Hearing from Scotland: What did we learn?

Key findings

As with any topic that has a dusting of politics involved, there was often a fair level of disagreement evident across the panel. All participants entered the project with their own pre-existing views of the world which would naturally vary depending on personal experience. However, when looking at the results produced after each session, there were some areas that showed clearer levels of agreement than others.

For example, during the first session which covered food deals and special offers, the panel generally recognised that promotions (e.g. two-for-one deals) are most often used to encourage sales of unhealthy foods (which evidence points to) and, importantly, agreed that it is a problem that needs addressed to help people eat better. In-session polling showed over 80% of participants supported interventions to restrict where unhealthy food and drink products can be displayed in shops (location promotions), with over 70% also supporting restrictions on price promotions.

Elsewhere, the panel collectively identified common barriers to healthy eating in the out of home sector in Scotland, which were namely cost, convenience, and (un)availability of healthy options. Polling in the lead up to this session revealed 72% of participants believed there are not enough healthy food and drink options available from the out of home sector where they live.

Participants also generally expressed negative and sceptical associations with big food brands and the wider industry in the final session.

All of these findings are really powerful tools for policy advocacy as they highlight strong public awareness of some of the structural issues in Scotland’s food environment. Reports of the findings from each focus group are available to download on this page.

The bigger picture

In viewing the final results as a whole, we were able to spot a broader pattern that occurred throughout the project. Although it was easier for the panel to mostly agree upon the root issues for each topic, disagreements were clearer when discussing potential policy solutions. Despite providing presentations of evidence in each session to outline the systemic nature of the issues covered, there wasn’t always consistent support for systemic solutions. This is a common debate in all public health spaces, and the focus group discussions emphasised just how robust long-standing beliefs can be.  

What’s next?

We believe we have been able to fill a knowledge gap in Scotland, with first-hand public opinion previously lacking in this area. Looking forward, it’s important we use the project as a reference point for future work. The value of having raw quotes and opinions from members of the public should be a real asset to our advocacy work and we can now use them to bolster our relevant asks. The project will also act as a check-point to indicate where people may need further persuading of the issues and solutions regarding population obesity prevention and the food environment in Scotland. It’s vital we understand both the views of those who are in favour of our positions as well as those who are currently less convinced. Using that feedback effectively can help to build up the wide-scale public support which can be so powerful in securing effective policy interventions.