The Failure to Adopt Bill S-228 and Restrictions on Unhealthy Food Marketing in Canada – A Multiple Streams Framework Analysis
Using the Multiple Streams Framework, this study analyzes the failure of Canada's 2019 Bill S-228 to restrict unhealthy food marketing to children, attributing the outcome to opponents successfully reframing the policy debate around industry and community harms while outmaneuvering health advocates through strategic lobbying and coalition-building.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
In the world of public health, scientists and advocates often work to change laws that protect children from harmful influences. One major area of concern is the advertising of unhealthy foods and drinks, such as sugary snacks and sodas, which are frequently marketed directly to young people. The idea is that constant exposure to these ads can shape what children want to eat, leading to poor health outcomes like obesity. To fight this, groups have tried to pass laws that would ban such marketing. However, turning a good idea into a real law is rarely simple. It requires more than just scientific proof that a problem exists; it demands that politicians agree on the solution and have the political will to pass it. This process is often described as a race between different groups of people: those who see a crisis and want action, those who have developed specific plans to fix it, and those who hold the power to make the final decision. When these three groups align, a window of opportunity opens, and laws can be made. But if the alignment breaks, even the best-intentioned proposals can fail.
This story focuses on a specific attempt in Canada to pass a law called Bill S-228, which was designed to stop food and beverage companies from advertising unhealthy products to children under the age of thirteen. Introduced in 2016 by Senator Nancy Greene Raine, a former Olympic skier, the bill initially seemed destined for success. There was strong scientific evidence supporting the need for the law, a new government that had promised to protect children, and a coalition of health organizations pushing for it. Yet, by 2019, the bill had died without ever becoming law. Researchers Steve G. Machat and Sara F.L. Kirk from Dalhousie University set out to understand exactly how this happened. They did not just look at the final vote; they examined the entire journey of the bill, reviewing thousands of pages of parliamentary records and conducting fourteen in-depth interviews with the people who were there, including politicians, government officials, and health advocates. Their goal was to see how the momentum for the law was lost and what forces were strong enough to close the door on it.
The researchers found that the failure was not due to a lack of evidence. The science showing that marketing harms children's health was clear and well-established. Instead, the opponents of the bill successfully changed the conversation. They took the focus away from the harm caused by the ads and shifted it to the potential problems the new law would create for other parts of society. They argued that the bill was too vague and would accidentally hurt the agriculture industry, the media sector, and sports programs that relied on corporate sponsorships. By telling stories about how the law might lead to job losses in farming communities or force children's sports teams to cancel because they lost funding, opponents made the bill seem like a threat to the economy and community life rather than a health solution. They also questioned whether the government had the right to tell parents what their children could eat, framing the issue as a matter of personal freedom rather than public health.
A crucial part of this shift was the way opponents used their resources and connections. The groups opposing the bill, which included food manufacturers, beverage companies, and media corporations, had significant money and access to politicians. They built a broad coalition that included not just industry leaders but also sports organizations and agricultural groups. These groups lobbied members of parliament and senators, often using the same tactics that the tobacco industry had used in the past to delay regulations. They flooded the political process with arguments about unintended consequences and the need for voluntary rules instead of strict laws. In contrast, the health advocates who supported the bill, while knowledgeable and passionate, found themselves outmatched in the political arena. They struggled to communicate their complex scientific findings in a way that could compete with the simple, emotional stories told by the opponents. They also lacked the same level of access to the politicians who held the power to pass the law.
The timing and the structure of the government also played a role in the bill's demise. The bill was introduced as a private member's bill, meaning it was not sponsored by the government itself, which made it harder to push through. As the years passed, the political landscape changed. The main sponsor, Senator Greene Raine, reached the mandatory retirement age and had to leave the Senate, taking her personal influence and energy with her. Without her leadership, the bill lost a key champion who could have helped navigate the political hurdles. Additionally, the government was busy with other food-related projects, such as updating the national food guide and creating new labels for food packages, which may have stretched their attention and resources too thin to fully support this specific bill. The Senate, which is supposed to review laws carefully, became more susceptible to lobbying after changes were made to how its members were appointed, allowing opponents to delay the process until the bill ran out of time.
Ultimately, the study shows that having a good idea and scientific proof is not enough to change the law. The researchers concluded that the opponents were successful because they were able to redefine the problem. They convinced enough people that the real issue was not the marketing of unhealthy food, but the potential negative impact of the law on jobs, sports, and personal freedom. By the time the decision window closed, the political support that had once seemed certain had evaporated. The health advocates had opened the door to the conversation, but they could not keep it open against the organized and persistent efforts of those who stood to lose from the new rules. The failure of Bill S-228 serves as a reminder that in the complex world of making laws, the battle is often won not by who has the best facts, but by who can best shape the story that politicians and the public believe.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.