Framing of nutrition policy issues in the Australian news media, 2008‐2018

Framing Depression

“…When addressed at all, responsibility frames at the social network level were mostly analysed implicitly, i.e., conflated with either the individual (e.g., Gollust & Lantz, 2009) or the societal level (e.g., Zhang et al, 2016). Only a small part of content analyses of media coverage on health issues explicitly addressed the social network as level of responsibility (Bie & Tang, 2015;Brún et al, 2013;Wise & Cullerton, 2021). However, while examining attributions of responsibility at the social network level, these studies do not provide clear results with regards to individual and societal causal and treatment responsibilities.…”

Framing a New Nutrition Policy: Changes on Key Stakeholder’s Discourses throughout the Implementation of the Chilean Food Labelling Law

“…However, globally, the implementation of food policies is still low. It has been argued that the slow implementation of these regulations might be explained by political and economic interests led by powerful actors, such as the food industry [9] and political parties [10]. In this scenario, the media become powerful institutions where debates and disputes occur among stakeholders or interested parties [11].…”

“…Media coverage is a critical factor in the discussion and implementation of regulations as it may influence the regulations' acceptance, the likelihood of being passed and enforced [16], and the effectiveness of such regulations [17]. In the case of debates about obesity and food laws, studies have found that official actors or stakeholders involved are the food industry, government, health organizations, consumer groups, academics, and medical researchers [10,[18][19][20][21]. Often, the food industry and public health are seen as opposing groups that promote competing frames, resulting in a "framing contest" [22][23][24].…”

“…The food industry has been particularly successful in getting its frames covered by news stories [10,20,22,25]. The main frames used by the industry in response to food policy proposals include the acknowledgment of obesity as an issue and their willingness to change and be "part of the solution" [24,[26][27][28] through self-regulation [26,27].…”

“…However, the industry often attacks the regulatory policies by stating that these policies would be ineffective [22], unsupported by evidence [27,[29][30][31], and would imply negative economic consequences [9,25,31]. Another frame stresses the consumer's responsibility and individual choice, or the nanny state frame, which argued that it is not the government's place to dictate what individuals should consume [8,10,21,22,32]. In contrast, the government discourses emphasize consumer and public health protection [14], and the urgency of implementing policies to fight obesity, specially to protect children and vulnerable populations [22], which is aligned with the discourse of health organizations and experts [33].…”