Not just what’s on the menu - the hidden forces behind food choice

Posted by Helen Moore, Associate Professor (Research) & Fuse Associate, Teesside University 

On Saturday, I had one of those incredibly energising moments that remind you why you do the work you do. I was invited to present at the Right To Food UK Conference at the University of Westminster. It was a powerful event led by Ian Byrne, Labour MP for Liverpool West Derby. The event represented a crucial moment for shaping policy and driving action to realise the right to food in the UK. The room was full of policymakers, researchers, and advocates, all engaged and working together talking about the issues.

So proud to open the UK’s first national Right To Food conference today. No one should be going hungry in the world’s 6th wealthiest nation - hunger is a political choice & it can be solved, so that’s what we want to do: End hunger. #RightToFood #HungerIsAPoliticalChoice pic.twitter.com/p7IdeoeyQT

— lan Byrne MP (@IanByrneMP) September 13, 2025

Fuse Associate Helen Moore pictured third from the left

The invitation to speak followed my attendance at the launch of the Hungry for Change report by the Child of the North All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) earlier in July. It’s been a privilege to be part of this journey, co-authoring the Environments chapter with Andrea Burrows, Amelia Lake and Claire O'Malley from Teesside University and Fuse (the Centre for Translational Research in Public Health), and Mark Green and Emma Boyland from the University of Liverpool.

Our chapter of the report looks at how the places and systems around us shape what we eat, often without us even realising it. We looked at everything from fast food outlets to social supermarkets, to advertising, to digital delivery platforms and planning policy. The big takeaway message? Food environments matter. And crucially they’re not the same for everyone.

So, what’s a food environment?

It’s not just about what’s in your fridge. It’s about what’s available in your local shop, what’s advertised to you on billboards and on your phone or computer screen, what your school or work canteen serves, how far you live from a supermarket, and even what your friends and family eat. It’s shaped by everything from planning and transport networks to cultural norms, pricing strategies, and national policies. Have you ever wondered why your local shops have two pizza places but no greengrocer? That’s a food environment in action. It is shaped by planning decisions, business models, and economic pressures, not just personal choice.

And here’s the kicker: these environments aren’t the same for everyone... If you live in a more deprived area, you’re more likely to be surrounded by cheap, high-calorie options, adverts for these types of foods and are less likely to have access to fresh, affordable food. That’s not a personal failing; it’s structural inequality.

What did our chapter of the report say?

Advertising
We explored how advertising aimed at children overwhelmingly promotes unhealthy foods. Even short exposure to adverts for fast food or sugary drinks can increase kids’ energy intake and influence their choices. And children in more deprived households tend to watch more commercial screen media, making them more vulnerable to this kind of marketing.

Community Food Organisations
We also discussed community food organisations, which are an innovative and alternative food relief model to food banks. They exist to try and tackle both food insecurity and food waste simultaneously. They utilise surplus from mainstream food retailers and sell via the usual supermarket format (adding items to a basket and paying at a checkout) but at greatly reduced prices. With lower costs than a traditional supermarket, and less stigmatising than using free emergency food aid, this model shows promise. Some of these organisations operate beyond a supermarket model, and offer additional social support, such as employment training, guidance with benefit claims, or community-building activities, but this differs across organisations. While these differences demonstrate the adaptability of the model, it also makes it difficult to establish a universal definition of community food organisations.

Fast food, screens, and the rise of dark kitchens
One of the most striking findings of our chapter was the increase in fast food outlet accessibility in the North, with an 84% rise in people living within 1km of a fast-food outlet between 2016 and 2025. However, we now must consider that access to food, including fast food, has moved to the digital space. We’re seeing a shift from people going to their local fast-food outlet to order, to using technology on a variety of screens to order food. In a recent piece of work, we found that one business (a delivery only kitchen, also known as a dark kitchen) could appear as eight different restaurant options on a food delivery app. What looks like more options for consumers, means more visibility for businesses, but all the food will be coming from the same place. It’s clever marketing, but it also widens the gap between consumers and the food they’re eating.

So, is this a problem?

I think it is something that needs looking at, particularly as another aspect of this is that planning regulations as they currently stand, (like preventing takeaways from opening near schools) don’t really apply to these virtual kitchens. They can deliver further, run more cheaply, and bypass traditional oversight. It’s a whole new frontier (this digital food environment), and one we urgently need to understand better.

