Reducing children’s exposure to unhealthy food marketing is crucial to combat childhood obesity. We aimed to estimate the reduction of children’s exposure to food marketing under different policy scenarios and assess exposure differences by socio-economic status.

Data on children’s exposure to unhealthy food marketing were compiled from a previous cross-sectional study in which children (n 168) wore wearable cameras and Global Positioning System (GPS) units for 4 consecutive days. For each exposure, we identified the setting, the marketing medium and food/beverage product category. We analysed the percentage reduction in food marketing exposure for ten policy scenarios and by socio-economic deprivation: (1) no product packaging, (2) no merchandise marketing, (3) no sugary drink marketing, (4) no confectionary marketing in schools, (5) no sugary drink marketing in schools, (6) no marketing in public spaces, (7) no marketing within 400 m of schools, (8) no marketing within 400 m of recreation venues, (9) no marketing within 400 m of bus stops and (10) no marketing within 400 m of major roads.

Wellington region of New Zealand.

168 children aged 11–14 years.

Exposure to food marketing varied by setting, marketing medium and product category. Among the ten policy scenarios, the largest reductions were for plain packaging (60·3 %), no sugary drink marketing (28·8 %) and no marketing in public spaces (22·2 %). There were no differences by socio-economic deprivation.

The results suggest that plain packaging would result in the greatest decrease in children’s exposure to food marketing. However, given that children are regularly exposed to unhealthy food marketing in multiple settings through a range of marketing mediums, comprehensive bans are needed to protect children’s health.

To evaluate the impact of changes in import tariffs on sweetened beverages.

Interrupted time series analysis was used to examine sweetened beverage tariff increases of 40–60 % in 2008 and to 75 % in 2012, and an approximately 11 % decrease in 2014 when an excise tax replaced the tariff. Post-tax trends were compared with a counterfactual modelled on the pre-tax trend for: quarterly price of an indicator beverage, monthly beverage import volumes (both 2001–2017) and quarterly sales volumes (2012–2017). In a controlled analysis, taxed beverage imports were compared with a sugary snacks control.

Cook Islands.

NA.

In the first year, after the 2008 tariff increase the price of the selected indicator soft drink increased by 7·3 % (95 % CI 6·3 %, 8·3 %) but after the 2012 tariff increase it decreased by 13·9 % (95 % CI –14·9 %, –12·8 %). At the same time, the import volumes of taxed beverages decreased by 13·2 % (95 % CI –38·1 %, 17·8 %) and 2·9 % (95 % CI –41·6 %, 72·5 %), respectively, and decreased by 24·8 % (95 % CI –36·9, –9·8) and 10·2 % (95 % CI –37·1, 37·5) in the controlled analysis. After the 2014 tax decrease, the price of the indicator soft drink decreased by 23·6 % (95 % CI –26·0 %, –21·1 %), sweetened beverage imports increased by 4·5 % (95 % CI –39·5 %, 156·0 %) and sales of full-sugar soft drinks increased by 31 % (95 % CI –21 %, 243 %).

The increased import tariffs on sweetened beverages appeared to be effective for reducing import volumes, but this was partly reversed by the reduced tax/tariff in 2014.

In the context of the global obesity epidemic, national nutrition policies have come under scrutiny. The present paper examines whose interests – industry or public health – are served by these policies and why.

Using an exemplary case study of submissions to an inquiry into obesity, the research compared the positions of industry and public health groups with that taken by government. We assessed whether the interests were given equal consideration (a pluralist model of influence) or whether the interests of one group were favoured over the other (a neo-pluralist model).

2006 New Zealand Inquiry into Obesity.

Food and advertising industry and public health submitters.

The Government's position was largely aligned with industry interests in three of four policy domains: the national obesity strategy; food industry policy; and advertising and marketing policies. The exception to this was nutrition policy in schools, where the Government's position was aligned with public health interests. These findings support the neo-pluralist model of interest group influence.

The dominance of the food industry in national nutrition policy needs to be addressed. It is in the interests of the public, industry and the state that government regulates the food and advertising industries and limits the involvement of industry in policy making. Failure to do so will be costly for individuals, in terms of poor health and earlier death, costly to governments in terms of the associated health costs, and costly to both the government and industry due to losses in human productivity.

In New Zealand the burden of nutrition-related disease is greatest among Māori, Pacific and low-income peoples. Nutrition labels have the potential to promote healthy food choices and eating behaviours. To date, there has been a noticeable lack of research among indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities and low-income populations regarding their perceptions, use and understanding of nutrition labels. Our aim was to evaluate perceptions of New Zealand nutrition labels by Māori, Pacific and low-income peoples and to explore improvements or alternatives to current labelling systems.

Māori, Samoan and Tongan researchers recruited participants who were regular food shoppers. Six focus groups were conducted which involved 158 people in total: one Māori group, one Samoan, one Tongan, and three low-income groups.

Māori, Pacific and low-income New Zealanders rarely use nutrition labels to assist them with their food purchases for a number of reasons, including lack of time to read labels, lack of understanding, shopping habits and relative absence of simple nutrition labels on the low-cost foods they purchase.

Current New Zealand nutrition labels are not meeting the needs of those who need them most. Possible improvements include targeted social marketing and education campaigns, increasing the number of low-cost foods with voluntary nutrition labels, a reduction in the price of ‘healthy’ food, and consideration of an alternative mandatory nutrition labelling system that uses simple imagery like traffic lights.