The Paper of the Month for March is 'Examining public support for comprehensive policy packages to tackle unhealthy food environments'. The blog is written by author Simone Wahnschafft. The paper is published in the Public Health Nutrition journal and is free to access for one month.

Unhealthy diets are a major contributor to poor health worldwide, driving rising rates of obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. In response, many governments have introduced policies to improve the environments in which people make everyday food choices—such as regulating child-directed food marketing, taxing ultra-processed products, or enhancing the nutritional quality of school meals. However, these efforts are often implemented in isolation and, given the complex web of factors that shape our eating habits, may struggle to achieve lasting impact. In our study, we examined how the public responds to “packages” of food policies—combinations of multiple measures aimed at supporting healthier food environments more comprehensively.

These policy packages included a mix of measures—some that tend to be well-received on their own, and others that are often more controversial. We surveyed 1,200 eligible voters in Germany to explore how they responded to different combinations of policies designed to make healthy eating easier. These included subsidies for fruit and vegetables, mandatory nutrition standards in schools, restrictions on unhealthy food marketing, and taxes on sugary drinks, among others. Instead of evaluating each measure in isolation, participants assessed full policy packages—and were also invited to design their own ideal policy intervention using the available options.

The findings were encouraging. Many participants showed support for a packaging approach: nearly three-quarters included multiple measures in their self-designed ideal intervention. Support was especially strong for school-based interventions and financial incentives that made healthy foods more affordable. As expected, policies involving taxes or restrictions—such as sugar taxes—were less popular, but their inclusion did not necessarily reduce support for a package overall, particularly when balanced with more positively framed measures.

Interestingly, personal characteristics like age, income, or political orientation were not strong predictors of support. Instead, people’s beliefs about the seriousness of diet-related health issues, and their views on the role of government in addressing them, played a much more important role. This suggests that improving public understanding of how food environments influence health—and how policy can help—could be key to building broader support.

Overall, our findings suggest that there is public appetite among voters for meaningful action to improve food environments—particularly when policies are presented as part of a balanced and carefully designed package. While not all measures attract equal support, the results highlight the potential for thoughtful policy design to build public backing and help drive progress toward healthier food systems.