Structural Power
Early proposals on FOP warning labelling in Argentina began to emerge in 2016 [77]. This was both the year that Chile officially implemented its law on food labelling and advertising (Ley 20,606) and PAHO published its nutrient profile model to define limits for critical nutrients in UPFs. The latter followed on the heels of another formative document published by PAHO – the Five-year Action Plan for the Prevention of Childhood Obesity – which established several key areas of UPF regulation for countries to prioritize in the region, including FOP labelling, marketing restrictions, improvement of school food environments, and fiscal measures [78]. One advocate on the ramifications of the nutrient profile model in Argentina:
“It's a very small book that was very revolutionary. In the sense that it paved the way, in all countries, to regulate. That is the main precedent.” [Advocate, International Development Agency]
Through a partnership of international agencies led by PAHO, advocates were able to capitalize on growing attention to the topic to elevate it on the legislative agenda by organizing a series of conferences, beginning in 2016 and continuing through the legislative debate of the law [77, 79 80, 81, 82], which convened stakeholders across civil society, the Executive branch (e.g., national ministries), the Legislative branch, academia, and professional nutrition organizations, amongst others. A key activity facilitated by advocates throughout these meetings was to invite champions of UPF regulations passed in other countries in the region, beginning with representatives from Chile, and proceeding with those from Uruguay, Mexico and Peru. Inviting stakeholders to learn from regional precedents was not only advantageous for building political momentum, but for learning from previous experiences to foresee challenges, such as CPA, that would ensue as the proposal for regulation began to gain ground:
“It was like a regional training, not only were we debating this, but other countries as well; so, before Argentina, also other countries went along, Perú went along, Uruguay went along, then Mexico went along, and each country benefiting from the previous experience of other countries. So, when we learned from the experience in Chile, we knew how the food industry would react, what their strategies would be...” [Advocate, Academia]
The ability to convene these spaces with decision-makers was enabled in part by existing relationships advocates held, some of which were cultivated through prior health policy processes, including tobacco control and regulation on sodium content in foods. Several participants pointed to the importance of ‘revolving doors’ in this respect, referring to the importance of seasoned advocates who either held multiple roles at one time or changed roles across sectors during the policy process, bringing their knowledge, expertise, and networks with them to new positions:
“We have the same people in different organizations, for instance, I mentioned three that I belong to, and you take this to the agenda of the organization.” [Advocate, Academia]
As the topic began to gain momentum in Argentina, two parallel approaches emerged to move forward on FOP labelling: one through the Executive branch and the other through the Legislative branch. The former was developed through the convening of an inter-ministerial working group beginning in 2018, led by the Ministry of Health and in partnership with the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries and the Ministry of Productive Development. This inter-ministerial initiative emphasized the need to work with stakeholders from different sectors throughout the development of the proposal, including civil society, academia, professional nutrition organizations, and the food and beverage industry [83]. This initiative also sought to advance on labelling through changes agreed upon both within the National Food Commission (CONAL), which oversees the implementation of the Argentine Food Code, and with other members of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), a regional trade agreement established between Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay [84]. Following several changes to the proposal made between 2018–2020, in part due to a change in the government administration in 2019, the Executive branch reached a finalized proposal, which it presented in meetings with both CONAL [85] and MERCOSUR [86] around the same time that the bill began to be debated in the National Congress. However, participants indicated that the proposal put forth by the Executive branch was unfavorable compared to the bill in several respects. First, as the changes would not be achieved by law, the new FOP labelling system would be less resilient to shifts in governance, as demonstrated in Uruguay [40]. In addition, advocates noted concern over the policy design supported by the Executive branch, particularly regarding the proposed nutrient profile model to underpin the warning labels, which was less strict than the one developed by PAHO. Finally, advocates explained that the approach furthered by the Executive branch to proceed through CONAL or MERCOSUR would undermine the comprehensiveness (i.e., only mandatory FOP labelling could be achieved without the additional components) and stringency of proposed regulation and, particularly in the case of the latter, place the debate in the context of an arena where industry and trade interests were paramount.
