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

Abstract

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.

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

“…Support was highest for mandatory front‐of‐pack nutrition labelling for packaged foods. This corresponds with previous research in Australia and elsewhere which shows greater public support for information‐based obesity interventions compared with other policy approaches. These findings demonstrate the enduring dominance of the discourse of personal responsibility and the concomitant public appeal of behavioural health promotion interventions.…”

“…Support was highest for mandatory front-of-pack nutrition labelling for packaged foods. This corresponds with previous research in Australia 5,6,17,18 and elsewhere [19][20][21][22][23][24] which shows greater public support This reflects the ethos of individualism and choice which underpin the dominant neoliberal political ideology, 13 and points to the biopedagogical logics shaping public views. 12 Interestingly, the most common reason for supporting nutrition labels in all socio-demographic groups was to educate other people about nutrition.…”

Qualitative insights into Australian consumers’ views for and against government action on sugary drinks

“…There was widespread appreciation that obesity is a public health problem and acceptance that government has a legitimate role in intervening, consistent with other research. 13,18,19 As previously observed 13,22 , there was pervasive use of personal/parental responsibility, choice and freedom framing in participants' commentary. This underpinned initial reactions against different regulatory measures, most notably taxation.…”

“…This is consistent with previous studies demonstrating acceptance of government intervention in obesity, including regulation, in the context of informed deliberations. 18,19 Health system costs borne by government were a compelling justification for intervention, highlighting the importance of justifying policy reform in both health and economic terms. Clear consumer information was considered essential, reflecting societal values about consumers' right to be informed.…”

“…18 Australia is widely acknowledged as a world leader in tobacco control, yet remains in its infancy with respect to regulatory responses to overconsumption of unhealthy foods and SSBs. 11 The role of government in obesity prevention has been explored qualitatively 13,19 and support for many SSBs measures has been quantified, however public support or opposition to the range of potential government interventions for SSBs has not been examined in detail.…”