Background Ultra-processed food industry (UPFI) actors have consistently opposed statutory regulation in health policy debates, including at the WHO. They do so most commonly with claims that regulatory policies do not work, will have negative consequences or that alternatives such as self-regulation work well or better. Underlying this are often assertions that industry is aligned with principles of evidence-based policymaking. In this study, we interrogate if this holds true by exploring the extent and quality of the evidence UPFI respondents employed to support claims around regulatory policy, and how they did this. Methods First, we identified all submissions from organisations who overtly represent UPFI companies to consultations held by the WHO on non-communicable disease policy between 2016 and 2018. Second, we extracted all relevant factual claims made in these submissions and noted if any evidence was referenced in support. Third, we assessed the quality of evidence using independence from UPFI, nature, and publication route as indicators. Lastly, where peer-reviewed research was cited, we examined if the claims made could be justified by the source cited. Results Across 26 included consultation responses, factual claims around regulation were made in 18, although only 10 referenced any evidence at all. Of all 114 claims made, 39 pieces of identifiable evidence were cited in support of 56 claims. Of the 39 distinct pieces of evidence, two-thirds were industry-funded or industry-linked, with only 16 externally peer-reviewed. Over half of industry-funded or industry-linked academic articles failed to declare a conflict of interest (COI). Overall, of only six claims which drew on peer-reviewed and independent research, none appropriately represented the source. Discussion UPFI respondents made far-reaching claims which were rarely supported by high-quality, independent evidence. This indicates that there may be few, if any, benefits from consulting actors with such a clear COI. Data are available in a public, open access repository.

中文翻译：

---

公共卫生政策中证据的商业使用：对食品行业向全球非传染性疾病预防磋商提交的材料进行严格评估


背景 超加工食品行业 (UPFI) 参与者在卫生政策辩论中一贯反对法定监管，包括在世界卫生组织。他们这样做的最常见原因是声称监管政策不起作用，会产生负面后果，或者自我监管等替代方案效果很好或更好。其背后往往是这样的断言：行业符合循证决策的原则。在本研究中，我们通过探索 UPFI 受访者用来支持监管政策主张的证据的范围和质量以及他们是如何做到这一点来质疑这是否成立。方法 首先，我们确定了 2016 年至 2018 年间公开代表 UPFI 公司向 WHO 举行的非传染性疾病政策磋商的组织提交的所有材料。其次，我们提取了这些材料中提出的所有相关事实主张，并注明是否引用了任何证据在支持中。第三，我们使用独立于 UPFI、性质和发表途径作为指标来评估证据的质量。最后，在引用同行评审研究的地方，我们检查了所引用的来源是否可以证明所提出的主张是合理的。结果 在 26 份咨询回复中，有 18 份提出了围绕监管的事实主张，但只有 10 份引用了任何证据。在所有 114 项主张中，引用了 39 项可识别的证据来支持 56 项主张。在 39 项不同的证据中，三分之二是由行业资助或与行业相关的，只有 16 项经过了外部同行评审。超过一半的行业资助或与行业相关的学术文章未能声明利益冲突 (COI)。总体而言，只有六项来自同行评审和独立研究的主张，没有一个能够恰当地代表来源。 讨论 UPFI 受访者提出了影响深远的主张，但很少得到高质量、独立证据的支持。这表明，咨询具有如此明确的利益攸关方的参与者，即使有好处，也可能没有多少好处。数据可在公共、开放访问存储库中获取。