Both proponents and opponents sought to leverage these two institutional approaches to UPF regulation to their respective advantage to either promote or hinder the law from advancing. The Coordinator of Food Product Industries (COPAL), an umbrella entity representing the interests of the food and beverage industry, for example, supported the proposal furthered by the Executive branch to pursue a regional agreement with other members of MERCOSUR [86], which would take significantly more time than reaching a national policy. Going even further, stakeholders representing industry interests often used their resources to disseminate the argument that Argentina was not allowed to regulate without agreement at the level of MERCOSUR to stifle support for the bill in Congress:
“...they started to say that we could not move forward with the law because it went against our integration within the MERCOSUR, even though legally it was not the case. But they still claimed this, which confused legislators” [Advocate, Advisor to Legislator]
Advocates worked first and foremost to support the bill's advancement over the Executive proposal. Advocates leveraged structural power in the face of this challenge through informal alliances with advocates across different positions. Particularly for those advocates facing institutional constraints, the importance of informal alliances was key:
“...the best option was always the bill, and even then, we knew that a bill would not involve the Executive Branch we worked at. So, it was our priority to ally with the organizations that would work closely with deputies and senators to try and convince them to be in favor of this policy.” [Advocate, Ministry of Health]
Informal alliances allowed advocates to share relevant information and to collectively permeate spaces where misinformation was spread to decision-makers to undermine the bill, such as conferences held by professional nutrition organizations with known conflicts of interest. As one advocate explained:
“...thankfully we were able to work together with other civil society organizations, whenever one was not able to participate, the others would be there to support them. So, in certain meetings they would say: “Let’s invite [Organization A] because they aren’t as antagonistic as [Organization B]”. But, thanks to our alliance with other organizations, we were always able to speak for each other, to empower each other.” [Advocate, Professional Nutrition Organization]
Access to discussion spaces during the legislative debate, particularly leading up to and during the debate in the Senate, was also influenced by the context of the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown at the time. One advocate noted that this helped their organization, which was newer and characterized by few resources, access discussion spaces where the law was being debated, as well as to convene spaces to bring together advocates and legislators to discuss the topic. Another advocate highlighted that the virtual aspect of policymaking at this time may have also mitigated lobbying and heightened transparency in the early stages of the legislative process:
“...The legislators were at home, in their provinces. It was not possible for the industry to visit them in their offices. And there are things that are not going to be negotiated via Zoom...Personally, I think the pandemic helped make the committee's discussion transparent, it's posted on YouTube. There weren’t any twists, lobbying, or at least it was less common, because people could not travel through the streets here. We had a very strict quarantine.” [Advocate, International Development Agency]
In general, advocates noted that they were readily invited, alongside industry and other stakeholders, to participate in spaces that debated the policy in both the Executive and Legislative branches, apart from discussions at the level of MERCOSUR.
Formal alliances, in the form of coalitions [87, 88, 89] also helped advocates harness structural power through different stages of the policy process. For example, the resources developed by the National Coalition to Prevent Childhood Obesity [90], formed in 2017 with support from UNICEF [91], lended a collective voice of legitimacy to the positions advocated by a handful of organizations working at the forefront of the process:
“...that was also a very important support because it is different to say to the legislature "[Organization A] has this policy brief", no, this policy brief is supported by more than 40 organizations representative from all the country. That is, well, the legislators paid a lot of attention.” [Advocate, Civil Society]
During the legislative debate, formal coordination across civil society organizations also became an important strategy for building capacity both within and across organizations. This was particularly the case when five civil society organizations collectively secured a grant funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies and managed by the Global Health Advocacy Incubator (GHAI). With the support of the grant, these organizations were able to expand and diversify their own activities in support of the law, as well as to organize activities collectively. The latter was identified as a challenge by several advocates, as it required novel coordination across organizations with different reputations, approaches, and leadership structures; however, it was also noted as a key strategy to harness collective action and effectively counter corporate power:
“I mean, the inequality of arms was evident from the beginning: the industry has all the means for advertising, for paying nutritionists, to go in the media to demonize the law, and we had nothing. But this influx of money through GHAI to the organization allowed us to counteract that.” [Advocate, Academia]
Instrumental Power
The generation and dissemination of knowledge and evidence was one of the key activities advocates led to influence the policy process (see Table 2 for a summary of key studies). For instance, a series of studies led by the research-oriented civil society organization, the Inter-American Heart Foundation (FIC) in 2015–2018 demonstrated the widespread exposure of children and adolescents to different forms of UPF marketing in Argentina [92, 93, 94], elevating the issue of the need for regulation. Along a similar vein, two studies conducted by the Ministry of Health – the 4th National Survey of Risk Factors (2018) [95] and the 2nd National Survey of Nutrition and Health (2019) [96] - provided updated evidence on UPF consumption trends in Argentina and the burden of diet-related chronic disease to underscore the extent of the challenge in Argentina.