Why does this matter?

At the conference on Saturday, I had the chance to present some of our report findings and speak directly with people who were interested in making changes in this area and improving food access for all. Seeing their genuine interest, being able to answer questions and provide context, was incredibly rewarding. These are the moments that remind me why this work matters, not just in theory, but in practice.

We need to stop thinking of food environments as neutral. They’re shaped by policy, economics, advertising, culture, marketing and technology. Food environments have been shaped and moulded to encourage us to eat less healthy food. The good news is that they can be reshaped. That means investing in healthier options, regulating advertising and marketing, supporting community food initiatives, and making sure digital platforms don’t become the new food deserts and swamps.

Food is more than just fuel. It’s about dignity, culture, and care. And we all deserve a food environment that supports our health and potential no matter where we’re born. To borrow a line from the report’s foreword: “Food insecurity is not about poor choices – it is about a lack of choices.”

Everyone deserves access to good food. Whether you're a policymaker, a researcher, or someone who just wants better options in your community, there’s a role for you in reshaping the food environment.


🔗 Read the full report here - Hungry for Change: Tackling Obesity and Food Insecurity in the North of England

How can Local Authorities help shape healthier food environments?

Posted by Amelia Lake, Claire O'Malley and Helen Moore, Fuse researchers from Teesside University

This week I joined other health professionals across the country in signing an open letter from the Obesity Health Alliance (OHA) to the Prime Minister, giving our support for new policy reforms, allowing the planning system to better support the creation of healthy, active local communities and reduce health inequalities. The letter was issued alongside the OHA's Local Government Position Statement: “Empowering Communities to Create Healthier Local Food Environments”, which contains a list of recommendations and a supporting package of evidence.

In support of the OHA statement paper and on the back of the news that the government plans to ban junk food TV adverts before 9pm next year, here we highlight the need to make it easier for local authorities to control their local food environments.

Why we need to act now

It’s essential to create healthier environments that make it easier for people to access nutritious food and engage in physical activity. With the cost of living rising, more people are facing food insecurity, and obesity remains a major health issue. Local authorities have a crucial role in shaping healthier communities, but they face challenges due to funding cuts. Despite these difficulties, professionals across the country are working hard, but they need clearer national policies to support their efforts.

The role of National Planning Guidance

Planning guidance should clearly prioritise public health. While policies often focus on individual responsibility, local governments can work with their communities to promote healthier lifestyles. Our research has shown how local authorities can shape healthier environments by collaborating with various stakeholders, from community members to policy makers.

Everyone’s responsibility

Creating healthy food environments requires collaboration among many professionals within local governments. When it comes to handling appeals for fast-food outlets, our research found that good communication between teams is key to defending decisions. It’s also important to understand how fast-food outlets affect communities and health over the long term. To improve the process, professionals should be trained in accessing relevant data and records.

Using regulations to improve the food landscape

Local authorities can use planning regulations to limit the number of fast-food outlets and promote healthier options. For example, in North East town Gateshead, limiting new fast-food outlets near schools, in areas with too many, or in places with high childhood obesity rates has reduced fast-food outlet numbers by 17.5% in just four years. This shows how strategic planning can make a real difference in promoting healthier food choices.

Working with the planning inspectorate

The National Planning Policy Framework supports the idea of “healthy communities,” and local governments can reject fast-food applications if they threaten local health goals. However, these decisions are often appealed, and the Planning Inspectorate makes the final decision. Our Fuse research shows that having a Local Plan in place helps local authorities reject such applications, but even with additional planning documents, success isn’t guaranteed. It's important for new planning guidelines to support public health and ensure that the Planning Inspectorate works with local authorities to meet health priorities.

Regulating outdoor food advertising

We support extending regulations on unhealthy food and drink ads beyond TV and online to outdoor spaces like bus stops. After London banned junk food ads on public transport, local governments began reviewing their advertising policies with the help of Sustain: the alliance for better food and farming. Our research in the North East found that almost half of bus shelter ads were for food, and 35% of those were for unhealthy options. Many of these ads appeal to children, which is concerning. Although local governments face challenges due to complex contracts with advertisers - and research has explored the advertising of unhealthy commodities (e.g. tobacco, alcohol, less healthy foods and gambling) - more work is needed to reduce the impact of unhealthy advertising.

