Read article and fill out paper
Article: Individual versus corporate responsibility
By: Samantha Kwan
There is a pervasive belief in modern Western societies that bodies are malleable and that the fat body is a product of individual choice. Despite biological and social limitations, individuals often think that the body is an achievable state and a reflection of moral fiber (Edgley and Brissett 1990). As Susan Bordo (2003) aptly describes, unwanted bulges are metaphors for internal processes out of control—uncontained desire, unrestrained hunger, uncontrolled impulse. Jeffery Sobal (1995) labels body discourses that centralize agency as “moral models of fatness.” These models suggest that fat is bad and that fat people are weak and lacking in willpower. Moral models of fatness place blame on overweight individuals and hold them responsible for their bodies. The prevalence of these models corresponds in part to the widespread stigma, stereotyping, and discrimination that fat individuals experience in contemporary Western societies (Puhl and Brownell 2001).
In recent years, however, talk about the fat body has expanded and the role of social structural influences on body type has entered public discourse. For example, nutritionists now point to the food industry’s role in creating a “toxic environment” that facilitates weight gain (Brownell and Horgen 2004). Moreover, research on “obesity causal claims” in the print media documents the growing presence of a “systemic frame” or perspective on obesity (Lawrence 2004). Unlike “individualizing frames” that limit causes to individuals, systemic frames have a broader focus and acknowledge multiple social forces that shape consumption patterns such as the abundance of inexpensive unhealthy foods. In popular culture, Morgan Spurlock’s Oscar- nominated film Super Size Me (2004) and Eric Schlosser’s best-selling book Fast Food Nation (2001) underscore the role of the fast food industry. Today, public discourse on fat not only implicates the individual, but also the food industry as a culprit in the so-called “obesity epidemic.”1 In sum, while individual agency is usually central to discussions of the fat body, recently there has been some acknowledgment of the role that social structural forces play in shaping body type.
In this paper, I examine meanings about the fat body in light of these issues of agency and structure.2 Specifically, I examine the role of the food industry in shaping body type, the food industry’s position, and lay perspectives. I begin by examining how the food industry shapes consumption patterns by creating a “toxic environment” and the various public responses that have emerged to induce corporate responsibility. I then turn to the food industry’s position—a perspective that emphasizes agency that I label a “market choice” frame. With this discursive context set, I then assess the resonance of this frame, paying specific attention to the issue of responsibility. How do individuals, especially those who are central to these issues, think about the fat body and issues of responsibility? Do they align themselves with industry’s position? Are moral models of fatness still pervasive? To address these questions, I turn to original survey data collected from respondents of various body sizes (n = 456) and interview data collected from “overweight” respondents (n = 42). As a whole, the data point to resonance of industry views and a strong belief in individual responsibility. In other words, moral models of fatness remain pervasive. After I present my findings, I discuss their social implications.
The Toxic Environment
::
The food industry shapes consumption patterns and, by extension, body types in several ways. In modern societies, food supplies are stable and plentiful. Since 1935, the number of US farms has fallen dramatically and there has been a general trend towards large farms (Hoppe and Korb 2005). The emergence of factory farming, while posing problems to the environment and engaging in ethically questionable treatment of animals (Turner 1999), has resulted in increased specialization, efficiency and productivity. The US food supply now provides a daily average of 3,800 calories per capita, about double what is required by most adults (Nestle 2002). While this assures consumers access to a wide variety of affordable foods, this abundance also encourages over-consumption and an energy ratio imbalance leading to weight gain.3
Consumers not only have more opportunities to buy food, but when it is purchased, portion sizes are large. Since the late 1970s, portion sizes have increased, with the largest sizes found at fast food establishments (Nielsen and Popkin 2003). Many of these foods are also energy- dense. This is in part because the food industry faces an economic quandary. While globalization and the concentration of ownership have resulted in extra profits for industry (Silverstein 1984), there are still limits to individual consumption. Industry must develop innovative ways to increase its profit margin. One strategy is to increase the sale of high-profit foods such as processed foods or foods made with cheap ingredients such as sugar and wheat. These energy-dense foods are typically low in fiber and high in sugar, salt, fat, cholesterol and food additives—similar to what Winson (2004) describes as “pseudo foods.” Pseudo foods provide overabundant calories and are low in nutrients such as proteins, minerals and vitamins. Diets comprised of such foods lack bulk and consequently encourage eating more than the body needs (Worcester 1996). Marketing of these high-fat low-fiber foods, especially to children, is seen as an effective, and thus widely used, industry strategy (Gamble and Cotugna 1999; Story and French 2004). Accordingly, there has been an upward shift in the energy density of foods consumed, alongside an increase in edible oil and sugar intake, in both local and global diets (Drewnoski and Popkin 1997; Popkin 2004; Popkin and Nielsen 2003).
