Table 1 Overview of supportive and opposing arguments towards national-level Dutch food policies identified in Dutch newspaper articles between 2000–2022

Cultural/Ideological

Supportive

Upstream action needed

• Policy is lacking (e.g. no policy in current situation)

• Current policy is not sufficient (e.g. self-regulation)

• The problem is too complex (e.g. obesity can only be solved by a higher upstream solution)

• The food environment is the problem (e.g. people cannot be held accountable)

1. “Interest groups have been advocating for legal agreements for years to force the food industry to improve their products.” – Public Health Organization (Nederlands Dagblad, 2021)

2. “But exactly this self-regulation has been strongly criticized by food organizations and nutritionists. Foodwatch states, “The sugar industry is pacifying the minister with commitments that hardly make citizens' healthier””- Public Health Organization (Telegraaf, 2016)

3. “Only with these measures there is a chance to stop the obesity epidemic.”—Academic (Trouw, 2009)

4. “The problem with the image of this "free" choice is that it is false. This is because today's consumers do not live in pure freedom, but in an environment that is constantly firing stimuli at them.” – Academic (Volkskrant, 2018)

Government responsibility

• Duty of government to protect Dutch citizens or help them make the right choices

5. “These rights dictate that the state must actively protect citizens, for example from the effects of overfeeding.”—Consumer (Trouw, 2021)

True-pricing

• Products should have an ‘honest’ price, including the price for environmental pollution

6. “Let's base taxes on the actual costs incurred for a given product and not fall into political reflexes. Let's judge ideas on their substance and necessity. A fair price for a fair piece of meat, pretty logical.”—Consumer (Trouw, 2016)

Responsibility polluter

• The polluter must pay for their own environmental or health care costs

7. “Greenhouse gas emissions, sugar consumption and meat production are a huge damage to the community. The 'polluter pays' principle is then only logical. It's just correct math.” – Food industry (Nederlands Dagblad, 2017)

Opposing

’Nanny state’ argumentation

• Government should not interfere

8. “No, no patronizing, replied previous Health Minister Edith Schippers (VVD) invariably to calls from health organizations and scientists to tackle excessive alcohol consumption, obesity and smoking. It is not up to The Hague (Parliament) to dictate to citizens what they eat or drink, Schippers believed.”- Policymaker (Trouw, 2018)

Individual responsibility

• Behavior/ choices are individual/ parental responsibility

9. “One respondent: “Don’t tell me what I eat or drink.””—Consumer (Telegraaf, 2022)

Responsibility lies somewhere else

• Behavior/choices are the responsibility of the food industry/schools etc

10. ““The food industry must be addressed but they don't dare” writes one respondent. Another: “As soon as it comes to large food or drug manufacturers, the government suddenly doesn't give a damn or is unclear about rules and sanctions.””—Consumer (Telegraaf, 2018)

Moral arguments

• Morally not justifiable to interfere

11. “Too bad the way the RVZ proposes to intervene is morally unjustifiable.”—Academic (Volkskrant, 2011)

Hidden agenda

• Government has different reasons for policy such as power, money or other stakes

12. “Just a method for the government to rake in more money.”—Consumer (Telegraaf, 2021)

Human health

Supportive

Expected health impact

• Because there is a link between dietary intake/exposure and health (e.g. sugar, /fat and illness/ obesity)

• Because the policy is effective in decreasing obesity/illness

13. “Since the 1980s, the number of overweight people has increased from 27 to 43 percent. In the Netherlands, more than half of the people in their thirties and forties are overweight. That group has a higher risk of diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular disease and a whole bunch of other conditions. Poor eating habits are the second leading cause of early death in the Netherlands after smoking.”—Academic (Volkskrant, 2018)

14. “A ten percent increase in the price of soft drinks reduces consumption by an average of eight percent. That won't solve the obesity problem, but it's a start.”—Academic (NRC, 2013)

Opposing

Expected health impact minimal

• Because the link between dietary intake/exposure and health is weak (e.g. fats are needed)

• Because evidence for the effectiveness in decreasing obesity/illness is weak

15. “Obesity is not due to advertisements, but to wrong choices.” – Food industry (Algemeen Dagblad, 2007)

16. “Norway and Sweden have long banned children's advertising of snacks and sweets on national channels, but the food producers say that Swedish children are still the fattest in Europe despite the ban.” – Food industry (Volkskrant, 2007)

Practical

Supportive

Expected impact (general)

• General positive impact of policy (e.g. excise taxes are effective)

• Evidence that general policy is effective from previous examples (e.g. seat belt/smoking/alcohol)

17. “It is generally known that the idea of true pricing does play a role in whether or not to purchase a product.”—Academic (Nederlands Dagblad, 2022)

18. “He refers to compulsory seat belts, setting speed limits, and excise taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. Superficially, these deprive us of freedom, but ultimately they provide a safer environment in which people can move more freely.”—Academic (Volkskrant, 2018)

Conditional support

• Under the condition of changing practical issues of the policy, proof of effectiveness or if another policy is also implemented

