Abstract
Background
In 2021, Bristol became the first city outside London to introduce a policy to restrict advertisements of high fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) products and other unhealthy commodities (alcohol, gambling and payday loans) on council sites. This research evaluates the impact of this advertising restriction policy (ARP) on exposure to adverts of unhealthy commodities, consumption/use of these products, and household purchasing of HFSS products.
Methods
We conducted a controlled repeated cross-sectional study of residents of Bristol (intervention) and South Gloucestershire (comparator) before (n=2543) and after (n=2043) the ARP. Self-reported exposure and consumption/use of these products was collected. The intervention effect was analysed using a controlled before-after design. In addition, we analysed 2020–23 timeseries of purchased foods and drinks by 1012 households from Bristol (intervention; n=217) and three control areas (Cardiff, Gloucestershire, and Sheffield; n=795) using Kantar's Worldpanel Take Home data. A controlled interrupted time series design estimated weekly household purchases of energy and nutrients from HFSS products compared to the counterfactual. Ethical approval for this study was granted by the University of Bristol Faculty of Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee (FREC).
Findings
Preliminary results do not indicate significant changes in exposure or consumption/use of unhealthy commodities post-intervention. However, overall direction of results suggested a potential reduction; ie, a –22·1 (95% CI –47·3, 16·2) percentage point decrease in reported consumption of fast-food in intervention versus comparator. Preliminary results also did not indicate significant differences in weekly energy purchased from HFSS products compared to counterfactuals (+915·1 kcal, 95% CI –31·7, 1861·9), nor for purchases of fat (+39·4 g, 95% CI –19·6, 98·3), saturated fat (+23·5 g, 95% CI –2·9, 49·8), sugar (+53·2 g, 95% CI –14·4, 120·8) or salt (–0·4 g, 95% CI –4·1, 3·2) from HFSS products.
Interpretation
These results did not indicate a clear impact of Bristol's ARP on consumption of unhealthy commodities or exposure to their adverts, or purchasing of HFSS products. Bristol City Council only own ˜30% of the outdoor advertising space in Bristol which may explain the limited impact.
In 2021, Bristol became the first city outside London to introduce a policy to restrict advertisements of high fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) products and other unhealthy commodities (alcohol, gambling and payday loans) on council sites. This research evaluates the impact of this advertising restriction policy (ARP) on exposure to adverts of unhealthy commodities, consumption/use of these products, and household purchasing of HFSS products.
Methods
We conducted a controlled repeated cross-sectional study of residents of Bristol (intervention) and South Gloucestershire (comparator) before (n=2543) and after (n=2043) the ARP. Self-reported exposure and consumption/use of these products was collected. The intervention effect was analysed using a controlled before-after design. In addition, we analysed 2020–23 timeseries of purchased foods and drinks by 1012 households from Bristol (intervention; n=217) and three control areas (Cardiff, Gloucestershire, and Sheffield; n=795) using Kantar's Worldpanel Take Home data. A controlled interrupted time series design estimated weekly household purchases of energy and nutrients from HFSS products compared to the counterfactual. Ethical approval for this study was granted by the University of Bristol Faculty of Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee (FREC).
Findings
Preliminary results do not indicate significant changes in exposure or consumption/use of unhealthy commodities post-intervention. However, overall direction of results suggested a potential reduction; ie, a –22·1 (95% CI –47·3, 16·2) percentage point decrease in reported consumption of fast-food in intervention versus comparator. Preliminary results also did not indicate significant differences in weekly energy purchased from HFSS products compared to counterfactuals (+915·1 kcal, 95% CI –31·7, 1861·9), nor for purchases of fat (+39·4 g, 95% CI –19·6, 98·3), saturated fat (+23·5 g, 95% CI –2·9, 49·8), sugar (+53·2 g, 95% CI –14·4, 120·8) or salt (–0·4 g, 95% CI –4·1, 3·2) from HFSS products.
Interpretation
These results did not indicate a clear impact of Bristol's ARP on consumption of unhealthy commodities or exposure to their adverts, or purchasing of HFSS products. Bristol City Council only own ˜30% of the outdoor advertising space in Bristol which may explain the limited impact.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | S83 |
| Number of pages | 1 |
| Journal | The Lancet Public Health |
| Volume | 404 |
| Issue number | S83 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 29 Nov 2024 |
Research Groups and Themes
- HEHP@Bristol