Author:
Penney Tarra L.,Jones Catrin P.,Pell David,Cummins Steven,Adams Jean,Forde Hannah,Mytton Oliver,Rutter Harry,Smith Richard,White Martin
Abstract
Abstract
Background
The UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL) was announced in March 2016, became law in April 2017, and was implemented in April 2018. Empirical analyses of commercial responses have not been undertaken to establish the scale, direction or nuance of industry media messaging around fiscal policies. We aimed to develop a detailed understanding of industry reactions to the SDIL in publicly available media, including whether and how these changed from announcement to implementation.
Methods
We searched Factiva to identify articles related to sugar, soft-drinks, and the SDIL, between 16th March 2016–5th April 2018. Articles included were UK publications written in English and reporting a quotation from an industry actor in response to the SDIL. We used a longitudinal thematic analysis of public statements by the soft-drinks industry that covered their reactions in relation to key policy milestones.
Results
Two hundred and ninety-eight articles were included. After the announcement in March 2016, there was strong opposition to the SDIL. After the public consultation, evolving opposition narratives were seen. After the SDIL became law, reactions reflected a shift to adapting to the SDIL. Following the publication of the final regulations, statements sought to emphasise industry opportunities and ensure the perceived profitability of the soft drinks sector. The most significant change in message (from opposition to adapting to the SDIL) occurred when the SDIL was implemented (6th April 2018).
Conclusion
Reactions to the SDIL changed over time. Industry modified its media responses from a position of strong opposition to one that appeared to focus on adaptation and maximising perceived profitability after the SDIL became law. This shift suggests that the forces that shape industry media responses to fiscal policies do not remain constant but evolve in response to policy characteristics and the stage of the policy process to maximise beneficial framing.
Funder
National Institute for Health Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Reference52 articles.
1. HM Treasury and The RT Hon George Osborne. Budget 2016: George Osborne’s speech - GOV.UK. 2016. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/budget-2016-george-osbornes-speech. Accessed 18 Nov 2020.
2. HM Revenue & Customs. Soft Drinks Industry Levy. 2016. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/soft-drinks-industry-levy/soft-drinks-industry-levy#:~:text=from%20the%20levy.-,Policy%20objective,to%20reduce%20the%20sugar%20content. Accessed 16 June 2020.
3. Moynihan PJ, Kelly SAM. Effect on caries of restricting sugars intake: systematic review to inform WHO guidelines. J Dent Res. 2014;93:8–18.
4. Imamura F, O’Connor L, Ye Z, Mursu J, Hayashino Y, Bhupathiraju SN, et al. Consumption of sugar sweetened beverages, artificially sweetened beverages, and fruit juice and incidence of type 2 diabetes: systematic review, meta-analysis, and estimation of population attributable fraction. BMJ. 2015;351:h3576.
5. Xi B, Huang Y, Reilly KH, Li S, Zheng R, Barrio-Lopez MT, et al. Sugar-sweetened beverages and risk of hypertension and CVD: a dose–response meta-analysis. Br J Nutr. 2015;113:709–17.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献