Public Health Nutrition Editorial Highlight: ‘How food companies use social media to influence policy debates: a framework of Australian ultra-processed food industry Twitter data’

It’s well-known that large food companies lobby governments to advance their own interests. This lobbying includes opposing new laws designed to advance public health objectives, to maintain the grip of ultra-processed foods and drinks over the global food system.

However, a new study suggests this political influence is not confined to the corridors of legislative chambers.

As well as directly lobbying politicians, food companies use advertising to reshape how people (and voters) perceive their products. Social media is a particularly powerful advertising tool. Research shows us that food companies use social media platforms to directly reach consumers, shaping what brands we like and the food and drinks we want to eat. Social media also enables food corporations to artificially rebadge their products as ‘trendy’ or ‘socially-desirable’, in attempts to rebuild a positive public image.

Given the power of social media to shape how people perceive ultra-processed foods and beverages – and by extension, the conduct of those profiting from these foods – the study sought to understand if, and how, food companies might also use social media as a lobbying tool.

The study focused on Australia, which has persistently high rates of overweight and obesity, and a vociferous food industry lobby that has staunchly opposed policies to improve health, such as taxing sugar-sweetened beverages. Data were collected from the Twitter accounts of nine food companies and trade bodies. Four-years’ worth of tweets from these accounts were analysed (from 30 August 2016 to 04 April 2019, the most recent full term of Australia’s Federal Parliament). Industry actors were included if they had participated in a consultation of the country’s approach to obesity policy, and if they maintained an active Twitter account over the period.

The study found food companies actively used Twitter to influence food and health policy debates. This echoes efforts of the tobacco industry, who have used Twitter and Facebook to pump out opposition to public health policies.

Seven food industry lobbying strategies were identified. These included co-opting public health narratives, opposing regulatory responses to improve the food supply (specifically, to reduce consuming too many calories from energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods), and supporting voluntary, self- or co-regulatory alternatives.

Twitter was also directly used to engage policy processes and decision-makers, with corporations tweeting and tagging politicians, and publicising data tailored to specific electorates. Companies sought to shape perceptions and value judgements towards their conduct, and distort policy debates by casting doubt over the academic evidence – a proven tactic of the tobacco and alcohol industries.

Findings should serve as a stark warning to policy-makers: in the food industry’s endless efforts to reach our minds, mouths and stomachs, social media is their new lobbying weapon.

Access the full article here: How food companies use social media to influence policy debates: a framework of Australian ultra-processed food industry Twitter data by Daniel Hunt.
Click here to view all Editorial Highlights from Public Health Nutrition.