Evaluating the use of citizens’ juries in food policy: a case study of food regulation

BMC Public Health

Michael Calnan⁴  Paul Ward²  Rachel Ankeny³  Samantha Meyer²  John Coveney²  Elizabeth House²  Julie Henderson¹ 

[1] School of Nursing and Midwifery, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia;Discipline of Public Health, School of Medicine, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia;School of History and Politics, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia;School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, UK

关键词: Children sporting events;    Food sponsorship;    Food regulation;    Deliberative democracy;    Citizens’ juries;   

Others  :  1162086
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-13-596

 received in 2013-04-08, accepted in 2013-06-06,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Deliberative engagement techniques and citizens’ juries are touted as means of incorporating the public into policy decision-making, managing community expectations and increasing commitment to public health policy. This paper reports a study to examine the feasibility of citizens’ juries as a means of collecting data to inform public health policy related to food regulation through evaluation of the conduct of a citizens’ jury.

Methods

A citizens’ jury was conducted with a representative sample of 17 South Australians to explore their willingness to consider the proposition that food and drink advertising and/or sponsorship should be banned at children’s sporting events.

Results

The results showed that, in relation to the central proposition and evaluation data from the jury, opinion on the proposition remained comparatively stable. Most jurors indicated that they thought that food and drink sponsorship and/or advertising at children’s sporting events would have little or no effect on altering children’s diet and eating habits, with the proportion increasing during the jury process. Jurors were given evaluation sheets about the content of the jury and the process of the citizens’ jury to complete at the end of the session. The evaluation of the citizens’ jury process revealed positive perceptions. The majority of jurors agreed that their knowledge of the issues of food and drink sponsorship in children’s sport had increased as a result of participation in the citizens’ jury. The majority also viewed the decision-making process as fair and felt that their views were listened to. One important response in the evaluation was that all jurors indicated that, if given the opportunity, they would participate in another citizens’ jury.

Conclusions

The findings suggest that the citizens’ jury increased participant knowledge of the issue and facilitated reflective discussion of the proposition. Citizens’ juries are an effective means of gaining insight into public views of policy and the circumstances under which the public will consider food regulation; however a number of issues need to be considered to ensure the successful conduct of a citizens’ jury.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Henderson et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Abelson J, Forest P, Eyles J, Casebeer A, Martin E, Mackean G: Examining the role of context in the implementation of a deliberative public participation experiment: results from a Canadian comparative study. Soc Sci Med 2007, 64(10):2115-2128.
• [2]Delli Carpini M, Lomax Cook F, Jacobs L: Public deliberation, discursive participation and citizen engagement: a review of empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science 2004, 7:315-344.
• [3]Mitton C, Smith N, Evoy B, Abelson J: Public participation in health care priority setting: a scoping review. Health Policy 2009, 91(3):219-228.
• [4]Abelson J, Forest P, Eyles J, Smith P, Martin E, Gauvin P: Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Soc Sci Med 2003, 57(2):238-251.
• [5]Molster C, Maxwell S, Youngs L, Kyne G, Hope F, Dawkins H, O'Leary P: Blueprint for a deliberative public forum on biobanking policy: were theoretical prinicples achievable in practice? Health Expect 2013, 16(2):211-224.
• [6]Fishkin JS: Democracy and deliberation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1991.
• [7]Gutmann A, Thompson D: Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1996.
• [8]Feron JD: Deliberation as discussion. In Deliberative Democracy. Edited by Elster J. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1998:44-68.
• [9]Dryzek JS: Deliberative democracy and beyond. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2000.
• [10]Inglehart R: Changing values, economic development and political change. International Social Science Journal 1995, 47(3):379-403.
• [11]Pratchett L: New fashions in public participation: towards greater democracy? Parliamentary Affairs 1999, 52(4):617-633.
• [12]Ryfe D: Does deliberative democracy work? Annual Review of Political Science 2005, 8:49-71.
• [13]Bailey C, Covery I, Mort M, Baxter J: Different public health geographies for the 2001 foot and mouth disease epidemic: 'citizen' vs 'professional' epidemiology. Health Place 2006, 12(2):157-166.
• [14]Lenaghan J, New J, Mitchell E: Setting priorities: is there a role for citizens' juries? BMJ 1996, 312:1591-1593.
• [15]Evoy B, McDonald M, Frankish CJ: Civil society? What deliberative democrats can tell advocates about how to build commitment to the health promotion agenda? Can J Public Health 2008, 99(4):321-323.
• [16]Elwood P, Longley M: My health: whose responsibility? A jury decides. J Epidemiol Community Health 2010, 64:761-764.
• [17]Jefferson Center: Citizens jury process [online]. 2011. http://jefferson-center.org/what-we-do/citizen-juries/ webcite
• [18]Ireland R, Longley M, Thomas C, Shaw A: What choices should we be able to make about designer babies? A citizens' jury of young people in South Wales. Health Expect 2006, 9(3):207-217.
• [19]Coote A, Lenaghan J: Citizens' Juries: theory into practice. London, UK: Institute for Public Policy Research; 1997.
• [20]Barnes A, Vergusnt P, Topp K: Assessing the consumer perception of the term "organic": a citizens' jury approach. British Food Journal 2009, 111(2–3):155-164.
• [21]State Government of Victoria: Citizen juries [online]. 2011. http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/effective-engagement/toolkit/tool-citizen-juries webcite
• [22]Kuper R: Deliberating waste: the hertfordshire citizens' jury. Local Environment 1997, 2(2):139-153.
• [23]Gooberman-Hill G, Horwood J, Calnan MR: Citizens' juries in planning research priorities: process, engagement and outcome. Health Expect 2008, 11:272-281.
• [24]Blamey RK, James RF, Smith R, Niemeyer S: Citizens' juries and environmental value assessment. Canberra, Australia: Australian National University; 2000.
• [25]Swinburn B: Obesity prevention in children and adolescents. Eating Disorders and Obesity 2009, 18(1):209-223.
• [26]Mehta K, Banytis F, Coveney J, Ward P, Handsley E: Food and beverage sponsorship of children's sport in South Australia: a pilot study. Adelaide, South Australia: Flinders University; 2010.
• [27]Kelly B, Baur LA, Bauman A, King L: Tobacco and alcohol sponsorship of sporting events provide insights about how food and beverage sponsorship may affect children's health. Health Promot J Austr 2011, 22(2):91-96.
• [28]World Health Organization: Marketing of foods and non-alcoholic beverages to children. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2010.
• [29]Kelly B, Baur LA, Bauman A, King L, Chapman K, Smith B: Restricting unhealthy food sponsorship: attitudes of the sporting community. Health Policy 2012, 104(3):288-295.