Tempels et al. Respond

The response to our article by Wiist and the editorial by Marks¹ reflect how, in a polarized debate, other views are easily seen as being on the other side of the divide. Both authors seem to interpret our position as one that partly explains away dubious practices of Big Food by pointing out how industry also takes responsibility—for example, in public–private partnerships. This is not what we aimed to set out, so some clarification is in order.

The core argument in our article is a normative one: we hold that the market should not be viewed as a nonmoral-free zone, and that businesses do have certain moral obligations to society. As Wiist claims, government is indeed the chief guardian of public health, but that does not reduce or take away corporate responsibility—especially if businesses in many ways can make a difference and contribute to health as well. The moral obligations of the industry to promote healthy nutrition are not just limited to the legal rules that can (and should!) be imposed on them. How far such obligations go is an open question, and most companies still have a long way to go, but that does not take away that others do take their responsibility for health seriously.

At the same time, the problem of integrity as put forward by Marks is fundamental. We have not yet dealt with the question if and how integrity can be realized given the competing demands in business—an important issue in business ethics.^2,3 Yet, it may be clear that at least some practices—for example aggressive marketing of products that are known to contribute to noncommunicable diseases—are inconsistent with a basic moral responsibility to contribute to health.

We agree with Marks that the debate is not only about the integrity of industry. In public–private collaborations, the integrity of government and public health agencies is at stake as well. A necessary prerequisite for trustworthy public–private partnerships is therefore that minimum standards are upheld and maintained by government (e.g., a ban on sale of certain unhealthy products at schools). On the other hand, government agencies are also limited in their capacity and power to promote healthier nutrition habits, and more progress in health can be made if companies use their product innovation and marketing skills to the benefit of public health. Collaboration between governments and producers and retailers that are really committed to health can be fruitful, and even morally desirable.