The food industry has also been accused of supplying nutritional misinformation to consumers, using supposedly conflicting evidence, and hiding negative data in the name of profit (Chopra and Darnton-Hill 2004). These tactics reflect similar strategies used by tobacco companies such as Philip Morris—an organization that has suppressed its own research, developed even more addictive products, divided the tobacco control movement, and attempted to appear responsible, all in the name of profit (McDaniel et al. 2006). Critics accuse industry of creating an environment where consumers are misinformed about nutrition, thus encouraging greater consumption. These strategies are linked to industry attempts to influence public health policy more broadly (e.g. see Nestle 2002). For example, there is an ongoing battle between the sugar industry and the World Health Organization (WHO) about dietary recommendations. In 2004, the US sugar industry lobbied the Bush administration to challenge the WHO’s scientific findings linking sugar to obesity and an accompanying dietary recommendation to limit sugar intake to less than 10 percent of daily calories (Barrionuevo and Becker 2005; WHO 2003). Lobby groups have also had their say about the US Food Pyramid (Nestle 1993). Corporate influence on health guidelines is difficult to deny when, for example, food and beverage groups sponsor
many of the nutrition fact sheets produced by the American Dietetic Association (ADA) (e.g. ADA 2006). In sum, American society provides foods that are readily and easily accessible, in large portions, and that are not necessarily healthy—a problem confounded by misinformation and nutritional guidelines that, some have argued, encourage (over)consumption as they are influenced by food industry lobby groups.
Inducements to Promote Corporate Responsibility
::
In light of these industry influences on consumption, various responses intended to instill corporate responsibility have emerged. Turning the spotlight away from individual responsibility, these responses emphasize corporate responsibility and place pressure on corporations to create an environment that fosters healthy lifestyles. These responses mirror strategies once used to place checks on the tobacco industry and include the use of taxes, labels, litigation and marketing restrictions (Chopra and Darnton Hill 2004).
To limit consumption of unhealthy foods and to encourage consumption of healthy foods, health advocates such as Kelly Brownell of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and the Yale Center for Eating and Weight Disorders have called for special taxes and subsidies. Taxes would be levied on foods high in calories, fat and/or sugar, while the costs of healthful foods such as fruits and vegetables would be subsidized. Presently, eighteen US states, along with the Canadian federal government and seven provinces, levy special taxes on soft drinks, candy and/or snack foods (Jacobson and Brownell 2000). According to advocates, these special taxes, sometimes referred to as the “Twinkie tax,” “fat tax” or “sin tax,” generate revenue that health officials could then use to sponsor nutrition and other health promotion programs. Indeed, such religious rhetoric of a “sin tax” is reminiscent of a long-held assumption that gluttony is a sin and that individuals need God’s help to curb their desires (Griffith 2004). Failing divine support and intervention, however, individuals can now turn to government penalties that result in price increases that deter consumption. And if lessons can be learned from the war against Big Tobacco, these price increases may actually be more effective at curbing these “sinful” behaviors than voluntary cessation programs.
The CSPI has also called for the use of food labels to help consumers identify unhealthy products. The Center submitted a petition to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requiring that health messages appear on soft drinks containing high fructose corn syrup and other caloric sweeteners (CSPI 2005). The petition details the extensive health impact of soft drinks on obesity and diabetes, bones and osteoporosis, and heart disease. These labels are similar to health warnings placed on cigarette cartons and reflect a similar assumption that consumers need this information to make informed decisions.
