Gomez-Donoso Clara, Akhter Sadika, Cameron Adrian J, Adams Jean, White Martin, Sacks Gary, Peeters Anna, Backholer Kathryn
Deakin University, Geelong, Australia, Institute for Health Transformation, Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health. 1 Gheringhap St, Geelong VIC 3220, Australia.
MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine. Box 285 Institute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, United Kingdom.
Public Health Nutr. 2025 Jul 18:1-27. doi: 10.1017/S1368980025100761.
Governments are increasingly implementing policies to improve population diets, despite food industry resistance to regulation that may reduce their profits from sales of unhealthy foods. However, retail food environments remain an important target for policy action. This study analysed publicly available responses of industry actors to two public consultations on regulatory options for restricting unhealthy food price and placement promotions in retail outlets in Scotland.
We conducted a qualitative content analysis guided by the Policy Dystopia Model to identify the discursive (argument-based) and instrumental (tactic-based) strategies used by industry actors to counter the proposed food retail policies.
Scotland, UK, 2017-2019.
N/A.
Most food and retail industry responses opposed the policy proposals. Discursive strategies employed by these actors commonly highlighted the potential costs to the economy, their industries and the public in the context of a financial crisis, and disputed the potential health benefits of the proposals. They claimed that existing efforts to improve population diets, such as nutritional reformulation, would be undermined. Instrumental strategies included using unsubstantiated and misleading claims, building a coordinated narrative focused on key opposing arguments and seeking further involvement in policy decision-making.
These findings can be used by public health actors to anticipate and prepare for industry opposition when developing policies targeted at reducing the promotion of unhealthy food in retail settings. Government action should ensure robust management of conflicts of interest and establishment of guidance for the use of supporting evidence as part of the public health policy process.
尽管食品行业抵制可能会减少其不健康食品销售利润的监管措施，但各国政府仍在越来越多地实施改善民众饮食的政策。然而，零售食品环境仍是政策行动的重要目标。本研究分析了行业参与者对苏格兰零售场所限制不健康食品价格和摆放促销监管选项的两次公众咨询的公开回应。
我们以“政策反乌托邦模型”为指导进行了定性内容分析，以确定行业参与者用来对抗拟议食品零售政策的话语（基于论点）和工具（基于策略）策略。
英国苏格兰，2017 - 2019年。
无。
大多数食品和零售行业的回应反对这些政策提案。这些参与者采用的话语策略通常强调在金融危机背景下对经济、其行业和公众的潜在成本，并对提案的潜在健康益处提出质疑。他们声称现有的改善民众饮食的努力，如营养配方调整，将受到破坏。工具策略包括使用未经证实和误导性的说法，构建一个围绕关键反对论点的协调一致的叙述，并寻求进一步参与政策决策。
公共卫生行动者在制定旨在减少零售环境中不健康食品促销的政策时，可以利用这些发现来预测和应对行业的反对。政府行动应确保对利益冲突进行有力管理，并制定作为公共卫生政策过程一部分的支持性证据使用指南。
