Skip to main content
PLOS Medicine logoLink to PLOS Medicine
. 2022 Oct 5;19(10):e1004114. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004114

Changes in the salt content of packaged foods sold in supermarkets between 2015–2020 in the United Kingdom: A repeated cross-sectional study

Lauren K Bandy 1,2,*, Sven Hollowell 1, Susan A Jebb 2, Peter Scarborough 1
Editor: Barry M Popkin3
PMCID: PMC9581353  PMID: 36197915

Abstract

Background

Excess consumption of salt is linked to an increased risk of hypertension and cardiovascular disease. The United Kingdom has had a comprehensive salt reduction programme since 2003, setting a series of progressively lower, product-specific reformulation targets for the food industry, combined with advice to consumers to reduce salt. The aim of this study was to assess the changes in the sales-weighted mean salt content of grocery foods sold through retail between 2015 and 2020 by category and company.

Methods and findings

Information for products, including salt content (g/100 g), was collected online from retailer websites for 6 consecutive years (2015 to 2020) and was matched with brand-level retail sales data from Euromonitor for 395 brands. The sales-weighted mean salt content and total volume of salt sold were calculated by category and company. The mean salt content of included foods fell by 0.05 g/100 g, from 1.04 g/100 g in 2015 to 0.90 g/100 g in 2020, equivalent to −4.2% (p = 0.13). The categories with the highest salt content in 2020 were savoury snacks (1.6 g/100 g) and cheese (1.6 g/100 g), and the categories that saw the greatest reductions in mean salt content over time were breakfast cereals (−16.0%, p = 0.65); processed beans, potatoes, and vegetables (−10.6%, p = 0.11); and meat, seafood, and alternatives (−9.2%, p = 0.56). The total volume of salt sold fell from 2.41 g per person per day to 2.25 g per person per day, a reduction of 0.16 g or 6.7% (p = 0.54). The majority (63%) of this decrease was attributable to changes in mean salt content, with the remaining 37% accounted for by reductions in sales. Across the top 5 companies in each of 9 categories, the volume of salt sold decreased in 26 and increased in 19 cases. This study is limited by its exclusion of foods purchased out of the home, including at restaurants, cafes, and takeaways. It also does not include salt added at the table, or that naturally occurring in foods, meaning the findings underrepresent the population’s total salt intake. The assumption was also made that the products matched with the sales data were entirely representative of the brand, which may not be the case if products are sold exclusively in convenience stores or markets, which are not included in this database.

Conclusions

There has been a small decline in the salt content of foods and total volume of salt sold between 2015 and 2020, but observed changes were not statistically significant so could be due to random variations over time. We suggest that mandatory reporting of salt sales by large food companies would increase the transparency of how individual businesses are progressing towards the salt reduction targets.


Lauren Bandy and colleagues examine how the salt content of food in the UK has changed between 2015 and 2020.

Author summary

Why was this study done?

  • Excess salt consumption leads to increased risk of high blood pressure and heart disease. Reducing salt intake across the population is a public health priority.

  • Voluntary salt reduction targets for the food industry in the United Kingdom cover a wide range of foods, such as bread, snacks, sauces, and ready meals.

  • This study examines how the sales-weighted mean salt content of the 9 grocery food categories that contribute the most to adults’ salt intake in the UK has changed between 2015 and 2020, and how it has changed by individual company.

What did the researchers find?

  • Nine grocery food categories that contribute the most to adult salt intake in the UK were included in this study.

  • The mean salt content of these foods fell by 5%, from 1.04 g/100 g to 0.99 g/100 g, although the results are not statistically significant.

  • The biggest reductions were seen in breakfast cereals (−16%) and processed beans, potatoes, and vegetables (−11%), but there was no change for bread (−2%) and ready meals (+1%). None of these changes were statistically significant.

What do the findings mean?

  • There has been little change in the mean salt content and total volume of salt sold from these foods.

  • Overall, progress in salt reduction has stalled. Additional policy measures might be needed to further reduce the salt content of foods, such as mandatory reporting of salt sales by manufacturers, which might improve transparency and simulate further progress.

Introduction

Excess consumption of salt leads to an increased risk of hypertension [1,2] and is linked to 3 million deaths a year globally, mostly from strokes and cardiovascular disease [3]. There is strong evidence from randomised control trials that shows reducing dietary salt intake leads to reductions in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure [46]. Reducing salt intake is a public health priority and has been identified as one of the most cost-effective measures a country can take to improve population health outcomes [7]. Public health surveillance of salt intake, reducing salt content of foods, labelling and marketing standards, and increasing public awareness of the relationships between salt intake and health have all been shown to reduce population salt intake [8]. WHO recommends salt intake does not exceed 5 g/day [9], although more recently, questions have been raised about the negative consequences of low dietary sodium intake on cardiovascular health, particularly for high-risk groups such as those with diabetes [10].

The United Kingdom has one of the best-known salt reduction programmes globally, aiming to achieve a population salt intake of less than 6 g/day. The UK Government first published a comprehensive salt reduction programme in 2003, setting a series of voluntary, progressively lower, product-specific reformulation targets for the food industry to achieve in 4 years, combined with advice to consumers to reduce salt. Subsequent targets were set for 2009, 2011, 2014, and 2017. The most recent salt reduction targets have been set for 2024 and include 84 specific food groups that contribute the most to salt intake, and cover products sold for consumption both in and out of the home [11].

Previous studies have reported some success in reducing the salt content of foods in the UK. A study that analysed the sodium content of 47,000 foods purchased in 18,000 households in the UK between 2006 and 2011 found that the mean content fell by 7% overall, concluding that the voluntary reduction targets had delivered a moderate reduction in the salt content of foods over the time period studied [12]. A cross-sectional study examining the salt content of foods reported in the National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) found that the sodium density had reduced by 17% in 2016 to 2017 compared to 2008 to 2009 [13]. In 2020, Public Health England (PHE) has published a report on the salt content of foods in relation to the 2017 targets, based on a single year of data. It found that of the foods purchased for at-home consumption, around half of the average salt reduction targets had been met, with 20% of products still exceeding the maximum salt content targets [14]. However, there has been limited reporting of the results by individual companies.

Assessment of salt intake from urinary sodium excretion in adults has shown that estimated mean salt intake reduced by 1.4 g/day between 2003 and 2011, contributing to a reduction of 3.0 mm Hg in systolic blood pressure and a reduction in mortality from stroke and ischaemic heart disease [15]. Interrupted time series models have shown that mean salt intake fell by 0.20 g/day among men and 0.12 g/day among women from 2003 to 2010, but then slowed to 0.11 g/day for men and 0.07 g/day for women between 2011 and 2014 [16]. The most recent data from NDNS’ 2018 to 2019 assessment of urinary sodium in adults reported a mean intake of 8.4 g/day [17], with no significant change observed compared to 2014. All this evidence suggests that the population’s salt intake has plateaued in more recent years.

Given the patchy progress in reformulation towards the targets across categories reported by PHE and the plateauing of the population’s salt intakes, this study set out to assess the changes in the sales-weighted mean salt content of grocery foods in the UK between 2015 and 2020 by category and company. We specifically aimed to assess how industry-led reformulation (salt content) and consumer behaviour (sales) have contributed to estimated changes in salt intake over time.

Methods

This repeated cross-sectional study was conducted between April 2021 and January 2022 and was not part of any preplanned analyses and has no assisted protocol. The sensitivity analysis was added during the peer review process, and this study is reported as per the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline (S1 STROBE Checklist).

First, the top categories contributing to adult (19 to 64 years) dietary sodium intake were identified using results of the latest NDNS survey [18], and products in the following 9 categories were included: bread; breakfast cereals; butter and spreads; cheese; meat, seafood, and alternatives; processed beans, potatoes, and vegetables; ready meals, soup, and pizza; sauces and condiments; and savoury snacks. The included subcategories are given in Table 1. Based on the latest NDNS data, 8 of these categories represent an estimated 73% of an adult’s dietary sodium intake from processed foods, with no estimate available for ready meals [18].

Table 1. Included sales data categories and estimated contribution to sodium intake according to NDNS [18].

