Competing public narratives in nutrition policy: insights into the ideational barriers of public support for regulatory nutrition measures

Abstract

Background Enacting evidence-based public health policy can be challenging. One factor contributing to this challenge is a lack of public support for specific policies, which may stem from limited interest or conviction by policy arguments. This can happen when messaging strategies regarding policy do not resonate with the target group and/or policy narratives compete in public discourse. To understand how policy messaging can better resonate with a target audience, we examined the frames and narratives used by the Australian public when discussing nutrition policies. Methods We conducted 76 street intercept interviews in urban and regional settings in Queensland, Australia. Quantitative data were analysed using mean agreement scores and t-tests, and the qualitative data were analysed using an adapted qualitative narrative policy framework (QNPF). The QNPF is used to illustrate how competing narratives vary in the way they define different elements. These elements often include setting, characters, plot, policy solution and belief systems. Results Level of support for all nutrition policies was generally moderate to high, although nutrition policies perceived to be most intrusive to personal freedoms were the least popular among the public. The value of fairness was consistently invoked when participants discussed their support for or opposition to policy. Using the QNPF, two distinct settings were evident in the narratives: concern for the community or concern for self. Villains were identified as either “other individuals, in particular parents” or “Big Food”. Victims were identified as “children” or “the food industry, in particular farmers”. Frequently used plots focused on individuals making poor choices because they were uneducated, versus Big Food being powerful and controlling people and the government. Conclusions The study examined the frames and narratives used by the Australian public when discussing nutrition policies. By examining these frames and narratives, we gained insight into multiple strategies which may increase public support for certain nutrition policies in Australia.

Effect of message framing on support for a sugar-sweetened beverage tax in Australia: a cross-sectional survey analysis

“…Similarly, males who received this frame were more supportive as were conservative voters. This finding corresponds to previous research we conducted where participants expressed concern about the impact of taxes on the SSB industry and did not want to disadvantage them ( Cullerton et al , 2022 ). As public health advocates, there is a tendency to demonize the ultra-processed food industry; however, this approach may backfire as it can alienate the public and decrease their level of support towards the policy (as we saw with the anti-sugary drink companies frame).…”

“…We found no evidence to support our other hypotheses pertaining to political affiliation, age and gender. The limited impact of the frames was surprising as the messages had been developed to align with the theory of concept accessibility by appealing to pre-existing beliefs and values of Australians identified in a previous study ( Cullerton et al , 2022 ). The theory of concept accessibility and previous research has found that frames are most effective when they appeal to pre-existing interests, or political or other cultural values of an audience ( Cacioppo, 1986 ; Nisbet, 2009 ).…”

“…The frames used in this study were developed using previous findings regarding persuasive frames ( Reynolds et al , 2020 ) as well as data from street intercept interviews designed to gain insight into the public’s thoughts and beliefs about different nutrition policies, including an SSB tax ( Cullerton et al , 2022 ). Using the terms and concepts that people readily use when discussing an issue as the basis for a frame should influence the concepts of accessibility and availability as suggested in framing theory ( Chong and Druckman, 2007 ).…”

“…In Australia, where voting is compulsory, a significant proportion (approximately 30%) of the population are considered swing or undecided voters ( Cameron and McAllister, 2019 ). However, few studies have examined the political leanings of the supporters (or dissenters) of public health policies ( Cullerton et al , 2022 ). This lack of nuanced data may impact the likelihood of policymakers supporting the introduction of an SSB tax and is an area that requires further investigation.…”

The advocacy coalition of sugar-sweetened beverage taxes in Indonesia

“…Additionally, the role of the media, as seen in Indonesia, was apparent in Thailand and seen as an extension of the respective coalitions in conveying their opposing stances on policy adoption to the wider public. We also identified other strategies that have been used by industry actors from the opposition side of the SSB tax adoption coalition in Australia on establishing a positive image and gathering the sympathy of the public through their corporate social responsibility scheme 60…”