The changing food landscape

A recent study in North East England showed that after a new fast-food outlet opened, visits by 11- to 16-year-olds increased significantly within the first nine months. The young people said they were attracted by the taste, low prices, socialising and free Wi-Fi. While this isn’t covered by current fast-food restrictions, it shows the need to look at the entire food system and where outlets are located. Policies that prevent students from leaving school during lunch could also help reduce fast-food consumption.

Another growing trend is "dark kitchens," which only prepare food for delivery services like Deliveroo and Uber Eats. While these kitchens bring economic benefits, they raise public health concerns, especially in low-income areas. Local authorities need to stay informed about this trend and address the challenges it presents, such as the increase in unhealthy food options. Some professionals worry that current regulations for fast-food outlets don’t work well for dark kitchens, so there’s a need to adapt the system to ensure public health is protected.

Monitoring and evaluation

It's important for local authorities to regularly review the food environment and assess how well their policies are working. By collecting and analysing data, they can identify areas for improvement and make sure their strategies are effective and responsive to community needs.

Focusing on these areas will help local governments create environments that support healthy choices and improve the overall wellbeing of their communities. With thoughtful planning and strong community involvement, they can significantly impact public health. To do this effectively, local authorities need clear understanding of planning policies, support from senior management, adequate staff, and the right resources to handle cases efficiently.

Amelia Lake is Professor of Public Health Nutrition at Teesside University, Associate Director of Fuse, the Centre for Translational Research in Public Health, a dietitian and public health nutritionist.

Dr Claire O'Malley is a Research Associate at Teesside University and a Fuse Associate member

Helen Moore is an Associate Professor at Teesside University and a Fuse Associate member

Adapted with thanks to the Obesity Health Alliance

Photo by Erik Mclean on Unsplash

What impact did a blanket ban on new takeaways have in Gateshead?

Posted by Heather Brown, Professor of Health Inequalities at Lancaster University

At the end of a road I used to live on, there was a wonderful curry house that always smelled amazing every time you walked by, even if it was 8am in the morning and they were just starting to prepare the food for the day. Whilst I lived there, I ate more takeaway curries then I have in any of my other many houses which were not so conveniently located to delicious smelling food.

The food available to us in our environment is likely to influence what we eat and subsequently our health. The use of planning policy can be one way for both local and national government to help shape a healthy environment by limiting or restricting where certain types of food outlets can be located. About half of all local authorities in England have some type of planning guidelines to restrict new fast-food outlets. In England there are three main types of planning policy used to promote a healthy food environment:

1. restricting new fast-food outlets near schools.

2. restricting new fast-food outlets if the density of existing outlets has surpassed a certain threshold of all retail outlets (e.g. no more than 20% of all outlets can be fast-food).

3. restricting new fast-food outlets if childhood obesity rates are above a certain threshold (e.g. above 20% based upon data from National Childhood Measurement Programme for children aged 4-5 and 10-11).

What Gateshead did

Gateshead Council, like many local authorities in North East England, has childhood overweight and obesity rates that are higher than the national average. To try and reduce childhood overweight and obesity to less than 10% by 2025, Gateshead implemented all three types of planning guidance (a school exclusion zone, restricting new outlets by retail density, and restricting new outlets by childhood obesity rates). This is effectively a blanket ban on establishing a new premise for use as a fast-food outlet if the building was not already being used for that purpose. Buildings that were being used for fast-food could change ownership and continue to sell fast-food. This guidance was implemented in June 2015.

As part of an NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) North East and North Cumbria (NENC) funded project, we evaluated if Gateshead Council’s approach to planning had any significant impact on the density and proportion of fast-food outlets in Gateshead compared to other local authorities in the North East which did not have any type of planning guidance. Data on food outlets came from the Food Standards Agency Food Hygiene Rating Scheme Data. Our analysis covered 2012-2019 (we did not include data during the Covid-19 pandemic because planning guidance on what type of food outlets could provide takeaways was relaxed) - a subject covered earlier this week in the Fuse blog post How Covid-19 changed the takeaway landscape by Callum Bradford from Teesside University.

