The arguments opposing the plan proposal were mostly regular across food stuff and promotion sector respondents, even though submissions various in emphasis. The vast the greater part claimed support for the overall aims of the London Foodstuff Method but opposed the marketing limits. Rapidly food shipping corporation Uber Eats, for case in point, supported the Mayor’s plan on minimizing weight problems “in general” , and the fast foodstuff firm McDonald’s claimed to realize the require for regulation “in essence”  each firms then moved on to oppose the proposed promotion restrictions. To justify opposition to the coverage, commercial actors sought to prolong the attainable costs, though concurrently underplaying the possible gains of the plan. Within these discursive tactics, they employed 7 key arguments (Fig 2). The language applied in responses largely reflected a framing of being overweight as a issue of unique choice, manifested, for illustration, in an emphasis on buyer option and a rhetorical shifting of responsibility absent from the providers that create and marketplace solutions. The discursive strategies we located ended up dependable with the PDM, bar one system, “unintended gains to undeserving groups” (Table 1), which we did not detect.
Increasing or generating probable costs of the plan.
Unanticipated charges to financial system and modern society. Many respondents predicted that the advertising and marketing restrictions would have unintended damaging penalties on the economic climate and broader culture. Emphasising the financial great importance of the food items [103–109] and promoting [110–115] industries, many respondents warned of unfavorable impacts of the proposed coverage on TfL income [109,110,113,116–118], London’s economy [110,113,114,119], or broader culture [111,113,114]. The speedy foodstuff company Kentucky Fried Rooster (KFC), for instance, cautioned that “[f]unds to help London’s transportation network would be lost” , although promoting sector association Outsmart  cautioned of broader charges to the general public great, saying that the limits would
undermine our ability to invest in focused steps to lessen childhood publicity to advertising and […] decrease our skill to dedicate current concentrations of funding to investments these kinds of as the set up of bus shelters and the provision of no cost WIFI.
They concluded that given “the intense impression a wholesale ban would have on our members, their customers and business flexibility of speech as well as the knock-on adverse results on the wider public curiosity, thorough thought of different solutions […] is required” .
Marketing organizations and associations highlighted prospective prices to on their own [110,111,113–116,119,120] and their foods marketplace clientele [116,118], in certain more compact companies . Outsmart , for occasion, claimed that
[t]in this article would be a significant influence on our members’ small business, as the afflicted out of doors promoting room could not just be resold for different goods. The possible reduction in earnings for the market would be £375m in excess of the next 5 a long time.
The speedy meals enterprise Subway, as the only food business respondent speaking about cost to its own company, claimed that, as Londoners are tougher to access by means of Tv and radio advertising, “the impression of the proposed alterations to out-of-home [advertising][…] would be substantial, specifically leading to a reduction in footfall and enterprise performance” . Respondents from rapid food delivery corporations also emphasised potential costs to smaller sized companies .
In the same way, the policy was opposed on grounds it would be tricky to put into action. Both equally quick foods shipping and delivery enterprise Just Take in and the organization association British Takeaway Marketing campaign warned that it would be complicated for more compact companies to set up which of their solutions were HFSS, although advertising actors urged additional session to improve the clarity of the coverage [114,116,117,122]. Invoking parallel developments, the promotion restrictions ended up portrayed as incorporating to regulatory uncertainty in the context of Brexit , national being overweight plan [110,113,122], a critique by the Committee of Promotion Practice on their non-broadcast marketing principles [105,110,116,122], and the pending revision of the Nutrient Profiling Design [106,110,111,116,124], with some claiming the impression of the coverage could not be assessed without the new design [105,107,113,122,125].
Many respondents argued that a ban on HFSS promoting should be rejected simply because it would be disproportionate [105,107,110,111,116–118,122,124,125]. In spite of evidence on the scale of the trouble plainly presented in the session doc , the Food stuff and Consume Federation, for instance, argued that it “would for the initial time in the United kingdom build a ban on food products and solutions becoming advertised no matter of the proportion of small children and older people looking at the adverts, and would impose stricter rules on meals when compared to alcohol” . Similarly, and echoing issues voiced by promoting companies, the self-regulatory human body ASA  argued that
most TFL attributes at most instances of day have an solely or almost entirely grownup viewers. Banning HFSS ads on these homes, at these instances would not do just about anything to cut down kid exposure to HFSS ads and, hence, an outright ban would look to be completely disproportionate to the mentioned goal.
However distinct in their use of the legal principle of proportionality, these arguments effectively link a range of other statements talked about in this part. In summary, they convey the image that restricting HFSS promoting would consequence in expenses to the economic climate and culture, which would not be justified by any possible benefits, as nicely as complicated the policy’s suitability—compared to less intrusive voluntary measures—and requirement. Proportionality arguments have been also related to denials of the evidence foundation fundamental the plan (talked over down below). The British Smooth Consume Association, for instance, claimed that “academic exploration has continually unsuccessful to set up a direct url between food stuff and drink advertising and marketing and childhood obesity, thus we are not confident by the proportionality of further more restrictions” .
Unintended fees to general public health and fitness. Respondents claimed that the advertising and marketing limits may well have an unintended destructive effect on community wellness by limiting the visibility of “healthier” possibilities [103–105,107,110,111,116,122–125,127,128], or even prompting a shift in direction of liquor advertising , the latter contradicting Outsmart’s before claim that it would not be probable to resell marketing area. McDonald’s  warned that the policy risked “inadvertently increasing the obesogenic environment” since
only regulating internet marketing would have the unintended consequence of minimizing the visibility of choice and limiting the information clients will need to make the appropriate options for them selves and their households. […] restricting marketing in the erroneous way will remove a key aggressive lever and pressure business enterprise to take into account modifications to the price tag and good quality of their foodstuff as the only remaining differentiators in the current market.
Similarly, a amount of respondents appealed for their possess, “healthier” items these as fruit drinks , reformulated gentle drinks , and dairy products  to be excluded from the advertising restrictions so as not to discourage their intake or ongoing reformulation efforts, particularly in light of considerations that far more of these products and solutions would be classed as HFSS less than the draft up-to-date 2018 Nutrient Profiling Model . As of April 2021, the result of the 2018 session on the current Model is pending.
That contains or denying potential benefits to community well being.
Professional actors downplayed the prospective advantages of the promoting constraints, arguing they are unlikely to operate, were being not supported by evidence, and not wanted. This undermining of probable plan benefits was rooted in arguments that childhood being overweight is far too elaborate to be appropriately resolved by advertising limitations and instead required a “holistic approach” comprising a sturdy part for sector and nonstatutory interventions [109,113,122,123,125]. Ironically, the constrained character of the plan proposal, concentrated on out-of-home advertising, was used as an argument from regulatory motion alternatively than in favour of a lot more detailed steps. For illustration, some promotion field respondents—notably all in the out of doors advertising and marketing business—warned that the plan would merely change promoting into other, less regulated spaces, such as on the internet [112–115,117,130].
Central to difficulties to the policy’s usefulness had been conversations of evidence, invoked the two as a rhetorical idea and by referring to precise resources. Despite persuasive evidence that advertising influences children’s diet programs [15,131–133], food stuff and advertising and marketing sector actors typically claimed that empirical evidence in support of the promoting restrictions was absent or insufficient [105,107,110,113,116,120,125]. A variety of respondents explicitly questioned the established website link among marketing and ingesting behaviour [105,110]: The ASA, for instance, argued that “evidence consistently shows that advertising has no a lot more than a modest impact on children’s meals choices,” citing no proof to assist that precise assert or anyplace in their submission .
Equally, respondents portrayed the proposed advertising and marketing restrictions as redundant regardless of persistently higher weight problems rates [2,56], arguing that existing regulation, co-regulation, or self-regulation was sufficient or that the challenge could be tackled via nonstatutory actions. Several ultraprocessed food stuff industry actors underscored that they have dependable promoting steps in position and claimed that they do not advertise to young children [103–105,108,109,123,134]. KFC, for occasion, mentioned that they “do not and hardly ever will target little ones in [their] advertising, no make a difference the solution or media channel” . The Committees of Marketing Practice’s CAP and BCAP Codes ended up commonly invoked as adequate [105,107,110,111,114,116,120,122–125], with the Foodstuff and Consume Federation, for illustration, arguing that “[t]he United kingdom has one particular of the strictest promotion regulatory regimes in the world” . In addition to highlighting ongoing voluntary attempts, quite a few respondents endorsed further nonstatutory steps as a much more desirable substitute, these types of as increasing present self-regulatory tactics [103,108,109,111,113,114,117,118,123,134] or harnessing advertising to boost healthy behaviour [104,109,111–114,117,119,123,130]. McDonald’s, for instance, manufactured an attractiveness “to examine how we can use our marketing skill to assistance the Mayor obtain his objectives” . Correspondingly, a number of advertising and marketing business respondents proposed a meals equivalent to Drinkaware and GambleAware notices on alcohol and gambling adverts [113,114,117,118], linking to the current TreatWise initiative founded by snack producer Mondelez Worldwide [135,136]. In a identical vein, working with technological innovation to spatially and temporally prohibit HFSS advertising was a popular different [103,106,108,109,111,113,114,117,118,122,134]. Domino’s, for illustration, discussed that “[t]his may well mean switching the time of working day at which our adverts are demonstrated to prevent them staying witnessed by young children, for example, stopping them in late afternoon when young children are on their way house from school” .
Respondents also criticised the efficiency and appropriateness of the specialized model fundamental the proposed coverage: the British Gentle Consume Affiliation, for illustration, mentioned that the Nutrient Profiling Model defines “products as HFSS, not as ‘unhealthy’ and as a result we do not believe that the NPM [Nutrient Profiling Model] is the acceptable system for deciding regardless of whether food and consume merchandise are ‘unhealthy’” .