This study investigated how the belief systems and interests of policy actors shaped their framing of the causes and solutions to obesity and how this influenced policy recommendations.

Submissions to the Select Committee on Obesity Epidemic in Australia (SCOEA) were collected, and actors were classified according to their interests in commercial and non-commercial groups. A framework grounded in social constructionism was used to code frames and underlying belief systems. The SCOEA report was analysed to identify the representative distribution of belief systems in recommendations.

Australia.

None.

150 submissions were collected and analysed. 120 submitters were actors with non-commercial interests, including governments (n 13), non-government organisations (n 49), civil society groups and citizens (n 24) and academia (n 34). Thirty submitters were actors with commercial interests including food industry representatives (n 23) and health enterprises (n 7). Conflicting belief systems in the framing of obesity were identified among policy actors, particularly between commercial and non-commercial groups. Non-commercial actors framed obesity in biomedical, lifestyle and socio-ecological terms, whereas commercial actors exclusively framed obesity as an issue of individual choices and proposed behavioural change interventions. A broad range of belief systems expressed by the submitters was represented in the SCOEA final report.

These findings illustrate how policy actors’ beliefs and interests shaped their frames and influenced the development of a key policy report. Policymakers seeking to advance obesity prevention policy must critically evaluate strategic framing by various actors and ensure that policy decisions are evidence-based and aligned with health, equity and ecological perspectives.