In his film Super Size Me, Spurlock captures succinctly another strategy used to instill corporate responsibility. As he puts it, “sue the bastards!” The threat of litigation puts pressure on the food industry to reassess their marketing and sales practices. Liability suits, similar to earlier suits against Big Tobacco, surfaced in 1992 when the parents of two girls in New York sued McDonald’s for making their daughters “fat and unhealthy” (Pelman v. McDonald’s 237 F.Supp, 2d 512, 543 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)). While the initial case was dismissed by a district court judge, a circuit court appeal later acknowledged some of the plaintiffs’ claims. The industry is now
fighting back. Lobbyists for food companies have pushed state and federal legislation to limit lawsuits seeking personal injury damages related to obesity (Warner 2005). The National Restaurant Association (NRA) has been especially vocal in the campaign to pass “commonsense consumption laws” that are now enacted in over twenty states. At the federal level, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act, also known as the Cheeseburger Bill, received House approval but failed to gain Senate support.
Finally, health advocates have called for restrictions on the marketing and sale of unhealthy foods to children (Prevention Institute for the Center for Health Improvement 2002). Children watch over 10,000 food advertisements yearly, 95 percent of which are for high-profit and nutrition- poor products such as candy and sugared cereals (Brownell and Ludwig 2002; Gamble and Cotugna 1999; Story and French 2004). Industry has been somewhat responsive. For example, the country’s top three soft-drink companies have recently agreed to remove sweetened drinks like Coke, Pepsi and iced teas from school vending machines (Burros and Warner 2006).
The Market Choice Frame: Individual Responsibility
::
In response to allegations that it is creating a “toxic environment” for consumers, and in light of these inducements to instill corporate accountability, industry—especially through one representative organization, the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF)—is articulating a position on the fat body. The CCF is a well-funded, extremely vocal, non- profit public interest group founded in 1995 by Philip Morris—the aforementioned tobacco company that has used suspect strategies to increase profits. It represents over 30,000 restaurants and taverns in America (SourceWatch 2006) and runs major media campaigns and maintains a website (www.centerforconsumerfreedom.com) to convey its message. In 2004, the CCF released An Epidemic of Obesity Myths, a document that clearly lays out the industry’s perspectives on obesity. In this publication, the CCF presents a coherent picture of the food industry’s
perspective or cultural frame.4 They outline and refute seven “myths”: (1) obesity kills 400,000 Americans per year; (2) you can’t be overweight and healthy; (3) obesity is a disease; (4) overeating is a primary cause of obesity; (5) soda causes childhood obesity; (6) 65 percent of Americans are overweight or obese; and (7) obesity costs the US economy $117 billion annually. In general, the CCF downplays obesity as a health “epidemic,” emphasizes personal responsibility in consumption decisions, and is critical of government regulation. It also underscores declining exercise levels as a cause of obesity and makes clear that solutions to obesity must focus on both eating and exercise habits.
While the soft drink pullout from schools suggests that food companies are bowing to health interests, the industry’s overall position is that, at bottom, individuals are responsible for what they consume (Buchholz 2003). In other words, it is about personal responsibility. According to the food industry, in a democratic capitalist society, individuals have the right to consume whatever they want. The themes of choice, common sense, and personal responsibility pervade the CCF’s print advertisements. For example:
Some government officials want warning labels on food. Warning labels on food to “protect” us? At the Center for Consumer Freedom, we think adults are smart enough to choose what to eat and when to move. The only warnings you really need are about food cops, bureaucrats, and scheming trial lawyers. (http://www. consumerfreedom.com/advertisements_detail.cfm/ad/22)
YOU ARE TOO STUPID ... to make your own food choices. At least according to the food police and government bureaucrats who have proposed “fat taxes” on foods they don’t want you to eat. (http://www.consumerfreedom.com/advertisements_detail.cfm/ad/7)
The defining characteristics of this market choice frame are the choice to consume and individual responsibility over what one chooses to consume. Adults, the industry proclaims, are sensible enough to make their own decisions. By extension, just like food choices, body size is a personal choice.