Table 2
Knowledge and evidence documents generated by policy advocates in Argentina
Document
|
Relevance to policy process
|
Year of publication
|
Author(s)*
|
- Food advertising aimed at boys and girls on Argentine TV
|
Examine prevalence of and exposure to UPF marketing amongst children and adolescents
|
2015
|
FIC
|
- Marketing techniques aimed at boys and girls in processed food packaging in Argentina
|
2017
|
- Food advertising on Argentinean television: are ultra-processed foods in the lead?
|
2018
|
- Exposure of boys, girls and adolescents to digital marketing of food and beverages in Argentina
|
2021
|
UNICEF
|
- 4th National Survey of Risk Factors
|
Examine the nutrition and prevalence of diet-related diseases and associated risk factors in the population
|
2018
|
MOH
|
- Argentina National Survey of Nutrition and Health, 2018–2019 (ENNyS 2)
|
2019
|
- Sugary drinks in Argentina: burden of disease and impact of health interventions
|
2020
|
IECS
|
- Lessons learned from tobacco control: court decisions that ratify public health policies
|
Develop an understanding of the political and regulatory landscape
|
2020
|
FIC
|
- Front warning labelling bill: economic arguments that support it
|
2020
|
- Regulatory mapping: front food labelling
|
2020
|
FIC and IDEC
|
- Front food labelling in Argentina and Brazil: legal barriers and facilitators
|
2020
|
- Conflict of interest and interference of the food industry in the design of healthy eating policies
|
2020
|
Various
|
- Evaluation of the performance of the front of package warning labelling compared to other models in Argentina
|
Supporting evidence for effective policy design
|
2020
|
MOH
|
- Analysis of the level of concordance of nutrient profile systems with the Dietary Guidelines for the Argentine Population
|
2020
|
- Evaluation of nutrient profile systems Nutritional for the definition of a front of package labelling policy in Argentina
|
2020
|
FIC
|
- Survey to evaluate the influence of three front of package labelling systems in the perception of healthiness and the purchase intention of certain products
- Opinion survey on front labelling of warnings in food and drinks
|
2021
|
*FIC = Inter-American Heart Foundation; MOH = Ministry of Health; IECS = Institute of Clinical and Health Effectiveness; IDEC = Brazilian Institute for Consumer Protection; Various = published by the National Coalition to Prevent Obesity in Children and Adolescents representing a network of civil society organizations in Argentina |
Generating evidence was also key to influencing the design of the regulation. As discussions in both the Executive and Legislative branches began to gain momentum, industry and associated stakeholders sought to influence the design of the proposed regulation in ways that would be more favorable to corporate interests, such as the type of FOP labelling scheme and the nutrient profile model to be adopted. In 2017, for example, COPAL released a proposal calling for the adoption of a label following the Guideline Daily Amount (GDA) model used in the United Kingdom [97], which has been demonstrated in studies to be less effective than warning labels in shaping consumer understanding, attitudes and choices [64, 98]. Similarly, the industry argued for a nutrient profile model that defined excess nutrients on a ‘per gram’ basis [99], which would have made it easier for companies to evade the labels than with the PAHO nutrient profile model. To counter these instances of CPA in the policy process, advocates pointed to the importance of locally generated evidence:
“What was one of the arguments of the industry? "Okay, okay, how do we know that the, let's say, this front labelling with this black octagon, is the most effective for Argentina? Because this has been effective in Chile, but how do we know if it is effective in Argentina?" So, we have evidence, we have scientific evidence, but this scientific evidence has not been validated here.” [Advocate, Academia]
As such, both the Ministry of Health and FIC conducted studies to compare the performance of different labelling schemes amongst the Argentine population [64, 65, 66], as well as to demonstrate that the proposed PAHO nutrient profile model was in the greatest accordance with the dietary guidelines for the Argentine population compared to other models [68, 69]. One participant pointed to the importance of involving multiple organizations in the generation of evidence to support effective policy design:
“Another strategy was to work hand to hand with the Ministry of Health, and we agreed on what evidence we have to produce, at the same time, both of us: to have a study from the Ministry of Health that says that the octagon warning level was the best, and another study, that says the same, but from the Civil Society. So, it is not only the Civil Society that has this evidence, but the Ministry of Health, too. And the same with the nutrient profile system.” [Advocate, Civil Society]
Civil society also consolidated knowledge on other aspects that would affect the policy process, such as the legal and political landscape surrounding the law. For the former, advocates led a series of analyses on legal aspects that would influence the policy process, particularly through a collaborative regional study with other countries in MERCOSUR. This included a mapping of the national regulatory framework on FOP labelling [100], an analysis of legal barriers and facilitators to FOP labelling [101], and a report on legal lessons learned from the precedent of tobacco control [102]. In addition, civil society worked to consolidate knowledge of the political landscape, such as by mapping decision-makers in Congress to understand their stances and guide targeted advocacy:
