Evidence mapPaperPMID 41408275Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2025

The Food (Promotion and Placement) regulations are beginning to shift the onus for healthier choices from individuals to businesses: in-depth perspectives from health experts.

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

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Preeti DhuriaMedical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Tremona Road, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK. pd@mrc.soton.ac.uk.
Sarah MuirMedical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Tremona Road, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK.
Amelia BirdMedical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Tremona Road, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK.
Wendy LawrencePrimary Care, Population Science and Medical Education, Faulty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Highfield Campus, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK.
Emma RoeSchool of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Southampton, Highfield Campus, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK.
Janis BairdMedical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Tremona Road, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK.
Christina VogelMedical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Tremona Road, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK.

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research 17/44/46
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRetail food environments in the UK use intense marketing strategies to promote the purchase and consumption of less-healthy foods that are associated with ill-health. To help address this issue, the Food (Promotion and Placement) regulations were introduced in England from October 2022, banning the placement of foods high in fat, salt, or sugar (HFSS) at checkouts, aisle-ends, and entrances in qualifying retail settings. Ahead of their introduction, this study examined health experts' (i) perspectives on the likely effectiveness of these regulations and (ii) recommendations to enhance their impact.

methodsThis cross-sectional qualitative study aimed to recruit health experts to partake in focus groups/semi-structured interviews via MS Teams. Data were collected, coded, and analysed by three researchers with input from senior colleagues, using Braun and Clarke's reflexive thematic analysis method.

resultsData were collected between October 2021 and March 2022 from 28 health experts, including public health and food policy academics (n = 9) and experts from civil society organisations (n = 19). Health experts perceived regulations as a major policy innovation which recognised businesses' role in driving poor dietary choices that contribute to obesity. They also raised concerns about the outdated nutrient profiling model, limited regulatory scope, and weak enforcement. They were apprehensive about the potential for disproportionate impacts on smaller businesses and certain consumer groups. To enhance the impact of the regulations, they recommended funding independent and diverse evaluations, mandating the reporting of business sales data, and strengthening enforcement efforts. To improve the regulations' effectiveness, they also suggested establishing mechanisms to refine regulatory guidance and introducing complementary policies within the food system.

conclusionsHealth experts believed that the regulations represent a significant step to curb the promotion of unhealthy foods in retail environments but will be insufficient on their own to improve population diet. To maximise their impact, a systems approach is essential, addressing shortcomings of the regulations, supporting smaller retailers in adopting health initiatives, and implementing thorough monitoring and evaluation. The regulations must form part of a comprehensive set of policies across various sectors, including manufacturing and retail, to accelerate food system transformation and address the dietary drivers of ill-health.

Indexed as

CommerceHealth PromotionNutrition PolicyChoice BehaviorCross-Sectional StudiesEnglandFocus GroupsHumansQualitative ResearchFood environmentHealth expertsHFSSLess-healthy foods and drinkPromotion and placementPublic health policyQualitative analysis

Identifiers

PMID41408275
PMCPMC12709698

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.