The rise and fall of the Queensland Government policy to restrict unhealthy food and alcohol advertising on publicly owned assets

Abstract

ObjectiveTo examine the strategies employed by opponents of the Queensland Government’s policy to restrict unhealthy food and alcohol advertising on publicly owned assets and identify which of the opposing arguments appeared to influence the policy outcomes. MethodsRetrospective qualitative policy analysis case study informed by the Policy Dystopia Model of corporate political activity. We used qualitative content analysis to examine data from stakeholder submissions to the ‘Advertising content on Queensland Government advertising spaces’ policies (v1 and 2), and Minister for Health’s diaries. ResultsStakeholders from the food, beverage, alcohol and advertising industries and several not-for-profit health organisations opposed the policy. Industry actors used discursive strategies, coalition management (including co-option of not-for-profit health organisations), information management and direct involvement with policy makers to communicate their arguments against the policy. The second version of the policy was weaker regarding scope and key policy provisions, reflecting the arguments of industry actors. ConclusionsInfluence from industries with a clear conflict of interest should be minimised throughout policy development to ensure public health is prioritised over corporate gain. Implications for public healthOur findings can support other jurisdictions to prepare for industry opposition when designing policies to restrict unhealthy food and alcohol marketing.