Scenario

You are a researcher and member of an interdisciplinary research group on healthy nutrition, comprising scholars from law, nutrition science, agriculture, medicine, economics, sociology, and communication.

The mayor’s office has just launched a campaign to boost the city’s image by establishing it as a centre of healthy, regional, and organic food. Only a few days into the campaign, a market research institute publishes a survey on fast food consumption across the country. The results are embarrassing: your city has the highest per capita consumption of unhealthy fast food in the entire country. The media picks up the story quickly, and social media fills with memes mocking your city’s eating habits.

The local association of physicians responds with an open letter, warning that diet-related illness rates in the city are well above the national average. The letter points to the high concentration of fast food chains and calls on the mayor to take concrete action. The open letter is widely cited in the media and seized upon by opposition parties in the city council. The local branch of the consumers’ association calls for a ban on fast food advertising and higher taxation of fast food chains. It also proposes that the local government should subsidise restaurants providing healthy food by leasing government-owned buildings at below-market rents. Parent associations and environmental NGOs support these demands.

Opposition parties go further, dismissing the mayor’s campaign as elitist: promoting organic and regional food is all well and good, they argue, but what about citizens who simply cannot afford it?

The association of fast food chains soon enters the debate, pushing back against what it sees as unfair blame. Its representatives argue that their restaurants offer a wide range of healthy choices at prices that fit any budget. The association also makes clear that it will take legal action against the local government if the proposed measures are implemented.

Against this backdrop, the mayor’s office reaches out to your interdisciplinary research group and asks you to draft policy recommendations on how the consumption of healthy food can be promoted in the city. The grant agreement gives you full editorial independence — only you decide what goes into the recommendations and when they are published. Your university’s legal office reviews and approves the agreement, and you are satisfied with the budget.

You bring the request to your research group. The reactions could not be more different:

Researcher 1: “Our job is fundamental research. We publish in peer-reviewed journals — that is how we advance our careers and contribute to science. Writing policy recommendations is not what we are here for, and there are already countless policy recommendations available online. If the mayor’s office wants some, they can find them. On top of that, I have no interest in being dragged into a legal dispute with a fast food chain.”

Researcher 2: “We cannot ignore the fact that our research is publicly funded. An unhealthy diet has serious consequences for people’s lives, and we have the knowledge to help. I suggest we develop an interactive map or app that allows residents to assess the nutritional value of meals available across the city. That way, we empower people to make informed choices without singling out or attacking any restaurant.”

Researcher 3: “An app that only shows nutritional scores is not enough. We need to name specific dishes and the places that serve them. We should pay particular attention to eateries that cater to people with dietary restrictions — whether for ethical, religious, or health reasons. We cannot ignore the ecological dimension either: the carbon footprint of what we eat matters. Our city has some wonderful restaurants serving regional and organic food, and we should support them. I therefore recommend subsidising healthy food restaurants, taxing fast food chains, and banning them from advertising their products.”

Researcher 4: “Healthy food restaurants tend to be expensive. Promoting organic food that most people cannot afford does not solve anything. Besides, fast food chains are significant employers in our city — harming them economically will also harm many families in our community. I like the idea of a guide, but any guide we produce must be genuinely useful to people on tight budgets — otherwise we are simply reinforcing the elitism the opposition is already criticising.”

Researcher 1: “And if we start recommending affordable healthy options, we will inevitably end up pointing people towards fast food restaurants. I can already see the headline: ‘University researchers recommend McDonald’s.’ We will be a laughingstock in the academic community. Worse, we will hand the opposition exactly the ammunition they need to undermine the mayor. I want no part in politicising our research.”

Researcher 5: “I still think the app idea has real potential — but only if we go beyond nutritional scores. We could let users filter by price, dietary choice, and the origin of ingredients. That approach does not advocate for or against any particular restaurant. It simply gives people the tools to make their own informed decisions. In addition, we could draft a set of policy recommendations setting out the effects of taxes, advertising bans, and subsidies — explaining the pros and cons of each measure and leaving it to the local government to decide which ones to adopt.”

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Do you want to share your experience in policy engagement? Do you think about contributing to the policy engagement toolkit? Feel free to contact Tome Sandevski via science-policy@pvw.uni-frankfurt.de