CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 58Global Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyObesity, Physical Activity, DietConsumer Attitudes and Food Labeling

The Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation Pledge

Open access
Ng, Shu Wen, Slining, Meghan M., Popkin, Barry M.·2014·American Journal of Preventive Medicine
DOI 10.1016/j.amepre.2014.05.029PMC PMC4171694
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Corporate voluntary pledges to improve the health of Americans have not been held to either explicit measurable outcomes or a framework for independent evaluation. The Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation (HWCF), whose members include 16 of the nation's leading consumer packaged goods (CPG) food and beverage manufacturers, voluntarily pledged to collectively sell 1 trillion fewer calories in the U.S. marketplace by 2012 (against a 2007 baseline), and sell 1.5 trillion fewer calories by 2015. This paper presents the findings of an independent evaluation of the 2012 HWCF marketplace pledge, conducted in 2013. The 16 HWCF companies collectively sold approximately 6.4 trillion fewer calories (-10.6%) in 2012 than in the baseline year of 2007. Taking into account population changes over the 5-year period of 2007-2012, CPG caloric sales from brands included in the HWCF pledge declined by an average of 78 kcal/capita/day. CPG caloric sales from non-HWCF national brands during the same period declined by 11 kcal/capita/day, and there were similar declines in calories from private label products. Thus, the total reduction in CPG caloric sales between 2007 and 2012 was 99 kcal/capita/day. This independent evaluation is the first to evaluate food industry compliance with its calorie reduction pledges and to assess how sales from the CPG food and beverage sector are changing. An accompanying paper investigates the extent to which the HWCF pledge affected household-level changes in CPG calories purchased, controlling for important economic and sociodemographic factors affecting household food purchases over this period.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.amepre.2014.05.029

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 67 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [3]Nestle M What to eat New York North Point Press 2007
  2. [10]Wartella EA Lichtenstein AH Boon CS Examination of front-of-package nutrition rating systems and symbols: phase 1 report Washington DC National Academy Press 2010 24983042

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ng, S. W., Slining, M. M., & Popkin, B. M.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Popkin, Barry M.
ORCID
Venue
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-10
Volume
47
Issue
4
Pages
508-519
ISSN
0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.amepre.2014.05.029
PMC
PMC4171694
OpenAlex
W2006301780
Cited by
58
References
67
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 3
FWCI
22.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • American Journal of Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation Evaluation (67506, 68793, 70017)
  • Carolina Population Center (5R24 HD050924)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
Keywords
calorie reduction, fast-moving consumer goods, food and beverage industry, independent evaluation, private labels, national brands
MeSH terms
Beverages, Body Weight, Energy Intake, Commerce, Food, Food Supply, Humans, United States, Food Industry

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review