Sales data category Included sales data subcategories % contribution of category to total sodium intake for adults (19–64) [16]
Meat, seafood, and alternatives Chilled and frozen meat substitutes, chilled and frozen processed poultry, chilled and frozen processed red meat, chilled frozen processed seafood, shelf stable meat 32
Bread Bread 15
Processed beans, potatoes, and vegetables Frozen processed potatoes, shelf stable beans, shelf stable tomatoes, shelf stable vegetables 9
Sauces and condiments Barbecue sauces, chili sauces, cooking sauces, dips, ketchup, mayonnaise, mustard, pasta sauces, salad dressings, soy sauces, other sauces 6
Cheese Hard cheese, processed cheese, soft cheese 5
Breakfast cereals Hot cereals, ready-to-eat cereals 2
Butter and spreads Butter and spreads 2
Savoury snacks Popcorn, potato crisps, puffed snacks, rice snacks, tortilla chips, vegetable, pulse and bread chips 2
Ready meals, soup, and pizza Chilled, shelf stable and frozen ready meals, chilled and frozen pizza, soup NA
TOTAL 73

Data types and sources

Data on the salt content of foods were acquired from 2 sources, depending on the date. Data for the years 2015 to 2018 were sourced from a commercial third-party supplier, Edge by Ascential (previously known as Brand View). Edge by Ascential collects product information, including nutrient composition data from the websites of 4 leading UK retailers: Asda, Morrisons, Sainsbury’s, and Tesco, with 2015 being the earliest data available. All data were collected on the same data (13 December) for each year. For 2018 to 2020, similar data were sourced from foodDB, a research database developed by the University of Oxford [19]. These data were collected in November and December for the same 4 retailers for 2018, 2019, and 2020. For 2018, data from both sources were used in the analysis.

The data from each source were combined to form a composition database with the following information: year, product name, brand name, company (manufacturer) name, ingredients, and salt content in g per 100 g. Products that did not have a salt per 100 g value were excluded, as were products that did not contain values for at least 2 other nutrients. No missing data or salt values were imputed. As barcode data were not available, duplicate products found in multiple retailers were removed by filtering on year, category, brand name, product size, kcal per 100 g, and salt per 100 g. An extra analysis was done to test the validation between the 2 sources of composition data (Edge by Ascential and foodDB) for 2018. The sales-weighted mean salt content by category was calculated for each data source, and a Wilcoxon signed-rank test was conducted in R to test for differences between the 2 independent samples, with the unit of analysis being the brand.

There were 374,849 individual products included in the original composition database for all years. A total of 80,960 products were excluded due to missing salt per 100 g values; 205,003 were excluded because they did not belong in one of the included categories (as outlined in Table 1); and 105 were excluded because they were missing values for 3 or more other nutrients. A total of 88,781 products were included in the final composition database for all years.

The existing categories and retailer shelf names in the composition database were used to assign products to the new sales categories (see Table 1) where possible, otherwise, key word searches were conducted on product names to ensure that all products were assigned a sales category. This process was done in Microsoft Excel and R Studio (version 2022.02.3). Canned fish was not included in the Edge by Ascential database and so was excluded. Products with a relatively low salt content, including sweet biscuits, cakes, pastries and plain pasta, rice, and noodles, were excluded. There was no information provided on whether the salt content of dried sauces, gravy, and stock cubes was given per 100 g as sold or as served; therefore, these products were excluded to remove inconsistencies.

Pairing composition data with sales data

Weighting composition data by sales volume allows the total volume of salt sold to be estimated, which can be used to estimate average salt purchases (as a proxy for consumption) within the population. For this study, brand-level sales data were sourced from Euromonitor International via the Bodleian Library, University of Oxford. Euromonitor is a private market research company that provides retail sales data in value and volume terms and is representative of the whole packaged food market. More details on Euromonitor sales data used in this study are provided elsewhere [20].

Euromonitor only measures sales by brand and so individual product sales data were not available. A brand was defined as a set of products that have the same core name and are manufactured by the same company. For example, the company Kellogg’s manufactures multiple brands, including Special K (one brand) and Coco Pops (another brand) breakfast cereals. Within each brand, there may be multiple individual products (e.g., Special K Original and Special K Red Berries). The brand-level sales data were matched with product-level salt content data based on product name, brand name, company name, category, and year. Where brands were matched with more than 1 individual product, mean salt content was calculated. This process is outlined in the flow chart in Fig 1 below. Each year, any new brands that were added to the market place were included, and any brands that were removed were excluded (i.e., this study included all brands, not just those present throughout the whole time series).

Fig 1. Data processing and analysis flow chart.

Fig 1

Corresponding product information from the composition database could not be found for 58 brands in the sales database, either because these brands were not sold in the 4 retailers included in the database (n = 18) or manufactured in the given time period (n = 40). These brands were therefore removed from the sales database (Fig 1). Euromonitor classifies small and local brands under the umbrella of “others,” representing 8% of sales overall and ranging from 3% (breakfast cereals) to 24% (savoury snacks) for category-level sales. The remaining products in the composition database that had not been matched to a brand were assigned to “others” within each category, with the mean salt content being weighted by the sales value for “others.”

Data analysis

The unit of analysis was the brand, and the sales-weighted mean salt content (g/100 g) was the primary outcome. Total volume of salt sold was also calculated in tonnes. The category, brand, and company variables in the datasets meant that analyses were stratified by company and category. Change in sales-weighted mean salt content was calculated between 2015 and 2020. In order to put the results in context of dietary recommendations, results for total volume of salt sold are presented in grams per person per day instead of tonnes. These values were calculated by dividing tonnes by population size using annual population estimates from the Office for National Statistics [21] and 365 to give daily rather than annual figures.

The change in total volume of salt sold was split into the change in the mean salt content (an indicator of reformulation) and change in total volume sales using a decomposition formula described elsewhere [20,22]. In summary, the annual percentage change in the total volume of salt sold is equal to the sum of the annual percentage change in the mean salt content and the annual percentage change in the volume of foods sold. This was calculated at the total, category, and company level. As the data were not normally distributed (as assessed visually), differences in the sales-weighted mean salt content of each category in 2020 compared to 2015 were tested using a Kruskal–Wallis test, where brands were used as the unit of analysis and p-value cutoff set at 0.05.

Sensitivity analysis

Euromonitor provides sales data for the leading brands, but each category is assigned an “others” volume that represents the small and local brands not covered in its brand list. We assumed that all products that were not matched with a brand were included under “others” for the relevant category. In order to test what impact this had on the results, we conducted a sensitivity test by recalculating the sales-weighted mean salt content overall and by category with “others” excluded.

Results

In 2020, we included 7,927 products for 393 brands manufactured by 105 individual companies. This remained relatively stable over time, with 9,492 products for 394 brands and 101 companies being included in 2015. A full table of descriptive statistics, including the number of brands and total number of products matched with both brands and “others,” can be found in S1 Table.

The sales-weighted mean salt content of foods included in this study fell by 0.05 g/100 g, from 1.04 g/100 g in 2015 to 0.99 g/100 g in 2020, equivalent to −4.2%, although this decline was not statistically significant (p = 0.13) (Table 2). There was a reduction of 10% or more in 2 out of 9 food categories: breakfast cereals and processed beans, potatoes, and vegetables. Meat, seafood, and alternatives, savoury snacks, and sauces gravy and condiments saw reductions of 9.2%, 8.0%, and 5.5%, respectively, while changes seen in bread (−1.6%) and butter and spreads (−2.2%) were small. There was a negligible increase in the sales-weighted mean salt content of ready meals, soup, and pizza (1.2%). None of the changes were statistically significant. When the sales-weighted mean salt content was calculated for each data source separately in 2018, there was no statistical difference in the results overall (p = 0.40) or by category (see S2 Table), suggesting that changes data source over time have not influenced the trends in salt content.

Table 2. Changes in sales-weighted mean salt content (g/100 g) by food category.

Category 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Percentage change 2015–2020 (%) Absolute change 2015–2020 (g/100 g) Kruskal–Wallis test (p-value)
Bread 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.92 0.93 0.93 −1.6 −0.02 0.96
Breakfast cereals 0.50 0.48 0.45 0.44 0.40 0.42 −16.0 −0.08 0.65
Butter and spreads 1.17 1.20 1.15 1.12 1.10 1.14 −2.2 −0.03 0.88
Cheese 1.71 1.68 1.66 1.59 1.64 1.64 −3.9 −0.07 0.32
Meat, seafood, and alternatives 1.46 1.46 1.44 1.34 1.32 1.32 −9.2 −0.13 0.56
Processed beans, potatoes, and vegetables 0.60 0.59 0.60 0.55 0.51 0.53 −10.6 −0.06 0.11
Ready meals, soup, and pizza 0.69 0.67 0.68 0.68 0.70 0.70 1.2 0.01 0.98
Sauces, gravy, and condiments 1.56 1.58 1.56 1.56 1.50 1.47 −5.5 −0.09 0.39
Savoury snacks 1.78 1.80 1.76 1.69 1.67 1.64 −8.0 −0.14 0.37
Total 1.04 1.04 1.03 1.00 0.99 0.99 4.2 0.05 0.13

*Percentage change calculated before rounding to 2 decimal places.

