Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41668103›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2026

The case for mandatory reporting to enable targets for healthy and environmentally sustainable food: means, motive and opportunity.

Rachel Pechey, Lauren Bandy, Susan A Jebb

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Rachel PecheyNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK. rachel.pechey@phc.ox.ac.uk.
Lauren BandyNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
Susan A JebbNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 222566/Z/21/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence suggests we must change both the type of food we consume and the way we produce it, at a transformational scale, to protect population and planetary health and avoid exacerbating existing diet-related health inequalities. DISCUSSION: We summarise key findings from behaviour change theory and literature, highlighting the need for means, motive and opportunity to enact behaviour change. We evaluate and contrast the implications for interventions aimed at individuals vs. businesses, arguing that policy must shift focus from individual responsibility to systemic change.

conclusionPast public health interventions have tended to focus on individuals' motivation, with limited impact, while interventions that target the motivation of businesses, if enacted, would likely garner substantially greater impact. Governments implementing mandatory reporting could provide the foundation to realign the incentives that shape business practices. This would subsequently enable mandatory targets to be introduced on foods sold, providing in turn the necessary conditions - the means and opportunity - for individuals to enact dietary change.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesMandatory ReportingHumansMotivationPublic HealthFoodHealthMandatory reportingTargets

Identifiers

PMID41668103
PMCPMC12983908

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.