What we found

We found that compared to other local authorities in the North East, Gateshead’s planning policy reduced the density of fast-food outlets by around 13 per 100,000 people and the proportion of fast-food outlets by around 14%.

Next, we are going to look at if this change in the density and proportion of fast-food outlets has had any impact on childhood overweight and obesity between 2015 to 2019 and if this did anything to reduce inequalities in childhood weight.

If you would like to read our paper in Social Science and Medicine on the impact of Gateshead’s planning policy on the food environment you can find it here.

The NIHR ARC NENC has also summarised the research here: Putting the brakes on fast food – evaluating the use of planning policy to support public health.

Children’s exposure to junk food advertising: can the UK hold firm in the face of industry resistance?

Posted by Chris Baker, primary school teacher and distance learning tutor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

Growing up in a sweet shop was, as you can imagine, an absolute dream. Who wouldn’t want an entire store of confectionery under their own roof? It was the 1990s and I didn’t realise how lucky I was - living above a newsagent run by my parents. I’d get home from school, give a cursory wave to my mum behind the counter and immediately grab a chocolate bar, or an ice cream. It was the best.

Clearly, it wasn’t a recipe for good health. I was continuously surrounded by the bold and colourful logos, the marketing strategies and the special offers - all designed to hook me into habitual consumption. I paid little attention to the nutritional contents of the things I was snaffling (this was long before front-of-package labelling came along). My physical health (particularly my teeth) paid the price.

Cut to 2020 and I find myself thinking back to that era - before the internet, before screen-time, before social media. I am now a primary school teacher (with experience in public health) committed to promoting children’s health and well-being. I see that the relationship between children and junk food today has not changed all that much. There are still products high in fat, sugar and/or salt that kids crave. And what’s helping them to connect with these products? Digital marketing.

I teach ten and eleven-year-olds in an international school, so the demographic group I am most familiar with is not representative of the UK. However, I believe there are important similarities. Many children of this age now have smartphones and use apps intended for older audiences. Through these apps, they are exposed to new and sophisticated marketing strategies, unheard of by older generations.

Fortunately, there are plans to address this. Last year the UK government proposed a total ban of online marketing for foods high in fat, salt and sugar. Not a restriction, or a tightening of rules: a total ban. The preamble to this consultation suggests that completely reducing exposure to ‘endless prompts’ to eat offers the best way forward. The government’s response to the consultation, with an accompanying plan of action, is due to be published this Spring.

The scope and scale of this proposal are noteworthy. To date, no countries have successfully implemented a complete ban (there are strong restrictions in Chile and French-speaking Canada). Implementation of the government’s proposal would place the UK firmly at the front of the pack, delivering strong policy action with the potential for significant public health benefit.

Unsurprisingly, industries affected by such a ban have been critical of the proposals. In an open letter, a consortium of food companies and advertising agencies called for a rethink. Their arguments are predictable and are representative of a cross-industry playbook, seen repeatedly in recent years across several other industries interested in unhealthy commodities. They claim the proposal is disproportionate. They claim the evidence is lacking in detail. They distance themselves from the issue and play down their role. They demand a meeting with the government to discuss ‘alternative’ (but unspecified) approaches.

A total ban would be an entirely appropriate response in the face of an industry that has altered considerably in recent years. An earlier attempt to merely limit adverts for unhealthy foods in and around children’s tv programming (as well as other non-broadcast media) was found to expose children to no less advertising. Artificial separation of children’s media and adult media is a fallacy, and doesn’t reflect the reality of tv consumption nowadays.

More importantly, this proposal addresses the issue of children’s developing ability to distinguish an advert (and its provenance). Research suggests that over a third of 12-15 year olds are not aware of the financial arrangements behind promotional posts. Astroturfing - the artificially-created “buzz” around a product, designed to look authentic and spontaneous - can be difficult to identify, especially when delivered by a relatable vlogger or influencer, who may not have disclosed endorsement arrangements.

Most schools nowadays (mine included) encourage “digital citizenship”. As a teacher, I am responsible for helping my students navigate the risks and benefits of the internet. Often, I hear children referring to spurious news stories, and am reminded of the sophisticated ways even adults can be tricked into believing something.

Age restrictions for social media platforms, often put forward as a robust mechanism to shield children from inappropriate content, are weak and inconsistently controlled. Parental control settings on popular sites are not widely understood or implemented and the rapid changes in children’s media habits is named as a key driver in the government’s desire to strengthen legislation.