At the same time as industry downplays the health problems associated with obesity, it has nevertheless made adjustments to promote healthy eating. Company-specific action to combat obesity and promote healthy eating choices includes clear communication in labeling, packaging and advertising; reformulating products to lower cholesterol and to reduce calories, trans fats and sugars; adding vitamins to foods; and offering smaller portion sizes (Finn 2005). In conjunction with these product and marketing changes, industry emphasizes the need to promote physical activity, supporting solutions to the “epidemic” that focus on increasing activity
levels. For example, in January 2003, the American Council for Fitness and Nutrition (ACFN) was formed. This joint collaboration between food and beverage companies, trade associations, and nutrition advocates attempts to create long-lasting remedies to obesity in the United States (Finn 2005). The ACFN promotes healthy eating, but high on its agenda is motivating physical activity in both adults and children. To a similar end, food companies maintain websites promoting active lifestyles such as Pepsi Co.’s www.smartspot.com.
In sum, contemporary obesity discourses now include talk about the role of the food industry, along with various checks on industry responsibility. The food industry has also articulated a frame on the fat body. It is a frame that emphasizes agency and individual responsibility, together with corporate responsibility. Moreover, it stresses public policy that focuses on a fit country, rather than on industry controls. CCF ads and publications clearly indicate the industry’s negative position on special taxes and food labels. The free market, not the government, ought to dictate what the public should have available for consumption. Similarly, the CCF disagrees with responsibility lawsuits and restrictions on food marketing to adults.
Study Methodology
::
Amid these competing discourses on individual and corporate responsibility, several important questions emerge; for example, to what extent does this industry or market choice frame resonate? While there are many industry issues, this paper focuses primarily on responsibility issues and four inducements to corporate responsibility: lawsuits, taxes, food labels and market restrictions. Additionally, how do individuals think about individual and corporate responsibility concerning the fat body? To assess how consumers think about these rival perspectives, I
collected survey data (n = 456) and conducted in-depth interviews with “overweight” respondents (n = 42).
I recruited respondents using two Institutional Review Board approved methods. First, I administered a survey in classrooms at a community college in a mid-sized southwestern city in the United States. Survey respondents were asked for their height and weight and whether they would be interested in participating in a follow-up interview.5 I then calculated body mass indexes (BMIs) for all survey respondents and contacted all “overweight” respondents who expressed interest.6 I initially relied on the BMI in order to have some objective systematic measure for methodological purposes. However, because the BMI is a problematic measure (e.g. see Prentice and Jebb 2001), I ultimately relied on self-labels as a criterion of sample inclusion. That is, all interview respondents considered themselves
“overweight.” Second, to tap into the same population, I recruited interview respondents through print advertisements placed in the college’s newspaper and on campus bulletin boards.
Both the survey and in-depth interviews asked respondents a series of questions about body and culture, including issues related to beauty, health, the food industry, discrimination and identity. The survey included both open and closed-ended questions, including Likert scale questions with five options ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. For example, respondents were asked to express their opinion on the following: there should be special taxes on unhealthy foods; the food industry is responsible for obesity; and fat people should sue companies whose food contributed to their size. The survey took about twenty minutes and interviews usually lasted two hours, ranging from one to four. Completed surveys were then coded and entered into SPSS for analyses. Digitally recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim. I coded and analyzed transcripts using Atlas.ti, a qualitative software program, and sorted and documented recurring themes grounded in the data (Glaser and Strauss 1967).
The 456 survey respondents’ ages ranged from 18 to 62 with a mean of 24.8. Women comprised 55.9 percent and men 44.1 percent of the sample and the sample median household (midpoint) income was $25,000. About half (48.8 percent) the sample identified their race as white, 21.5 percent Hispanic, 6.0 percent Asian, 4.2 percent African American, 2.4 percent Indian/Native American, 0.4 percent Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and 0.2 percent Other. Nearly one-fifth (16.4 percent) said they were mixed-race. Of the forty-two interview respondents, twenty-three (54.8 percent) were women and nineteen (45.2 percent) were men. Twenty (45.2 percent) self- identified as white, seven (16.7 percent) African American, ten (23.8 percent) Hispanic, three mixed-raced (7.1 percent), one (2.4 percent) Native American, and one (2.4 percent) as South-Asian. The average age of interview respondents was 34.5, ranging from 24 to 49, and the mean midpoint household income was approximately $30,000. I purposely limited the minimum age to 24 and included men in the study as previous body studies tend to employ young, college-age samples, often only of women, thus not permitting important comparisons.
