How food and beverage companies are shaping public conversation on obesity

printer friendlyprinter friendly

Food and beverage industry messaging on obesity

As seen in the quotes above, the food and beverage has a lot to say about obesity and diet-related diseases — and public health measures to prevent them. In their new paper for the American Journal of Public Health, "'We're Part of the Solution': Evolution of the Food and Beverage Industry's Framing of Obesity Concerns Between 2000-2012," authors Laura Nixon, Pamela Mejia, Andrew Cheyne, and Lori Dofrman of the Berkeley Media Studies Group (BMSG), along with Cara Wilking and Richard Daynard of the Public Health Advocacy Institute, analyzed news statements made by food and beverage industry spokespeople to find out how the industry is shaping public conversation on nutrition-related diseases.

The team studied statements from trade associations, individual companies, and food-industry funded non-profit groups to see what messages appeared, who said what, and how food industry messaging tactics have shifted over time.

In this Q&A, lead author Laura Nixon of BMSG offers insights on some of the paper's key findings and discusses the team's approach to studying the news from a public health angle.

Why study the news from a public health perspective? What can public health advocates learn from monitoring the media?

The news media play a crucial role in setting the agenda for public policy debates, including the debate about how to prevent nutrition-related health problems like obesity and diabetes. Examining how the food industry is talking about the issue in the news gives us a window into how they are attempting to shape public perception of the issue.

In this paper, you analyzed statements from food and beverage industry stakeholders on obesity and diet-related disease. What were some of the main findings? Did anything surprise you?

We were surprised to find such an emphasis on the idea that the food industry was already taking care of the problem. We saw lots of statements like "the beverage industry is doing it's part to help," or "[we're] engaged in innovative programs that encourage a healthy lifestyle." In light of our previous research on tobacco industry rhetoric in the news, we expected to see more arguments about consumers' personal responsibility to not eat unhealthy food, or the idea that people should know that junk food is unhealthy.

How did messages vary across stakeholders?

We found that spokespeople for individual food and beverage companies almost never directly criticized proposed public health policies. Instead, they made statements like ones above and pointed to their voluntary self-regulatory programs, with the implication that the food industry was addressing the problem, and there was no need for government action. On the other hand, trade associations and nonprofits funded by the food industry were much more open in their criticism of proposed government policies. This may be a strategy to protect companies' reputations and brands, so that individual companies are not tied in the public's mind to opposition to public health measures.

What steps can advocates take to help denormalize industry tactics and hold stakeholders accountable for their role in health?

One possible strategy is to highlight specific actions by individual companies that are harmful, such as irresponsible marketing campaigns, or disingenuous corporate social responsibility initiatives. Pointing out specific companies keeps them from being able to shield their reputations behind neutral industry associations. In addition, it's important for advocates to be familiar with the research that's been done on the food industry's self-regulatory programs, so that they can talk about the limitations of that approach. Advocates can also encourage journalists to investigate food industry spokespeople's claims about their voluntary programs, rather than taking them at face value.

How can this study inform future research?

I think it would be fascinating to see how the public debate about nutrition-related diseases changes as the policy landscape shifts over time, particularly with the success of sugary drink taxes like the one here in Berkeley, Calif. In addition, food and beverage companies are certainly not the only industry that has been called to respond to public concerns about the health consequences of their products. This research could provide a jumping off point to examine how other types of industries have used the media to respond to public health issues, and, unfortunately, to oppose public health initiatives.

Read the study at

This blog is cross-posted at AJPH Talks.





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

get e-alerts in your inbox: