Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40676892›Full record

ArticlePublic health nutrition2025

Industry responses to unhealthy food retail promotion restrictions: a thematic analysis of two public consultations in Scotland.

Clara Gomez-Donoso, Sadika Akhter, Adrian J Cameron, Jean Adams, Martin White, Gary Sacks, Anna Peeters, Kathryn Backholer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public health nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Clara Gomez-DonosoInstitute for Health Transformation, Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4753-3560
Sadika AkhterInstitute for Health Transformation, Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Adrian J CameronInstitute for Health Transformation, Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Jean AdamsMRC Epidemiology Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Martin WhiteMRC Epidemiology Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Gary SacksInstitute for Health Transformation, Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9736-1539
Anna PeetersInstitute for Health Transformation, Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Kathryn BackholerInstitute for Health Transformation, Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveGovernments 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.

designWe 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.

settingScotland, UK, 2017-2019.

participantsN/A.

resultsMost 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.

conclusionsThese 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.

Indexed as

CommerceFood IndustryHealth PromotionNutrition PolicyHumansScotlandCommercial determinants of healthFood policyIndustry playbookRetail food environment

Identifiers

PMID40676892
PMCPMC12465074

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.