Results
::
INDUSTRY ISSUES
::
Descriptive statistics presented in Table 1 show that respondents generally support free-market policies and express views that are consistent with industry claims. It is noteworthy that, as a whole, the qualitative data
strongly corroborate the quantitative data. By and large, respondents do not favor the use of lawsuits and taxes to keep industry in check. Siding with industry, a strong majority (87.8 percent) disagreed in some form that lawsuits should be filed against corporations and more than half (58.7 percent) disagreed in some form that there should be special taxes on unhealthy foods. Both modal categories for these variables indicated dissent.
Interview respondent, Denzel (27, African American), articulates the underlying reason for this vocal discontent of lawsuits:
These people who [sued] Mickey D’s a couple years ago. Now that really got under my skin not for the fact that they were suing Mickey D’s, but the reasons ... Oh, I ate six Big Macs and put on 100 lbs. Ronald McDonald didn’t stand there with a pistol to your back and make you order six Big Macs. So now why are you going to turn around and sue this company?
Denzel’s position exemplifies the position held by the majority of respondents who expressed that industry is not responsible for an individual’s weight gain as the food was not forced upon them. Respondents adamantly voiced that individuals have free will, make their own decisions, and therefore should not blame the food industry. They used derogatory adjectives such as “dumb,” “stupid” and “ridiculous” to describe these lawsuits.
Interview respondents’ views on taxes were similarly vocal, adamant and negative. They did not favor taxes. On the one hand, they viewed taxes unfavorably because taxes in general were considered undesirable. As Javier (43, Hispanic) explains, “I’m just not in favor of any more taxes.” On the
other hand, respondents such as Alesha (34, African American) felt that taxes would be ineffective at preventing unhealthy food consumption. In her words, “It won’t matter, they’ll still buy it. It [taxing] don’t matter. Individual people, they just do what they’re going to do and this is America, this is what we do!” Again, the belief that fat individuals are primarily responsible for their bodies is evident. Moreover, as Alesha’s statement confirms, there is a sense that fat individuals are unrestrained and lack self-control. They will obtain unhealthy food, regardless of the price. Moral models of fatness are prevalent.
Support for the food industry frame, however, was not observed across all industry variables. Despite opposition to lawsuits and taxes, over two-thirds (70.6 percent) of respondents agreed that there should be warning labels on unhealthy foods. Here, the interviews illuminate two competing perspectives on warning labels. Some respondents, like John (36, mixed- race), were pro-labels because they felt that it may be an effective deterrent:
That might not be a bad idea. The only reason why I say that is because for someone who does have a weight problem, it might guilt me into not eating, not taking the bite or whatever. Yeah, I could go for that I guess. It’d be kind of a humorous read. [laughs]
Others like Alberto (34, Hispanic) added that these labels would be both futile and impractical in light of how much unhealthy food is already on the market, particularly in fast food restaurants:
What are you going to put on there? How exactly would you word that, you know? They would have to do that for their whole menu. If I’m going to eat a bag of gummy bears, I’m going to eat a bag of gummy bears. I smoke cigarettes, the warning on the label don’t mean nothing. Person’s going to eat [and] is going to eat. What it all comes down to [is] nobody’s going to tell me what I can or cannot do. Once you start telling people that, more times than not they’re going to do what you told them not to do!
As a smoker, he draws parallels between the ineffectiveness of tobacco warnings and food label warnings. In either case, he feels that these admonishments do not deter him and may even encourage rebellion. Once again, respondents’ views centralize agency and free will, core tenets of the industry perspective.
Both the survey and interview data also point to strong capitalist sentiments and unfettered industry freedom in terms of product offerings. Over half (52.1 percent) the survey respondents agree in some form or another that the food industry should be able to sell any product it wants, including unhealthy products. Kirk’s (26, white) perspective is representative of how most interview respondents felt about the free market.
He supports capitalism and believes that, as long as companies are paying taxes, they should be able to sell whatever they want:
It really is if you believe in capitalism you’ve got to believe in it the whole way. [And you believe in it?] Oh, sure. Yeah. [laughs] ... Because why should we restrict it? If McDonald’s wants to sell you a pot of grease with a gravy dip and people want to buy that, let them buy it.
