Why we should stop using the word 'obesity'

printer friendlyprinter friendly

Quick, what image pops into your mind when you see or hear the word "obesity"? You think of a fat person, right? I know I do. I also know that I don't think of junk food or the industry that so heavily promotes it, even though they are a primary culprit behind America's rising rates of type-2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and other chronic illnesses.

Obesity is merely a symptom of a much bigger problem. Yet many of the very groups that are working hard to improve health equity by exposing the role of junk food marketing, income inequality, and other forces beyond individual control have nevertheless placed responsibility -- and shame -- for the country's growing waistlines and related health issues squarely on the shoulders of individuals. It's not intentional. But it happens every time we utter that all-too-familiar "O"-word.

This is a problem because once the conversation is framed in ways that highlight individuals, public health advocates must jump over even higher hurdles to show that we have a need for solutions beyond changes in individual behavior.

That's the trap that former U.S. Surgeon General Dr. David Satcher and physician Pamela Peeke fell into in February when they debated law professor Paul Campos and TV host John Stossel in a panel called "Is Obesity The Government's Business?" Without saying a word, Satcher and Peeke started off at a disadvantage, given the title of the debate.

Similarly, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may have done themselves a disservice by framing their recent Weight of the Nation conference using words that focus on fat bodies, rather than on the unhealthy foods that saturate our surroundings or environments that impede physically activity. Genes and lifestyle aren't enough to explain the country's growing battles with food-related chronic illnesses. And even though the CDC ultimately wants to reframe the conversation to show this, approaching the issue with a focus on weight accomplishes just the opposite.

Airing tonight on HBO, a Weight of the Nation documentary series presented by the Institute of Medicine with the CDC and National Institutes of Health will no doubt face the same challenges.

Framing health issues in terms of obesity not only stigmatizes fat people, it also benefits the food industry. As public health lawyer Michele Simon writes, "[I]t is a problem food companies can supposedly help fix. They can market healthier foods! They can help fund playgrounds and exercise programs!" Ever notice how food companies don't shy away from the word? That itself should sound alarm bells for public health advocates.

Of course, avoiding the "O"-word is difficult even when we know it's problematic. BMSG discussed the trouble with using "obesity" as far back as 2006, yet we still find ourselves reaching for it from time to time.

To successfully reframe the issue will be challenging and may take more than a single word. Still, public health advocates should make it a priority to do so. After all, the people who control how a problem is framed have the best chance of influencing the solution. Public health advocates showed this to be true with tobacco when they stopped talking about smoking cessation and started talking about tobacco control. A small shift in language -- coupled with attention to the policies that shaped environments -- produced a big shift in the public's thinking so that we now see the problem as one related mostly to industry, not just individuals. With enough collaboration and creative thinking, public health can do the same with food.

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

get e-alerts in your inbox: