To analyse the scope and content of the nutrition pledge announced by Lidl.

We applied the approach recommended by the private-sector module of the INFORMAS (International Network for Food and Obesity Research, Monitoring and Action Support) food environment monitoring framework and qualitative content analysis to Lidl’s nutrition pledge.

Global.

The nutrition pledge of Lidl, Europe’s largest food retailer.

Lidl pledges to reduce the average sales-weighted content of added sugar and added salt in its own-brand products by 20 % until 2025, using 2015 as a baseline, starting in Germany. Moreover, it vows to reduce the saturated and trans-fatty acid contents of its own-brand products, without specifying targets or timelines. To achieve these targets, it pledges to apply a number of approaches, including reformulation, promotion of healthier products, reduction of package and portion sizes, and provision of nutrition information and education. Strengths of Lidl’s pledge are its extensive scope, the quantification of some targets, and its partially evidence-based approach to the selection of targets and interventions. Key limitations include the vagueness of many targets, a lack of transparency and the absence of independent monitoring and evaluation.

Lidl’s pledge, while commendable for its scope, does not meet current best practice guidelines. Given their current limitations, industry initiatives of this kind are likely to fall short of what is needed to improve population-level nutrition.

To determine if voluntary policies on supermarket checkout foods are associated with a difference in the healthfulness of foods displayed at, or near, supermarket checkout areas.

Cross-sectional survey of foods at, or near, supermarket checkouts categorised as less healthy or not according to the Food Standards Agency’s Nutrient Profiling Model.

One city in Eastern England (population about 125 000).

All stores in nine supermarket groups open for business in June–July 2017 in the study city. Supermarket checkout food policies were categorised as clear and consistent, vague or inconsistent, or none.

In thirty-three stores, 11 434 checkout food exposures were recorded, of which 8010 (70·1 %) were less healthy; and 2558 foods in areas near checkouts, of which 1769 (69·2 %) were less healthy. After adjusting for a marker of store size, the odds of a checkout food exposure being ‘less healthy’ was lower in stores with vague or inconsistent checkout policies (OR=0·63; 95 % CI 0·49, 0·80) and in stores with clear and consistent checkout policies (OR=0·33; 95 % CI 0·24, 0·45), compared with no policy. There was no difference in the odds of foods near, but not at, checkouts being less healthy according to checkout food policy.

Supermarket checkout food policies were associated with lower odds of checkout foods but not foods near, but not at, checkouts being less healthy. Further research is required to explore impacts on purchasing and consumption.