Overall, the sales-weighted mean salt content (g/100 g) of categories remained consistent year to year (Fig 2), although the savoury snacks and sauces, gravy, and condiments categories saw larger changes in later years (2018 to 2020) compared to earlier years (2015 to 2017).

Fig 2. Sales-weighted mean salt content (g/100 g) by category and year.

Fig 2

In 2020, the total volume of salt sold from these 9 categories was equivalent to 2.25 g per person per day and declined from 2.41 g person per day in 2015, a reduction of 0.16 g per person (6.7%, = 0.54). The majority of salt sold came from 3 categories: bread (24%); meat, seafood, and alternatives (19%); and cheese (12%) (Fig 3). There was no change in the proportions each category contributed over time.

Fig 3. Total volume of salt sold by proportion of each category, 2015 and 2020.

Fig 3

The total volume of salt sold fell by 6.7% between 2015 and 2020 (represented by the black marker in Fig 4 below). The majority, or 63%, of this change was due to reductions in the mean salt content of brands (represented by the orange bar in Fig 4), with the remaining 37% due to a decline in the volume sales of products (represented by the grey bars in Fig 4). There were large reductions in the total volume of salt sold from breakfast cereals (−17.5%, p = 0.88); butter and spreads (−13.9%, p = 0.89); and processed beans, vegetables, and potatoes (−13.6%, p = 0.31), with the majority of this change being driven by reductions in the salt content of brands. Ready meals and cheese saw increases in the total volume of salt sold (+2.1%, p = 0.89), driven by higher brand sales, with reductions in the mean salt content of savoury snack brands being offset by increases in sales.

Fig 4. Percentage change in total volume of salt sold due to change in sales and change in mean salt content, 2015–2020.

Fig 4

There was great heterogeneity between the changes in the mean salt content and sales between the top 5 companies in each category (companies that manufactured in more than 1 category were included separately for each category) (Fig 5). The total volume of salt sold by individual companies between 2015 and 2020 (represented by the black markers below) fell in 26 cases with increases in the remaining 19 companies. This company-level analysis allows for best practices to be identified. For example, Tesco, Sainsbury’s, and Morrisons all saw an overall reduction in the salt content of their meat, seafood, and alternative products, while Quaker and Tesco reduced the salt content of their breakfast cereals while increasing their product sales. However, the reductions in the salt content of ready meals, pizza, and soups were counterbalanced by increases in product sales, and there was great heterogeneity between company changes within the snacks and sauces categories too.

Fig 5. Percentage change in total volume of salt sold by category and company, 2015–2020.

Fig 5

Sensitivity analysis results.

After excluding the “others” volume from the dataset and repeating the analysis, the overall sales-weighted mean salt content of foods was 0.95 g/100 g in 2020, compared to 0.98 g/100 g as presented in the main findings. The sales-weighted mean salt content and trends in change over time were similar across all categories (S3 Table), with the exception of 2 categories. The ready meals, soup, and pizza category saw salt content fall from 0.68 g/100 g in 2015 to 0.64 g/100 g in 2020 (−5.5%) in the sensitivity analysis, compared to +1.2% in the main findings, and the processed beans, potatoes, and vegetables category saw salt content fall from 0.54 g/100 g in 2015 to 0.44 g/100 g in 2020, a reduction of −17.6% compared to −10.6.5% in the main findings.

Discussion

Between 2015 and 2020, the sales-weighted mean salt content of packaged foods fell by 0.05 g/100 g, or 4.2%, although this reduction was not statistically significant (p = 0.13). The total volume of salt sold from these foods fell from 2.41 g/person/day to 2.25 g, a reduction of 6.7% or 0.16 g. The majority (63%) of this reduction was driven by changes in the mean salt content of foods—either from reformulation of existing products, the launch of new low-sodium products, or removal of others from the marketplace—with the remainder due to falling sales. While there was a small overall decline in the volume of salt sold, there was also great heterogeneity between categories, and between companies within each category. The mean salt content was reduced by more than 10% in breakfast cereals and processed beans, vegetables, and potatoes. Bread contributed the greatest proportion to salt purchases; there was little reformulation seen over time, but sales decreased, leading to a small fall in the volume of salt sold. For cheese and ready meals, soup, and pizza, reductions in the mean salt content of products were counterbalanced by rising sales such that the total volume of salt sold increased over time.

Comparison with other studies

To our knowledge, this is the first peer-reviewed study that has reported on company-level changes in the mean salt content of foods in the UK, although other studies have reported on category-level changes in the salt content of foods over time. A study by Ni Mhurchu and colleagues in 2011 examined the sodium content of 44,000 foods purchased by 21,000 UK households between 2008 and 2009 [23]. This study also reported that processed meat and bread were the largest contributors to sodium purchases, although they did not look at changes over time. A 2013 study by Eyles and colleagues found that the sodium content of 47,000 processed foods sold in 18,000 households fell by 7% between 2006 and 2011 [12]. This suggests that the rate of change we have seen in our study is in line with historic changes. Another smaller study looked at the salt content of bread in 2001 (n = 40) and 2011 (n = 203) and found that the salt content of these products fell by around 20% over time, with supermarket own products having a lower salt content than branded products [24]. This previous large reduction in the sodium content of bread may explain why our study found little further change in more recent years. However, the salt content of bread in 2020 was 0.93 g/100 g in 2020, above the category target of 0.90 g/100 g for 2017 [14] and with further progress needed to reach the target of 0.85 g/100 g for 2024 [11]. A study using household panel data between 2005 and 2011 found that meat and cheese, dairy, and fats were the main 2 categories contributing to salt intake at 23% and 19%, respectively, and were in line with the findings presented here, at 23% for meat and 17% for cheese and butter and spreads combined [25]. This study, and that by Gressier ad colleagues [13], supports this study’s findings that that reformulation and industry behaviour were the main drivers of reductions in population salt intakes, as opposed to changes in consumer behaviour.

To our knowledge, there are no recent peer-reviewed studies that overlap with the time series presented here, although PHE has published a number of progress reports on the salt content of foods compared to the salt reduction targets. However, it is hard to make any direct comparisons between these reports and this study’s findings, as the PHE salt reduction target categories are so specific it is not possible to align categories. For example, in this study, we presented results for the “cheese” category, although data are available for hard cheese, processed cheese, and soft cheese. The PHE targets for cheese include “soft white cheese,” “cottage cheese,” “mozzarella,” “blue cheese produced in the UK only,” “cheese spreads,” and “other processed cheese such as sliced and string cheese with emulsifiers” [11]. The sales data we used in this study were not granular enough to calculate the sales-weighted mean salt content of these specific PHE categories.

Results of a meta-analysis suggest that a 4.4-g/day reduction in salt intake leads to a 4.4-mm Hg fall in systolic blood pressure [6]. The change in total volume of salt sold observed in this study was −0.16 g/day; while any decline in salt intake is welcome, it seems unlikely that this change would have led to any substantial reductions in disease prevalence and mortality.

Strengths and limitations of this study

By combining salt content data with sales data, we have been able to analyse the salt content of foods that have been sold, not just available products. This provides insight into how categories and companies have reduced the salt content of their products, and how sales—a marker of consumer behaviour—has changed over time.

The total volume of salt reported here initially appears low. For example, in 2018, we report 2.22 g salt/person/day compared to 8.4 g/person/day estimated in the urinary sodium excretion surveys. However, this discrepancy is due to a number of incremental factors. For example, we include only packaged foods sold through retail and exclude food sold for consumption outside the home in restaurants, cafes, and takeaways (30%; [26]), salt added at the table (20%; [27]), and sodium naturally occurring in food and drinks (10%; [27]). Furthermore, we were unable to analyse data from some categories (e.g., drinks, sweet bakery). With these adjustments, our estimates of salt per day are much more in line with the urinary sodium survey. It is also important to note that the sales data do not provide any split by demographics, and, therefore, any change in population composition (e.g., increase in proportion of older people) are not captured, making the daily per capita estimates presented here relatively crude. They include both adults and children of all ages and are therefore not directly comparable to the results of the urinary sodium figures, which are for adults aged 19 to 64 only.

