Carters-White Lauren, Chambers Stephanie, Skivington Kathryn, Hilton Shona
MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Science Unit, University of Glasgow, Berkeley Square, 99 Berkeley Street, Glasgow G3 7HR, United Kingdom.
SPECTRUM Consortium, Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, Doorway 1, Old Medical School, Teviot Place, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9AG, United Kingdom.
Food Policy. 2021 Oct;104:102139. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102139.
Exposure to advertising of food and beverages high in fat sugar and salt (HFSS) is considered a factor in the development of childhood obesity. This paper uses framing analysis to examine the strategic discursive practices employed by non-industry and industry responders to the Committee of Advertising Practice's consultation responses (n = 86) on UK regulation of non-broadcast advertising of foods and soft drinks to children. Our analysis demonstrates non-industry and industry responders engaged in a moral framing battle centred on whose rights were deemed as being of greatest importance to protect: children or industry. Both industry and non-industry responders acknowledged that childhood obesity and non-broadcast advertising were complex issues but diverged on how they morally framed their arguments. Non-industry responders employed a moral framework that aligned with the values represented in social justice approaches to public health policy, where children were identified as vulnerable, in need of protection from harmful HFSS product advertising and childhood obesity was a societal problem to solve. In contrast, industry responders emphasised industry rights, portraying themselves as a responsible industry that is victim to perceived disproportionate policymaking, and values more closely aligned with a market justice approach to public health policy. Our analysis provides detailed insights into the framing strategies used in the policy debate surrounding the non-broadcast advertising of HFSS foods to children. This has relevance as to how advocacy organisations can develop counter-framing to industry frames which seek to limit effective regulation.
接触高脂肪、高糖和高盐（HFSS）食品及饮料的广告被认为是儿童肥胖症发展的一个因素。本文运用框架分析方法，审视了非行业回应者和行业回应者针对广告标准管理局就英国对儿童非广播食品和软饮料广告监管的咨询所做出的回应（n = 86）中所采用的策略性话语实践。我们的分析表明，非行业回应者和行业回应者围绕着保护谁的权利被视为最重要展开了一场道德框架之争：是儿童还是行业。行业回应者和非行业回应者都承认儿童肥胖症和非广播广告是复杂问题，但在如何从道德角度构建其论点上存在分歧。非行业回应者采用了一种与公共卫生政策社会正义方法所体现的价值观相一致的道德框架，在该框架中，儿童被认定为弱势群体，需要受到保护以免受有害HFSS产品广告的影响，且儿童肥胖症是一个有待解决的社会问题。相比之下，行业回应者强调行业权利，将自己描绘成一个负责任的行业，是被认为不成比例的决策制定的受害者，其价值观更接近于公共卫生政策的市场正义方法。我们的分析为围绕向儿童进行HFSS食品非广播广告的政策辩论中所使用的框架策略提供了详细见解。这对于倡导组织如何针对行业试图限制有效监管的框架制定反框架具有重要意义。
