Personal responsibility and obesity: a constructive approach to a controversial issue.

Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, Departments of Psychology and Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Health Affairs (Impact Factor: 4.64). 03/2010; 29(3):379-87. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0739
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The concept of personal responsibility has been central to social, legal, and political approaches to obesity. It evokes language of blame, weakness, and vice and is a leading basis for inadequate government efforts, given the importance of environmental conditions in explaining high rates of obesity. These environmental conditions can override individual physical and psychological regulatory systems that might otherwise stand in the way of weight gain and obesity, hence undermining personal responsibility, narrowing choices, and eroding personal freedoms. Personal responsibility can be embraced as a value by placing priority on legislative and regulatory actions such as improving school nutrition, menu labeling, altering industry marketing practices, and even such controversial measures as the use of food taxes that create healthier defaults, thus supporting responsible behavior and bridging the divide between views based on individualistic versus collective responsibility.

1 Bookmark
  • Public Health Ethics 09/2012; 5(2):104-115. · 1.27 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The term "optimal defaults" refers to imparting pre-selected choices which are designed to produce a desired behavior change. The concept is attractive to policymakers because it steers people toward desirable behaviors while preserving free choice through the ability to opt out. It has been found to be a powerful behavioral determinant in areas such as pension plan enrollment, organ donation, and green energy utilization. We discuss how optimal defaults can be applied to pediatric obesity prevention in several domains including public policy, institutional, private sector, and home environment. Although there are obstacles to overcome in implementing optimal defaults, it is a promising component to incorporate in a multi-level strategy for preventing pediatric obesity.
    Journal of food & nutritional disorders. 12/2013; 2(5):1.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In March 2011, the United Kingdom’s (UK’s) Government launched five Public Health Responsibility Deal Networks to address public health priorities. The Networks used voluntary partnerships to influence peoples’ choice architecture to move them toward healthier behaviors. The purpose of this research was to conduct an exploratory study of diverse stakeholders’ perspectives about perceived responsibility and accountability expectations to improve food environments in England through the Food Network partnerships. A purposive sample of policy elites (n = 31) from government, academia, food industry and non-government organizations sorted 48 statements related to improving food environments in England. Statements were grounded in three theoretical perspectives (i.e., legitimacy, nudge and public health law). PQMethod 2.33 statistical software program used factor analysis to identify viewpoints based on intra-individual differences for how participants sorted statements. The results revealed three distinct viewpoints, which explained 64% of the variance for 31 participants, and emphasized different expectations about responsibility. The food environment protectors (n = 17) underscored government responsibility to address unhealthy food environments if voluntary partnerships are ineffective; the partnership pioneers (n = 12) recognized government–industry partnerships as legitimate and necessary to address unhealthy food environments; and the commercial market defenders (n = 1) emphasized individual responsibility for food choices and rejected government intervention to improve food environments. Consensus issues included: protecting children’s right to health; food industry practices that can and should be changed; government working with industry on product reformulation; and building consumer support for economically viable healthy products. Contentious issues were: inadequacy of accountability structures and government inaction to regulate food marketing practices targeting children. We conclude that understanding different viewpoints is a step toward building mutual trust to strengthen accountability structures that may help stakeholders navigate ideologically contentious issues to promote healthy food environments in England.
    Food Policy 12/2014; 49:207–218. · 2.33 Impact Factor


Available from