title: Personal responsibility or shared responsibility: What is the appropriate role of the law in obesity prevention?
abstract: Sensitive to allegations of "nanny state" paternalism, Australian governments support the doctrine that combating obesity is a matter of personal responsibility. Policy-makers endorse the "holistic" approach to obesity prevention, with a view to managing both sides of the nutritional energy equation. This paradigm allows the food and drinks industry to deflect its contributory responsibility for the epidemic and to avoid more stringent regulatory intervention beyond existing self-regulatory and corporate social responsibility regimes. This article argues that the industry must bear shared responsibility for the extent of the obesity crisis, although it cannot bear sole responsibility It defends the public interest case for more invasive, government-led regulation, reframing the crisis as one of public not individual burdens. Mindful of the political risk associated with unfocused calls for regulatory intervention, it articulates a set of regulatory principles to ensure that the interests of consumers and industry are properly acknowledged prior to further regulatory intervention. Finally, the article clarifies the subject, object and content of possible regulatory initiatives, offering an evaluation of their efficacy, practicality and fairness.
authors.forename: Benjamin
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Brooks
mesh_terms: D001315:Australia; D033161:Government Regulation; D006291:Health Policy; D006801:Humans; D009765:Obesity / Q000517:prevention & control*; D011634:Public Health; D000068356:Self-Control