Framing processes in public commentary on US federal tobacco control regulation.

Abstract

Governmental health policy officials increasingly seek to promote public participation in expert and technical decisions regarding health regulation. The issues of what rôle the public plays in regulatory processes, and how health policy officials orient to public opinion, matter especially in the US context, where public commentary is a requisite component of federal rule-making. This paper examines written commentary as one specific, institutionalized form of public participation. To understand the relationship between scientific evidence and public commentary in public health regulation, we examine a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation, proposed in 1995, to restrict the promotion and sale of tobacco products to minors. We use recent work on collective action frames to analyse how the FDA framed the proposed regulation as a rational, science-based policy; the discursive practices employed in the public commentary either to embrace or to contest the FDA's framing; and how the agency presented the final version of its rule as responsive to that public commentary. Our content analyses reveal a significant disparity between the FDA's emphasis on scientific evidence and the commentators' emphases on political and ideological frames, which we analyse in terms of counter-framing. An orientation to the dynamics of framing and counter-framing contributes to an understanding of the relationship between scientific evidence and public commentary in the formulation of controversial health policy regulations.