The advantages and limitations of using Euromonitor sales data to analyse the nutrient content of foods over time have been outlined in detail in a previous study [20]. In summary, Euromonitor sales data avoid reliance on individual recall and underreporting in scan data [28,29], and it also allows for analysis of individual brands and companies. However, its limitations mean that table salt and salt sold from fast food are both excluded, making the total volume of salt sold likely to be a significant underestimation. Euromonitor’s reporting of brand sales, and not individual product sales, is a major limitation and means that any heterogeneity that occurred between products that belong to the same brand would have been missed, given that the method used assumes all products under the same brand are sold equally. A previous study has examined this limitation in detail, concluding that while the overall findings are unlikely to be affected, there may be some significant misrepresentations at the brand and potentially company level [20]. Euromonitor is also limited in its granularity, meaning that is groups small and local brands for each category under the umbrella of “others,” although the results of the sensitivity analysis show that this is unlikely to have a significant effect on the results overall but may have had a small effect on the ready meals, pizza, and soup and processed beans, potatoes, and vegetable categories. The lack of granularity in the sales data also means that these results are not to directly comparable with PHE’s salt reduction targets, which have very narrow categories; therefore, this study is not a specific evaluation of the salt reduction targets. However, the authors do have future research in this area planned, including modelling the targets’ potential health impact.

There are several limitations to the nutrition composition database used in this study. The first is that we assumed that the products in the composition database were entirely representative of the brands that they matched with in the sales database. However, this may not be the case for several reasons: (1) any products that were out of stock on the day that the data were collected will not be included in the composition data; (2) it is possible that some brands have product variants, products that are only available in convenience stores, markets, or restaurants and cafes, which are not captured here; and (3) products sold exclusively in-store will not be captured by these data as these were only collected online. However, a previous validation study using the same foodDB database found that 85% of products sold in supermarket stores could be matched to those sold by the same retailer online, with nutrition information being identical [30].

Dried sauces and gravies were excluded from the dataset as no data were given to indicate whether the salt content values were as sold or as given. After investigation, most products had their own preparation instructions and attempts to devise a generic formula that could be used to convert all values over a certain threshold to as sold (as the sales data are given as sold) caused jumps in the category results across years; therefore, it was decided to exclude dried products. While the high salt content of dried products makes them a category of interest, results from the NDNS data show that the total sauces category represents 6% of salt intake overall, and it is not expected that their exclusion will have a large impact on the overall results.

Policy implications

This analysis suggests that salt intake from processed foods purchased in retail settings fell by 6.7% between 2015 and 2020, although this decrease was not statistically significant. We highlight categories where progress is slow and the heterogeneity between companies within categories suggesting there is considerable scope for further reductions. In some categories, the salt content (e.g., bread and ready meals) has not changed in recent years. This is likely due to a combination of reasons: Many in the food industry cite the technical challenges to salt reduction, especially in products where it also acts as a preservative; there can be consumer resistance to low-salt varieties, although this can be overcome by gradual salt reduction; and there has been a shift in the efforts of both industry and policy makers towards sugar and calorie reduction instead. For savoury snacks and ready meals, reductions in salt content were counterbalanced by increases in sales. This highlights the need for policies that encompass consumer behaviour change and purchasing (such as reducing consumption of high-salt products and shifting towards low-salt varieties) as well as industry-led salt reduction targets and the launch of new low-salt varieties. The salt reduction programme in the UK was initially credited with such success because it included a public awareness campaign and strong political support [31], both of which have waned in recent years.

The specificity of the salt reduction targets means it is very hard to assess progress towards the targets using available data sources. Mandatory reporting of data to common standards would allow policymakers, academics, investors, and others to better track companies’ progress towards public health goals, as has been called for in the National Food Strategy [32]. It would shine a spotlight on parts of the food system, which were leading or lagging behind policy targets, allow for a better understanding of how effective the current targets are at improving public health outcomes, and allow alternative measures to be considered, such as mandated maximum salt targets (as in Argentina) and taxes on high-salt foods (as in Portugal) [33].

Conclusions

In the period 2015 to 2020, there was a small decline in both the sales-weighted mean salt content of packaged grocery foods sold in the UK, and the total volume of salt sold from these foods, although these findings were not statistically significant. However, the heterogeneity between categories and between companies within categories suggests a more nuanced story, with progress stalling in some large and important categories such as bread and ready meals, inadequate action being taken by some companies in some categories and in some cases, reductions in the salt content of foods being counterbalanced by increased sales. Mandatory reporting of salt (and other nutrient) sales by large food companies would increase the transparency of how individual businesses are progressing towards the salt reduction targets and could therefore improve adherence.

Supporting information

S1 STROBE Checklist. STROBE statement.

(DOCX)

S1 Table. Number of brands and products included in the study by year and category.

(PDF)

S2 Table. Sales-weighted mean salt content by data source and category for 2018.

(PDF)

S3 Table. Results of sensitivity analysis—Sales-weighted mean salt content by category and year, with “others” removed.

(PDF)

Data Availability

This study used data from two commercial sources. The sales data was accessed under licence from Euromonitor International (https://www.euromonitor.com/packaged-food) via the Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, using Euromonitor’s database portal Passport GMID. The product information dataset, including nutrition composition data, was purchased for the purpose of the lead author’s DPhil research project from Edge by Ascential (https://www.ascentialedge.com/our-solutions). Due to licencing restrictions, the Euromonitor and Edge by Ascential datasets can only be requested under licence for the purpose of verification and replication of study’s findings via the research group’s Data Access Committee (contact: Trisha Gordon foodDBaccess@ndph.ox.ac.uk). Further use of these datasets must be negotiated with the data owners (Euromonitor contact: Ashton Moses - passport.support@euromonitor.com, Edge by Ascential contact: David Beech - info@ascentialedge.com).

