Deakin University
Browse

What are the benefits and risks of nutrition policy actions to reduce added sugar consumption? An Australian case study

Download (675.79 kB)
Version 2 2024-05-30, 15:08
Version 1 2022-01-31, 08:09
journal contribution
posted on 2024-05-30, 15:08 authored by Cherie RussellCherie Russell, P Baker, Carley GrimesCarley Grimes, Mark LawrenceMark Lawrence
AbstractObjective:This study aimed to critically analyse Australia’s current and proposed policy actions to reduce added sugar consumption. Over-consumption of added sugar is a significant public health nutrition issue. The competing interests, values and beliefs among stakeholders mean they have disparate views regarding which policy actions are preferable to reduce added sugar consumption.Design:Semi-structured interviews using purposive, snowball sampling and policy mapping. Policy actions were classified by two frameworks: NOURISHING (e.g. behaviour change communication, food environment and food system) and the Orders of Change (e.g. first order: technical adjustments, second order: reforming the system, third order: transforming the system).Setting:Australia.Participants:Twenty-two stakeholders from the food industry, food regulation, government, public health groups and academia.Results:All proposed and existing policy actions targeted the food environment/behaviour change; most were assessed as first-order changes, and reductionist (nutrient specific) in nature. Influences on policy actions included industry power, stakeholder fragmentation, government ideology/political will and public pressure. Few stakeholders considered potential risks of policy actions, particularly of non-nutritive sweetener substitution or opportunity costs for other policies.Conclusions:Most of Australia’s policy actions to reduce added sugar consumption are reductionist. Preferencing nutrient specific, first-order policy actions could reflect the influence of vested interests, a historically dominant reductionist orientation to nutrition science and policy, and the perceived difficulty of pursuing second- or third-order changes. Pursuing only first-order policy actions could lead to ‘regrettable’ substitutions and creates an opportunity cost for more comprehensive policy aimed at adjusting the broader food system.

History

Journal

Public Health Nutrition

Volume

25

Article number

PII S1368980022000234

Pagination

2025-2042

Location

England

Open access

  • Yes

ISSN

1368-9800

eISSN

1475-2727

Language

English

Notes

First View Article

Publication classification

C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal

Issue

7

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS