Whose rights deserve protection? Framing analysis of responses to the 2016 Committee of Advertising Practice consultation on the non-broadcast advertising of foods and soft drinks to children

Lauren Carters-White,Stephanie Chambers,Kathryn Skivington,Shona Hilton

doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102139

Lauren Carters-White, Stephanie Chambers + Show 2 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102139

Copy DOI

Abstract

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.

Highlights

Exposure to the advertising of food and beverages high in fat, sugar and salt (HFSS) is considered a contributory factor in the development of overweight and obesity in children (Hastings et al, 2003; Swinburn et al, 2011; Smith et al, 2019)
This study is the first empirical analysis of the public Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) consultation (CAP, 2015) to investigate the framing prac tices employed by non-industry and industry responders
By conducting a nuanced, detailed analysis of the responses to the CAP consultation, our analysis demonstrates non-industry and industry responders appeared to engage in a moral framing battle centred on whose rights were deemed of most importance to protect – children or industry

Summary

Introduction

Exposure to the advertising of food and beverages high in fat, sugar and salt (HFSS) is considered a contributory factor in the development of overweight and obesity in children (Hastings et al, 2003; Swinburn et al, 2011; Smith et al, 2019). There is increasing evidence as to the impact such advertising has on children’s dietary preferences, particu larly that which occurs in the non-broadcast environment (Baldwin et al, 2018; Coates et al, 2019b; Coates et al, 2019a; Critchlow et al, 2019; Smith et al, 2019). In response to concerns regarding childhood obesity, the UK Gov ernment announced new restrictions and future consultations for nonbroadcast advertising of HFSS products in the summer of 2020 (UK Government, 2020a). This announcement follows a series of recent government inquiries and consultations examining childhood obesity in the UK, commencing in 2015 with the Childhood Obesity Inquiry by the

Methods

Results

Conclusion