Funding Statement

LB was funded by Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) Oxford and Thames Valley. LB, SH, SJ and PS were also funded by the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) Obesity, Diet and Lifestyle Theme. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.He FJ, MacGregor GA. Salt, blood pressure and cardiovascular disease. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2007;22(4):298–305. Epub 2007/06/09. doi: 10.1097/HCO.0b013e32814f1d8c . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Strazzullo P, D’Elia L, Kandala NB, Cappuccio FP. Salt intake, stroke, and cardiovascular disease: meta-analysis of prospective studies. BMJ. 2009;339:b4567. Epub 2009/11/26. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b4567 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Collaborators GBDD. Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2019;393(10184):1958–72. Epub 2019/04/08. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30041-8 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Huang L, Trieu K, Yoshimura S, Neal B, Woodward M, Campbell NRC, et al. Effect of dose and duration of reduction in dietary sodium on blood pressure levels: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. BMJ. 2020;368:m315. Epub 2020/02/26. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m315 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Filippini T, Malavolti M, Whelton PK, Naska A, Orsini N, Vinceti M. Blood Pressure Effects of Sodium Reduction: Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Experimental Studies. Circulation. 2021;143(16):1542–67. Epub 2021/02/16. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.050371 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.He FJ, Li J, Macgregor GA. Effect of longer term modest salt reduction on blood pressure: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. BMJ. 2013;346:f1325. Epub 2013/04/06. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f1325 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.WHO. ‘Best buys’ and other recommended interventions for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases. World Health Organization; 2017.
  • 8.WHO. SHAKE the salt habit. World Health Organization; George Institute for Global Health; 2016.
  • 9.WHO. Guideline: Sodium intake for adults and children. World Health Organization; 2012. [PubMed]
  • 10.Kong YW, Baqar S, Jerums G, Ekinci EI. Sodium and Its Role in Cardiovascular Disease—The Debate Continues. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2016;7:164. Epub 2017/01/10. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2016.00164 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.PHE. Salt reduction targets for 2024. Public Health England; 2020.
  • 12.Eyles H, Webster J, Jebb S, Capelin C, Neal B, Ni Mhurchu C. Impact of the UK voluntary sodium reduction targets on the sodium content of processed foods from 2006 to 2011: analysis of household consumer panel data. Prev Med. 2013;57(5):555–60. Epub 2013/08/21. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.07.024 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gressier M, Sassi F, Frost G. Contribution of reformulation, product renewal, and changes in consumer behavior to the reduction of salt intakes in the UK population between 2008/2009 and 2016/2017. Am J Clin Nutr. 2021;114(3):1092–9. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqab130 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.PHE. Salt targets 2017: Second progress report. A report on the food industry’s progress towards meeting the 2017 salt targets. Public Health England; 2020.
  • 15.He FJ, Pombo-Rodrigues S, Macgregor GA. Salt reduction in England from 2003 to 2011: its relationship to blood pressure, stroke and ischaemic heart disease mortality. BMJ Open. 2014;4(4):e004549. Epub 2014/04/16. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004549 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Laverty AA, Kypridemos C, Seferidi P, Vamos EP, Pearson-Stuttard J, Collins B, et al. Quantifying the impact of the Public Health Responsibility Deal on salt intake, cardiovascular disease and gastric cancer burdens: interrupted time series and microsimulation study. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2019;73(9):881–887. doi: 10.1136/jech-2018-211749 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.PHE. National Diet and Nutrition Survey—Assessment of salt intake from urinary sodium in adults (aged 19 to 64 years) in England, 2018 to 2019. Public Health England; 2020.
  • 18.NDNS. National Diet and Nutrition Survey: Y9-11 Descriptive Statistics Tables (table 6.19). In: England PH, editor. Final-2 ed2020.
  • 19.Harrington RA, Adhikari V, Rayner M, Scarborough P. Nutrient composition databases in the age of big data: foodDB, a comprehensive, real-time database infrastructure. BMJ Open. 2019;9(6):e026652. Epub 2019/06/30. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026652 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Bandy LK, Scarborough P, Harrington RA, Rayner M, Jebb SA. The sugar content of foods in the UK by category and company: A repeated cross-sectional study, 2015–2018. PLoS Med. 2021;18(5):e1003647. Epub 2021/05/19. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003647 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.ONS. United Kingdom population mid-year estimate dataset. Office for National Statistics; 2021.
  • 22.Smolina K, Wright FL, Rayner M, Goldacre MJ. Determinants of the decline in mortality from acute myocardial infarction in England between 2002 and 2010: linked national database study. BMJ. 2012;344. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d8059 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Mhurchu CN, Capelin C, Dunford EK, Webster JL, Neal BC, Jebb SA. Sodium content of processed foods in the United Kingdom: analysis of 44,000 foods purchased by 21,000 households. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011;93(3):594–600. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.110.004481 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Brinsden HC, He FJ, Jenner KH, MacGregor GA. Surveys of the salt content in UK bread: progress made and further reductions possible. BMJ Open. 2013;3(6). doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002936 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Griffith R, O’Connell M, Smith K. The Importance of Product Reformulation Versus Consumer Choice in Improving Diet Quality. Economica. 2017;84(333):34–53. doi: 10.1111/ecca.12192 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Orfanos P, Naska A, Trichopoulou A, Grioni S, Boer JMA, van Bakel MME, et al. Eating out of home: energy, macro- and micronutrient intakes in 10 European countries. The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2009;63:S239–S62. doi: 10.1038/ejcn.2009.84 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Farrimond S, Ainsworth P, Piper B. The contribution of discretionary salt to total salt intake. J Consum Stud Home Econ. 1995;19(2):135–43. doi: 10.1111/j.1470-6431.1995.tb00538.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Pechey R, Jebb SA, Kelly MP, Almiron-Roig E, Conde S, Nakamura R, et al. Socioeconomic differences in purchases of more vs. less healthy foods and beverages: analysis of over 25,000 British households in 2010. Soc Sci Med. 2013;92:22–6. Epub 2013/07/16. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.05.012 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Bandy L, Adhikari V, Jebb S, Rayner M. The use of commercial food purchase data for public health nutrition research: A systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(1):e0210192. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210192 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bhatnagar P, Scarborough P, Kaur A, Dikmen D, Adhikari V, Harrington R. Are food and drink available in online and physical supermarkets the same? A comparison of product availability, price, price promotions and nutritional information. Public Health Nutr. 2021;24(5):819–825. doi: 10.1017/S1368980020004346 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.He FJ, Brinsden HC, Macgregor GA. Salt reduction in the United Kingdom: A successful experiment in public health. J Hum Hypertens. 2014:345–52. doi: 10.1038/jhh.2013.105 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.National Food Strategy. National Food Strategy Independent Review—The Plan 2021. https://www.nationalfoodstrategy.org/.
  • 33.Trieu K, Neal B, Hawkes C, Dunford E, Campbell N, Rodriguez-Fernandez R, et al. Salt Reduction Initiatives around the World—A Systematic Review of Progress towards the Global Target. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0130247. Epub 2015/07/23. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130247 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Richard Turner

18 Mar 2022

Dear Dr Bandy,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "The salt content of packaged foods sold in the UK: A repeated cross-sectional study, 2015-2020" for consideration by PLOS Medicine.

Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Medicine editorial staff and I am writing to let you know that we would like to send your submission out for external assessment.

However, we first need you to complete your submission by providing the metadata that is required for full assessment. To this end, please login to Editorial Manager where you will find the paper in the 'Submissions Needing Revisions' folder on your homepage. Please click 'Revise Submission' from the Action Links and complete all additional questions in the submission questionnaire.

Please re-submit your manuscript within two working days, i.e. by Mar 22 2022 11:59PM.

Login to Editorial Manager here: https://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine

Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of checks in preparation for external assessment.

Feel free to email us at plosmedicine@plos.org if you have any queries relating to your submission.

Kind regards,

Richard Turner, PhD

Senior Editor, PLOS Medicine

rturner@plos.org

Decision Letter 1

Richard Turner

18 May 2022

Dear Dr. Bandy,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "The salt content of packaged foods sold in the UK: A repeated cross-sectional study, 2015-2020" (PMEDICINE-D-22-00888R1) for consideration at PLOS Medicine.

Your paper was discussed with an academic editor with relevant expertise and sent to independent reviewers, including a statistical reviewer. The reviews are appended at the bottom of this email and any accompanying reviewer attachments can be seen via the link below:

[LINK]

In light of these reviews, we will not be able to accept the manuscript for publication in the journal in its current form, but we would like to invite you to submit a revised version that addresses the reviewers' and editors' comments fully. You will appreciate that we cannot make a decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your responses, and we expect to seek re-review by one or more of the reviewers.

In revising the manuscript for further consideration, your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer and the editors. Please also check the guidelines for revised papers at http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript for any that apply to your paper. In your rebuttal letter you should indicate your response to the reviewers' and editors' comments, the changes you have made in the manuscript, and include either an excerpt of the revised text or the location (eg: page and line number) where each change can be found. Please submit a clean version of the paper as the main article file; a version with changes marked should be uploaded as a marked up manuscript.

In addition, we request that you upload any figures associated with your paper as individual TIF or EPS files with 300dpi resolution at resubmission; please read our figure guidelines for more information on our requirements: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/figures. While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the PACE digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at PLOSMedicine@plos.org.

We hope to receive your revised manuscript by Jun 08 2022 11:59PM. Please email us (plosmedicine@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns.

***Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.***

We ask every co-author listed on the manuscript to fill in a contributing author statement, making sure to declare all competing interests. If any of the co-authors have not filled in the statement, we will remind them to do so when the paper is revised. If all statements are not completed in a timely fashion this could hold up the re-review process. If new competing interests are declared later in the revision process, this may also hold up the submission. Should there be a problem getting one of your co-authors to fill in a statement we will be in contact. YOU MUST NOT ADD OR REMOVE AUTHORS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALERTED THE EDITOR HANDLING THE MANUSCRIPT TO THE CHANGE AND THEY SPECIFICALLY HAVE AGREED TO IT. You can see our competing interests policy here: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/competing-interests.

Please use the following link to submit the revised manuscript:

https://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine/

Your article can be found in the "Submissions Needing Revision" folder.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please ensure that the paper adheres to the PLOS Data Availability Policy (see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/data-availability), which requires that all data underlying the study's findings be provided in a repository or as Supporting Information. For data residing with a third party, authors are required to provide instructions with contact information for obtaining the data. PLOS journals do not allow statements supported by "data not shown" or "unpublished results." For such statements, authors must provide supporting data or cite public sources that include it.

Please let me know if you have any questions, and we look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

Richard Turner PhD

Senior editor, PLOS Medicine

rturner@plos.org

-----------------------------------------------------------

Requests from the editors:

Please adapt the title to better match journal style. We suggest: "Changes in the salt content of packaged foods sold in the United Kingdom during 2015-2020: A repeated cross-sectional study".

Where available, please quote p values in the abstract.

Please add a new final sentence to the "Methods and findings" subsection of your abstract, which should begin "Study limitations include ..." and should quote 2-3 of the study's main limitations.

It is not clear that the sentence beginning at line 35 is a "conclusion", and we ask you either to remove this or to add "We suggest that ..." or similar.

After the abstract, please add a new and accessible "author summary" section in non-identical style. You may find it helpful to consult one or two recent research papers published in PLOS Medicine to get a sense of the preferred style.

At line 82, please remove "fellowship project".

Around line 88, please check that "Ascential" is spelt consistently.

Early in the Methods section (main text), please state whether the study had a protocol or prespecified analysis plan and if so attach the relevant document as an attachment, referred to in the text.

