UK government's new placement legislation is a 'good first step': a rapid qualitative analysis of consumer, business, enforcement and health stakeholder perspectives

Sarah Muir, Preeti Dhuria, Emma Roe, Wendy Lawrence, Janis Baird, Christina Vogel, Sarah Muir, Preeti Dhuria, Emma Roe, Wendy Lawrence, Janis Baird, Christina Vogel

Abstract

Background: The current food system in England promotes a population diet that is high in fat, sugar and salt (HFSS). To address this, the UK government has implemented legislation to restrict the promotion of HFSS products in prominent locations (e.g. store entrances, checkouts) in qualifying retailers since October 2022. This study investigated the perceived impact of the legislation for affected stakeholders.

Methods: A pre-implementation rapid qualitative evaluation of stakeholder interviews. One hundred eight UK stakeholders participated in the study including 34 consumers, 24 manufacturers and retailers, 22 local authority enforcement officers and 28 academic and charitable health representatives. A participatory conference was used to enable policy recommendations to be confirmed by stakeholders.

Results: Stakeholders perceived the legislation to be a 'good first step' towards improving population diet but recognised this needed to be considered amongst a range of long-term obesity policies. Areas of further support were identified and these are presented as six recommendations for government to support the successful implementation of the legislation: (1) provide a free central HFSS calculator, (2) refine legislation to enhance intent and clarity, (3) conduct a robust evaluation to assess intended and unintended outcomes, (4) provide greater support for smaller businesses, (5) provide ring-fenced resources to local authorities and (6) create and communicate a long-term roadmap for food and health.

Conclusions: This legislation has the potential to reduce impulse HFSS purchases and makes a solid start towards creating healthier retail outlets for consumers. Immediate government actions to create a freely accessible HFSS calculator, support smaller businesses and provide additional resources to local authorities would support successful implementation and enforcement. Independent evaluation of the implementation of the legislation will enable monitoring of potential unintended consequences identified in this study and support refinement of the legislation. A long-term roadmap is necessary to outline strategies to support equal access to healthier and sustainable food across the whole food system within the next 20-30 years.

Keywords: Food policy; HFSS foods; Placement legislation; Qualitative research; Retail food environment; Stakeholder views.

Conflict of interest statement

CV, PD and JB have a non-financial research collaboration with a UK supermarket chain. All authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare.

© 2023. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Links between stakeholder sub-themes and the development of six policy recommendations to optimise legislation’s intended impacts

