Context: Little is known about the political, institutional, and social contexts contributing to a decline in food and beverage industry power and influence over fiscal (soda taxes) and regulatory (sales/advertising restrictions and food labels) policy. This article addresses this issue by exploring why Mexico and Chile eventually saw such a decline in the food and beverage industry’s influence whereas Brazil was not as successful. I argue that in Mexico and Chile, these outcomes are explained by shifts in presidential, congressional, and bureaucratic interests in pursuing policies that went against industry preferences.

Methods: This article took a qualitative methodological approach to comparative historical research.

Findings: Policymakers’ interest in pursuing stronger food and beverage regulations were shaped by economic and public health concerns, new electoral contexts, epidemiological information, and normative beliefs. In Mexico, the infiltration of nutrition researchers within government facilitated this process. In contrast, Brazil’s government was divided about pursuing regulatory policies, with presidents favoring partnerships with industry to implement a popular anti-hunger program; industry’s power endured there with limited progress in policy reforms.

Conclusion: Governments can eventually overcome industry power and policy influence, but it depends on a whole government commitment to reform.