Please highlight analyses that were not prespecified.

Noting the p values in table 1, for example, please note the statistical test used in a legend.

Throughout the text, please amend reference call-outs to the following style: "... blood pressure [4,5]." (noting the absence of spaces within the square brackets).

In the reference list, we suggest spelling out institutional author names such as "Strategy NF".

Please include URLs for reports such as reference 10, where available, along with accessed dates.

Please add a completed checklist for the most appropriate reporting guideline, e.g., STROBE, as an attachment, labelled "S1_STROBE_Checklist" or similar and referred to as such in the Methods section (main text).

In the checklist, please refer to individual items by section (e.g., "Methods") and paragraph number, not by line or page numbers as these generally change in the event of publication.

Comments from the reviewers:

*** Reviewer #1:

I confine my remarks to statistical aspects of this paper. The general approach is fine, but I have some issues and suggestions before I can recommend publication.

p. 3 line 40 - I'm guessing this is per year, but you should state that.

line 69 - similarly, I'm guessing this is per day, but you should say

p. 4 lines 86-94 Maybe put in a sentence such as "the method of reconciling these sources is discussed on p. 6" or something like that.

Table 1 - a minor point, and maybe I am wrong, but I'd consider ordering this table by %, rather than alphabetically. But I can also see reasons to leave it as is.

p. 7 line 155-6 I think you need to give the formula here, but I leave that to the editors' judgment.

Fig 3, 4 - what do the black segments represent? Gray is sales, orange is salt. (On examination, kit looks like the black line is the total change. But 1) You should say this and 2) the black should be narrower, like a line rather than a box.

*** Reviewer #2:

The topic of this paper is noteworthy, which investigates the salt content of packaged foods sold in the UK between 2015 and 2020. The authors report that there has been a steady decline in the salt content of packaged foods and total volume of salt sold between 2015 and 2020, with considerable differences between categories and companies. However, I have some concerns and suggestions for the authors, which I have detailed below.

Major comments:

1.The unit of analysis is the brand and the sales-weighted mean salt content per brand is the main primary outcome. There is a range of product for each brand. Within each brand, different sale quotas might be allocated to different products. Is it possible to segregate product sales? If such data is available, it would be better to explain why brand-level data should be used and to conduct sensitivity analysis (e.g. analyse the impact of individual product variation within each brand on the overall sales-weighted mean salt content of foods).

2.Page 7: dietary recommendations for adults and children are different. Total volume of salt sold in grams per person per day in this paper is averaged throughout the whole population, including adults and children. Meanwhile, the method used to determine it cannot be compared with 24h urine estimates. Therefore, more discussion is needed.

3.Page 6: small and local brands are grouped under the umbrella term "others" and the remaining 40,003 products in the composition database are assigned to "others" within each category. It is unclear whether the sales volume data and nutrition information for the category "others" match exactly. A sensitivity analysis is required if this is not the case.

4.Page 8: the P-values in Table 1 for changes in sales-weighted mean salt content (g/100g) of the 9 food categories are not statistically significant. In this case, reported deduction in the salt content of selected packaged foods might be caused by a random variation. As a result, conclusions can be misleading. It is necessary to provide clarifications or amend the conclusions so that they reflect the findings obtained.

5.Page 8: In Table 1, changes in sales-weighted mean salt content of 9 food categories are calculated between 2015 and 2020. As the yearly annual data is available, would be better to conduct an analysis that would account for / make use of all the data available.

Minor comments:

1.Page 3, line 69-71: citation 13 contains information that differs from that found in the reference paper (He FJ et al., 2014. Salt reduction in England from 2003 to 2011: its relationship to blood pressure, stroke, and ischaemic heart disease mortality). Please double-check it.

2.Page 5: NDNS contributors in Table 1 needs a detailed explanation.

3.Black bars in Figure 3 (page 10) and Figure 4 (page 11) need an explanation.

4.Page 8: The change in the sales-weighted mean salt content of bread (Table 1) between 2015 and 2020 is -0.01. When comparing the sales-weighted mean salt contents of bread in 2015 (0.93 ) and 2020 (0.93), the difference is 0. Therefore, it would be better to double check it and keep the right decimal.

5.It would be better to discuss the implications of excluding dried sauces, gravy, and stock cubes.

6.In the discussion section, would be better to mention Gressier et al. 2021's paper "Contribution of reformulation, product renewal, and changes in consumer behavior to the reduction of salt intakes in the UK population between 2008/2009 and 2016/2017".

7.Page 12, line 217: it would be better to clarify that the sales-weighted mean salt content of packages foods fell by 0.07g per 100g.

8.Page 13, line 223, please check that the comma is in the correct position.

*** Reviewer #3:

This paper looks at the changes in salt content of foods between 2015 and 2020 in the UK. It's interesting work and relevant to understand how prior voluntary policies have managed to shape nutrient consumption (proxied through sales). I do have some comments and queries regarding the methods in particular which I think need further clarification.

- Introduction - It would be good to have a more thorough overview of the work published investigating salt reformulation; where this paper fits in and what is the added value to the literature. I know of at least three papers that would be relevant for this study (at least for background) which are not mentioned

o https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/114/3/1092/6272434?login=true

o https://jech.bmj.com/content/73/9/881

o https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ecca.12192

- ln53 - clarify what you mean by the target - is it 'no more' than 6g/d?

- ln82 - is it important to note in methods that it is part of a fellowship project? That seems to be more appropriate to acknowledgement section together with fellowship grant reference

- How good is the match between the two data-sets on salt content of products (Edge by Ascential and foodDB)? - some validation information on this (validation) would have been useful to ensure that any changes observed are not due to using two different sources for 2015 and 2020.

- If I understand correctly there were 93,325 products matched into 395-416 brands. This means that each brand contains over 200 products and I question the use of average salt content because within such a large number of products salt content as well as popularity of individual products must vary (the very reason you do weighting at brand level) and I didn't see any clarification or justification about this.

- Number of brands per food groups should be indicated in table 1. Table 1 should also have clearer indication to show what the last two column headings mean (i.e. % change between what, p-value for what?). Furthermore, you should use more than two decimals as two decimals show no change in salt content of bread for example.

- Line 179 - what do you mean by meaningful?

- Fig 3 & 4 - what do the solid black lines represent?

- Given that you have the whole series between 2015 and 2020 you could have also commented on the in-between years

- The numbers in figure 3 does not match to the text explaining figure 3 so it makes a confusing read

- Table 1 shows that the decline in salt content was not significant at conventional statistical significance level and start the discussion states the decline as if it was. If you have chosen to ignore this for some reason, this should be carefully explained and why can you can still conclude this finding.

*** Reviewer #4:

Bandy et al reported the changes in salt sold in the UK through retail between 2015-2020.

While the manuscript is generally well-written and the study well-conducted, there are several major issues which I would like to invite the authors to address:

1. A main limitation of the current study is the reliance of data collected from websites. There is no information provided in the manuscript, as to how the research team had assessed the accuracy of the data.

2. The authors selected nine categories, and claimed that eight of these represented ~73% of an adult's dietary sodium intake from processed foods. However products purchased are not only consumed by adults, but also children and adolescents.

3. Line 126: What is defined by Brand? e.g. For Kellogg's Special K, is Kellogg's or Special-K the Brand? This distinction is important given the sales data are weighted by "Brand", and if in the example above "Kellogg's" is identified as the Brand then the accuracy of the sales-weighted estimation will be too crude. This needs to be clarified. It is also surprising that only ~400 Brand exist in the UK market - does that mean each brand represent ~350 products (136k/395)?

4. Another issue is that the current study only examined packaged foods sold in the supermarket, as the authors themselves acknowledged.

5. The discussion is very brief. The authors should consider expanding it by including some or all of the following:

i) likely reasons for the small change observed, e.g. reluctance of the food industry, lack of consumer acceptance for lower Na products, technological challenges, etc.

ii) proportion of products meeting target over time

iii) likely impact of the current progress on diseases reduction (or lack thereof)

iv) strategies to enhance the compliance to the targets

v) complementary strategies for salt intake reduction in the population

There are also some minor issues that should be addressed:

1. Line 53: should this be < 6 g/day?

2. Line 112: do you mean savory or sweet biscuits? Also most of these quoted items are not low in sodium (as defined by the FSA traffic light label cut-offs), but only relatively lower in sodium. Excluding them may introduce error especially underestimation given some of these items were also included in the reformulation targets as far as I understand. "Making the categorization process more manageable" does not seem like a sound justification to me.