References

    1. Dimbleby H. The National Food Strategy independent review: the plan. 2021.
    1. Obesity Health Alliance . Turning the tide: a 10-year healthy weight strategy. 2021.
    1. Dhuria P, et al. Women’s perceptions of factors influencing their food shopping choices and how supermarkets can support them to make healthier choices. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):1070. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-11112-0.
    1. Horsley JA, et al. The proportion of unhealthy foodstuffs children are exposed to at the checkout of convenience supermarkets. Public Health Nutr. 2014;17(11):2453–2458. doi: 10.1017/S1368980013003571.
    1. Black C, et al. Measuring the healthfulness of food retail stores: variations by store type and neighbourhood deprivation. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014;11(1):69. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-11-69.
    1. Obesity Health Alliance . Out of place: the extent of unhealthy foods in prime locations in supermarkets. 2018.
    1. Shaw SC, et al. A systematic review of the influences of food store product placement on dietary-related outcomes. Nutr Rev. 2020;78(12):1030–1045.
    1. Bennett R, et al. Prevalence of healthy and unhealthy food and beverage price promotions and their potential influence on shopper purchasing behaviour: a systematic review of the literature. Obes Rev. 2020;21(1):e12948. doi: 10.1111/obr.12948.
    1. Cohen DA, et al. Store impulse marketing strategies and body mass index. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(7):1446–1452. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302220.
    1. Vogel C, et al. Education and the relationship between supermarket environment and diet. Am J Prev Med. 2016;51(2):e27–e34. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.02.030.
    1. Vogel C, et al. Examination of how food environment and psychological factors interact in their relationship with dietary behaviours: test of a cross-sectional model. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2019;16(1):12. doi: 10.1186/s12966-019-0772-y.
    1. Vogel C, et al. Altering product placement to create a healthier layout in supermarkets: outcomes on store sales, customer purchasing, and diet in a prospective matched controlled cluster study. PLoS Med. 2021;18(9):e1003729. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003729.
    1. Vogel C, Piernas C. In: Evans C, editor. The retail food environment, in Transforming food environments. Oxford: Routledge; 2022. p. 63–78.
    1. Piernas C, Harmer G, Jebb SA. Removing seasonal confectionery from prominent store locations and purchasing behaviour within a major UK supermarket: Evaluation of a nonrandomised controlled intervention study. PLoS Med. 2022;19(3):e1003951. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003951.
    1. Ejlerskov KT, et al. Supermarket policies on less-healthy food at checkouts: natural experimental evaluation using interrupted time series analyses of purchases. PLoS Med. 2018;15(12):e1002712. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002712.
    1. House of Commons Health Committee. Childhood obesity: Time for action. London; 2018. .
    1. UK Government, The Food (Promotion and Placement) (England) Regulations 2021. London: UK government; Available from: [cited 23 January 2023].
    1. Department of Health and Social Care . Government delays restrictions on multibuy deals and advertising on TV and online. 2022.
    1. Muir S, Dhuria P, Vogel C. Government must proceed with landmark anti-obesity regulations in England. BMJ. 2022;378(o2358).
    1. Rutter H, et al. The need for a complex systems model of evidence for public health. Lancet. 2017;390(10112):2602-2604.
    1. McGill E, et al. Qualitative process evaluation from a complex systems perspective: a systematic review and framework for public health evaluators. PLoS Med. 2020;17(11):e1003368. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003368.
    1. Department of Health and Social Care. Tackling obesity: empowering adults and children to live healthier lives: UK Government London; 2020. .
    1. Vindrola-Padros C. Doing rapid qualitative research. 1. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publishing. pages cm; 2021.
    1. Watson D, et al. How do we engage people in testing for COVID-19? A rapid qualitative evaluation of a testing programme in schools, GP surgeries and a university. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):305. doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-12657-4.
    1. Vaughn LM, Jacquez FM. Participatory research methods – choice points in the research process. 2020.
    1. Vogel C, et al. Protocol of a natural experiment to evaluate a supermarket intervention to improve food purchasing and dietary behaviours of women (WRAPPED study) in England: a prospective matched controlled cluster design. BMJ Open. 2020;10(2):e036758.
    1. Barker D, et al. Developmental biology: support mothers to secure future public health. Nature. 2013;504(7479):209–211. doi: 10.1038/504209a.
    1. NatCen Social Research . The Food and You Survey wave 5. 2019.
    1. DeJonckheere M, Vaughn LM. Semistructured interviewing in primary care research: a balance of relationship and rigour. Fam Med Community Health. 2019;7(2):e000057. doi: 10.1136/fmch-2018-000057.
    1. Randall GC, et al. Comparison of rapid vs in-depth qualitative analytic methods from a process evaluation of academic detailing in the Veterans Health Administration. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):11. doi: 10.1186/s13012-019-0853-y.