“One of our main strategies was to monitor and study the members of the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies; to identify how much power of decision they had within their commissions.... We also wanted to identify who our champions were going to be, also the ones who were never going to agree to this law, and the ones we could be able to sway in our favor. So, we mostly focused on those we could convince, and that’s when we asked legislators to have meetings with them and their advisors.” [Advocate, Civil Society]
Conducting targeted advocacy, namely one-on-one meetings with key decision-makers and/or their advisors, was identified as an important approach in the context of unequal resources:
“....they [the industry] knew that they had to engage with all political actors, not just "some". On the other hand, NGOs and civil society have fewer resources, so they concentrated their relationships with key stakeholders.” [Advocate, Advisor to Legislator]
In addition, targeted advocacy efforts were used to build technical literacy on the bill amongst decision-makers. This proved to be particularly important in the face of industry interference that targeted technical aspects of the law. For example, industry resistance during the later phases of the legislative debate did not oppose the law itself, but rather focused on the need for ‘modifications’ to the text of the law, which, if heeded, would have stalled the passage of the bill. This was particularly the case with Article 6, which established the PAHO nutrient profile model as the foundation for the adoption of FOP warning labels and was highlighted by industry stakeholders as a system that would unfairly affect their products [103]. In this context, advocates described the importance of holding meetings with legislators to clarify key concepts:
“We talked to legislators and advisors; we explained why the bill was written the way it was written; that we must use PAHO's nutrient profile system; that the industry kept insisting on using a different profile system. You can base the law on unlimited profiles and the law would end up a mess. So, we explained to them the importance of each and every article of the law, that the law must be approved unchanged.” [Advocate, Professional Nutrition Organization]
Another key population that advocates sought to influence was the public, which was accomplished through the strategic use of communication channels. For example, advocates described using traditional and social media to expose industry tactics and encourage accountability of decision-makers, including ‘naming and shaming’ those who had conflicts of interest. Other identified strategies to harness public pressure on decision-makers included conducting communication campaigns, such as, “Don’t let them cover your eyes,” (“Que no te tapen los ojos”) [104] and making use of a digital platform, ‘Activá el Congreso’ [105], which enabled individuals to write directly to legislators, to increase public engagement in the policy process. The involvement of advocates who could more effectively reach the public, such as journalists, influencers, youth activist groups and celebrities, was vital to these efforts. Bringing the debate surrounding the law into the public domain was noted as a key strategy to counter imbalances of power through the policy process:
“...one more thing about this imbalance is that it is only possible to restore it if civil society plays a very aggressive role on the internet, in the media, employing certain communication strategies....If the discussion had only taken place within the Chambers, we probably would have lost the case.” [Advocate, Legislator]
Leveraging public pressure proved particularly critical at junctures in the legislative debate where it seemed that the bill would not successfully advance due to interference. For example, following the half-sanction of the bill in the Senate, the bill was assigned to be considered by an unusually high number of commissions within the Chamber of Deputies [106], a strategy advocates identified as one driven by conflicts of interest to hinder the passage of the bill. One advocate commented:
“that's when Civil Society launched campaigns on Twitter denouncing the number of committees that the bill was assigned to; that made [the President of the Chamber of Deputies], who in another context would not have changed his mind, feel singled out and decide to reduce the number of committees to three, although they finally ended up being four.” [Advocate, Legislator]
Once the commissions in the Chamber of Deputies issued a positive opinion on the bill, the final vote in the Chamber of Deputies remained as the final step to adopt the bill. Advocates described another instance at this point in the process where political factors almost prevented the passage of the law, in which one of the two major political parties did not present with a quorum at the session in which the law was to be put to a vote, placing the bill at risk of losing parliamentary status if not approved before the end of the year [107]. Again, advocates pointed here to the importance of harnessing public influence on the policy process:
“Another enabling factor appears when society starts to personally start caring about the law. This was very apparent when the Chamber of Deputies didn’t reach a quorum on the bill... then began to circulate a very strong campaign in social media, where the public would call out these people and say, “How come they don’t want to vote on a bill that involves the health of the people?”. To me, that was a very compelling moment, I didn’t know that the bill had affected society in this way.” [Advocate, Professional Nutrition Organization]
Discursive Power
Over the course of roughly a year from when the bill was first proposed in 2020 to its passage in 2021, the topic of FOP labelling transformed from a relatively niche and technical topic predominantly discussed within institutional spaces, to one of great political and public interest, with its own hashtag (#EtiquetadoClaroYA) on social media. This transformation reflects a shift in the dominant discourse surrounding the implications of the law for society - a shift advocates attributed to both contextual and strategic factors.
