Whose rights deserve protection? Framing analysis of responses to the 2016 Committee of Advertising Practice consultation on the non-broadcast advertising of foods and soft drinks to children.

Exposure to advertising of food and beverages high in fat sugar and salt (HFSS) is considered a factor in the development of childhood obesity. This paper uses framing analysis to examine the strategic discursive practices employed by non-industry and industry responders to the Committee of Advertising Practice's consultation responses (n = 86) on UK regulation of non-broadcast advertising of foods and soft drinks to children. Our analysis demonstrates non-industry and industry responders engaged in a moral framing battle centred on whose rights were deemed as being of greatest importance to protect: children or industry. Both industry and non-industry responders acknowledged that childhood obesity and non-broadcast advertising were complex issues but diverged on how they morally framed their arguments. Non-industry responders employed a moral framework that aligned with the values represented in social justice approaches to public health policy, where children were identified as vulnerable, in need of protection from harmful HFSS product advertising and childhood obesity was a societal problem to solve. In contrast, industry responders emphasised industry rights, portraying themselves as a responsible industry that is victim to perceived disproportionate policymaking, and values more closely aligned with a market justice approach to public health policy. Our analysis provides detailed insights into the framing strategies used in the policy debate surrounding the non-broadcast advertising of HFSS foods to children. This has relevance as to how advocacy organisations can develop counter-framing to industry frames which seek to limit effective regulation.