The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Potential Policies and Laws to Prohibit Weight Discrimination: Public Views from 4 Countries
Open accessAbstract
Policy Points : Policies and legal protections against weight‐based discrimination have broad public support in 4 nations where this discrimination is widely documented. Public support was strongest for policies and laws that would prohibit employers from denying employment, assigning lower wages, and refusing promotion to people based on their weight status. Women and individuals with higher weight expressed the greatest support. Weight discrimination is common in numerous life settings, creating social and economic inequities and adverse health outcomes. Policies and legal measures protecting against such discrimination need to be developed and implemented in the United States and elsewhere and would have considerable public support. Context: People viewed as “overweight” or “obese” are vulnerable to weight‐based discrimination, creating inequities and adverse health outcomes. Given the high rates of obesity recorded globally, studies documenting weight discrimination in multiple countries, and an absence of legislation to address this form of discrimination, research examining policy remedies across different countries is needed. Our study provides the first multinational examination of public support for policies and legislation to prohibit weight discrimination. Methods: Identical online surveys were completed by 2,866 adults in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Iceland. We assessed public support for potential laws to prohibit weight‐based discrimination, such as adding body weight to existing civil rights statutes, extending disability protections to persons with obesity, and instituting legal measures to prohibit employers from discriminating against employees because of body weight. We examined sociodemographic and weight‐related characteristics predicting support for antidiscrimination policies, and the differences in these patterns across countries. Findings: The majority of participants in the United States, Canada, and Australia agreed that their government should have specific laws in place to prohibit weight discrimination. At least two‐thirds of the participants in all 4 countries expressed support for policies that would make it illegal for employers to refuse to hire, assign lower wages, deny promotions, or terminate qualified employees because of body weight. Women and participants with higher body weight expressed more support for antidiscrimination measures. Beliefs about the causes of obesity were also related to support for these laws. Conclusions: Public support for legal measures to prohibit weight discrimination can be found in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Iceland, especially for laws to remedy this discrimination in employment. Our findings provide important information for policymakers and interest groups both nationally and internationally and can help guide discussions about policy priorities to reduce inequities resulting from weight discrimination.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Evidence in North America, Europe, Australia, and Iceland suggests that there might be substantial public support to enact and pass legislation to prohibit weight discrimination.
“However, evidence in North America, Europe, Australia, and Iceland suggests that there might be substantial public support to enact and pass legislation to prohibit weight discrimination75,76.”
From Joint international consensus statement for ending stigma of obesity (2020) · cites this paper as [75]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Prevalence of Childhood and Adult Obesity in the United States, 2011-2012
Ogden, C. L., Carroll, M. D., Kit, B. K., & Flegal, K. M. (2014) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2014.732 · Cited by 8,072
The Stigma of Obesity: A Review and Update
Puhl, R. M., & Heuer, C. A. (2009) · Obesity · doi:10.1038/oby.2008.636 · Cited by 3,323
Self-citationObesity Metaphors: How Beliefs about the Causes of Obesity Affect Support for Public Policy
BARRY, C. L., BRESCOLL, V. L., BROWNELL, K. D., & SCHLESINGER, M. (2009) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00546.x · Cited by 278
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 68
- 10.1038/ijo.2008.22 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/oby.2001.108 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jvb.2008.09.008 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00993.x · DOI
- 10.1038/oby.2008.35 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1001/jama.2012.39 · DOI
- 10.1038/oby.2009.131 · DOI
- 10.1002/jclp.20749 · DOI
- 10.2105/AJPH.2009.159491 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0070048 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/oby.20891 · DOI
- 10.1007/s12160-010-9238-9 · DOI
- 10.1177/002214650504600303 · DOI
- 10.1002/hec.881 · DOI
- 10.2307/3559022 · DOI
- 10.1023/A:1007712500496 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jvb.2007.04.008 · DOI
- 10.1123/jsm.21.2.172 · DOI
- 10.1038/oby.2008.456 · DOI
- 10.1038/oby.2008.452 · DOI
- Binghamton Human Rights Law §§45‐1‐10 (2008). · DOI
- Theran EE, 2005, Weight Bias: Nature, Consequences, and Remedies, 195
- Kirkland A, 2008, Fat Rights: Dilemmas of Difference and Personhood
- 10.1002/oby.20094 · DOI · Paper page
