Framing of ultra-processed foods in UK news media (2022–2023) and associations with quoted actors’ interests: a mixed-methods study
Rattachement africain : gb, us, gr. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Increasing attention on “ultra-processed” foods (UPFs) and their health effects has sparked policy debate. News media influences public perceptions yet understanding of UPF framing and industry influence remains limited. This study analysed UPF framing in UK news media and trade press, exploring interests of quoted individuals and organisations. We systematically searched UK media for UPF articles in 2022–23, identifying 188 articles for mixed-methods content analysis. Articles were examined for their position towards classifying food by processing-level (accepted/contested/mixed). Framing Theory guided identification of UPF frames describing problem definitions, causes, and solutions. Actors’ interests were classified using academic journal guidelines. Half the articles (52%) accepted the UPF concept, 19% contested it, and 29% were mixed. Five frames were identified. The ‘Social Justice’, ‘Lifestyle Drift’, and ‘Science Report’ frames accepted the UPF concept, with the ‘Social Justice’ frame positioning UPF consumption as a structural public health problem requiring policy action such as taxes or front-of-package labelling. The ‘UPF Critique’ and ‘Market Justice’ frames contested the scientific basis of the UPF concept, proposing nutrient-based approaches instead. Among 116 named actors, 33% had UPF industry interests, with academics comprising 45% and industry spokespeople 11%. Actors with UPF industry interests were more commonly cited in contesting frames (e.g. ‘Market Justice’: 73%) than accepting frames (e.g. ‘Social Justice’: 10%). These findings highlight that industry influence on UPF media discourse is often obscured behind academic voices. Greater transparency around actor interests is urgently needed to ensure emerging UPF policies are shaped by independent evidence.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Framing of ultra-processed foods in UK news media (2022–2023) and associations with quoted actors’ interests: a mixed-methods study
- Date Crossref
- 01/09/2026
- Éditeur
- Elsevier BV
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Où se fait cette recherche
-
Public Health England pays non établi dans la noticeOrganisme public
-
Imperial College London Public Contributor pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Duke University World Food Policy Center pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
University of Cambridge Institute of Metabolic Science (IMS) Epidemiology pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Wellcome/MRC Institute of Metabolic Science pays non établi dans la noticeStructure de recherche
-
MRC Epidemiology Unit pays non établi dans la noticeStructure de recherche
-
Durham University Department of Psychology pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Department of Public Health pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
University of Liverpool Department of Psychology pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
National School of Public Health Public Health Policy Evaluation Unit pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
Public Health England, Public Contributor — Imperial College London et World Food Policy Center — Duke University, avec 7 autres affiliations.
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.