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

ISSUE ADDRESSED: Australian policymakers have acknowledged that implementing obesity prevention regulations is likely to be facilitated or hindered by public opinion. Accordingly, we investigated public views about possible regulations. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of 2732 persons, designed to be representative of South Australians aged 15 years and over. Questions examined views about four obesity prevention regulations (mandatory front-of-pack nutrition labelling for packaged foods; zoning restrictions to prohibit fast food outlets near schools; taxes on unhealthy high fat foods; and taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages). Levels of support (Likert scale) for each intervention and reasons for support/opposition were ascertained. RESULTS: Views about the regulations were mixed: support was highest for mandatory nutrition labelling (90%) and lowest for taxes (40%-42%). High levels of support for labelling were generally underpinned by a belief that this regulation would educate "Other" people about nutrition. Lower levels of support for zoning restrictions and taxes were associated with concerns about government overreach and the questionable effectiveness of these regulations in changing behaviours. Levels of support for each regulation, and reasons for support or opposition, differed by gender and socio-economic status. CONCLUSION: Socio-demographic differences in support appeared to reflect gendered responsibilities for food provision and concerns about the material constraints of socio-economic deprivation. Engagement with target populations may offer insights to optimise the acceptability of regulations and minimise unintended social consequences. SO WHAT?: Resistance to regulations amongst socio-economically disadvantaged target populations warrants attention from public health advocates. Failure to accommodate concerns identified may further marginalise these groups.

Community perspectives on the use of regulation and law for obesity prevention in children: A citizens' jury.

INTRODUCTION: Childhood obesity is a significant challenge for public health internationally. Regulatory and fiscal measures propagated by governments offer a potentially effective response to this issue. Fearing public criticism, governments are often reluctant to use such measures. In this study we asked a descriptively representative and informed group of Australians their views on the use of legislation and fiscal measures by governments to address childhood obesity. METHODS: A citizens' jury, held in South Australia in April 2015, was asked to consider the question: What laws, if any, should we have in Australia to address childhood obesity? RESULTS: The jury agreed that prevention of obesity was complex requiring multifaceted government intervention. Recommendations fell into the areas of health promotion and education (n=4), regulation of food marketing (n=3), taxation/subsidies (n=2) and a parliamentary enquiry. School-based nutrition education and health promotion and mandatory front-of-pack interpretive labelling of food and drink were ranked 1 and 2 with taxation of high fat, high sugar food and drink third. CONCLUSION: The recommendations were similar to findings from other citizens' juries held in Australia suggesting that the reticence of decision makers in Australia, and potentially elsewhere, to use legislative and fiscal measures to address childhood obesity is misguided. Supporting relevant informed public discussion could facilitate a politically acceptable legislative approach.

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'?

The potential for regulatory measures to address escalating rates of obesity is widely acknowledged in public health circles. Many advocates support regulations for their potential to reduce health inequalities, in light of the well-documented social gradient in obesity. This paper examines how different social groups understand the role of regulations and other public health interventions in addressing obesity. Drawing upon focus group data from a metropolitan city in southern Australia, we argue that implementing obesity regulations without attention to the ways in which disadvantaged communities problematise obesity may lead to further stigmatisation of this key target population. Tuana's work on the politics of ignorance, and broader literature on classed asymmetries of power, provides a theoretical framework to demonstrate how middle class understandings of obesity align with dominant 'obesity epidemic' discourses. These position obese people as lacking knowledge; underpinning support for food labelling and mandatory nutrition education for welfare recipients as well as food taxes. In contrast, disadvantaged groups emphasised the potential for a different set of interventions to improve material circumstances that constrain their ability to act upon existing health promotion messages, while also describing priorities of everyday living that are not oriented to improving health status. Findings demonstrate how ignorance is produced as an explanation for obesity, widely replicated in political settings and mainstream public health agendas. This politics of ignorance and its logical reparation serve to reproduce power relations in which particular groups are constructed as lacking capacity to act on knowledge, whilst maintaining others in privileged positions of knowing.

Emotion in obesity discourse: understanding public attitudes towards regulations for obesity prevention.

Intense concern about obesity in the public imagination and in political, academic and media discourses has catalysed advocacy efforts to implement regulatory measures to reduce the occurrence of obesity in Australia and elsewhere. This article explores public attitudes towards the possible implementation of regulations to address obesity by analysing emotions within popular discourses. Drawing on reader comments attached to obesity-relevant news articles published on Australian news and current affairs websites, we examine how popular anxieties about the 'obesity crisis' and vitriol directed at obese individuals circulate alongside understandings of the appropriate role of government to legitimise regulatory reform to address obesity. Employing Ahmed's theorisation of 'affective economies' and broader literature on emotional cultures, we argue that obesity regulations achieve popular support within affective economies oriented to neoliberal and individualist constructions of obesity. These economies preclude constructions of obesity as a structural problem in popular discourse; instead positioning anti-obesity regulations as a government-endorsed vehicle for discrimination directed at obese people. Findings implicate a new set of ethical challenges for those championing regulatory reform for obesity prevention.