Framing obesity: the framing contest between industry and public health at the New Zealand inquiry into obesity

Abstract

Drawing on submissions to the 2006-2007 New Zealand Inquiry into Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes, this article outlines how the food and marketing industries (industry) and the public health sector framed the issue of obesity. The analysis revealed that industry framed obesity as a consequence of poor lifestyle choices attributed largely to knowledge, cultural or other character deficits. Industry argued that lack of physical activity rather than increased food consumption was the dominant cause of obesity. In contrast, public health groups positioned obesity as a normal response to an obesogenic environment, characterized by the ubiquitous marketing and availability of low-cost, energy-dense/nutrient-poor foods. For public health groups, increased consumption of energy-dense/nutrient-poor foods was positioned as the dominant cause of obesity. Many public health submitters also suggested that social inequalities contributed to obesity. Industry emphasized education as the key solution to obesity, while public health groups argued for regulation of the activities of the food and marketing industries, and policies to address wider determinants of health and social inequalities. Identifying and documenting these frames, by making transparent the interests of the frame's sponsors, contributes to greater understanding of the wider policy context around obesity and provides useful information for public health advocacy.

Nutrition policy in whose interests? A New Zealand case study

“…The identification of the various positions evident in the data utilised the constant comparative method (19) which promotes the repeated examination of the source material. This method involves constant reading and rereading of the data and adjusting the coding schema accordingly as new themes emerge (the method is described in detail in Jenkin et al (20) ). A qualitative and descriptive assessment was undertaken of the match between the positions taken by industry, public health and the Government for each of the recommendations relevant to the four policy domains.…”

Gambling advocacy: lessons from tobacco, alcohol and junk food

“…17,30,51 Industry funding of research has been documented on numerous occasions in other areas of public health, particularly tobacco, alcohol, junk food and pharmaceuticals. [52][53][54][55] There is now a consensus in public health that research aligned with unhealthy commodity industries is more likely to support an industry point of view. 55,56 As a result, most reputable academic journals have strict disclosure policies relating to declarations of industry funding, [57][58][59] and the British Medical Journal has recently announced a 'zero tolerance' policy for editorials and education articles from authors with financial links to industry.…”

Turning health research into health promotion: A study of causality and ‘critical insights’ in a United Kingdom health campaign

“…They conclude that whereas the industry blame individualist lifestyles, poor attitudes, lack of motivation, denial about weight problems and knowledge deficits, public health advocates claim the causes are related to socioeconomic factors and wider determinants of health. Jenkin et al conclude 'there were stark contrasts between industry and public health' regarding their perceptions of obesity's causes [15]. This present study aims to progress the concerns of health promotion researchers and practitioners from conflicts and contradictions between various interest groups to acknowledging conflict and contradictions within an interest group, namely that which Jenkin et al refer to as the 'public health sector' -whose central goal is to protect and promote public health.…”

“…That is, there is a generally accepted assumption of a linear regarding causes and solutions from health research into policy, and then to health marketing strategy and a programme's implementation. Because of this, research about causal contests has often focused on comparing different (or divergent) interest groups within the realm of health, most notably between traditional health promoters and the corporate 'industry' [14][15][16]. Werder notes that 'most in the international public health community share a common analysis of the root causes of the epidemic, although opinions diverge on why this trend has occurred and how best to address it' [17].…”

“…First is a desire to explore assumptions and potential issues of 'universality' in the health promotion realm. Jenkin et al claim that the 'key themes underpinning the public health and industry frames will have some universal application' [15]. The dichotomy constructed by Jenkin et al (between the public health sector and the industry) frames the various articulations of obesity's causes as sitting relatively coherently in one group or another.…”