Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42517584›Full record

ArticleHealth promotion international2026

Understanding power in food policy: a critical scoping review of methods to guide future research.

Naomi Fallon, Megan Romania, Christopher Yap, Christina Vogel

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Health promotion international, 2026. 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

4 authors.

Naomi FallonCentre for Food Policy, School of Health and Medical Sciences, City St George's, University of London, Northampton Square, London, EC1V 0HB, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6997-2719
Megan RomaniaCentre for Food Policy, School of Health and Medical Sciences, City St George's, University of London, Northampton Square, London, EC1V 0HB, United Kingdom.
Christopher YapCentre for Food Policy, School of Health and Medical Sciences, City St George's, University of London, Northampton Square, London, EC1V 0HB, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8629-2360
Christina VogelCentre for Food Policy, School of Health and Medical Sciences, City St George's, University of London, Northampton Square, London, EC1V 0HB, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3897-3786

Funding

UK Food Systems CentreUK Research and Innovation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Power disparities in the food system are reflected in food policy processes and outcomes that are failing to address major food system challenges. As interest in investigating and addressing these power disparities grows, it is important to assess the research methods that have been used to examine power in food policy, and how methodological choices shape our understanding. This scoping review critically maps the methodological approaches applied in empirical studies of power in national-level food policy. A systematic search across fourteen databases identified 46 empirical studies published between 2014 and 2025: 33 qualitative, 9 discourse analytic and 4 quantitative. Qualitative research examined the relative power of food system actors and their strategies, as well as the structural dynamics sustaining unequal influence. Quantitative analyses studied the patterns of structural and positional power within policy networks and across political systems. Discourse analytic studies examined how ideas and discourses construct and legitimize understandings of food policy problems and solutions. Across methods, most research investigates how entrenched power constrains progress on food system challenges, with fewer studies exploring examples of resistance. Each approach demonstrates strengths and limitations that are shaped by theory and data. This review highlights the need for methodological innovation-including applying mixed methods, longitudinal designs, and comparative analyses-to expand our understanding of power in food policy and identify actionable strategies to address disparities for the benefit of people and planet.

Indexed as

Nutrition PolicyPower, PsychologicalFood SupplyHumansResearch Designfood policyfood systemspowerresearch methodsreview

Identifiers

PMID42517584
PMCPMC13409316

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.