TABLE 3—
Proportion of News Coverage With Pro and Con Frames About New York City Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Portion-Size Cap Regulation, May 31, 2012–July 31, 2013
| Frame Topics Mentioned | Overall (n = 263), % | Before Board of Health Vote (n = 133),a % | After Board of Health Vote (n = 130),b % |
| Pro SSB portion-size cap frames | |||
| Any pro SSB portion-size cap frame | 36.1 | 31.6 | 40.8 |
| Policy will have a positive health impact | 23.2 | 24.8 | 21.5 |
| Policy will increase awareness of SSB harms and obesity risk factors | 8.4 | 12.0 | 4.6* |
| Policy will reduce the amount of SSBs consumed | 7.2 | 10.5 | 3.9 |
| Policy will decrease morbidity or mortality from obesity | 11.0 | 6.8 | 15.4 |
| Policy will help special populations | 7.6 | 3.0 | 12.3* |
| Policy could help children and adolescents | 5.3 | 2.3 | 8.5* |
| Policy could help low-income groups and neighborhoods | 2.3 | 0.8 | 3.9 |
| Policy could help racial/ethnic minorities | 1.9 | 0.0 | 3.9 |
| Policy is part of the government’s role or responsibility | 13.7 | 10.5 | 16.9 |
| Con SSB portion-size cap frames | |||
| Any con-SSB portion-size cap frame | 83.7 | 84.2 | 83.1 |
| Policy is flawed or will be ineffective | 34.2 | 31.6 | 36.9 |
| Flawed policy arguments | |||
| Policy does not cover all types of beverages | 10.3 | 4.5 | 16.2* |
| Policy does not cover all locations where SSBs are sold | 14.8 | 6.8 | 23.1* |
| Individuals can purchase refills | 9.9 | 11.3 | 8.5 |
| Policy will not reduce obesity | 9.9 | 12.0 | 7.8 |
| SSBs do not cause obesity | 3.8 | 6.0 | 1.5* |
| Local economy | |||
| Policy could hurt the local economy | 18.3 | 12.8 | 23.9* |
| Policy will affect small businesses | 12.6 | 8.3 | 16.9* |
| Special populations | |||
| Policy will hurt special populations | 7.2 | 6.0 | 8.5 |
| Story mentions fairness or a related term | 4.9 | 4.5 | 5.4 |
| Policy is not feasible | 33.5 | 18.8 | 48.5* |
| Public does not like the policy | 14.5 | 15.0 | 13.9 |
| Policy is not feasible or will be difficult to enact or implement | 6.1 | 2.3 | 10.0* |
| Policy is illegal, unconstitutional, or “arbitrary and capricious” | 19.0 | 1.5 | 36.9* |
| Policy is not part of the government’s role or responsibility | 68.8 | 71.4 | 66.2 |
| Story mentions free choice, consumer rights, or protection of independence | 38.8 | 45.9 | 31.5* |
| Policy is an overreach or beyond the government’s role or responsibilities | 37.6 | 30.1 | 45.4* |
| Story includes term “nanny” or “nanny state” | 22.1 | 30.1 | 13.9* |
| Policy is a slippery slope | 10.7 | 12.8 | 8.5 |
| Policy is not the best solution | 14.4 | 16.5 | 12.3 |
| Better solutions | |||
| A built environment change | 2.3 | 2.3 | 2.3 |
| A school environment change | 4.2 | 6.0 | 2.3 |
| Neighborhood or community programs | 2.7 | 3.8 | 1.5* |
| Mass media or education campaigns | 6.8 | 7.5 | 6.2 |
| Legislation or regulation | 5.3 | 6.0 | 4.6 |
a
May 31, 2012, to Sep 13, 2012.
b
Sep 14, 2012, to Jul 31, 2013.
*P < .05 indicating frames in news stories that differ significantly across 2 time periods with control for news story word count and adjustment of standard errors for nonindependence of news outlets.