I believe that young people should have the freedom to use television and the internet for enjoyment and education. Exposure to insidious marketing that promotes and profits from the development of unhealthy eating habits should not be a price to pay for this. The UK government has proposed a bold course of action. In the face of strong opposition from industry, they should stay firm with their intentions; the health of future generations stands to benefit.

What old crisp packets dig up

Posted by Duika Burges Watson, Lecturer at Newcastle University based in the Institute of Health and Society

It appears that I’m an academic litter picker. I like to have hands on experience of topics I write and teach about. Inspired by the new module I’m leading on Global Health in the Anthropocene, and in particular a lecture on plastic pollution and health, I went litter picking. The Anthropocene is a new (ish) term to public health - considered to mark a turning point where “changes to the structure and function of the Earth's natural systems represent a growing threat to human health”[1].

I certainly found a good site for it. In less than 10 minutes from a 2 metre square area, I collected 69 crisp packets amongst the plastic bags and other items. I was intrigued, so I took them home and washed, sorted and ‘analysed’ them. Some use by dates were no longer visible, but of those I could read, 49 of 69 were Walkers crisp packets (parent company Pepsico) with use by dates from between 1996 to 2014. I went back the following weekend to the same site, dug a little deeper, and collected a further 89 crisp packets of which 51 were Walkers. The oldest packet was a Geordie company, Tudor (more on them later), with the use by date 10th January 1992.

Walkers bought out Newcastle
based company Tudor in 1987

There is a lot to be explored on crisp packets including use by dates, ingredients, health labelling and advertising.  Many even listed the time of production, often very late at night. For example, a Walkers smokey bacon use by 23rd June 2012 was made at 10.48pm. The irony of time was not lost on me in terms of the Anthopocene: we can know the exact minute the crisps were made (but not the date), they take about 2 minutes to eat and result in decades of rubbish.

Walkers began using foil bags in 1993 with plastic coatings. Yet people have been finding perfectly preserved plastic Walkers bags from the 80s in litter picking efforts. In September 2018, no doubt inspired by David Attenborough’s shocking profile of marine plastics in the series ‘Blue Planet’, the public started sending their bags back to Walkers. Royal Mail protested that people had to put them in envelopes first.

Walkers took up the challenge created by public protests. They have promised to find alternative solutions to the pesky bags by 2025, and until then have set up a recycling deal with company terracycle across the UK. There are collection points all over the UK.

But it wasn’t just the plastic pollution that concerned me. Crisp consumption is one of those things that people in public health worry about because these are classic examples of the high fat, salt, sugar foods where over-consumption can play havoc with our health. But we’ve been eating crisps for a long time, long before epidemics of obesity, and they have a cultural history to boot. A Brief History of Crisps (2012), suggests they were a British invention that turned up in the English edition of The Housekeeper’s Manual in 1829. The ‘modern’ industrial crisp really found its crunch after the first World War when the Smith’s company enrolled grocers and butchers across the UK to offer crudely made crisps (made in house with lots of fatty smells apparently). In the 1950s it all changed, technologies were imported from the USA and production scaled up. The first company to employ this technology was the previously mentioned Tudor. In 1967 they introduced the first ‘salt and vinegar’ chips to the UK market from their base in Sandyford, Newcastle. Tudor’s 1970s-80s commercials have a distinctly Geordie feel (note the ‘Dunstan Rocket’ in the first ad below – an iconic piece of architecture!). As a more recent immigrant to Newcastle, I had always wondered why every time I got served a sandwich it was with crisps – now I know – they have a proud Northern heritage. Walkers bought out the Tudor company in 1987.

In my ‘analysis’ of crisps, I have been wondering about their continued value as ‘food’. Is there a way we can still enjoy them as cultural icon without creating so much waste and without damaging our health? The one thing I’ve learned about food is that preferences change, tastes change – is the solution to learn to like something else? Last year the Walker’s crisp factory in Peterlee was bought by Heather Mills for her vegan food empire VBites. She is now looking to take over an abandoned factory in Northumberland. If successful, this would be the largest vegan food producing factory in the UK.

