Benchmarking the nutrition-related commitments and practices of major French food companies

BMC Public Health

Table 4 The correlations calculated between the commitments within the domains ‘Product formulation’ and ‘Product and brand promotion’ and the respective performance indicators (% Nutri-Score A + B; % Nutri-Score D + E; % Ultra-Processed and % Not-permitted to be marketed to children according to WHO)

Correlation	𝝆 (Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient)	P-value
Food and beverage manufacturers
Product formulation and % Nutri-Score A + B	−0.150	0.529
Product formulation and % Nutri-Score D + E	−0.043	0.858
Product formulation and % ultra-processed	0.123	0.605
Product formulation and % not-permitted	0.023	0.922
Product and brand promotion and % not-permitted	0.252	0.285
Supermarkets
Product formulation and % Nutri-Score A + B	0.143	0.787
Product formulation and % Nutri-Score D + E	−0.086	0.872
Product formulation and % ultra-processed	−0.029	0.957
Product formulation and % not-permitted	0.429	0.397
Quick-service restaurants
Product formulation and % Nutri-Score A + B	−0.564	0.322
Product formulation and % Nutri-Score D + E	0.051	0.935
Product formulation and % not-permitted	−0.410	0.493

Visualizing the results shown in Table 4, it can be observed in Table 3 that food companies within the top third for commitments within the domain of ‘Product formulation’ don’t necessarily have the healthiest portfolios as determined by the Nutri-Score and NOVA-classification. On the contrary, there are companies within the lowest third for commitments that still have among the heathiest portfolios. The same can be observed for commitments and practices within the domain ‘Product and brand promotion’

ISSN: 1471-2458