Shooting ourselves in the foot: How the way we talk about food issues puts public health advocates at a disadvantage

printer friendlyprinter friendly

So many debates about food get fanned in front of the public as being an issue of "government regulation" vs. "personal choice." It happened a few months ago in a debate called "Is obesity the government's business?" It happened just days ago in a Colorado Health Symposium called "Food Fight!" And it has happened countless times in between.

Both sides make predictable arguments. Those against regulation say it's really consumers who drive corporate decisions and, therefore, need to be more responsible; and those for regulation explain why that's nonsense. People's willpower, as Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, will tell you, has not declined in the past few decades. Human nature hasn't changed; but our surroundings -- increasingly saturated with cheap, unhealthy foods -- have.

Sometimes people's minds are changed after these dialogues. Sometimes they aren't. And yet, regardless of which side wins a particular debate or how powerful any individual argument (like Wootan's) is, public health advocates are left at a disadvantage. That's because each time advocates engage in these debates, they risk inadvertently reinforcing their opposition's arguments.

This happens for two reasons:

First, the starting point for these debates -- the notion that people must decide between retaining or giving up personal choice -- is a false one. Regulation and choice are not mutually exclusive. Choice happens with or without regulation. When it comes to creating policies that improve public health, such policies don't threaten choice; they simply influence the context for it.

The question, then, becomes: What do we want that context to look like? Do we want our surroundings to work against us -- to be laden with salty, sugary, fatty foods that make it harder for us and our loved ones to be healthy? Or do we want our surroundings to work in our favor? And who do we want to be in charge of that context? The government, which has a duty to protect the safety, health and well-being of its people? Or major corporations, whose fiduciary responsibilities to increase profits dictate that they promote products that harm health instead of those that protect it?

Second, food issues are often framed in ways that, intentionally or not, pit the government against individuals and leave out the real culprit: industry. This happens any time we hear the common phrase, "government regulation." The term is a misnomer (after all, it's food industry regulation that's at issue here), and using it distracts people from thinking about the very thing that's in need of scrutiny. Priming people with this language cues up their existing ideas about government, which are often highly polarizing and can be negative even among those who agree that food industry practices are harmful to health and need to be reigned in.

Language matters. The people who control the terms of a debate often control the outcome of that debate. They influence not only how people view an issue but also how they act on it. With regard to food, that debate plays out in universities and newsrooms and even living rooms every day. And food and beverage companies are doing their best to dominate the conversation. They use the red herring of "choice" to scare people into siding against their own best interests.

So when public health advocates find themselves responding to questions about regulation or choice, they should reject the frames they're handed and create new ones instead. They can reframe the debate to expose the food industry's role in making people sick and point to solutions for compelling it clean up its act.


social media (2) weight of the nation (1) equity (3) Citizens United (1) white house (1) Big Soda (2) paper tigers (1) news analysis (3) sexism (2) gender (1) Oakland Unified School District (1) california (1) online marketing (1) advocacy (3) new year's resolutions (1) structural racism (1) Tea Party (1) Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes (1) water (1) Golden Gate Bridge (2) cervical cancer (1) junk food (2) public health policy (2) diabetes prevention (1) privilege (1) public health (71) tobacco tax (1) Oglala Sioux (3) McDonald's (1) george lakoff (1) diabetes (1) food marketing (5) snap (1) values (1) cancer research (1) Twitter for advocacy (1) nanny state (2) childhood lead poisoning (1) indoor smoking ban (1) Wendy Davis (1) target marketing (9) Gardasil (1) Big Tobacco (3) community health (1) food industry (4) food environment (1) auto safety (1) sugar-sweetened beverages (2) cigarette advertising (1) suicide prevention (2) community (1) Twitter (1) abortion (1) Johnson & Johnson (1) Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (1) community organizing (1) democracy (1) Aurora (1) Joe Paterno (1) marketing (1) Dora the Explorer (1) sexual violence (2) education (1) Food Marketing Workgroup (1) sexual health (1) media bites (1) childhood adversity (1) Proposition 47 (1) obesity prevention (1) news strategy (1) childhood obestiy conference (1) Nickelodeon (1) naacp (1) news monitoring (1) SB 1000 (1) personal responsibility (3) authentic voices (1) sugary drinks (10) health equity (10) food justice (1) beverage industry (2) Pine Ridge reservation (1) Marion Nestle (1) community safety (1) framing (14) regulation (2) prison system (1) genital warts (1) election 2016 (1) social math (1) Bloomberg (3) Merck (1) tobacco (5) food (1) childhood trauma (3) news coverage (1) stigma (1) sandusky (2) Connecticut shooting (1) nonprofit communications (1) cosmetics (1) language (6) media analysis (6) gatorade bolt game (1) product safety (1) gun control (2) industry appeals to choice (1) collaboration (1) Sam Kass (1) seat belt laws (1) default frame (1) San Francisco (3) strategic communication (1) institutional accountability (1) media (7) apha (3) mental health (2) journalism (1) youth (1) Richmond (5) soda warning labels (1) community violence (1) food access (1) El Monte (3) American Beverage Association (1) media advocacy (23) prison phone calls (1) chronic disease (2) Colorado (1) digital marketing (3) liana winett (1) political correctness (1) front groups (1) cannes lions festival (1) breastfeeding (3) social change (1) Pine Ridge Indian Reservation (2) Let's Move (1) Amanda Fallin (1) campaign finance (1) SSBs (1) violence prevention (8) FCC (1) adverse childhood experiences (3) food deserts (1) violence (2) suicide barrier (2) cap the tap (1) sexual assault (1) Newtown (1) Happy Meals (1) autism (1) emergency contraception (1) measure N (2) soda tax (11) choice (1) Michelle Obama (1) childhood obesity (1) Measure O (1) ssb (1) physical activity (1) Berkeley (2) inequities (1) children's health (3) personal responsibility rhetoric (1) world water day (1) race (1) summer camps (1) social justice (2) news (2) Big Food (2) filibuster (1) tobacco industry (2) cancer prevention (1) Black Lives Matter (1) junk food marketing (4) Catholic church (1) tobacco control (2) obesity (10) SB 402 (1) vaccines (1) soda industry (4) junk food marketing to kids (2) Rachel Grana (1) Telluride (1) water security (1) Proposition 29 (1) healthy eating (1) Chile (1) racism (1) soda taxes (2) Sandy Hook (2) Jerry Sandusky (3) gun violence (1) suicide nets (1) built environment (2) beauty products (1) Coca-Cola (3) Bill Cosby (1) HPV vaccine (1) paula deen (1) Donald Trump (2) soda (12) alcohol (5) health care (1) communication strategy (1) environmental health (1) food and beverage marketing (3) corporate social responsibility (1) women's health (2) ACEs (2) reproductive justice (1) elephant triggers (1) SB-5 (1) sanitation (1) communication (2) public health data (1) sports drinks (1) Whiteclay (4) Texas (1) child sexual abuse (5) safety (1) messaging (3) food swamps (1) prevention (1) PepsiCo (1) government intrusion (1) Penn State (3)
  • Follow Us On Facebook
  • Follow Us On Twitter
  • Join Us On Youtube
  • BMSG RSS Feed

get e-alerts in your inbox: