A systematic scoping review evaluating sugar-sweetened beverage taxation from a systems perspective.

Systems thinking can reveal surprising, counterintuitive or unintended reactions to population health interventions (PHIs), yet this lens has rarely been applied to sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxation. Using a systematic scoping review approach, we identified 329 papers concerning SSB taxation, of which 45 considered influences and impacts of SSB taxation jointly, involving methodological approaches that may prove promising for operationalizing a systems informed approach to PHI evaluation. Influences and impacts concerning SSB taxation may be cyclically linked, and studies that consider both enable us to identify implications beyond a predicted linear effect. Only three studies explicitly used systems thinking informed methods. Finally, we developed an illustrative, feedback-oriented conceptual framework, emphasizing the processes that could result in an SSB tax being increased, maintained, eroded or repealed over time. Such a framework could be used to synthesize evidence from non-systems informed evaluations, leading to novel research questions and further policy development.

Understanding the role of the state in dietary public health policymaking: a critical scoping review.

Despite evidence that dietary population health interventions are effective and widely accepted, they remain the topic of intense debate centring on the appropriate role of the state. This review sought to identify how the role of the state in intervening in individuals' food practices is conceptualized across a wide range of literatures. We searched 10 databases and 4 journals for texts that debated dietary population health interventions designed to affect individuals' health-affecting food practices. Two co-authors independently screened these texts for eligibility relative to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Thirty-five texts formed our final corpus. Through critical reflexive thematic analysis (TA), we generated 6 themes and 2 subthemes concerning choice, responsibility for health, balancing benefits and burdens of intervention, the use of evidence, fairness, and the legitimacy of the state's actions. Our analysis found that narratives that aim to prevent effective regulation are entrenched in academic literatures. Discourses that emphasized liberty and personal responsibility framed poor health as the result of 'lifestyle choices'. Utilitarian, cost-benefit rationales pervaded arguments about how to best balance the benefits and burdens of state intervention. Claims about fairness and freedom were used to evoke powerful common meanings, and evidence was used politically to bolster interests, particularly those of the food industry. This review identifies and critically analyses key arguments for and against population dietary public health policies. Our findings should motivate public health researchers and practitioners to avoid unreflexively embracing framings that draw on the languages and logics of free market economics.

Whose rights deserve protection? Framing analysis of responses to the 2016 Committee of Advertising Practice consultation on the non-broadcast advertising of foods and soft drinks to children.

Exposure to advertising of food and beverages high in fat sugar and salt (HFSS) is considered a factor in the development of childhood obesity. This paper uses framing analysis to examine the strategic discursive practices employed by non-industry and industry responders to the Committee of Advertising Practice's consultation responses (n = 86) on UK regulation of non-broadcast advertising of foods and soft drinks to children. Our analysis demonstrates non-industry and industry responders engaged in a moral framing battle centred on whose rights were deemed as being of greatest importance to protect: children or industry. Both industry and non-industry responders acknowledged that childhood obesity and non-broadcast advertising were complex issues but diverged on how they morally framed their arguments. Non-industry responders employed a moral framework that aligned with the values represented in social justice approaches to public health policy, where children were identified as vulnerable, in need of protection from harmful HFSS product advertising and childhood obesity was a societal problem to solve. In contrast, industry responders emphasised industry rights, portraying themselves as a responsible industry that is victim to perceived disproportionate policymaking, and values more closely aligned with a market justice approach to public health policy. Our analysis provides detailed insights into the framing strategies used in the policy debate surrounding the non-broadcast advertising of HFSS foods to children. This has relevance as to how advocacy organisations can develop counter-framing to industry frames which seek to limit effective regulation.