Firm’s responses to food policies to reduce consumption of ultra-processed food and beverages: lessons from the existing evidence

Food policies seeking to lower the intake of ultra-processed foods and beverages (a risk factor for obesity and related cardiovascular diseases) are gaining traction. Producer behaviors toward these policies can affect whether policies achieve public health goals. In this narrative review, we synthesize available evidence from ex-ante and ex-post studies since 2015 to assess strategic responses by the food industry to a broad set of mandatory food policies on ultra-processed foods and beverages, including taxes, labeling, marketing restrictions, and claims. Based on 49 papers, we found strategic pricing as the most prevalent assessed producer response, followed by product reformulation, and changes in product portfolio (product entry or exit), marketing, and package size. Evidence to date points towards product reformulation and portfolio changes reinforcing the public health goal for food policies, as these producer responses improve the nutrient profile of available products, albeit unintended consequences can emerge via the use of non-sugar sweeteners. Strategic pricing can strengthen public health goals for food policies when unhealthy products become relatively more expensive than expected compared to healthier options. Otherwise, strategic pricing works against these goals. Mixed results arise from changes in marketing as their post-policy sales effectiveness can shrink, but producers can increase the marketing intensity of unhealthy foods. Evidence of package size changes is scarce and inconclusive. The overall implications of strategic producer responses will depend on market structure and share, their magnitude and scope (producers often respond in a mixture of ways), and how consumers adjust their demand in consequence. Policymakers and researchers should account for strategic producer responses in the policy design and evaluation process.