A Linear Approach to "Issue Attention"

Downs' article reminded me of an article I read while writing a paper last fall by Rogan Kersh and James Morone. The article is called "The Politics of Obesity: Seven Steps to Government Action," and it identifies seven “triggers to action” that have historically resulted in government prohibition, regulation, and intervention. These triggers include social disapproval that shifts the social norm; establishing danger through evidenced-based research; self-help movements to encourage individuals to live healthier lives; demonizing users; demonizing the industry; interest group action; and finally, mass movement in the general public.

Whereas Downs finds issue attention to be cyclic, Kersh and Morone suggest that issue attention can be more linear, often resulting in extensive government action, as in the cases of vaccines and tobacco. I wonder whether Kersh and Morone provide an alternative to Downs theory: can governments intervene in an effective and extensive way on high-attention issues? Can the public remain highly invested in these issues after government intervention? Or is Kersh and Morone's seventh step the beginning of the cycle Downs describes?