Obesity, equity and choice

Understanding the role of the state in dietary public health policymaking: a critical scoping review

Despite evidence that dietary population health interventions are effective and widely accepted, they remain the topic of intense debate centring on the appropriate role of the state. This review sought to identify how the role of the state in intervening in individuals' food practices is conceptualized across a wide range of literatures. We searched 10 databases and 4 journals for texts that debated dietary population health interventions designed to affect individuals' health-affecting food practices. Two co-authors independently screened these texts for eligibility relative to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Thirty-five texts formed our final corpus. Through critical reflexive thematic analysis (TA), we generated 6 themes and 2 subthemes concerning choice, responsibility for health, balancing benefits and burdens of intervention, the use of evidence, fairness, and the legitimacy of the state's actions. Our analysis found that narratives that aim to prevent effective regulation are entrenched in academic literatures. Discourses that emphasized liberty and personal responsibility framed poor health as the result of 'lifestyle choices'. Utilitarian, cost-benefit rationales pervaded arguments about how to best balance the benefits and burdens of state intervention. Claims about fairness and freedom were used to evoke powerful common meanings, and evidence was used politically to bolster interests, particularly those of the food industry. This review identifies and critically analyses key arguments for and against population dietary public health policies. Our findings should motivate public health researchers and practitioners to avoid unreflexively embracing framings that draw on the languages and logics of free market economics.

Doctors have an ethical obligation to ask patients about food insecurity: what is stopping us?

Inadequate diet is the leading risk factor for morbidity and mortality worldwide. However, approaches to identifying inadequate diets in clinical practice remain inconsistent, and dietary interventions (on both individual and public health policy levels) frequently focus on facilitating 'healthy choices', with limited emphasis on structural constraints. We examine the ethical implications of introducing a routine question in the medical history about ability to access food. Not collecting data on food security means that clinicians are unable to identify people who may benefit from support on an individual level, unable to consider relevant dietary risk factors for disease and disease progression and unable to monitor population trends and inequalities in dietary access in order to design effective policy interventions. We argue that the current lack of routine screening for food insecurity is inconsistent with our approach to other health behaviours (eg, smoking and alcohol use), as well as with doctors' frequent informal role as gatekeepers to the food aid system, and recent calls for governmental action on food insecurity and health inequalities from individual clinicians and professional bodies. Potential ethical barriers to asking patients about food security are addressed, including concerns about stigma, limiting autonomy, fair resource allocation, unclear professional remits and clinicians' ability to offer effective interventions. We suggest that there is an ethical imperative for doctors to ask patients about their ability to access healthy food. Gathering this data provides a valuable first step in re-framing the social determinants of health as modifiable risks, rather than inevitable inequities.

Smokers’ Regrets and the Case for Public Health Paternalism

Paternalist policies in public health often aim to improve people’s well-being by reducing their options, regulating smoking offering a prime example. The well-being challenge is to show that people really are better off for having their options reduced. The distribution challenge is to show how the policies are justified since they produce losers as well as winners. If we start from these challenges, we can understand the importance of the empirical evidence that a very high proportion of smokers regret smoking. In short, it is important that they regret it and important that the proportion is so high. This paper explains how, philosophically, regret can relate to well-being and it considers some of the strengths and weakness in the empirical research that the explanation brings out. The regret case for regulating smoking is indeed strong, although not as strong as the empirical researchers think. It is much weaker for paternalistic intervention in other public health problems, such as obesity and binge drinking.

Being Healthy, Being Sick, Being Responsible: Attitudes towards Responsibility for Health in a Public Healthcare System

Lifestyle-induced diseases are becoming a burden on healthcare, actualizing the discussion on health responsibilities. Using data from the National Association for Heart and Lung Diseases (LHL)’s 2015 Health Survey (N = 2689), this study examined the public’s attitudes towards personal and social health responsibility in a Norwegian population. The questionnaires covered self-reported health and lifestyle, attitudes towards personal responsibility and the authorities’ responsibility for promoting health, resource-prioritisation and socio-demographic characteristics. Block-wise multiple linear regression assessed the association between attitudes towards health responsibilities and individual lifestyle, political orientation and health condition. We found a moderate support for social responsibility across political views. Respondents reporting unhealthier eating habits, smokers and physically inactive were less supportive of health promotion policies (including information, health incentives, prevention and regulations). The idea that individuals are responsible for taking care of their health was widely accepted as an abstract ideal. Yet, only a third of the respondents agreed with introducing higher co-payments for treatment of ‘self-inflicted’ conditions and levels of support were patterned by health-related behaviour and left-right political orientation. Our study suggests that a significant support for social responsibility does not exclude a strong support for personal health responsibility. However, conditional access to healthcare based on personal lifestyle is still controversial.