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conceptual framework, emphasizing the processes that could result in an SSB tax being increased, maintained, eroded or repealed over time.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.

Children's, parents' and professional stakeholders' views on power concerning the regulation of online advertising of unhealthy food to young people in the UK: A qualitative study.

Examinations of corporate power have demonstrated the practices and activities Unhealthy Commodity Industries (UCIs) employ to exert their power and influence on the public and health policy. The High in Fat Sugar and Salt (HFSS) product industry have exploited the online environment to market their products to young people. Regulating UCIs' marketing can limit the power of those industries and is argued to be one of the most appropriate policy responses to such marketing. However, there is minimal consideration of how stakeholders view regulation of online advertising of HFSS products to young people. This UK-focused study addressed this through a secondary analysis of focus groups with young people (n = 15), the primary analysis of focus groups with parents (n = 8), and interviews with professional stakeholders (n = 11). The findings indicated that participants' views on the regulation of online advertising of HFSS products were informed by how professional stakeholders exerted instrumental, structural and discursive power. Participants cited regulation as a means to re-negotiate problematic power dynamics to increase young people's and parents' autonomy over young people's diets, yet concern remained as to the impact regulation may have on individual autonomy. To garner increased public support for such regulatory policies, it may be beneficial for advocates to emphasise the empowering elements of those regulatory policies. Advocacy actors may wish to shift their framing of regulation from one that focuses on restricting industry practices, to one that centres on empowering individuals.

Food as harm reduction during a drinking session: reducing the harm or normalising harmful use of alcohol? A qualitative comparative analysis of alcohol industry and non-alcohol industry-funded guidance.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to critically analyse information concerning the relationship between alcohol and food consumption provided via alcohol industry (AI) funded and non-AI-funded health-oriented websites, to determine the role it plays within the alcohol information space, and how this serves the interests of the disseminating organisations. METHODS: Information on food as a harm reduction measure while drinking alcohol was extracted from 15 AI websites and websites of AI-funded corporate social responsibility (CSR) organisations. As a comparison group, non-AI-funded health websites were also searched (n = 16 websites with food and alcohol-related content). Information was included from webpage content and associated downloadable documents. Critical discourse analysis (CDA) was adopted to allow the texts analysed to be situated within the broader political and social context. Analysis was carried out iteratively, involving continuous comparison within and between websites. Discursive themes were identified by three researchers. Identified discursive elements were discussed to reach a consensus, and a final coding framework was then developed. "Tone" analysis was used to assess whether the overall tone within individual websites was considered to be pro-alcohol consumption, neutral or discouraging of alcohol consumption. RESULTS: There were some commonalities across AI and non-AI-funded websites, whereby both appeared to normalise alcohol consumption and to encourage use of food as a measure to enable sustained drinking, to avoid drinking in a way that results in short-term harms, and to prevent or "cure" a hangover. The fact that both AI-funded and non-AI-funded organisations shared many of these narratives is particularly concerning. However, a discourse of food and alcohol that served to promote "moderate" drinking as beneficial to health was used exclusively by AI-funded organisations, focusing on special occasions and individual-blaming. CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol consumption, including heavy and harmful consumption, is frequently normalised within the online information space. Emphasising food consumption with alcohol may have the effect of supporting consumers to drink for longer periods of time. Health professionals and independent health organisations should review the information they provide in light of our findings and challenge why AI-funded organisations, with a major conflict of interest, and a history of health misinformation, are often given the responsibility for disseminating health information to the public.

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.