At the same time, there was some concession that children may be in need of protection from corporations. Although nearly one-third (26.8 percent) were of no opinion, still half (50.3 percent) of the survey sample agreed that there should be restrictions on the marketing of unhealthy foods to children. Thus, despite support for market freedom and market choice, respondents acknowledged that children may be a special population lacking in full agency to make healthy decisions.
RESPONSIBILITY ISSUES
::
To assess perspectives on responsibility, the survey asked respondents to indicate their level of agreement on food industry, fast food industry, and individual responsibility (see Table 2). Overall, respondents rejected the claim that either the food industry or fast food industry is primarily responsible for obesity. Nearly two-thirds, 59.5 percent and 56.1 percent, disagreed that the food industry or the fast food industry, respectively, is responsible. Modes for both statements were both disagree—39.9 percent and 36.6 percent, respectively. Yet, interestingly, when faced with more lax statements about the industry, a willingness to acknowledge industry responsibility emerges. Specifically, two less stringent items (the food industry is partially responsible for obesity and the fast food industry is partially responsible for obesity) lead to very
different results. The modes switch to agree where 38.6 percent and 41.9 percent, respectively, expressed agreement that the industry is partially responsible. In other words, total disagreement is halved and drops to 31.7 percent (for the food industry) and to 28.6 percent (for the fast food industry).
This middle-ground position is well captured by the comment of Jeanette (35, white). While voicing concern for individual responsibility, she also acknowledges that corporations are still responsible in some way:
On the one hand, you don’t have to go there. On the other hand, you don’t know what the food is made of. There’s responsibility on both sides. There are people that are hard-liners and say they don’t have to go in there. They don’t have to eat that food. So they shouldn’t sue
them. And that’s true to an extent. On the other hand, they’re going out to eat [and] they don’t know what’s in it ... So maybe there could be some legislation because there’s definitely all kinds of false sense going on.
So, even when respondents feel that responsibility rests on the individual as the food was not forced upon them and they have the decision to eat elsewhere, Jeanette maintains that corporations still need to provide accurate information to ensure that consumers are accurately informed about their products. As she claims, there is responsibility on both sides. Individuals may be able to make better choices if they have knowledge about what they are consuming.
A final variable that captures the extent to which respondents endorse individual responsibility illustrates the pervasiveness of moral models of fatness. In fact, no other variable concerning the market choice frame had stronger consensus than this variable. Specifically, 93.3 percent of survey respondents felt that overweight or fat individuals are responsible for their own bodies. Thus, even when survey and interview respondents feel that the industry is partially responsible, responsibility ultimately lies in the hands of individuals. Only 1.5 percent expressed any form of dissent (strongly disagreed and disagreed combined)—a finding that strongly points to resonance of the industry’s perspective.
Consistently, the interview data reflect this strong belief that individuals are responsible for their bodies. Below are three quotes that capture the key tenets of the food industry’s position—a focus on individual choice, responsibility, and agency:
We are adults. We have the right to decide what kind of life we want to live. I don’t think we should be forced to eat healthy food. I mean, we’re America. Freedom of choice here. (Hillary, 26, white)
I think that’s where this country has gone wrong in the last twenty years. When I was growing up, I did something wrong, I was punished for it. Now it doesn’t seem that way. ...There has to be some amount of responsibility ...We have lost our sense of responsibility, in every aspect, including our health. (Matthew, 31, white)
Well, I gained the weight because I ate. I wasn’t active. Therefore to lose the weight, [I need to] watch what I eat, get active. You can control these things. These things are in your control. (Alberto, 34, Hispanic)
Thus even this group of “overweight” interview respondents assigns responsibility, first and foremost, to themselves. Remarkably, these prevalent themes of personal choice and individual responsibility resound, with little differences by gender, race or body mass index. Respondents, across the sample, emphasized their own actions, blaming primarily themselves for their poor eating habits and lack of exercise.
