Skip to main content
. 2020 Nov 23;24(10):3124–3135. doi: 10.1017/S1368980020003353

Table 3.

Influencing strategies and tactics deployed by Australian ultra-processed food industry actors to shape food and health policy narratives

Strategic theme Examples of arguments and tactics
Co-opt public health narratives
  • Align messaging with health groups and NGOs (e.g., malnutrition, sustainability or food waste)

  • Align messaging with national health governance (e.g., Department of Health)

  • Align messaging with international health governance (e.g., WHO/UN Sustainable Development Goals)

  • Challenge evidence of policy effectiveness

  • Depict health advocates as radical or not credible

  • Input into health stakeholder Twitter conversations

  • Note a policy problem but reject evidence-based responses

Oppose regulation
  • Dispute or reject regulatory policy proposals (e.g., taxation or point-of-sale restrictions)

  • Existing regulations are strict enough

  • Existing regulations are burdensome, complex or inefficient

  • Regulatory agencies are authoritarian or ‘nanny-statist’

  • Support neoliberal tax reform

Support voluntary, co- or self-regulation
  • Advocate ‘downstream’ interventions (e.g., education or targeted programs)

  • Advocate balance, choice and/or personal responsibility

  • Champion role to provide healthier alternative products

  • Support industry self-regulation, or co-regulation with government

  • Support delays to policy timelines

Engage policy processes and decision-makers
  • Attend or host political events

  • Create electorate-specific content

  • Publicise government policy

  • Reference historical political figures

  • Retweet policy-maker content

  • Tag policy-makers

  • Tweet policy-makers (both positively and negatively)

Link policy decisions to ongoing profitability
  • Champion vitalness of sector to economy

  • Deprioritise health externalities

  • Emphasise industry tax revenue contributions

  • Frame fiscal health policies as regressive

  • Support ‘business-friendly’ regulation

  • Support reforms to boost global exports and growth

  • Link policy change to job losses or economic hardship

  • Present business-as-usual as difficult, implying policy change could worsen operations

Affect public perceptions and value judgements of policy change
  • Align with socially desirable characteristics (e.g., being Australian-owned, consumer-conscious, attune to family and community values)

  • Highlight local components of supply chains

  • Run corporate social responsibility campaigns (e.g., philanthropy)

  • Support small-to-medium enterprises

Use ignorance claims to distort policy narratives
  • Complexity and ‘whataboutism’ framings

  • Limited policy uptake undermines evidence of policy effectiveness

  • Mischaracterise a policy’s intended outcomes (e.g., individual interventions failing to ‘solve’ obesity)

  • Promote industry-funded front-group or ‘astroturf’ organisation content