To influence an audience to support policies that change food environments rather than blame individuals, which framing approach—individual responsibility or societal issue—is strategically more effective for obesity?

Framing refers to the way an issue is presented, influencing public understanding and attitudes. For obesity, two primary framing approaches are individual responsibility and societal issue.

Individual responsibility framing emphasizes personal choices, willpower, self-control, diet, and exercise as the primary determinants of body weight. This approach posits that individuals are solely accountable for their weight status, and that obesity is largely a result of their personal decisions and efforts, or lack thereof. This framing often leads to the attribution of blame and stigma towards individuals living with obesity, perceiving it as a moral failing or a lack of discipline. When an audience is exposed to this framing, the perceived solution to obesity becomes personal behavior modification, which diminishes the perceived need for broader, systemic interventions.

Societal issue framing, also known as public health or environmental framing, emphasizes external factors, systemic influences, and the broader context in which individual choices are made. This approach highlights how food environments—the physical, economic, policy, and sociocultural surroundings that shape food acquisition, preparation, and consumption—contribute to obesity. Examples of factors within food environments include the availability and affordability of healthy food options, the density of fast-food outlets, food marketing practices, urban planning that impacts physical activity, and socioeconomic determinants of health. This framing positions obesity as a population-level health challenge influenced by structural conditions, rather than purely individual choices.

To influence an audience to support policies that change food environments, the societal issue framing is strategically more effective for obesity. This approach is more effective because it directly connects the problem (unhealthy food environments) to the proposed solutions (policies to modify those environments). By framing obesity as a societal issue, it broadens understanding beyond personal fault to include systemic barriers and inequities, demonstrating that individual efforts alone are often insufficient in environments designed to promote unhealthy eating and reduced physical activity. This framing shifts the focus from blaming individuals to fostering a shared sense of responsibility within communities and governments, thereby creating a compelling rationale for collective action and policy interventions. It reduces stigma, which can make audiences more receptive to public health messages and policy proposals. When the public understands that environmental factors contribute significantly to obesity, they are more likely to support policies such as zoning regulations to increase access to fresh produce, restrictions on marketing unhealthy foods to children, or subsidies for healthier food options. Conversely, individual responsibility framing is less effective for this goal because it diverts attention from structural causes, reinforces the belief that obesity is purely a matter of personal willpower, and consequently undermines the perceived need for policy changes to food environments, leading to public resistance or disinterest in such systemic interventions.