RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To describe students protected by laws and exposed to soft drinks sales and assess whether forbidding laws are associated with lower availability of these beverages. METHODS: We identified laws forbidding non-government administered cafeterias or sales of soft drinks in schools in the 27 Brazilian state capitals. Data on soft drinks sales were obtained from Pesquisa Nacional de Saúde do Escolar 2015 (PeNSE - National Survey of School Health 2015), for a representative sample of 9th graders from public and private schools. Students were attributed with the status of their school regarding the law and sale of soft drinks. Co-variables were school status (public or private), school size, geographic regions, mother's educational level, score of goods and services. We performed multivariate analyses using Poisson regression. RESULTS: The total of 23 laws forbidding sales of soft drinks covered 63.0% of capitals, comprising 56.9% of students. Law coverage was higher among students from more developed regions (67.6%) and in public schools (60.6%), compared with those from less developed regions (38.0%) and private schools (45.8%). Soft drinks were available for 33.9% of students. Students attending public schools in less developed regions had the lowest availability of soft drinks, regardless of law coverage (14.8%; 12.0%); while students attending private schools in these regions had a high availability, regardless of law coverage (82.1%; 73.4%). Restrictive laws were associated with lower sales of soft drinks in more developed regions, and restrictions had a greater association with the availability of soft drinks in public schools (PR = 0.25; 95%CI = 0.15-0.41), compared with private schools (PR = 0.48; 95%CI = 0.35-0.66). CONCLUSION: Laws restricting soft drinks in schools were associated with fewer sales in more developed regions. Private schools were less compliant with the law than public schools. A broadly enforced national law could reduce the availability of soft drinks in schools.
Asunto(s)
Bebidas Gaseosas/legislación & jurisprudencia , Comercio/legislación & jurisprudencia , Instituciones Académicas/legislación & jurisprudencia , Brasil , Adhesión a Directriz/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Sector Privado/legislación & jurisprudencia , Sector Público/legislación & jurisprudencia , Instituciones Académicas/estadística & datos numéricos , Estudiantes/estadística & datos numéricos , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
In response to Mexico's burgeoning industrial epidemics of obesity and type-2 diabetes, triggered in part by sugar-sweetened carbonated beverages' ability to readily market their products and influence consumption, the government has responded through a variety of non-communicable disease (NCD) policies. Nevertheless, major industries, such as Coca-Cola, have been able to continuously obstruct the prioritization of those policies targeting the consumption, marketing and sale of their products. To better understand why this has occurred, this article introduces a political science agenda-setting framework and applies it to the case of Coca-Cola in Mexico. Devised from political science theory and subsequently applied to the case of Coca-Cola in Mexico, my framework, titled Institutions, Interests, and Industry Civic Influence (IPIC), emphasizes Coca-Cola's access to institutions, supportive presidents and industry efforts to hamper civic mobilization and pressures for greater regulation of the soda industry. Methodologically, I employ qualitative single case study analysis, combining an analysis of 26 case study documents and seven in-depth stake-holder interviews. My proposed analytical framework helps to underscore the fact that Coca-Cola's influence is not solely shaped by the corporation's increased economic importance, but more importantly, its access to politicians, institutions and strategies to divide civil society. Additionally, my proposed framework provides several real-world policy recommendations for how governments and civil society can restructure their relationship with the soda industry, such as the government's creation of laws prohibiting the industry's ability to influence NCD policy and fund scientific research.