Discussion
::
The reliance on convenience samples that are neither representative of, nor randomly generated from, the study population undoubtedly limits the generalizability of the study findings. Nevertheless, this exploratory research illuminates important perspectives on responsibility issues and draws attention to important connections between food company values and consumers. Public support for perspectives consistent with an industry point of view likely reflects the broader acceptance of “American” values. Endorsement of free-market capitalism probably accounts for as much of the disdain for the use of litigation and taxes, in and of itself, as it does for the disapproval of these strategies to control industry. This is consistent with the literature. Social movement scholars have observed that the more a frame resonates with personal experience and familiar cultural themes, the more likely it will be accepted as a natural way to interpret reality (Ryan 1991; Snow and Benford 1988). Moreover, if a frame resonates with a broader “master fame” (Snow and Benford 1992), the greater likelihood it will be effective and/or adopted. The food industry’s market choice perspective is consistent with a firmly embedded and accepted ideology of American individualism and thus, in respondents’ views, it is an appropriate, normal, and/or natural way to understand the fat body. There is widespread belief that if we pull ourselves up by our bootstraps we can achieve infinite goals, whether it is making a million dollars or redesigning our bodies as we desire.
Interestingly, it is not only the food industry that promotes individual responsibility; other cultural discourses on the body also centralize agency. For example, public health messages generally focus on individual-level solutions to obesity. Government documents stress weight loss through behavioral changes (USDHHS 2001). While these documents concede the need for community- based efforts including public education and research, personal transformation is central. In this cultural context, it is not surprising that the majority of respondents feel that fat individuals are responsible for their own bodies.
An emphasis on individual responsibility has important implications for public health. Specifically, overstating the role of individual responsibility may in fact detract from changes needed to promote active lifestyles and the consumption of healthy foods. A cultural emphasis on individual responsibility must come hand-in-hand with effective public health policy that creates an infrastructure for healthy living. Affordable public recreational facilities and community centers should accompany access to affordable healthy foods. Fast food and unhealthy foods in general, respondents claimed, is cheap, convenient, and accommodating to their busy lifestyles. When inexpensive healthy alternatives are not readily available, it is not surprising that they turn to unhealthy foods. In short, public policy aimed at creating a healthy citizenry must go beyond placing emphasis on individual change. It must also provide the structural supports to enable this change.
Views about responsibility are important, not only because they potentially divert attention from important structural changes, but also because they reveal how individuals think about blame. A focus on individual responsibility reflects the stranglehold of “moral models of fatness” that emphasize fatness as “bad, sinful and ugly” and suggest that “fat people are responsible for their condition” (Sobal 1995: 69). These models, in turn, have implications for social justice. As attribution theory informs, when obese individuals are seen as responsible for their condition, they are more likely to be evaluated negatively (DeJong 1980, 1993). In other words, holding fat individuals responsible for their bodies increases the probability of unequal treatment. Research indicates that negative views of fat individuals derive in part from the belief that fat individuals are responsible for their condition (Crandall et al. 2001; Weiner et al. 1988). Reported elsewhere (Kwan 2007), logistic regression analyses on the quantitative data indicate a positive and significant relationship between views on individual responsibility and anti-fat views. Others have found that in Western cultures where an ideology of individualism is prevalent, fat discrimination is especially noticeable (Crandall and Martinez 1996). The pervasiveness of moral models of fatness is important as it is linked to size-based prejudice and discrimination which has been documented in all realms of social life,
particularly for women (Puhl and Brownell 2001; Rothblum 1992). Effective public policy aimed at creating a healthy citizenry must also begin to address and eradicate size-based discrimination. These efforts should not disregard how individuals frame the issue of responsibility in the first place.
Even when capitalistic ideals and a tilt towards agency on the agency–structure continuum, seem ubiquitous, there is simultaneously some willingness among respondents to acknowledge the undesirability of unfettered corporatism. Thus, respondents endorsed less intrusive public health measures such as labeling unhealthy products or placing restrictions on the marketing of unhealthy foods to vulnerable populations such as children. Furthermore, the belief that industry is partially responsible for obesity, coupled with a general sentiment reported by over two-thirds of survey respondents that there are simply too many fast food restaurants, indicates that the debates on responsibility are far from conclusive. Regina Lawrence notes that “the battle is far from over ... As claims about an unhealthy food and activity environment have increased, the role of personal responsibility for one’s health has been strongly articulated in response” (Lawrence 2005: 69). Indeed, the debates about who is responsible will be ongoing.
Acknowledgment
::
I would like to thank the editor and anonymous reviewers of Food, Culture and Society for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. I would also like to thank Abigail Saguy for suggesting a label for this frame, i.e. “market choice,” and her encouragement and thoughtful comments on my work.