Socio-economic divergence in public opinions about preventive obesity regulations: Is the purpose to ‘make some things cheaper, more affordable’ or to ‘help them get over their own ignorance’?

Abstract

Socio-economic divergence in public opinions about preventive obesity regulations: is the purpose to 'make some things cheaper, more affordable' or to 'help them get over their own ignorance'? Social Science and Medicine, 2016; 154:1-8

Why do the public support or oppose obesity prevention regulations? Results from a South Australian population survey

“…Interestingly, the most common reason for supporting nutrition labels in all socio‐demographic groups was to educate other people about nutrition. This suggests that the majority of the population may not perceive nutrition education as personally relevant, and aligns with findings from our associated qualitative study that preventive obesity regulations are commonly viewed as a way to redress public ignorance . These findings reflect a popular belief that information provision is an effective mechanism for motivating healthy behaviours .…”

“…In this scenario, the extent to which opposition can be reduced through improved communication about the socio‐ecological causes of obesity is uncertain . Attending to the ideological and moralising foundations of public views about preventive obesity regulations demonstrated in the survey and in our previous research may be more fruitful for improving alignment between preventive obesity policies and public views.…”

“…However, those in the most disadvantaged socio‐economic group—a key target population for obesity prevention policies and programs—were more likely than those in any other group to report wanting to use nutrition labels themselves. This may reflect awareness amongst this group that they do lack nutrition knowledge, or alternatively, that these individuals have internalised dominant narratives that deprived groups are ignorant about the causes of obesity …”

Obesity, equity and choice

“…A capsicum, not a meal in itself, can cost $4 when a carton of chips would cost only $2. Fresh fruit and vegetables require more time to prepare and, because they perish, to shop for than processed foods 3. The money and time cost may be too high for badly off people, especially single parents, trying to hold down jobs and feed their families 19.…”

“…This paper is about one type of policy response to obesity, ‘preventive regulations to counter obesogenic environments,’3 and it is specifically concerned with evaluating them from the point of view of equity. Preventive regulations include taxes on sugary drinks or fat; bans or limits on ingredients such as trans fats, salt and sugar; and planning regulations to limit the density and siting of fast food outlets, for instance to prevent their being near schools.…”