Frames identified in the literature
| Type | Identified examples |
| Frames generating attention and/or enabling commitment | An economic rationale for intervention including costs to national health systems, economic development and productivity28 61 63 81 96; vulnerability of children to malnutrition27 28 71 77; the human right to food and health12 27 45 52 55; international comparisons highlighting the particular severity of malnutrition in a country12; food industry demonization28; increasing use of an obesogenic environment frame locating responsibility with the ‘causes of the causes’ of obesity and thus with a wider diversity of actors beyond the individual28 71 73; when societal conditions and focusing events (eg, drought, HIV/AIDS, health system reforms) provided an opportunity for strategically sensitising broader policy discourses to nutrition.31 |
| Oppositional frames (overweight/obesity) | Emphasis on individual/parental responsibility over governmental and industry responsibility, portraying scientific evidence as contested or inconclusive28 74 75 79; the ‘singling-out’ of processed foods or beverages for intervention as unfair28 32 77 96; food regulation as undermining commercial viability28 32 56; government as a ‘nanny’ when intervening to address obesogenic food environments.28 35 73 77 94 |