4.4 Article

Community perspectives on the use of regulation and law for obesity prevention in children: A citizens' jury

期刊

HEALTH POLICY
卷 121, 期 5, 页码 566-573

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.03.001

关键词

Childhood obesity; Health policy; Nutrition policy; Legislation; Regulation; Prevention and control

资金

  1. Australian National Preventive Health Agency [182BRA2011, 20STR2013F]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Childhood obesity is a significant challenge for public health internationally. Regulatory and fiscal measures propagated by governments offer a potentially effective response to this issue. Fearing public criticism, governments are often reluctant to use such measures. In this study we asked a descriptively representative and informed group of Australians their views on the use of legislation and fiscal measures by governments to address childhood obesity. Methods: A citizens' jury, held in South Australia in April 2015, was asked to consider the question: What laws, if any, should we have in Australia to address childhood obesity? Results: The jury agreed that prevention of obesity was complex requiring multifaceted government intervention. Recommendations fell into the areas of health promotion and education (n = 4), regulation of food marketing (n = 3), taxation subsidies (n = 2) and a parliamentary enquiry. School-based nutrition education and health promotion and mandatory front-of-pack interpretive labelling of food and drink were ranked 1 and 2 with taxation of high fat, high sugar food and drink third. Conclusion: The recommendations were similar to findings from other citizens' juries held in Australia suggesting that the reticence of decision makers in Australia, and potentially elsewhere, to use legislative and fiscal measures to address childhood obesity is misguided. Supporting relevant informed public discussion could facilitate a politically acceptable legislative approach. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据