Context: The continuing rise in obesity rates across the United States has proved impervious to clinical treatment or public health exhortation, necessitating policy responses. Nearly a decade's worth of political debates may be hardening into an obesity issue regime, comprising established sets of cognitive frames, stakeholders, and policy options.
Methods: This article is a survey of reports on recently published studies.
Findings: Much of the political discussion regarding obesity is centered on two "frames," personal-responsibility and environmental, yielding very different sets of policy responses. While policy efforts at the federal level have resulted in little action to date, state and/or local solutions such as calorie menu labeling and the expansion of regulations to reduce unhealthy foods at school may have more impact.
Conclusions: Obesity politics is evolving toward a relatively stable state of equilibrium, which could make comprehensive reforms to limit rising obesity rates less feasible. Therefore, to achieve meaningful change, rapid-response research identifying a set of promising reforms, combined with concerted lobbying action, will be necessary.
Obesity burst onto the U.S. national policy agenda in 2000/2001, initially fuelled by a widely disseminated set of maps by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) depicting sharply rising obesity rates nationwide, followed by the surgeon general's warning that obesity had become a "new national epidemic" (Mokdad et al. 2003; Oliver 2006; Satcher 2001). A snapshot of responses since then would include alarmed reactions from medical, media, and policy actors alike. The health establishment has rushed to devise medical treatments, from surgical to pharmaceutical, for obesity and its manifold health effects. Surging media attention to obesity and overweight features reports ranging from dire health alarms ("the current generation may be the first to live shorter lives than their parents-and obesity is to blame"; Belluck 2005, p. A1; see also Daniels 2006; Olshansky et al. 2005) to economic warnings (over $120 billion lost annually to obesity-related illnesses; see e.g., Bhattacharya and Sood 2006) to "lifestyle" stories of coffins, airplane seats, and hospital beds all made larger to suit the "supersizing of America" (St. John 2003, p. A13). Public officials at all levels have decried the "epidemic," although statutory reforms have been concentrated in a few energetic local and state polities; the federal government has been noticeably slow to act. All the while obesity rates continue to rise, with thirty-seven states reporting significant year-to-year increases from 2007 to 2008, with none reporting a decrease (TFAH 2008).
This article explores obesity politics as it has evolved in recent years. First I discuss the sustained struggles over framing the topic now that public agendas have begun to solidify into an "issue regime" around obesity. Then I examine popular local and state policy options and review approaches that could have an impact on soaring obesity rates, along with an assessment of the likelihood of their widespread adoption. While promising policy approaches exist, the opportunity to take action may be closing fast. On most public health issues, policymaking features a bustle of activity followed by a period of quiescence as a regime coalesces-even when the underlying problems continue to mount. Antiobesity advocates who face declining interest from lawmakers will therefore need to devise creative ways to sustain a focus on this topic.