- EEOC Press Release. July 24 2012.http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7‐24‐12c.cfm. Accessed September 15 2015. · DOI
- EEOC Press Release. April 10 2012.http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4‐10‐12a.cfm. Accessed September 15 2015. · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ehb.2010.12.001 · DOI
- 10.7570/kjo.2011.20.4.210 · DOI
- Rooth DO, 2009, Obesity, attractiveness, and differential treatment in hiring; a field experiment, J Hum Resources, 44, 710
- 10.1016/j.ehb.2008.09.001 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2005.09.005 · DOI
- 10.1001/archpedi.1994.02170070019003 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ehb.2006.11.002 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0731-2199(06)17009-0 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ehb.2009.01.006 · DOI
- 10.1186/1471-2458-12-525 · DOI
- Luther E, 2010, Justice for all shapes and sizes: combatting weight discrimination in Canada, Alberta Law Rev, 48, 167, 10.29173/alr167 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60813-1 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1215/03616878-30-5-923 · DOI
- 10.1038/oby.2010.126 · DOI
- 10.1038/ijo.2010.194 · DOI
- 10.1002/oby.20750 · DOI
- 10.1057/jphp.2011.45 · DOI
- 10.4236/ojpm.2012.24067 · DOI
- 10.1038/ijo.2012.52 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0083543 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jcjd.2013.02.059 · DOI
- Lonner WJ, 1986, Field Methods in Cross‐Cultural Research
- Davis J, 2004, The relationship between ethnicity and obesity in Asian and Pacific Islander populations: a literature review, Ethnicity Dis, 14, 111
- 10.1080/10640266.2011.584813 · DOI
- 10.1080/08870446.2014.916807 · DOI
- 10.1038/oby.2003.161 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/eat.22186 · DOI
- 10.1002/oby.20637 · DOI
- 10.1080/01973533.2012.746148 · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.882 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.bodyim.2007.06.001 · DOI
- 10.2307/1924766 · DOI · Paper page
- Horner K., 2005, A growing problem: why the federal government needs to shoulder the burden in protecting workers from weight discrimination, Catholic University Law Rev, 54, 589
- Spitz L., Iceland: end of the constitutional saga?, Huffington Post
- 10.1159/000276547 · DOI
- 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2007.tb01354.x · DOI
- 10.1177/1049732314529667 · DOI
- 10.1177/01461672962211007 · DOI
- 10.1037/0278-6133.24.5.517 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF03325299 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00196.x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.11.017 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Joint international consensus statement for ending stigma of obesity
Rubino, F., Puhl, R. M., Cummings, D. E., Eckel, R. H., Ryan, D. H., Mechanick, J. I., Nadglowski, J., Ramos Salas, X., Schauer, P. R., Twenefour, D., et al. (2020) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-020-0803-x · Cited by 1,152
“However, evidence in North America, Europe, Australia, and Iceland suggests that there might be substantial public support to enact and pass legislation to prohibit weight discrimination 75, 76 .”
BackgroundAlberga, A. S., Russell-Mayhew, S., von Ranson, K. M., & McLaren, L. (2016) · Journal of Eating Disorders · doi:10.1186/s40337-016-0112-4 · Cited by 107
Weight Stigma and Social Media: Evidence and Public Health Solutions
Clark, O., Lee, M. M., Jingree, M. L., O'Dwyer, E., Yue, Y., Marrero, A., Tamez, M., Bhupathiraju, S. N., & Mattei, J. (2021) · Frontiers in Nutrition · doi:10.3389/fnut.2021.739056 · Cited by 105
Weight Stigma in Latin America, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa: A Scoping Review
Eggerichs, L. A., Wilson, O. W. A., Chaplin, J. E., & Ramos Salas, X. (2024) · Obesity Facts · doi:10.1159/000536554 · Cited by 24
Metadata
- Authors
- PUHL, R. M., LATNER, J. D., O'BRIEN, K. S., LUEDICKE, J., DANIELSDOTTIR, S., & SALAS, X. R.
- Affiliations
- University of Connecticut (US)
- University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa (US)
- Monash University Melbourne
- StataCorp (United States) (US)
- Directorate of Health Iceland
- Canadian Obesity Network (CA)
- Corresponding author
- PUHL, REBECCA M.
- Venue
- The Milbank Quarterly
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-12
- Volume
- 93
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 691-731
- ISSN
- 0887-378X (ISSN-L)
- 1468-0009
- PMC
- PMC4678937
- OpenAlex
- W2185245939
- Cited by
- 102
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 5.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Milbank Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Rudd Foundation
- University of Connecticut
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity and Health Practices
- Social Sciences › Law › Discrimination and Equality Law
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
- Keywords
- weight discrimination, obesity, anti-discrimination policy, employment discrimination, body weight, civil rights legislation, disability protection, gender differences, cross-national comparison, health disparities
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Australia, Body Weight, Canada, Employment, Female, Health Status, Humans, Iceland, Male, Obesity, Prejudice, Public Opinion, United States, Social Discrimination
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review