I think it is not helpful to think about how average people read this.

There are people who support effective- action. We only need to maintain their support. They read messages differently and read different media.

There are people who we could convert to support the action we hope to see back effective action.

There are people who be predisposed to politically organise around this issue as it violates their ideas of how people should live and die), how society should run.

(eg Health reform in USA - motives strong grassroots and corporate political activism because it many people believe that the rich should not be taxed to bail out the poor who have become sick. To do so will ruin America. To understand why health policy changes can be associated with such vigorous and irrational opposition, read and think about the Terror Management Theory particularly as it applies to health behaviors.)

Thus I would argue we need public health policy advocacy that:

1 maintains supporters,

2 Coverts potentially movable converts

3 and does not overly alarm others in such as was that corporate PR can easily organise grassroots anti-campaigns.

We need to think segmented populations not the average person.

In the article under discussion, I suspect for some people that to mention "injustice" turns on the unhelpful frame that governments can't do much about injustice.

Some people see injustice as one of those unfortunate things in life that happens that can't really be prevented. Efforts to reduce it are often counterproductive or otherwise harmful.

I suspect people on this e-list, have different values and frames on this issue.

Also to talk about jobs maybe to turn on another unhelpful frame about the need to governments to be pro-business which really means small government, and market solutions.

If you have these frames as the author might then might be an internally consistent article.

eg

> The myth, he said, is that governments can intervene on obesity and ?that
> would make everything fine.?

1 The government's lifestyle focused effort of obesity reduction are waste of tax payers money.

2. to reduce diabetes we need more social justice- This is a moral issue and the government can't do too much about that. What governments do needs to be done with cautious, as strategics may have  harmful unintended consequences.

3. It is about jobs and thus about pro-growth, pro-business policies.

4 There is a double bind, business doesn't want to pay for the costs of high diabetes so maybe there is a reluctant case for health food taxes and subsidies.  

5 The best evidence public health evidence seems to be for food supply, and planning healthier neighbourhoods as this supports individual choice. The frames about planning, public transport and food supply seems to have worked on this author.

I suspect a frame about creating more good high control jobs creating productive health & wealth producing workplaces, might be helpful with all these segments. 

I wish I had more research on hand how work environments are related to chronic disease behaviors and to workplace productivity and profits.  

I have a fair of evidence about work environments and mental illness outcomes, less on mental wellbeing outcomes, and less still on  productivity and profitability outcomes

By the way this is just come to my attention and should be of interest to this e-community.

Job stress as a preventable upstream determinant of common mental disorders: A review for practitioners and policy-makers

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author(s): Anthony D LaMontagne 1 | Tessa Keegel 2 | Amber M Louie 3 | Aleck Ostry 4 
doi: 10.5172/jamh.9.1.17 
Advances in Mental Health 
Volume: 9 | Issue: 1 
Cover date: August 2010
Page(s): 17-35  http://bit.ly/9d3zMf

I wish we had more research on framing the SDoH particularly in Australia.

Cheers

Malcolm

>>> "E. Maya de Szegheo" <[log in to unmask]> 8/11/2010 5:15 am >>>
To the average person it reinforces the diet/excercise argument- poverty limits
access to healthy food, monitoring etc. Social justice could alleviate the
conditions of poverty and therefore allow better access to necessities. To the
average person, I think, the initiating factor- the stress of constant
insecurity leading physiologically to diabetes, heart disease etc. needs to be
spelled out first, then followed by the difficulty of managing the disease.

M.deSzegheo







> I am curious as to how this reads... to the average person.
>
>
http://www.healthzone.ca/health/yourhealth/diabetes/article/885277--poverty-drives-the-epidemic
> ----------------------------------------------
> And on the macro level, Glazier believes there are options for government
> policy that would fight obesity. For example, governments could tax
> unhealthy food and use that money to subsidize nutritious food, he said.
> ?We are looking at the first generation in history (today?s teens) that
> will not live longer than their parents because this generation is much
> more obese, they have very unhealthy lifestyles and don?t have any
> physical activity in the course of a day,? Glazier said.
> Dennis Raphael, a professor of health policy and management at York
> University, has published numerous studies concluding that poverty is the
> main cause of diabetes.
> Raphael argues that the only way to put a dent in the explosive growth of
> the disease is to focus on social justice ? and the jobs that allow people
> to emerge from poverty.
> ?The better argument is to say that today?s generation will not be as
> healthy as we are because of growing income inequality, insecure
> employment and a lack of affordable housing,? he said.
> The myth, he said, is that governments can intervene on obesity and ?that
> would make everything fine.?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> dr
>
>
> To leave, manage or join list:
> https://listserv.yorku.ca/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=sdoh&A=1
>
>

To leave, manage or join list: https://listserv.yorku.ca/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=sdoh&A=1