3. Regarding dried sauces/gravy etc. there could be some ground rules that would allow their inclusion. e.g. the difference between the dried vs made up version of these products would have huge differences in the sodium level, although this may require some manual checking.

4. The use of mean salt content for variations within a Brand may introduce error as their sales volumes are different.

5. Line 152: presenting the data as salt purchased per day per person and compared that across the year is likely misleading, given the population make up/demographics may have changed over the years. This should be discussed as a limitation.

6. No justification was provide for the use of the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test over its parametric counterpart. Was the normality of the data examined? If so, how? Also no p value cut-off was given.

7. Line 187: describing items which are no longer available for sale as "due to decrease in sales" is inaccurate.

8. Figure 3: No description on what the black bar means is given.

***

Any attachments provided with reviews can be seen via the following link:

[LINK]

Decision Letter 2

Callam Davidson

25 Jul 2022

Dear Dr. Bandy,

Thank you very much for re-submitting your manuscript "Changes in the salt content of packaged foods sold in the United Kingdom: A repeated cross-sectional study during 2015-2020" (PMEDICINE-D-22-00888R2) for consideration at PLOS Medicine.

Your paper was evaluated by an associate editor and discussed among all the editors here. It was also discussed with an academic editor with relevant expertise, and sent back to the reviewers. The reviews are appended at the bottom of this email and any accompanying reviewer attachments can be seen via the link below:

[LINK]

In light of these reviews, I am afraid that we will not be able to accept the manuscript for publication in the journal in its current form, but we would like to consider a revised version that fully addresses the reviewers' and editors' comments. We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response, and we plan to seek re-review by one or more of the reviewers.

In revising the manuscript for further consideration, your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer and the editors. Please also check the guidelines for revised papers at http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript for any that apply to your paper. In your rebuttal letter you should indicate your response to the reviewers' and editors' comments, the changes you have made in the manuscript, and include either an excerpt of the revised text or the location (eg: page and line number) where each change can be found. Please submit a clean version of the paper as the main article file; a version with changes marked should be uploaded as a marked up manuscript.

In addition, we request that you upload any figures associated with your paper as individual TIF or EPS files with 300dpi resolution at resubmission; please read our figure guidelines for more information on our requirements: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/figures. While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the PACE digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at PLOSMedicine@plos.org.

We hope to receive your revised manuscript by Aug 15 2022 11:59PM. Please email us (plosmedicine@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns.

***Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.***

We ask every co-author listed on the manuscript to fill in a contributing author statement, making sure to declare all competing interests. If any of the co-authors have not filled in the statement, we will remind them to do so when the paper is revised. If all statements are not completed in a timely fashion this could hold up the re-review process. If new competing interests are declared later in the revision process, this may also hold up the submission. Should there be a problem getting one of your co-authors to fill in a statement we will be in contact. YOU MUST NOT ADD OR REMOVE AUTHORS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALERTED THE EDITOR HANDLING THE MANUSCRIPT TO THE CHANGE AND THEY SPECIFICALLY HAVE AGREED TO IT. You can see our competing interests policy here: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/competing-interests.

Please use the following link to submit the revised manuscript:

https://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine/

Your article can be found in the "Submissions Needing Revision" folder.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please ensure that the paper adheres to the PLOS Data Availability Policy (see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/data-availability), which requires that all data underlying the study's findings be provided in a repository or as Supporting Information. For data residing with a third party, authors are required to provide instructions with contact information for obtaining the data. PLOS journals do not allow statements supported by "data not shown" or "unpublished results." For such statements, authors must provide supporting data or cite public sources that include it.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

Callam Davidson,

Associate Editor

PLOS Medicine

plosmedicine.org

-----------------------------------------------------------

Requests from the editors:

The bullet at line 53 doesn’t seem to be complete.

S1 and S2 Tables are duplicated, and the STROBE checklist is missing.

Table S3 column headers appear to be truncated.

Line 116: Please state in this subsection that your study does not have an associated protocol.

Line 148: Please include the software manufacturers.

Line 323: Please confirm this remains accurate and add ‘to our knowledge’.

Lines 389-390: Please update to ‘This analysis suggests that salt intake from processed foods purchased in retail settings fell by 6.9% between 2015-2020, but this decrease was not statistically significant.’

Please include the date accessed for references 10 and 31.

Comments from the reviewers:

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed my concerns and I now recommend publication.

Peter Flom

Reviewer #2: Overall, all of the comments have been addressed by the authors. I still doubt the validity of the datasets, e.g. duplicate counting of products sold in multiple retailers, which could affect the results. I leave that to the editors' judgment. A minor comment is that reference 14 should be checked properly. Instead of diastolic blood pressure, systolic blood pressure fell by 3.0mmHg.

Reviewer #3: All my comments have been responded to. I only have few minor comments to further make

Abstract

Some p-values missing

Can you provide p-values also for the change in total volume of salt (also in results section?)

Author summary

Check the first bullet point in the second section - it does not seem to be a complete sentence

Last bullet point - this also needs a clarification that the biggest reductions were not statistically significant either

Results

The numbers cited in line 231-233 seem to be in reverse with reference to the year they are from. Sentences are missing the word 'products'

Discussion

First sentence - the p-value should be 0.23?

Linde 355 - what do you mean by 'industry behaviour' beyond reformulation as that is already mentioned. Consumer behaviour could also be explained a bit better- is it both buying less and buying products with lower salt content?

S3 table - column and row headings are not fully visible

S4 table - add also the Kruskal Wallis test as in table 2

Reviewer #4: I thank the authors for their attempt to address my concerns about their manuscript. I am confining my comments below to their responses to my original comments (Comment# corresponds to that in the original review)

Major:

1. What are the ~15% of offline store items not found on the website?

2. No further comment.

3. I felt that the authors did not adequately address this concern (raised by 3 reviewers). In Table S1, for example, there were 18 brands of bread in 2015, but that represents 1520 products. That means in the Euromonitor dataset there were ~90-100 items in each brand. The same is true for breakfast cereals and other categories. Using the authors' own argument in the response letter, that means Kellogg's Special K as a brand represent ~30 items in 2015? That does not seem to make sense. Even if this is true, it is reasonable to suspect that these items will be highly heterogenous, and thus using "brand" as a unit of analysis is quite likely to introduce sizeable errors in the estimation of sodium purchased.

4. How about convenience stores? That in my opinion would be a prime source of high sodium packaged foods.

5. I respectfully disagree with the authors' response. The current discussion is in my opinion inadequate and does not do justice to the data available, and I have in my original review provided some ideas of how the authors could better discuss their findings.

Minor:

3. I disagree that it is not easy to create a ground rule to identify dried vs. as prepared. If nutrition information panel data are available, since the overall weight equal sum of CHO + protein + fat + fibre + water + (minerals), it would be quite easy to deduce the water content (and thus whether the nutrition label presents the dried vs. as prepared data).

4. Please see Major3 above.

5. The authors did not completely address my concern. What I meant in my original comment is that the composition of the UK population had likely changed between 2015-2020. As an arbitrary example there may be more older adults or females in 2020 cf. 2015. This would likely affect the amount sodium purchased. Using the annual ONS statistics only allows the authors to correctly calculate the per person data, but not reflect this change in population composition.

6. This relates to line 147-148 in the original manuscript "Change in sales-weighted mean salt content was calculated between 2015 and 2020, with all products being included regardless of whether they were present in the market in 2015 or 2020.". From the wording it is implied that the value 62% was obtained from counting both items available at both 2015 and 2020 (and had little change in sales), as well as new items introduced in 2020; while the remaining 38% were items available in both 2015 and 2020 with a decline in sales, and those only available in 2015. It is "those only available in 2015" that I was referring to as "describing items which are no longer available for sale as "due to decrease in sales" is inaccurate.". The authors should better clarify this in text if my understanding is incorrect.

Any attachments provided with reviews can be seen via the following link:

[LINK]

Decision Letter 3

Callam Davidson

25 Aug 2022

Dear Dr. Bandy,

Thank you very much for re-submitting your revised manuscript "Changes in the salt content of packaged foods sold in supermarkets in the United Kingdom: A repeated cross-sectional study during 2015-2020" (PMEDICINE-D-22-00888R3) for consideration at PLOS Medicine.

Your paper was sent back to one reviewer and discussed by the editorial team and the academic editor. It was felt that there were remaining concerns regarding the analytical approach employed in the study, and we are still unable to accept the manuscript for publication in the journal until these are suitably addressed. The editorial comments are appended at the bottom of this email.