One of the sessions I’ll be leading in the Anthropocene module is on food – from source to senses. There is growing international concern about what kind of diet we ‘can’ eat if we want to protect and preserve the planet in the face of the Anthropocene and global climate change. The Eat Lancet Commission produced some rather controversial findings in January that offers their vision of what a ‘sustainable’ diet might involve[2]. Not unexpectedly, it involves cutting back on meat and eating more veg. Most agree that urgent change is required to farming systems and diet, but getting exactly the right mix of dietary components has created tensions. The Sustainable Food Trust, for example, points out that some land is not suitable for vegetable production and that grazing is the best option in some places. So, no simple solutions, and more debate to be had.

Another area of interest that will be covered in the course is new understanding of what it is that makes food ‘delicious’, how we ‘sense’ food, and what promotes ‘satiety’ or feelings of fullness. The ‘flavour’ of food involves a fusion of sensory inputs: smell, taste, colour, sound, trigeminal nerve stimulation[3], and our enjoyment of it is mediated by our culture, our history, our environment. Crisps are not difficult to figure out from a sensory perspective, like many other ‘fast’ foods, they are particularly heavy on salt, fat and sugar: what I would call ‘tongue’ foods. More complex ‘flavours’, particularly those involving smell, have been found to better trigger satiety – that’s why you can keep eating crisps without feeling full. But why do we like these ‘tongue foods’ so much? It’s complex; you’d have to join the course to explore this question.

So what about crisps then? Can we as public health researchers do more with ‘flavour’ to inspire different kinds of food choices? Could we encourage archaeological litter picking to engage the younger folk given so many foods are in single use plastics? People seem willing to give up plastic bags - could we encourage people to stop eating crisps until 2025 when they are in recyclable bags?  I don’t know the answer to these questions, but it will require more than litter picking to know. Food choice is academically interesting from a flavour point of view.  The crisp example throws up other challenges for public health - the Anthropocene creates interesting ethical questions about how we eat ‘beyond’ questions of the food itself. In March we will be running flavour masterclasses for the public where we get hands on to unpack the mystery of the humble crisp, why we like them, and what we should do about it! These questions are also being addressed by the Altered Eating Research Network (AERN) at Newcastle University, a new interdisciplinary collaboration that considers how our relationships with food are diverse, sometimes problematic, and how they intersect with the changing environments we live in and co-create. Keep an eye on the AERN website for details of flavour masterclasses and other upcoming events.

References:

1. Whitmee, S., Haines, A., Beyrer, C., Boltz, F., Capon, A.G., de Souza Dias, B.F., Ezeh, A., Frumkin, H., Gong, P., Head, P. and Horton, R., 2015. Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: report of The Rockefeller Foundation–Lancet Commission on planetary health. The Lancet, 386(10007), pp.1973-2028.
2. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems (Walter Willett et al.). https://www.thelancet.com/commissions/EAT
3. The trigeminal nerve is responsible for sensations in the face and for motor control of biting and chewing. It is how we experience the ‘spiciness’ of food, the ‘coolness’ of mint or the ‘fizziness’ of carbonated drinks. Spence, C., Smith, B. and Auvray, M., 2015. Confusing tastes and flavours. Perception and its modalities, pp.247-274.

When the Coca-Cola truck comes to your town

Guest post by Robin Ireland, Director of Research at Food Active and Beth Bradshaw, Project Officer at Food Active.

When Coca-Cola announced their 'Holidays Are Coming' truck tour (ironically coinciding with Sugar Awareness Week), our local media in the North West covered the story like it was the first sign of Christmas, the first cuckoo to be spotted in spring.

And in the run up to the big red shiny sugar-laden truck’s arrival to our towns and cities, from Bolton to Liverpool, Manchester to St Helens, the local newspapers will cover the story in page after page of advertorials, telling you where to get your picture taken posing with Coca-Cola's sugary products and even live blogs in some cases.

In previous years, at no time did the reporters consider that not everyone welcomed the truck in their neighbourhood. Many people are concerned that the truck was marketing Coke to children despite the company's protestations that they do not promote their products to the under twelves. Furthermore, in some locations in the North West the truck was allowed to promote their unhealthy drinks to children and families on Council owned landed. 