19. “Unhealthy food should only get more expensive if healthy food gets cheaper.”—Consumer (Telegraaf, 2007)

Policy as leverage point

• The policy is used to force self-regulation (e.g. if the sugar level is not going down, we implement the policy)

20. “Fast food restaurants must first be given the chance to make their menus healthier. But if they do not succeed, a minimum age can be used as an incentive.”—Academic (Trouw, 2022)

Opposed

Expected impact minimal (general)

• Minimizing positive impact of policy by practical issues (e.g. flaws in policy, confusion)

21. “The Dutch consumer union found the green and blue Checkmark “unclear and misleading.”” – Consumer (Reformatorisch Dagblad, 2019)

Necessary support towards policy lacking

• Policy cannot be implemented because there is a lack of public or political will

22. “But the proposal caused so much protest in the House of Representatives that Minister Staghouwer (agriculture) said that he does want a rigorous price increase.”—Policymaker (Trouw, 2022)

Policy is not feasible

• Difficulties in implementation because of national or EU legislation

• The policy is too complicated (IT or categorization difficulties)

23. “According to Waalkens, the World Trade Organization or Brussels will never agree to the proposed meat tax of 85 cents per kilo of meat.”—Policymaker (Trouw, 2007)

24. “Prime Minister Rutte recently said in the House of Representatives that it is extremely complicated to determine whether a pizza or a jar of pasta sauce would be included [in the definition of fruit and vegetables]. There are also doubts whether the Tax Administration's computer systems can handle such a major change.”—Policymaker (Algemeen Dagblad, 2022)

Policy is unnecessary

• Self-regulation is sufficient or effective

25. “The major food manufacturer Unilever thinks that the government is not needed to make healthier products. “We have been working on new recipes and innovations for ages, without compromising on taste.” – Food industry (Telegraaf, 2016)

Societal

Supportive

Policy protects vulnerable people

e.g. children, elderly, low-income

• Protecting vulnerable people from obesity/illness, overconsumption, food temptations, abundant food supply and triggers

26. “In recent years, the health disparities between the highly educated and less educated have been widening. It is known that lower educated people eat unhealthier, drink more and smoke more often.” – Public Health Organization (NRC, 2010)

Opposing

Policy will harm vulnerable people

e.g. children, elderly, low-income

• Harms vulnerable people by enlarging inequalities (e.g. harming low-income groups by taxation)

27. “Lower income groups may be disadvantaged by a sugar tax.”—Academic (NRC, 2016)

Planetary health

Supportive

Expected planetary impact

• Link between dietary intake/exposure and climate, sustainability and biodiversity (e.g. meat and climate)

• (Evidence of) Effective policy for climate, sustainability and biodiversity

28. “Residents of the world's most livestock-dense country (yes, the Netherlands) should consume significantly less animal protein and significantly more plant protein because raising animals for human consumption puts a huge strain on natural resources.”—Policymaker (NRC, 2010)

29. “International research shows that making meat more expensive affects meat consumption.”—Academic (Volkskrant, 2012)

Opposing

Expected planetary impact

• Low policy expectations for effect on climate, sustainability and biodiversity

30. “But meat is already a bargain so it is not expected that a modest price increase will result in eating less meat by the consumer.”—Consumer (Trouw, 2021)

No argumentation

Supportive

31. “The PvdA (Labour Party) supports the proposal.” – Policymaker (Algemeen Dagblad, 2006)

Opposing

32. “Koninklijke Horeca Nederland (KHN) is not interested in a ban”. – Food industry (Nederlands Dagblad, 2009)

Economic

Supportive

Expected economic impact

• Raises revenues (which can be used for different reasons)

• Sketching the current situation of obesity/ illness and rising healthcare costs

33. “A poll revealed that 63 percent of Dutch people agree with “a fair and true meat price” if the revenues are used to offset the purchasing power of lower incomes, make fruits and vegetables cheaper and give farmers sustainability support.”—Consumer (Volkskrant, 2022)

34. “By doing so, we can prevent that soon we will all have to pay to afford the costs of all those sick people.”- Academic (Algemeen Dagblad, 2008)

Opposed

Expected economic impact minimal

• Retailers get extra costs

• Retailers lose retail market/ move abroad

35. “The reduction in meat consumption that is supposed to result from the measure will affect exactly those farmers who take care of their animals and who, as a result, have to charge a bit more for their meat anyway. That meat will then definitely become too expensive.”—Consumer (NRC, 2011)

36. “If only the Netherlands starts taxing more, it could lead to more exports or relocation of production, according to the climate committee Van Geest.”—Policymaker (Telegraaf, 2021)

Animal welfare

Supportive

Expected animal welfare impact

• Effective policy for animal welfare

37. “The Pigs in Distress Foundation (Stichting Varkens in Nood) advocates for excising taxes on meat. The organization argues that with that money, the ailing pig sector can be reorganized.” – Public Health Organization (Algemeen Dagblad, 2015)

Opposing

-

-