    1. Taylor B, et al. Can rapid approaches to qualitative analysis deliver timely, valid findings to clinical leaders? A mixed methods study comparing rapid and thematic analysis. BMJ Open. 2018;8(10):e019993. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019993.
    1. Neal JW, et al. Expediting the analysis of qualitative data in evaluation: a procedure for the rapid identification of themes from audio recordings (RITA) Am J Eval. 2015;36(1):118–132. doi: 10.1177/1098214014536601.
    1. Muir, S., Dhuria, P. & Vogel, C. in Supporting the effective implementation of UK HFSS promotions and placement. 2022. .
    1. Espinosa R, Nassar A. The acceptability of food policies. Nutrients. 2021;13:5. doi: 10.3390/nu13051483.
    1. Cullerton K, et al. Competing public narratives in nutrition policy: insights into the ideational barriers of public support for regulatory nutrition measures. Health Res Policy Syst. 2022;20(1):86. doi: 10.1186/s12961-022-00891-6.
    1. Vander Wekken S, et al. Exploring industry perspectives on implementation of a provincial policy for food and beverage sales in publicly funded recreation facilities. Health Policy. 2012;104(3):279–287. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2011.11.014.
    1. Reynolds JP, et al. Public acceptability of nudging and taxing to reduce consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and food: a population-based survey experiment. Soc Sci Med. 2019;236:112395. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112395.
    1. Hagmann D, Siegrist M, Hartmann C. Taxes, labels, or nudges? Public acceptance of various interventions designed to reduce sugar intake. Food Policy. 2018;79:156–165. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.06.008.
    1. Thomas, S.L., et al., “The solution needs to be complex.” Obese adults’ attitudes about the effectiveness of individual and population based interventions for obesity. BMC Public Health, 2010. 10: 420.
    1. Shrimpton D. HFSS legislation gets mixed reaction from consumers, in Talking Retail. 2022.
    1. Moore S, Butler T. UK government delays restriction of promotions on less-healthy foods: serious implications for tackling obesity. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2022;30(9):1722–1723. doi: 10.1002/oby.23524.
    1. Jenneson V, Morris MA. Data considerations for the success of policy to restrict in-store food promotions: a commentary from a food industry nutritionist consultation. Nutr Bull. 2021;46(1):40–51. doi: 10.1111/nbu.12486.
    1. McHugh L. Latest developments on HFSS. 2022.
    1. Rayner M. Nutrient profiling for regulatory purposes. Proc Nutr Soc. 2017;76(3):230–236. doi: 10.1017/S0029665117000362.
    1. Boelsen-Robinson T, et al. Barriers and facilitators to implementing a healthier food outlet initiative: perspectives from local governments. Public Health Nutr. 2021;24(9):2758–2770. doi: 10.1017/S1368980020002323.
    1. Goffe L, et al. The challenges of interventions to promote healthier food in independent takeaways in England: qualitative study of intervention deliverers’ views. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):184. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5096-3.
    1. Adams J, et al. The Change4Life convenience store programme to increase retail access to fresh fruit and vegetables: a mixed methods process evaluation. Plos One. 2012;7(6):e39431. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039431.
    1. Association for Convenience Stores . ACS advice HFSS products: promotion and location regulations. 2022.
    1. Gittelsohn J, et al. Lessons learned from small store programs to increase healthy food access. Am J Health Behav. 2014;38(2):307–315. doi: 10.5993/AJHB.38.2.16.
    1. Boys KA, et al. Perceived barriers and facilitators to participating in the North Carolina Healthy Food Small Retailer Program: a mixed-methods examination considering investment effectiveness. Public Health Nutr. 2021;24(18):6555–6565. doi: 10.1017/S1368980021003955.
    1. Ponce J, et al. Retailer perspectives on sugar-sweetened beverage taxes in the California Bay Area. Prev Med Rep. 2020;19:101129. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2020.101129.
    1. Brownell KD, Warner KE. The perils of ignoring history: Big Tobacco played dirty and millions died. How similar is Big Food? Milbank Q. 2009;87(1):259–294. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00555.x.
    1. Nakamura R, et al. Sales impact of displaying alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages in end-of-aisle locations: an observational study. Soc Sci Med. 2014;108:68–73. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.02.032.
    1. IGD . What supermarkets will look like in the post-HFSS reality, in The Grocer. 2022.
    1. Burman CJ, Aphane MA. Leadership emergence: the application of the Cynefin framework during a bio-social HIV/AIDS risk-reduction pilot. Afr J AIDS Res. 2016;15(3):249–260. doi: 10.2989/16085906.2016.1198821.
    1. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs . Government food strategy. 2022.
    1. Food Standards Agency . Food you can trust: FSA Strategy 2022-2027. 2022.
    1. Booth, A., et al., COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies). Guidelines for reporting health research: a user’s manual, D. Moher, et al., Editors. 2014, Wiley. 214-226.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe