HFSS 立法是否带来了更健康的食品和饮料销售?DIO 食品协议--利用超市销售数据进行政策评估

V. Jenneson, F.L. Pontin, Emily Ennis, Alison Fildes, Michelle A. Morris
{"title":"HFSS 立法是否带来了更健康的食品和饮料销售?DIO 食品协议--利用超市销售数据进行政策评估","authors":"V. Jenneson, F.L. Pontin, Emily Ennis, Alison Fildes, Michelle A. Morris","doi":"10.23889/ijpds.v9i4.2426","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction & BackgroundOn 1 October 2022, new legislation came into force for England restricting the placement of some food and drink products high in fat, sugar and salt (HFSS). Products such as confectionery can no longer be placed at store entrances, ends of aisles, or at the checkout in large retail stores and their online equivalents. \nObjectives & ApproachOur protocol sets out how daily sales and product data from multiple retailers will be used to evaluate the legislation’s success in relation to HFSS sales, product portfolios and equitability. Food and drink sales data from 18 months pre- and 12 months post-introduction of the policy will be gained from multiple large UK retailers. Online sales are excluded. \nEligible stores were defined as supermarkets from our partner retailer brands with store areas larger than 280 square metres. From the eligible store sample, we selected 160 intervention stores (England) and 50 control stores (Scotland and Wales) from each partner retailer. \nThe sample provides equal store numbers across each decile of the Priority Places for Food Index (PPFI) from each retailer (n = 16), capturing food insecurity risk, and maximum coverage of store (store size) and store area characteristics (urban/rural status). \nControlled interrupted time-series will be used to estimate effects of the policy, with stores from Scotland and Wales (where the legislation has not been implemented) acting as controls. \nRelevance to Digital FootprintsThis protocol sets out the first multiple-retailer independent analysis of the HFSS legislation, demonstrating how business digital footprints data can contribute to policy evaluation. \nResultsOutcomes will include sales of HFSS products and changes to available product portfolios. We will explore whether legislation impacts were equitable across stores in areas with different demographic characteristics, according to the English Indices of Multiple Deprivation and the PPFI. \nFindings at the retailer and cross-retailer levels will inform sector-level insights regarding impact and potential next steps for policy and business practice. \nConclusions & ImplicationsOur conclusions will contribute to policy-relevant discussions around the effectiveness of HFSS government policy, with potential to influence future decision-making across the UK Devolved Nations.","PeriodicalId":507952,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Population Data Science","volume":" 1253","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Has HFSS legislation led to healthier food and beverage sales? The DIO-Food protocol – using supermarket sales data for policy evaluation\",\"authors\":\"V. Jenneson, F.L. Pontin, Emily Ennis, Alison Fildes, Michelle A. Morris\",\"doi\":\"10.23889/ijpds.v9i4.2426\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction & BackgroundOn 1 October 2022, new legislation came into force for England restricting the placement of some food and drink products high in fat, sugar and salt (HFSS). Products such as confectionery can no longer be placed at store entrances, ends of aisles, or at the checkout in large retail stores and their online equivalents. \\nObjectives & ApproachOur protocol sets out how daily sales and product data from multiple retailers will be used to evaluate the legislation’s success in relation to HFSS sales, product portfolios and equitability. Food and drink sales data from 18 months pre- and 12 months post-introduction of the policy will be gained from multiple large UK retailers. Online sales are excluded. \\nEligible stores were defined as supermarkets from our partner retailer brands with store areas larger than 280 square metres. From the eligible store sample, we selected 160 intervention stores (England) and 50 control stores (Scotland and Wales) from each partner retailer. \\nThe sample provides equal store numbers across each decile of the Priority Places for Food Index (PPFI) from each retailer (n = 16), capturing food insecurity risk, and maximum coverage of store (store size) and store area characteristics (urban/rural status). \\nControlled interrupted time-series will be used to estimate effects of the policy, with stores from Scotland and Wales (where the legislation has not been implemented) acting as controls. \\nRelevance to Digital FootprintsThis protocol sets out the first multiple-retailer independent analysis of the HFSS legislation, demonstrating how business digital footprints data can contribute to policy evaluation. \\nResultsOutcomes will include sales of HFSS products and changes to available product portfolios. We will explore whether legislation impacts were equitable across stores in areas with different demographic characteristics, according to the English Indices of Multiple Deprivation and the PPFI. \\nFindings at the retailer and cross-retailer levels will inform sector-level insights regarding impact and potential next steps for policy and business practice. \\nConclusions & ImplicationsOur conclusions will contribute to policy-relevant discussions around the effectiveness of HFSS government policy, with potential to influence future decision-making across the UK Devolved Nations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":507952,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Population Data Science\",\"volume\":\" 1253\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Population Data Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23889/ijpds.v9i4.2426\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Population Data Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23889/ijpds.v9i4.2426","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介与背景2022 年 10 月 1 日,英格兰开始实施新法规,限制某些高脂肪、高糖和高盐(HFSS)食品和饮料的摆放。糖果等产品不能再摆放在商店入口处、过道尽头或大型零售商店及其在线商店的收银台处。目标和方法我们的规程规定了如何使用来自多家零售商的日常销售和产品数据来评估该立法在高氟酸盐销售、产品组合和公平性方面是否成功。我们将从英国多家大型零售商处获得该政策实施前 18 个月和实施后 12 个月的食品和饮料销售数据。不包括在线销售。符合条件的商店是指我们的合作零售商品牌中商店面积大于 280 平方米的超市。从符合条件的商店样本中,我们从每个合作零售商中选出 160 家干预商店(英格兰)和 50 家对照商店(苏格兰和威尔士)。每个零售商的食品优先场所指数(PPFI)的每个十分位数(n = 16)的店铺数量相等,从而捕捉到了食品不安全风险,并最大限度地覆盖了店铺(店铺面积)和店铺区域特征(城市/农村状况)。受控中断时间序列将用于估算政策效果,苏格兰和威尔士(尚未实施该立法)的商店将作为对照。与数字足迹的相关性本协议首次对高频袜立法进行了多零售商独立分析,展示了商业数字足迹数据如何有助于政策评估。结果结果将包括高频安全系统产品的销售额和现有产品组合的变化。我们将根据英国多重贫困指数(English Indices of Multiple Deprivation)和PPFI,探讨立法对不同人口特征地区的商店的影响是否公平。零售商和跨零售商层面的研究结果将为行业层面的影响洞察以及下一步可能的政策和商业实践提供信息。结论与影响我们的结论将有助于围绕高频安全系统政府政策的有效性展开与政策相关的讨论,并有可能影响英国下放国家的未来决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Has HFSS legislation led to healthier food and beverage sales? The DIO-Food protocol – using supermarket sales data for policy evaluation
Introduction & BackgroundOn 1 October 2022, new legislation came into force for England restricting the placement of some food and drink products high in fat, sugar and salt (HFSS). Products such as confectionery can no longer be placed at store entrances, ends of aisles, or at the checkout in large retail stores and their online equivalents. Objectives & ApproachOur protocol sets out how daily sales and product data from multiple retailers will be used to evaluate the legislation’s success in relation to HFSS sales, product portfolios and equitability. Food and drink sales data from 18 months pre- and 12 months post-introduction of the policy will be gained from multiple large UK retailers. Online sales are excluded. Eligible stores were defined as supermarkets from our partner retailer brands with store areas larger than 280 square metres. From the eligible store sample, we selected 160 intervention stores (England) and 50 control stores (Scotland and Wales) from each partner retailer. The sample provides equal store numbers across each decile of the Priority Places for Food Index (PPFI) from each retailer (n = 16), capturing food insecurity risk, and maximum coverage of store (store size) and store area characteristics (urban/rural status). Controlled interrupted time-series will be used to estimate effects of the policy, with stores from Scotland and Wales (where the legislation has not been implemented) acting as controls. Relevance to Digital FootprintsThis protocol sets out the first multiple-retailer independent analysis of the HFSS legislation, demonstrating how business digital footprints data can contribute to policy evaluation. ResultsOutcomes will include sales of HFSS products and changes to available product portfolios. We will explore whether legislation impacts were equitable across stores in areas with different demographic characteristics, according to the English Indices of Multiple Deprivation and the PPFI. Findings at the retailer and cross-retailer levels will inform sector-level insights regarding impact and potential next steps for policy and business practice. Conclusions & ImplicationsOur conclusions will contribute to policy-relevant discussions around the effectiveness of HFSS government policy, with potential to influence future decision-making across the UK Devolved Nations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信