. 2019 Aug 22;14(8):e0221250. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221250

Table 5. Comments from researchers and stakeholders on statement 2.8, concerning unhealthy food companies.

Statement 2.8 –Avoid companies whose objectives and/or goals are related to the increased production, supply or demand of ‘unhealthy food’ products and/or to the promotion of unhealthy and unsustainable ways of eating and producing food
Almost all food companies are good and bad. This would rule out work with all supermarkets; for example. (Researcher 77: Nutritional epidemiology, behavioural change interventions + food/nutrition policy, Pakistan) There are instances when they are the companies you would want to be working with. They are the companies who have created the whole problem in the first place; so they’re the ones that are most in need of change… (Researcher 15: monitoring food environments + behavioural change interventions, Australia) Preferably not; because your credibility is in doubt once you’ve personally accepted industry funding. (Researcher 152: Monitoring food environments, behavioural change interventions, food/nutrition policy, New Zealand)	The definition of healthy versus unhealthy can and will constantly be debated; and companies may be on an improvement trajectory that should not preclude their involvement; and many/most large companies produce both healthy and unhealthy products. (Policy influencer 80, USA) This is the crux of the issue. Most companies in a position to be funders of research will likely have a product portfolio that still contains a significant amount of HFSS/non-core foods that account for significant sales value (even if not the absolute majority of products in the portfolio). This applies as much to "conservative" companies as to those that could argue they are "first movers" towards healthier foods. If the research funding role somehow gives them a halo and access among research funders and policy-makers; this could be problematic for driving research attention and policy change in areas that target the HFSS/non-core foods. (Policy officer 35, Denmark) Agree in general; but some companies; such as retailers; can have objectives which align to BOTH healthy and unhealthy diets. (Funder 12, UK)

Statement 2.8 –Avoid companies whose objectives and/or goals are related to the increased production, supply or demand of ‘unhealthy food’ products and/or to the promotion of unhealthy and unsustainable ways of eating and producing food

Researchers (75% agreement)

Stakeholders (82% agreement)

Almost all food companies are good and bad. This would rule out work with all supermarkets; for example. (Researcher 77: Nutritional epidemiology, behavioural change interventions + food/nutrition policy, Pakistan)
There are instances when they are the companies you would want to be working with. They are the companies who have created the whole problem in the first place; so they’re the ones that are most in need of change… (Researcher 15: monitoring food environments + behavioural change interventions, Australia)
Preferably not; because your credibility is in doubt once you’ve personally accepted industry funding. (Researcher 152: Monitoring food environments, behavioural change interventions, food/nutrition policy, New Zealand)

The definition of healthy versus unhealthy can and will constantly be debated; and companies may be on an improvement trajectory that should not preclude their involvement; and many/most large companies produce both healthy and unhealthy products. (Policy influencer 80, USA)
This is the crux of the issue. Most companies in a position to be funders of research will likely have a product portfolio that still contains a significant amount of HFSS/non-core foods that account for significant sales value (even if not the absolute majority of products in the portfolio). This applies as much to "conservative" companies as to those that could argue they are "first movers" towards healthier foods. If the research funding role somehow gives them a halo and access among research funders and policy-makers; this could be problematic for driving research attention and policy change in areas that target the HFSS/non-core foods. (Policy officer 35, Denmark)
Agree in general; but some companies; such as retailers; can have objectives which align to BOTH healthy and unhealthy diets. (Funder 12, UK)