BackgroundExcess sugar consumption, including sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), contributes to a variety of negative health outcomes, particularly for young people. The mass media play a powerful role in influencing public and policy-makers’ perceptions of public health issues and their solutions. We analysed how sugar and SSB policy debates were presented in UK newspapers at a time of heightened awareness and following the announcement of the UK Government’s soft drinks industry levy (SDIL), to inform future public health advocacy.Methods & findingsWe carried out quantitative content analysis of articles discussing the issues of sugar and SSB consumption published in 11 national newspapers from April 2015 to November 2016. 684 newspaper articles were analysed using a structured coding frame. Coverage peaked in line with evidence publication, campaigner activities and policy events. Articles predominantly supportive of SSB taxation (23.5%) outnumbered those that were predominantly oppositional (14.2%). However, oppositional articles outnumbered supportive ones in the month of the announcement of the SDIL. Sugar and SSB consumption were presented as health risks, particularly affecting young people, with the actions of industry often identified as the cause of the public health problem. Responsibility for addressing sugar overconsumption was primarily assigned to government intervention.ConclusionOur results suggest that the policy landscape favouring fiscal solutions to curb sugar and SSB consumption has benefited from media coverage characterising the issue as an industry-driven problem. Media coverage may drive greater public acceptance of the SDIL and any future taxation of products containing sugar. However, future advocacy efforts should note the surge in opposition coinciding with the announcement of the SDIL, which echoes similar patterns of opposition observed in tobacco control debates.

ObjectivesTo assess the extent of media-based public health advocacy versus pro-industry messaging regarding sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs).DesignWe conducted a systematic analysis to identify and examine all articles regarding SSBs published in all mainstream British print newspapers and their online news websites from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2014. We initially conducted a brief literature search to develop appropriate search terms and categorisations for grouping and analysing the articles. Articles were then coded according to the publishing newspaper, article type, topic, prominence and slant (pro-SSB or anti-SSB). A contextual analysis was undertaken to examine key messages in the articles.ResultsWe identified 374 articles published during 2014. The majority of articles (81%) suggested that SSBs are unhealthy. Messaging from experts, campaign groups and health organisations was fairly consistent about the detrimental effects of SSB on health. However, relatively few articles assessed any approaches or solutions to potentially combat the problems associated with SSBs. Only one-quarter (24%) suggested any policy change. Meanwhile, articles concerning the food industry produced consistent messages emphasising consumer choice and individual responsibility for making choices regarding SSB consumption, and promoting and advertising their products. The food industry thus often managed to avoid association with the negative press that their products were receiving.ConclusionsSSBs were frequently published in mainstream British print newspapers and their online news websites during 2014. Public health media advocacy was prominent throughout, with a growing consensus that sugary drinks are bad for people's health. However, the challenge for public health will be to mobilise supportive public opinion to help implement effective regulatory policies. Only then will our population's excess consumption of SSBs come under control.

Objective In politically-contested health debates stakeholders on both sides present arguments and evidence in order to influence public opinion and the political agenda. The aim of this study was 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 to 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 11 UK newspapers between 1 April 2015 and 30 November 2016, identified through the Nexis database. Direct stakeholder citations were entered into 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. Subjects Proponents and opponents of SSB tax/SDIL cited in UK newspapers. Results 491 newspaper articles cited stakeholders’ (n=287) arguments in relation to SSB taxation (n=1,761: 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; 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.

No abstract

BackgroundIn politically-contested health debates, such as sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxation, stakeholders seek to present evidence and arguments for or against the specific policy initiatives, based on their interests. The news media play a crucial role in shaping public opinion by selectively choosing which messages to focus on. While the literature suggests that media debates should be a key concern for those interested in understanding public health policy processes, as yet there has been only limited research in this area. This study examined how stakeholders’ positions and evidence on SSB taxation were represented in the media to inform SSB advocacy strategies.MethodsQuantitative and qualitative content analysis of 1632 articles about sugar consumption and SSB taxation published in eleven national UK newspapers, chosen for diversity in political views and genre. We conducted a systematic search of the Nexis database to identify all articles relating to SSBs published between 1 April 2015 and 30 November 2016.A coding frame was developed. Two reviewers then coded a 10% random sample of articles to ensure consistency in the definition and application of codes. All remaining articles were coded by one reviewer. Data were analysed thematically, following the principle of constant comparison and attention to contradictory data. We used Beauchamp’s theory of market justice and social justice frames to analyse stakeholders’ messages on SSB taxation.ResultsA wide range of stakeholders sought to present evidence and arguments for or against SSB taxation. Stakeholder positions were largely shaped by their vested political interests. For example, corporate stakeholders were more likely to draw upon market justice frames promoting individual-level drivers for high rates of sugar consumption and individual-level solutions such as education. Whereas, public health advocates were more likely to draw upon social justice frames promoting population-level drivers for high sugar consumption and SSB taxation as a policy-level measure.ConclusionThere is a complex, poorly-understood, inter-dependency between the framing of evidence in public policy debates, media representations of this evidence and the influencing strategies used by stakeholders. These early insights into stakeholders’ framing of evidence, both scientific and non-scientific, in the case of SSB taxation could potentially inform wider debates about the media strategies of global producers and marketers of unhealthy commodities to ‘directly lobby’ the public.