Table 2.
Food or health policy-related tweets, retweets and replies from included ultra-processed food industry actors
| Lobbying strategy (underpinned with influencing tactics)* | Total occurrences | Arnott’s Biscuits | Australian Beverage Council | Australian Food and Grocery Council | Australian Industry Group | Coca-Cola Amatil | Coca-Cola Australia | Dairy Australia | KFC Australia | Nestle Australia |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Co-opt public health narratives | ||||||||||
| Message/input into health stakeholder conversations | 196 | 2 | 188 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Align messaging with global health institutions (e.g., WHO Sustainable Development Goals) | 100 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 84 |
| Critique evidence or rationale underpinning policy proposal | 73 | 0 | 72 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Depict health stakeholders as misinformed, radical or not credible | 45 | 0 | 45 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Align messaging with NGOs/health groups | 32 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 9 |
| Align messaging with national health institutions (e.g., CSIRO) | 26 | 0 | 23 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Acknowledge an overarching policy problem | 11 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Engage policy processes and decision-makers | ||||||||||
| Tag or mention policy-maker/institution | 62 | 0 | 37 | 6 | 13 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Publicise government policy | 32 | 0 | 6 | 1 | 17 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 |
| Attend or host political events | 16 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Publicise tribunal or court decisions | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Retweet policy-maker/institution | 5 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Create electorate-specific data | 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Reference historical political figures | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Link policy environment to need for ongoing profitability | ||||||||||
| Support trade liberalisation and global exports | 28 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 16 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| Support ‘business-friendly’ policy reforms | 27 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Fiscal policies as discriminatory/regressive | 24 | 0 | 24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Champion vitalness of sector to economy | 17 | 0 | 1 | 14 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Current economic climate difficult enough without policy intervention | 14 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| Link policy environment to adverse employment implications | 8 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Link policy environment to adverse cost implications | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Emphasise tax revenue contributions | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Oppose regulation | ||||||||||
| Dispute or reject regulatory policy proposals | 43 | 0 | 43 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Existing regulations are burdensome, complex or inefficient | 7 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Existing regulations are strict enough | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Regulatory stakeholders are authoritarian or ‘nanny-statist’ | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Risk of regulatory creep | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Shape public perceptions and value judgements | ||||||||||
| Corporate social responsibility campaigns | 305 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 44 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 251 |
| Highlight local component of supply chains | 30 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Align with socially desirable characteristics | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Support voluntary, self- or co-regulatory policies | ||||||||||
| Industry recognises role to provide healthier alternatives | 78 | 0 | 15 | 1 | 0 | 12 | 11 | 2 | 0 | 37 |
| Advocate ‘downstream’ interventions (e.g., education) | 67 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 60 |
| Support self-/co-regulation with government | 63 | 0 | 14 | 3 | 0 | 25 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 17 |
| Advocate balanced diets, choice, exercise or personal/parental responsibility | 61 | 0 | 22 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 30 |
| Support delays to policy timelines | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Use ignorance claims to distort policy narratives | ||||||||||
| Complexity/‘whataboutism’ to contest single interventions | 36 | 0 | 36 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mischaracterise policy outcomes (e.g., single interventions reducing BMI) | 21 | 0 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Publicising content of front-groups/astroturf organisations | 8 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Limited global uptake suggests policy ineffectual | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
*
Strategy and tactic definitions can be found in online supplementary material, Supplemental Annex 1.