Food provision in ten cities became unhealthier, monitor reports
A new Amsterdam UMC method maps differences between neighbourhoods and municipalities.
.jpg){kind=link}
Food provision in the ten Dutch municipalities studied was predominantly unhealthy in 2024. That is according to the new Food Pressure Monitor from Amsterdam UMC, which municipalities want to use in the debate on local regulations and a national Food Act.
The monitor examined the food environment in ten municipalities in 2014 and 2024. The instrument looks not only at the type of outlet, but also at the amount of provision and the distance to residents. A fast-food outlet nearby therefore counts more heavily than the same type of outlet at a greater distance.
In all the municipalities studied, average food pressure in 2024 was on the unhealthy side. The average scores ranged from minus 252 to minus 327 on a scale from minus 500 to plus 500. The researchers stress that the score says something about the environment and not directly about the eating behaviour or health of individual residents.
To develop the method, the researchers examined more than 83,000 products at 326 outlets in Amsterdam, Ede, Groningen and Rotterdam. Among other things, they compared supermarkets, bakers, greengrocers and fast-food restaurants with the Wheel of Five. The results were combined with assessments by experts.
The monitor also shows differences within municipalities. Neighbourhoods can have a clearly different score from the municipal average, depending on the density and proximity of outlets. The researchers therefore see the maps primarily as an aid for policy, monitoring and area development, not as a complete assessment of a city's food quality.
Municipalities and the Netherlands Nutrition Centre have been working together for some time in the City Deal Healthy and Sustainable Food Environment. Municipalities want more options to influence provision around schools and in shopping areas. Without a national legal basis, they can currently refuse new businesses or product ranges on public-health grounds only to a limited extent.
A national Food Act could change that scope, but its precise content has not yet been established. Businesses may then face new location rules or requirements for the products on offer. At the same time, the researchers warn that further application is needed to determine when changes in the score are meaningful.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The Food Pressure Monitor found predominantly unhealthy food environments in the ten municipalities studied.
- The method combines provision, density and distance to outlets.
- A national Food Act giving municipalities more powers has not yet been established.
Left
Arguments Health should not depend on postcode or purchasing power. The government must protect citizens, especially children, from an environment in which unhealthy provision is structurally dominant.
Values Public health, prevention and equal opportunities.
Consequences Stricter rules can prevent illness, but restrict businesses' commercial freedom.
Centre
Arguments Municipalities need reliable data and proportionate instruments. Start with schools and vulnerable neighbourhoods, evaluate the effects and leave room for local differences.
Values Evidence-based policy, feasibility and balance.
Consequences Targeted measures can increase public support, but may deliver broad health gains less quickly.
Right
Arguments Adults and businesses should be able to make their own choices as far as possible. The government can provide information and encourage healthy options, but should not determine which shops or products may exist in a neighbourhood.
Values Individual freedom of choice, enterprise and limited government intervention.
Consequences Fewer rules limit the burden on businesses, but largely leave differences in health and provision unchanged.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The key figures and method were checked against Amsterdam UMC's publicly available report. The text makes clear that this is an environmental measure, not a measure of individual health outcomes.
- confirmed The monitor examined ten municipalities in 2014 and 2024. — This is stated in the methodological description of the Food Pressure Monitor. source
- confirmed The average scores in 2024 were between minus 252 and minus 327. — Amsterdam UMC cites this range in the report. source
- confirmed More than 83,000 products at 326 outlets were examined. — These figures appear in the description of the first stage of the research. source
- confirmed Municipalities currently have only limited ability to influence food provision on public-health grounds. — The Netherlands Nutrition Centre describes the need for national legal frameworks. source
Editor's note
The monitor measures the food environment, not individual consumption or illness. The scores and methodological limitations are taken directly from the report; the Food Act has not yet been established.Sources
- De Voedseldrukmonitor — Amsterdam UMC / Openresearch Amsterdam
- Voedsel — Gemeente Utrecht
- Bouwstenen voor gezonde en duurzame voeding in lokaal beleid — Voedingscentrum
More on this in Dutch media
- NU.nl — „voeding gezondheid”
- De Telegraaf — „voeding gezondheid”
- AD — „voeding gezondheid”