With regard to context, the COVID-19 pandemic opened a window of opportunity by elevating the protection of public health as a priority value both amongst the public and decision-makers, as well as the legitimacy of the public sector as an entity to intervene upon the private sector:
“...the state was recognized, at the moment, as an actor that could guarantee our health; so, it was also related to this bill. If we let the market act independently and autonomously, all factories would be open, all enterprises would be open, and the virus would have spread more and increased the rate of deaths and everything. And people were scared at the time, so the state was seen as a positive influence in society, which has changed now.” [Advocate, Advisor to Legislator]
Advocates also pointed to several political factors that shifted perceptions of the bill in Congress, including shortened ideological distances in Congress following the change in administration and the fact that FOP labelling laws passed in other countries in the region were adopted by governments that came from similar ideological perspectives as the two major coalitions in Congress at the time. The latter lent the bill a degree of credibility as an innovative and politically viable measure:
“...the previous experience in other countries was helpful because they leaned more towards the center-right, Chile, for example; and my coalition, [Party A], also center-right, saw them as an inspiration. And if Chile was doing this, then it was a modern dynamic and innovative proposal and not some old-fashioned policy. But we also saw the experience in Uruguay, which is center-left, so [Party B] could learn from them too. So we had this context.” [Advocate, Advisor to Legislator]
Another political factor that enabled the law's successful passage was its bi-partisan support in Congress. This support was due in part to the fact that the bill that was ultimately debated in Congress was reached through a negotiation that unified 15 different bills drafted by legislators from different political parties in the years preceding to address unhealthy food environments [108]. This political neutrality was also further reinforced by the fact that the unified bill was proposed by two Senators who came from the same province but each from a different political party that constituted the two main coalitions at the time.
“The fact that we managed to present a bill that was not affiliated to any political party is very important because it allowed us to receive support from both parties without any political divide.” [Advocate, Civil Society]
Within these contexts, advocates worked to shape the discourse surrounding the law, which required that they be poised to counter a range of economic, technical, legal, and ethical arguments made by the industry and associated stakeholders throughout the policy process (see Table 3 for a summary of key arguments and counterarguments).
Table 3
Common arguments used to oppose the proposed regulation and advocate counterarguments through the policy process of the Promotion of Healthy Eating Law in Argentina [109, 110, 111].
Type of argument
|
Argument
|
Counterargument
|
|
The proposed regulation...
|
|
Economic
|
...will cause job losses and low wages in the food sector.
|
In Chile, minimal negative impacts have been observed regarding industry employment with the adoption of FOP labelling.
|
...will generate additional costs for the sector of the food industry.
|
The food industry has the resources to adopt the measures without suffering significant economic impacts.
|
...will negatively affect the Argentine sugar sector.
|
Sugar is mostly produced for biofuels, which would not be impacted by the law.
|
...will reduce sales.
|
Food companies generally have a portfolio of different products, some with and some without labels. Companies can also reformulate.
|
...will harm companies by prohibiting them from advertising their products.
|
The regulation does not prohibit all advertising. In addition, it is an opportunity for companies to advertise the absence of seals for a competitive advantage.
