Suchergebnisse

Purpose California's failed attempts to enact a statewide sugary beverage tax presents an opportunity to advance understanding of advocacy coalition behavior. We investigate the participation of advocacy coalitions in California's statewide sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax policy debate. Design Document analysis of legislative bills and newspaper articles collected in 2019. Setting California. Method A total of 11 SSB tax-related bills were introduced in California's legislature between 2001-2018 according to the state's legislative website. Data sources include legislative bill documents (n = 94) and newspaper articles (n = 138). Guided by the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), we identify advocacy coalitions involved in California's SSB tax debate and explore strategies and arguments used to advance each coalitions' position. Results Two coalitions (public health, food/beverage industry) were involved in California's statewide SSB tax policy debate. The public health coalition had higher member participation and referred to scientific research evidence while the industry coalition used preemption and financial resources as primary advocacy strategies. The public health coalition frequently presented messaging on the health consequences and financial benefits of SSB taxes. The industry coalition responded by focusing on the potential negative economic impact of a tax. Conclusion Multiple attempts to enact a statewide SSB tax in California have failed. Our findings add insight into the challenges of enacting an SSB tax considering industry interference. Results can inform future efforts to pass evidence-based nutrition policies.

ObjectivesTo examine news coverage of Mexico's front-of-package food labelling policy.MethodsWe used Lexis Nexis to identify newspaper articles that mention the proposed law in four Mexican newspapers representing politically centre-left and centre-right perspectives. We coded for type and valence of arguments, sources and research evidence cited.ResultsWe identified N=361 relevant articles. Coverage of the front-of-package food label policy was primarily news (vs editorial/opinion). While most were neutral in tone, left-leaning newspapers had slightly more positive overall coverage compared with right-leaning newspapers, indicated by publishing more stories in favour of the policy, fewer in opposition, more propolicy arguments and more frequent inclusion of perspectives by government officials and public health advocates. Despite some evidence of bias, there was a general lack of credible opposition to the policy and mention of opponents across newspapers.Conclusions and policy implicationsThe relative absence of food and beverage industry stakeholders in news coverage of the food label policy is unexpected given their documented involvement in prior food policy debates. We discuss possible reasons for their conspicuous absence and lessons for public health advocates around the globe.