Search

Ultraprocessed-food manufacturers have proposed product reformulation as a key strategy to tackle obesity. In determining the impact of reformulation on population dietary behaviors, policy makers often depend on data provided by these manufacturers. Where such data are "gifted" to regulators, there may be an implicit expectation of reciprocity that adversely influences nutrition policies. The authors aimed to assess Europe's industry-led reformulation strategy in five countries deploying critical policy studies as an approach. They found that interim results on industry-led food reformulation did not meet the countries' targets. Information asymmetries exist between food industry and policy makers: the latter are not privy to marketing intelligence and must instead rely on data that are voluntarily donated by food industry actors, which represent a distorted snippet of the marketing intelligence system from whence they came. Because these data indeed bear all the hallmarks of a gift, regulatory and public health authorities operate within a gift economy. The implications of this "data-gift economy" are strategic delay and the need to set goals when the field is not visible. Ultimately, this could diminish the implementation of public health nutrition policies that run counter to the commercial interests of ultraprocessed-food producers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a causal link between the consumption of ultra-processed foods and a range of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) such as obesity, type 2 diabetes and cancers. Despite this, no country in the world has reduced its obesity levels because the factors that drive obesity continue unchanged (Swinburn et al., 2019). One systemic driver is corporate influence on the public policy process. The world's largest food and beverage manufacturers engage public relations firms to create a narrative which speaks of corporate cooperation with public health policy, while simultaneously influencing policy making in ways that are favorable to industry. We sought to examine framing as a key strategy in the corporate political activity of food industry actors attempting to resist the introduction of a public health policy. Specifically, we analyzed industry submissions for an Irish government consultation for the proposed introduction of a sugar sweetened beverage (SSB) tax in 2018. We describe how a food product like sugar is framed positively by corporate actors who rely on it as their principal ingredient. Sugar is a good focus from a framing perspective because it is currently undergoing recalibration in the public's imagination - from a benign, nourishing treat in its heyday to a dangerous 'substance' that can contribute to premature mortality. Framing is already well established as a corporate political activity (CPA) to influence public policy (Shelton et al., 2017; Nixon et al., 2015; Darmon et al., 2008). Our research expands this understanding by uncovering four underlying mechanisms used to generate frames – dichotomizing, contesting, equating and cropping. Recognizing these mechanisms could help policy makers, public health professionals and business ethicists to deconstruct any given frame that becomes dominant in corporate discourse, such as 'personal responsibility', 'inadequate exercise', 'freedom' and so on. These mechanisms may also apply to other industries such as alcohol, fossil fuels and tobacco, where hazards from interference in public health strategies are a concern. • Sugar is undergoing a major framing contest. • The process of generating a frame is as relevant as what is pictured inside it. • Four framing mechanisms are used by industry against sugar taxation – dichotomizing, contesting, equating and cropping. • Visibilizing the process of framing exposes meaning mechanisms across contexts, domains and issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]