Journal
PUBLIC HEALTH NUTRITION
Volume 22, Issue 12, Pages 2317-2328Publisher
CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1368980019000739
Keywords
Sugar-sweetened beverage taxation; Soft Drinks Industry Levy; Public health policy; Media content analysis; Unhealthy commodity industries
Funding
- UK Medical Research Council [MC_UU_12017/15]
- Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates at the MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow [SPHSU15]
- NHS Research Scotland Senior Clinical Fellowship [SCAF/15/02]
- MRC [MC_UU_12017/15] Funding Source: UKRI
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Objective: In politically contested health debates, stakeholders on both sides present arguments and evidence to influence public opinion and the political agenda. The present study aimed to examine whether stakeholders in the Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL) debate sought to establish or undermine the acceptability of this policy through the news media and how this compared with similar policy debates in relation to tobacco and alcohol industries. Design: Quantitative and qualitative content analysis of newspaper articles discussing sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxation published in eleven UK newspapers between 1 April 2015 and 30 November 2016, identified through the Nexis database. Direct stakeholder citations were entered in NVivo to allow inductive thematic analysis and comparison with an established typology of industry stakeholder arguments used by the alcohol and tobacco industries. Setting: UK newspapers. Participants: Proponents and opponents of SSB tax/SDIL cited in UK newspapers. Results: Four hundred and ninety-one newspaper articles cited stakeholders' (n 287) arguments in relation to SSB taxation (n 1761: 65 % supportive and 35 % opposing). Stakeholders' positions broadly reflected their vested interests. Inconsistencies arose from: changes in ideological position; insufficient clarity on the nature of the problem to be solved; policy priorities; and consistency with academic rigour. Both opposing and supportive themes were comparable with the alcohol and tobacco industry typology. Conclusions: Public health advocates were particularly prominent in the UK newspaper debate surrounding the SDIL. Advocates in future policy debates might benefit from seeking a similar level of prominence and avoiding inconsistencies by being clearer about the policy objective and mechanisms.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available