South African adolescents’ perspectives regarding barriers and facilitators to implementing healthy food environment policies
1
SAMRC/Wits Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science – PRICELESS SA, University of the Witwatersrand, School of Public Health, Parktown, Johannesburg, South Africa
Popul. Med. 2026;8(Supplement Supplement 1):A3623
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND:
Adolescent obesity is highly prevalent in South Africa and driven by unhealthy food environments. Policy interventions, such as advertising restrictions and unhealthy food taxes are effective mechanisms for making food environments healthier. Our aim was to explore South African adolescents’ perspectives regarding implementation of healthy food policies.
METHODS:
We conducted two, three-day participatory workshops with one rural and one urban group of 15–16-year-olds. Participatory activities (discussions, presentations, debates and role plays), were implemented to explore perceptions of four potential healthy food policies: advertising restrictions, excise taxes, front of package warning labels and changing school food environment regulations. Data were collected using participant observation and audio recording of activities. The combined data were analysed abductively, informed deductively by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, to identify perceived barriers and facilitators to policy implementation in the South African context.
RESULTS:
Adolescents spoke mainly about barriers to implementing the four healthy food policies. Four categories of barriers, which spanned public and political will, were identified: neoliberal ideology (belief in individual freedom and responsibility), poor governance and enforcement mechanisms, other priority issues (including poverty, underage alcohol and tobacco consumption, and basic infrastructure gaps) and limited awareness of the food environment’s influence. The fatalistic notion that if implemented policies would not be enforceable due to widespread corruption, was prominent. Despite this cynicism, four potential facilitators of healthy food policy implementation were identified: awareness of the food environment’s influence, precedents from alcohol and tobacco control, public desire for social changes, and support for social protectionist approaches (belief in state responsibility).
CONCLUSIONS:
Teenagers perceived significant barriers to implementing healthy food policies in the South African context, including lack of political and public will. This implies that community engagement activities and enlisting political and public champions, prior to policy implementation, would be valuable.
Adolescent obesity is highly prevalent in South Africa and driven by unhealthy food environments. Policy interventions, such as advertising restrictions and unhealthy food taxes are effective mechanisms for making food environments healthier. Our aim was to explore South African adolescents’ perspectives regarding implementation of healthy food policies.
METHODS:
We conducted two, three-day participatory workshops with one rural and one urban group of 15–16-year-olds. Participatory activities (discussions, presentations, debates and role plays), were implemented to explore perceptions of four potential healthy food policies: advertising restrictions, excise taxes, front of package warning labels and changing school food environment regulations. Data were collected using participant observation and audio recording of activities. The combined data were analysed abductively, informed deductively by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, to identify perceived barriers and facilitators to policy implementation in the South African context.
RESULTS:
Adolescents spoke mainly about barriers to implementing the four healthy food policies. Four categories of barriers, which spanned public and political will, were identified: neoliberal ideology (belief in individual freedom and responsibility), poor governance and enforcement mechanisms, other priority issues (including poverty, underage alcohol and tobacco consumption, and basic infrastructure gaps) and limited awareness of the food environment’s influence. The fatalistic notion that if implemented policies would not be enforceable due to widespread corruption, was prominent. Despite this cynicism, four potential facilitators of healthy food policy implementation were identified: awareness of the food environment’s influence, precedents from alcohol and tobacco control, public desire for social changes, and support for social protectionist approaches (belief in state responsibility).
CONCLUSIONS:
Teenagers perceived significant barriers to implementing healthy food policies in the South African context, including lack of political and public will. This implies that community engagement activities and enlisting political and public champions, prior to policy implementation, would be valuable.
| eISSN: | 2654-1459 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