To demonstrate our concern, last year Food Active drafted a letter objecting to Coca-Cola's tour coming to the North West which was sent to the national and regional media. No less than 108 people signed in support including the current and past Presidents of the Faculty of Public Health, five Directors of Public Health, Professors, Doctors, educationalists and of course parents. If we are honest, we were shocked that the letter was almost entirely ignored. It would appear that Coca-Cola's commercial clout and public relations campaign counted more than the collective voice of those who are having to address the results of diets regularly fuelled by liquid sugar.

Just before Christmas 2016, Professor John Ashton and I (Robin) were in contact with the British Medical Journal concerning these issues and were invited to submit an editorial which was published in January [1]. In contrast to their previous experience the media attention was huge including coverage in over 60 regional and national newspapers and interviews on various channels including Sky News and Wales Today.

This year, the media attention and discussions around the Coca Cola Christmas Tour has continued. Before the tour was even announced, a news story hit the local press in the North West from Liverpool councillor Richard Kemp CBE (also Deputy Chair of the Community Wellbeing Board at the Local Government Association of England and Wales), who raised concerns about its arrival in Liverpool given the city is ‘in the grip of an obesity epidemic’ – although we know this is not an issue only in Liverpool – the whole country is in the grip on an obesity epidemic. Once the tour was announced, including six visits to the North West, we were pleased to see none were on council-owned land (in 2016 the truck visited Williamson Square in Liverpool which is owned by the Council)

Following this came a cascade of news stories from local and national newspapers and radio stations. This year, Food Active joined up with Sugar Smart to encourage Directors of Public Health, Council Leads and Clinical Commissioning Group Chairs across the country to sign an open letter to Coca-Cola opposing its arrival, given the health harms associated with the consumption of their products and calling for more responsible marketing during the festive period. The North West represented one quarter of the 29 areas, cities and towns who signed the letter. This advocacy may have helped to prompt a response from Public Health England and Public Health Wales – there is a sense that the argument against the Coca-Cola truck are now being taken seriously and media coverage of the 2017 Coca Cola Christmas Tour is not just about when and where you can get your photo taken - but also the health concerns. 

Coca-Cola says that it does not promote its products to the under twelves

Following excellent work by Public Health England, by national organisations including Action on Sugar, the Children's Food Campaign and many others, and of course by Food Active in the North West, we know that we must target sugary drinks as part of a strategy to address the tsunami of obesity, type 2 diabetes and dental disease we face in our poorest and most deprived communities. Moreover, as highlighted in a blog by Dr. Alison Tedstone, Director of Diet and Obesity at Public Health England, the truck will be visiting some of our poorest areas which are often disproportionately burdened with higher levels of obesity [2]. As such, a symbol of ill health should not be welcomed nor celebrated within our communities during a season of good will and cheer. 

However, this is not only about high sugar drinks. Protecting children from junk food marketing has been outlined as the number one priority in tackling obesity by the Obesity Health Alliance (a coalition of over 40 organisations committed to reducing obesity – of whom Food Active is a member). We must not mistake the Coca-Cola truck for anything but a very high profile marketing stunt. We do not allow products high in fat, sugar and salt to be advertised to children on children’s TV programmes, so why is the Coca-Cola truck welcomed into our communities year on year with such open arms? Speaking at the Socialist Health Alliance Public Health Conference, we called for junk food marketing controls to be extended to cover family attractions such as the Coca-Cola truck, as well as sports sponsorship and marketing communications in schools. By allowing the truck into our towns and cities, we are allowing Coca-Cola to exploit the festive period to market their products to the community – and to children in particular.

Our experience shows us that public health has to be persistent in ensuring our messages are heard in the current victim-blaming culture. There is little point in local authorities spending their ever restricted funds on promoting healthier eating and drinking if each Christmas we allow Coca-Cola and others to highjack our messages. There is certainly no excuse for local authorities at to allow this truck on their land and it is the responsibility of public health advocates to continue to make the case to Give Up Loving Pop in 2018. 

  

References:

1. Ireland, Robin, and John R. Ashton. "Happy corporate holidays from Coca-Cola." (2017): i6833. Available at: http://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.i6833
2. Tedstone, Alison. “An update on sugar reduction”. (2017). Available at: https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2017/11/14/sugar-reduction-an-update/

Photo © Oast House Archive (cc-by-sa/2.0)


All views expressed in a post are exclusively those of the author or authors.