To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge-org.demo.remotlog.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
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.
Design:
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.
Setting:
Scotland, UK, 2017–2019.
Participants:
N/A.
Results:
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.
Conclusions:
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.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.