In revising the manuscript for further consideration, your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer and the editors. Please also check the guidelines for revised papers at http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript for any that apply to your paper. In your rebuttal letter you should indicate your response to the reviewers' and editors' comments, the changes you have made in the manuscript, and include either an excerpt of the revised text or the location (eg: page and line number) where each change can be found. Please submit a clean version of the paper as the main article file; a version with changes marked should be uploaded as a marked up manuscript.

We hope to receive your revised manuscript by Sep 08 2022 11:59PM. Please email us (plosmedicine@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns.

***Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.***

We ask every co-author listed on the manuscript to fill in a contributing author statement, making sure to declare all competing interests. If any of the co-authors have not filled in the statement, we will remind them to do so when the paper is revised. If all statements are not completed in a timely fashion this could hold up the re-review process. If new competing interests are declared later in the revision process, this may also hold up the submission. Should there be a problem getting one of your co-authors to fill in a statement we will be in contact. YOU MUST NOT ADD OR REMOVE AUTHORS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALERTED THE EDITOR HANDLING THE MANUSCRIPT TO THE CHANGE AND THEY SPECIFICALLY HAVE AGREED TO IT. You can see our competing interests policy here: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/competing-interests.

Please use the following link to submit the revised manuscript:

https://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine/

Your article can be found in the "Submissions Needing Revision" folder.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

Callam Davidson,

PLOS Medicine

plosmedicine.org

-----------------------------------------------------------

Comments from the Academic Editor:

Please conduct and present an analysis that includes only the nutrition data for items with a full nutrition facts panel available, as the current approach has limited accuracy and could distort interpretation.

Additionally, please note explicitly (in both the Introduction and Discussion) that nutrition data was only available for a certain number of products and that this data was extrapolated to represent a greater number of total products, as this is important information for the reader to be aware of when interpreting the findings.

Requests from the editors:

Please update your title to ‘Changes in the salt content of packaged foods sold in supermarkets between 2015-2020 in the United Kingdom: A repeated cross-sectional study’

The limitations mentioned by the academic editor should also be included in the final sentence of your Abstract Methods and Findings and in the Author Summary.

Data Availability Statement: Typo in first sentence (‘This’).

Typo at line 289.

Comments from the reviewers:

Reviewer #4: The authors have addressed most of my comments adequately; and while I don't fully agree with the author's responses to some of my comments, I acknowledge that those are beyond the authors control, and hence with the acknowledgement of these as significant limitation of the study, the manuscript could be consider appropriate for publication.

Any attachments provided with reviews can be seen via the following link:

[LINK]

Decision Letter 4

Callam Davidson

5 Sep 2022

Dear Dr. Bandy,

Thank you very much for re-submitting your manuscript "Changes in the salt content of packaged foods sold in supermarkets between 2015-2020 in the United Kingdom: A repeated cross-sectional study" (PMEDICINE-D-22-00888R4) for review by PLOS Medicine.

I have discussed the paper with my colleagues and the academic editor. The academic editor still has concerns regarding the clarity of the methodology as it is currently presented. Providing the remaining comments (below) are suitably addressed in the next revision, we are planning to accept the paper for publication in the journal.

***Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.***

In revising the manuscript for further consideration here, please ensure you address the specific points made by each reviewer and the editors. In your rebuttal letter you should indicate your response to the reviewers' and editors' comments and the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please submit a clean version of the paper as the main article file. A version with changes marked must also be uploaded as a marked up manuscript file.

Please also check the guidelines for revised papers at http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript for any that apply to your paper. If you haven't already, we ask that you provide a short, non-technical Author Summary of your research to make findings accessible to a wide audience that includes both scientists and non-scientists. The Author Summary should immediately follow the Abstract in your revised manuscript. This text is subject to editorial change and should be distinct from the scientific abstract.

We hope to receive your revised manuscript within 1 week. Please email us (plosmedicine@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns.

We ask every co-author listed on the manuscript to fill in a contributing author statement. If any of the co-authors have not filled in the statement, we will remind them to do so when the paper is revised. If all statements are not completed in a timely fashion this could hold up the re-review process. Should there be a problem getting one of your co-authors to fill in a statement we will be in contact. YOU MUST NOT ADD OR REMOVE AUTHORS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALERTED THE EDITOR HANDLING THE MANUSCRIPT TO THE CHANGE AND THEY SPECIFICALLY HAVE AGREED TO IT.

Please ensure that the paper adheres to the PLOS Data Availability Policy (see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/data-availability), which requires that all data underlying the study's findings be provided in a repository or as Supporting Information. For data residing with a third party, authors are required to provide instructions with contact information for obtaining the data. PLOS journals do not allow statements supported by "data not shown" or "unpublished results." For such statements, authors must provide supporting data or cite public sources that include it.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript.

Please note, when your manuscript is accepted, an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you've already opted out via the online submission form. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online or are unsure if you have already indicated as such, please let the journal staff know immediately at plosmedicine@plos.org.

If you have any questions in the meantime, please contact me (cdavidson@plos.org) or the journal staff on plosmedicine@plos.org.  

We look forward to receiving the revised manuscript by Sep 12 2022 11:59PM.   

Sincerely,

Callam Davidson,

Associate Editor 

PLOS Medicine

plosmedicine.org

------------------------------------------------------------

Requests from Academic Editor:

At the beginning of your Methods section, please include the exact number of barcoded foods for which you collected the precise sodium content per 100 grams, and the exact number of additional foods that were imputed with these barcodes to produce the nutrition facts panel.

Readers should be able to easily determine the total number of foods for which you collected all the nutrition facts panels, and the total number of foods for which sodium values were imputed (where exact sodium values were unavailable).

Editorial requests:

Lines 232/233: The word 'products' is missing.

Lines 242 and 246: Please address the typos on these lines.

Decision Letter 5

Callam Davidson

21 Sep 2022

Dear Dr Bandy, 

On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, Professor Barry Popkin, I am pleased to inform you that we have agreed to publish your manuscript "Changes in the salt content of packaged foods sold in supermarkets between 2015-2020 in the United Kingdom: A repeated cross-sectional study" (PMEDICINE-D-22-00888R5) in PLOS Medicine.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. Please be aware that it may take several days for you to receive this email; during this time no action is required by you. Once you have received these formatting requests, please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes.

In the meantime, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information to ensure an efficient production process. 

To help us extend the reach of your research, please provide any Twitter handle(s) that would be appropriate to tag, including your own, your coauthors’, your institution, funder, or lab. Please email cdavidson@plos.org with any handles you wish to be included when we tweet this paper.

PRESS

We frequently collaborate with press offices. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. If the press office is planning to promote your findings, we would be grateful if they could coordinate with medicinepress@plos.org. If you have not yet opted out of the early version process, we ask that you notify us immediately of any press plans so that we may do so on your behalf.

We also ask that you take this opportunity to read our Embargo Policy regarding the discussion, promotion and media coverage of work that is yet to be published by PLOS. As your manuscript is not yet published, it is bound by the conditions of our Embargo Policy. Please be aware that this policy is in place both to ensure that any press coverage of your article is fully substantiated and to provide a direct link between such coverage and the published work. For full details of our Embargo Policy, please visit http://www.plos.org/about/media-inquiries/embargo-policy/.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Thank you again for submitting to PLOS Medicine. We look forward to publishing your paper. 

Sincerely, 

Callam Davidson 

Associate Editor 

PLOS Medicine

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 STROBE Checklist. STROBE statement.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Table. Number of brands and products included in the study by year and category.

    (PDF)

    S2 Table. Sales-weighted mean salt content by data source and category for 2018.

    (PDF)

    S3 Table. Results of sensitivity analysis—Sales-weighted mean salt content by category and year, with “others” removed.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response_to_reviewers_letter.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: reviewers_response_letter.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response to editors.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response_to_editors.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    This study used data from two commercial sources. The sales data was accessed under licence from Euromonitor International (https://www.euromonitor.com/packaged-food) via the Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, using Euromonitor’s database portal Passport GMID. The product information dataset, including nutrition composition data, was purchased for the purpose of the lead author’s DPhil research project from Edge by Ascential (https://www.ascentialedge.com/our-solutions). Due to licencing restrictions, the Euromonitor and Edge by Ascential datasets can only be requested under licence for the purpose of verification and replication of study’s findings via the research group’s Data Access Committee (contact: Trisha Gordon foodDBaccess@ndph.ox.ac.uk). Further use of these datasets must be negotiated with the data owners (Euromonitor contact: Ashton Moses - passport.support@euromonitor.com, Edge by Ascential contact: David Beech - info@ascentialedge.com).


    Articles from PLoS Medicine are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES