Table 3. Arguments used by the TI when attempting to influence marketing regulation.
| Frame (number of times identified) | Argument | Number of times identified, by geography | ||
| Negative Unintended Consequences (32) | Economic (21) | Manufacturers (10) | The cost of compliance for manufacturers will be high/the time required for implementation has been underestimated | 6 : Australasia –2 [48] [49]; Europe –2 [54] [79]; N.America –1 [65]; Transnational –1 [78] |
| Regulation will result in financial or job losses (among manufacturers) | 3 : Asia –1 [45]; Europe –1 [54]; N.America –1 [37] | |||
| The regulation is discriminatory/regulation will not affect all producers/customers equally | 1 : Europe –1 [54] | |||
| Public Revenue (7) | Regulation will cause economic/financial problems (for city, state, country or economic area (e.g. European Union)) | 7 : Asia –2 [45] [46]; Europe –2 [54] [51]; N.America –3 [65] [67] [36] | ||
| Associated industries (4) | Regulation will result in financial or job losses (among retailers and other associated industries, e.g. printing, advertising, leisure) | 4 : Australasia –1 [49]; Europe –1 [54]; N.America –2 [67] [66] | ||
| Public Health (4) | Regulation will have negative public health consequences | 4 : Australasia –1 [48]; N.America –2 [36] [37]; Transnational –1 [80] | ||
| Illicit Trade1 (2) | Regulation will cause an increase in illicit trade | 2 : N.America –2 [36] [37] | ||
| Other (5) | Regulation could have other negative unintended consequences (e.g. cause confusion amongst customers, set a precedent for other types of products/’slippery slope’) | 5 : Africa –1 [37]; Australasia –1 [49]; N.America –2 [71] [36]; Transnational –1 [78] | ||
| Legal (30) | Infringes legal rights of company (trademarks, intellectual property, constitutionally protected free speech (e.g. US First Amendment), international trade agreements) | 20 : Africa –2 [37] [37]; Asia –3 [36] [37] [37]; Australasia –3 [48] [37] [37]; Europe –5 [36] [36] [54] [37] [37]; N.America –4 [36] [56] [37] [37]; S.America –1 [75]; Transnational –2 [80] [37] | ||
| Regulation is more extensive than necessary/regulation is disproportionate | 4 : Australasia –1 [48]; Europe –1 [54]; N.America –1 [37]; Transnational –1 [80] | |||
| Body doesn’t have the power to regulate/it’s beyond their jurisdiction | 4 : Europe –2 [54] [53]; N.America –2 [57] [37] | |||
| Regulation will cause an increase in compensation claims | 2 : Australasia –1 [37]; N.America –1 [37] | |||
| Regulatory Redundancy (13) | Industry adheres to own self-regulation codes/self-regulation is working well | 5: Asia –1 [45]; Australasia –1 [47]; N.America –2 [59] [83]; Transnational –1 [81] | ||
| Industry only markets to those of legal age/is actively opposed to minors using product | 4 : Asia –1 [44]; N.America –2 [58] [59]; Transnational –1 [81] | |||
| Existing regulation is satisfactory/existing regulation is satisfactory, but requires better enforcement | 4 : Europe –1 [54]; N.America –3 [58] [59] [73] | |||
| Insufficient Evidence (11) | There’s insufficient evidence that the proposed policy will work/marketing doesn’t cause or change behaviour (it’s only used for brand selection and capturing market share), so regulation will have no effect | 10 : Asia –2 [45] [44]; Australasia –4 [47] [48] [49] [78]; Europe –1 [54]; N.America –2 [36] [59] ; Transnational –1 [80] | ||
| The health impacts of consumption remain unproven | 1 : Asia –1 [45] | |||
1
‘Illicit Trade’ is separate as it both undermines public health policy and has economic consequences.