|
...will disproportionately punish small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
|
The law contemplates deadlines for major adaptations with the possibility of extension for SMEs.
|
Legal
|
...is not legal because it would not be standardized across MERCOSUR countries.
|
The economic bloc of MERCOSUR recognizes the States Parties the right to legislate for the protection of the public health of its citizens. Other countries in the bloc have introduced FOP labels at the national level.
|
...is not legal because it would not align with WTO standards.
|
WTO recognizes the right of States to legislate and take measures that they deem necessary to protect public health. See the precedent of tobacco.
|
...is not legal because it contradicts provisions of the Codex Alimentarius.
|
Codex Alimentarius guidelines constitute a minimum floor on which to advance in terms of public policies, but not a limit.
|
...will introduce barriers to free trade due to differing packaging requirements.
|
The regulation applies only to Argentina and would not affect products exported to other countries.
|
|
...will harm the export of Argentine food by creating barriers to international trade
|
Provisions under the WTO TBT agreement would ensure that the labelling regulation would not introduce undue barriers to trade.
|
|
...contravenes the Argentine Food Code because it will present false information about the real nutrient content of food.
|
The use of the PAHO nutrient profile model and warning labels has been shown to be the most effective at communicating the nutrient content of food and would enhance transparency rather than hinder it.
|
|
...will violate intellectual property
|
This has been refuted through the precedent of tobacco and UPF regulation in Chile, where such lawsuits have been dismissed.
|
Technical/
scientific
|
...has not been shown to decrease overweight or obesity rates.
|
A period of ample time is needed to observe public health impacts; The motivation for the law should remain consistent with its objective, which is to offer people timely, clear, accurate and true information that enable healthier consumption choices.
|
...does not address the root problem of poor diets, which are based on individual choices.
|
There is ample evidence to support the role of UPF consumption as the root cause of obesity epidemic.
|
...has no empirical evidence to show that it will change consumer choices.
|
Empirical evidence was collected in Argentina demonstrating that the warning label had the highest impact on consumer intention to purchase.
|
...uses a nutrient profile model with no empirical evidence behind it and is against the dietary guidelines in Argentina.
|
A comparison of eight nutrient profile systems found that the PAHO nutrient profile demonstrated the highest accordance with the dietary guidelines in Argentina.
|
...uses a nutrient profile model that does not promote reformulation.
|
The aim of the labels is not to encourage reformulation, but to inform consumers. However, evidence from Mexico demonstrates the potential for reformulation.
|
...will result in over 90% of products being labelled, completely overwhelming consumers.
|
The law applies only to UPFs, which do not encompass such a high percentage of foods sold in retail settings.
|
Ethical/social
|
...misrepresents the nutritional value of certain products.
|
The label's use depends on the chemical composition of each product.
|
...demonizes packaged food.
|
The law seeks to protect consumers' right to information, not to demonize.
|
|
...is a law for rich people/the first world in a context of economic decline and rising food insecurity.
|
Consumption of UPFs carries disproportionately negative health and economic ramifications for the most vulnerable sectors of the population, and thus is a high priority in this context.
|
|
...will prevent the free delivery of products containing at least one label, preventing donation of food to vulnerable populations in the context of rising food insecurity.
|
The law will not prohibit the donation of products without warning labels, which would be better for the health of the most vulnerable sectors of the population.
|
|
...confuses consumers and therefore harms individual freedom of choice.
|
This law upholds the consumer right to transparent information, thereby better enabling freedom of choice, particularly in the context of misleading marketing practices.
|
|
...is not the appropriate approach to shift diets. Education is needed for better choices.
|
Education and campaigns are important components and should be part of a comprehensive policy to improve food environments. Campaigns are not substitutes to labels, but complements.
