-existing reputation is not about the company's investment in CSR during the pandemic, but rather the reputation that had already been built before the pandemic, which does not put any burden on the company during the pandemic. In such a case, the pre-existing reputation of CSR may be more likely to provide benefits because it does not cost the company anything during the pandemic, and CSR investment has been found to provide insurance-like protection during a crisis [ 46 ]. All these CSR issues can be viewed as part of or equivalent to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues, which have gained considerable attention from the corporate world and public. Although the ESG concept was created and has been used more in the investment context, due to its extensive popularity in the contemporary corporate world, the term is now used more interchangeably with a broader concept, such as CSR. Accordingly, the suggested research topics are timely, even in the context of ESG. However, since all these suggested research issues are empirical questions, they require empirical verification.

Furthermore, similar research studies apply to other business strategies, such as franchising, internationalization, and various diversification strategies. In particular, since the food service industry employs the franchising strategy the most in the U.S. economy [ 47 ], significant implications of implementing the strategy may exist in relation to the pandemic. Researchers are encouraged to find such implications.

Unit-level analysis

The organizational strategies mentioned above are mainly at the firm level and not at the individual unit level. A majority of the food service business consists of independent and small businesses. Hence, inspecting the effects of the characteristics of the food service business at an individual unit level during the pandemic can provide meaningful and practical implications for food service business owners and operators. An example of such characteristics can be the type of financing. In contrast with large corporations, small food service businesses rely heavily on personal connections to finance (e.g., raising capital from family members and friends) in addition to formal financing (i.e., loans from financial institutions). These different types of financing may imply certain capabilities or lack of them in owners and consequently suggest some anticipatory outcomes during the pandemic, such as a high likelihood of suffering from poor performance and business failure. Thus, these issues should be researched to gain a better understanding of the food service business during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in tremendous changes in the overall economy and society. In the food service industry, the ways people order has shifted mostly to non-human contact or untact methods, such as online orders and drive-through orders. The consumption of particular products, such as HMR and meal-kit, has also increased explosively. Cooking and serving robots have been extensively adopted to prevent human contact and reduce labor costs. The COVID-19 situation has also caused serious issues in environmental protection. In terms of research implications, COVID-19 poses great challenges and provides opportunities. This study discusses these challenges and opportunities from three perspectives: consumer, employee, and organizational strategy perspectives.

Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no potential conflicts of interests.

Author Contributions:

• Conceptualization: Ham S, Lee, S.
• Investigation: Ham S, Lee S.
• Supervision: Ham S, Lee S.
• Writing - original draft: Ham S, Lee S.
• Writing - review & editing: Ham S, Lee S.

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, restaurant and foodservice research: a critical reflection behind and an optimistic look ahead.

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management

ISSN : 0959-6119

Article publication date: 10 April 2017

The purpose of this paper is to present a review of the foodservice and restaurant literature that has been published over the past 10 years in the top hospitality and tourism journals. This information will be used to identify the key trends and topics studied over the past decade, and help to identify the gaps that appear in the research to identify opportunities for advancing future research in the area of foodservice and restaurant management.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper takes the form of a critical review of the extant literature that has been done in the foodservice and restaurant industries. Literature from the past 10 years will be qualitatively assessed to determine trends and gaps in the research to help guide the direction for future research.

The findings show that the past 10 years have seen an increase in the number of and the quality of foodservice and restaurant management research articles. The topics have been diverse and the findings have explored the changing and evolving segments of the foodservice industry, restaurant operations, service quality in foodservice, restaurant finance, foodservice marketing, food safety and healthfulness and the increased role of technology in the industry.

Research limitations/implications

Given the number of research papers done over the past 10 years in the area of foodservice, it is possible that some research has been missed and that some specific topics within the breadth and depth of the foodservice industry could have lacked sufficient coverage in this one paper. The implications from this paper are that it can be used to inform academics and practitioners where there is room for more research, it could provide ideas for more in-depth discussion of a specific topic and it is a detailed start into assessing the research done of late.

Originality/value

This paper helps foodservice researchers in determining where past research has gone and gives future direction for meaningful research to be done in the foodservice area moving forward to inform academicians and practitioners in the industry.

• Hospitality management
• Restaurants
• Food and beverage
• Foodservice research

DiPietro, R. (2017), "Restaurant and foodservice research: A critical reflection behind and an optimistic look ahead", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management , Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 1203-1234. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-01-2016-0046

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2017, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

All feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support