Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36741995›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2022

Do they really support "your freedom of choice"? FoPNL and the food industry in Brazil.

Laís Amaral Mais, Mélissa Mialon, Bruna Kulik Hassan, João Marcos Darre Peres, Mariana Gondo Dos Santos, Ana Paula Bortoletto Martins, Janine Giuberti Coutinho, Camila Maranha Paes de Carvalho

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The bio-food industry's corporate political activity during Health Canada's revision of Canada's food guide.Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Laís Amaral MaisInstituto Brasileiro de Defesa do Consumidor (IDEC), São Paulo, Brazil.
Mélissa MialonNúcleo de Pesquisas Epidemiológicas em Nutrição e Saúde (NUPENS), Universidade de São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, Brazil.
Bruna Kulik HassanACT Promoção da Saúde, São Paulo, Brazil.
João Marcos Darre PeresO Joio e o Trigo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Mariana Gondo Dos SantosInstituto Brasileiro de Defesa do Consumidor (IDEC), São Paulo, Brazil.
Ana Paula Bortoletto MartinsInstituto Brasileiro de Defesa do Consumidor (IDEC), São Paulo, Brazil.
Janine Giuberti CoutinhoInstituto Brasileiro de Defesa do Consumidor (IDEC), São Paulo, Brazil.
Camila Maranha Paes de CarvalhoUniversidade Federal Fluminense (UFF), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Instituto Brasileiro de Defesa do Consumidor · BRUniversidade Federal Fluminense · BRTrinity College Dublin · IEUniversidade de São Paulo · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: In 2020, Brazil approved the introduction of a new front-of-package nutrition labeling (FoPNL) in the format of a magnifying glass (MG) after years of discussion. There is currently a lack of understanding of the role of the food industry in that process. This study aimed to describe the corporate political activity (CPA) of the food industry and conflicts of interest situations, as they happened during the development and approval of a new FoPNL system in Brazil. Materials and methods: We undertook bibliographical and documentary searches using material from food companies, trade associations and front groups involved in the regulatory process. We (1) collected information about the case study context, (2) collected data from documentary sources, and (3) prepared a synthesis of the results and a timeline of key events. Results/Discussion: During the FoPNL regulatory process in Brazil, the food industry opposed the introduction of warning labels, a model supported by health authorities and implemented with success in other countries in Latin America. The food industry rather promoted a traffic-light labeling system, known to be less effective at guiding individuals to make healthier food choices. Later in the process, when it was evident that its preferred model would not be used, and a MG would rather be introduced, the food industry argued for the use of a different version of this FoPNL model. We found that the food industry, all along the process, was directly involved in and influenced the development of the FoPNL, by providing technical support, advising and lobbying policymakers. The food industry also established relationships with a consumer non-governmental organization and nutrition professional societies. The food industry also produced and disseminated information supporting its position in order to influence public opinion and high-level decision makers, and used the legal system to delay the process. Conclusion: The FoPNL in Brazil is neither aligned with the recommendations of international health organizations nor with existing independent scientific evidence. The new FoPNL, as adopted in Brazil, reflects some of the preferences of the industry; it is likely that the influence of that sector during the legislative process was pivotal, even if its initial proposal was not adopted.

Indexed as

conflict of interestcorporate political activityfood regulationfront-of-package labelingnutrition labeling

Identifiers

PMID36741995
PMCPMC9892853
OpenAlexW4317399305

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.