|
Acronyms: MERCOSUR = Southern Common Market, WTO = World Trade Organization; TBT = Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, PAHO = Pan-American Health Organization, UPFs = Ultra-Processed Foods, |
Advocates noted that economic arguments, particularly given the context of economic instability and decline in Argentina, gained the most traction against the law:
“...the strongest argument in a country in Latin America is about, we are going to lose jobs, employment is going to be affected, which is also an argument that the industry is going to go broke, that the industry cannot endure this... I mean, the rest is more debatable, but the economic factor is important and that is where the industry went.” [Advocate, International Development Agency]
In this context, emerging evidence from Chile demonstrating that neither aggregate employment nor average real wages were affected by food labelling regulation helped support advocates to address these concerns in Argentina [112, 113, 114]. Advocates also spoke to the importance of emphasizing the economic ramifications of not acting in the form of rising healthcare costs. To address ethical arguments, framing was key. Namely, advocates spoke to the importance of framing the law not just within the paradigm of public health, but other values, such as the right of consumers to transparent information regarding the content of their food:
“...that was very important, to focus on the consumers' right, not focusing only in that eating better was important, but you have to know what you are eating, then you decide, no? And that was very important to convince the legislators.” [Advocate, Civil Society]
This framing helped to turn the commonly used argument by the industry of individual responsibility and choice on its head by presenting the labels as a tool to enhance individual autonomy rather than hinder it. Another key framing for the law was to focus on the protection of vulnerable populations, particularly children and adolescents, from deceptive industry practices:
“I think it was a combination of different narratives, but I would say that the need to protect children and vulnerable social groups was what penetrated the most through society and, also, the industry's lies...All of this sparked interest and a feeling of alarm at the same time.” [Advocate, Civil Society]
Extending narratives beyond the confines of a nutritional perspective to align the framing of the law with the priority values of different movements also brought more advocates into the fold, such as consumer organizations and environmental activists, reaching a broader audience over time.
The credibility that advocates carried in the arguments they made hinged on their reputation. As such, reputation management was another important aspect of advocates’ work throughout the policy process. For some organizations, particularly those comprised of nutrition professionals, managing internal conflicts of interest was critical. This was the case with the Argentine Federation of Graduates in Nutrition (FAGRAN), an umbrella organization of the Colleges and Associations of Graduates in Nutrition. The work done by the organization to reach an organizational position free of conflicts of interest, spearheaded by a change in leadership in 2018, was a critical factor in providing a degree of legitimacy to the voice of advocates coming from the field of nutrition:
“There were many nutritionists who were against this law, so the fact that FAGRAN, the congregation by excellence of the country's nutritionists, had declared that they were going to advocate for the law was very important. This is something that didn't happen in other countries.” [Advocate, Professional Nutrition Organization]
The ability of organizations like FAGRAN and others in a similar position to position themselves as entities free of conflicts of interest became a useful tool to spotlight those entities who could not do the same:
“...we told everyone who we were and we told them that we had no conflict of interest. And when you work on the law, people are more willing to listen to what you are saying. On the other hand, whenever we would hear arguments against the law, we knew those people and organizations always had conflict of interest. So, we requested that everyone who participated in the discussion must state whether they were had any conflict of interest or not, and if they did, then what kind of conflict of interest it was.” [Advocate, Professional Nutrition Organization]
Outcomes of Power: Reflections on Policy Decision
The law was seen as a key milestone in a broader effort to regulate the widespread availability of UPFs and promote healthier food environments. Advocates spoke particularly of the importance of adopting mandatory FOP warning labels, which define the parameters of products that should be targeted by future regulations. As one advocate explained:
“...these labels are a gateway to other regulations. That is, everything works together: environment, advertising, sponsorship, labelling and taxes. Increasing taxes on sugary drinks. But the gateway is FOP labelling. It will make it easier to discuss a tax when the product has three labels” [Advocate, International Development Agency]
Advocates also spoke to the importance of the fact that the law included not only FOP labels, but other components that work synergistically to promote healthier food environments:
“I think that one of the greatest advantages is that you have in a piece of regulation a lot of – you are able to regulate a lot of the aspects included in what should be a healthier food environment. And that’s also something coming from tobacco. When you regulate and you have a tobacco control law, it’s not only about regulating the environment. It’s also about regulating the cigarette package. It’s also about regulating the promotion and advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products. So this was a similar rationale.” [Advocate, Civil Society]
Ultimately, despite pervasive attempts to prevent or hinder the passage of the law, as well as undermine its scope, the law was passed in accordance with the recommendations made by advocates throughout the policy process. Though advocates pointed to many challenges regarding the road ahead for successful implementation of the law, this milestone was regarded as an important success:
“we enacted the exact law we wanted to enact. I thought it was going to be modified. Because sometimes they propose a good bill and it ends up as a weak law. Ours was whole. It was complete.” [Advocate, International Development Agency]