Food, nutrition and public health in contemporary Spain, 1900-1936

Within the context of the health reforms introduced in Spain in the early 20th century and the influence of international health organisations on their development, this article analyses the growing interest that surrounded nourishment and food-related problems at that time in relation to healthcare, the diagnosis provided by hygienists of such problems, and the public health measures applied to resolve them. The issue of hygienic diet and the collective aspect of nutritional problems became priorities in the field of healthcare. Two of the most prominent initiatives involved setting up a Department of Nutrition and Food Hygiene and Bromatological Technique during the early years of the Second Republic, as part of the National School of Health, as well as a Food Hygiene Service. Spanish hygienists underlined the importance of education and the dissemination of information about food hygiene, health and nutrition, in order to overcome the qualitative and quantitative deficiencies observed in the average diet of the Spanish population.

Looking twice at the gender equity index for public health impact

Background: It has been shown that gender equity has a positive impact on the everyday activities of people (decision making, income allocation, application and observance of norms/rules) which affect their health. Gender equity is also a crucial determinant of health inequalities at national level; thus, monitoring is important for surveillance of women’s and men’s health as well as for future health policy initiatives. The Gender Equity Index (GEI) was designed to show inequity solely towards women. Given that the value under scrutiny is equity, in this paper a modified version of the GEI is proposed, the MGEI, which highlights the inequities affecting both sexes. Methods: Rather than calculating gender gaps by means of a quotient of proportions, gaps in the MGEI are expressed in absolute terms (differences in proportions). The Spearman’s rank coefficient, calculated from country rankings obtained according to both indexes, was used to evaluate the level of concordance between both classifications. To compare the degree of sensitivity and obtain the inequity by the two methods, the variation coefficient of the GEI and MGEI values was calculated. Results: Country rankings according to GEI and MGEI values showed a high correlation (rank coef. = 0.95). The MGEI presented greater dispersion (43.8%) than the GEI (19.27%). Inequity towards men was identified in the education gap (rank coef. = 0.36) when using the MGEI. According to this method, many countries shared the same absolute value for education but with opposite signs, for example Azerbaijan (−0.022) and Belgium (0.022), reflecting inequity towards women and men, respectively. This also occurred in the empowerment gap with the technical and professional job component (Brunei:-0.120 vs. Australia, Canada Iceland and the U.S.A.: 0.120). Conclusion: The MGEI identifies and highlights the different areas of inequities between gender groups. It thus overcomes the shortcomings of the GEI related to the aim for which this latter was created, namely measuring gender equity, and is therefore of great use to policy makers who wish to understand and monitor the results of specific equity policies and to determine the length of time for which these policies should be maintained in order to correct long-standing structural discrimination against women.

O registro do patrimônio cultural imaterial: as práticas do IPHAN e do IEPHA/MG

Patrimônio cultural é tudo aquilo que possui significado social e representa identidades, sendo dividido em duas principais categorias: material e imaterial. O reconhecimento deste último foi construído ao longo de um processo de maturação, ampliação de debates, legislação e ação de órgãos públicos nacionais e internacionais. No Brasil, a Constituição Federal de 1988 incorporou, ao lado do patrimônio material, as diversas formas de expressão e os modos de criar, fazer e viver, como patrimônio imaterial, adotando novos instrumentos de proteção aos bens culturais: o registro e o inventário. Entretanto, somente pelo Decreto 3.551/2000 é que o registro do imaterial foi definitivamente normatizado. Paulatinamente, ocorreu a descentralização da legislação e das políticas públicas, que passaram a ser compartilhadas por União, Estados e Municípios e, nesse sentido, um caso peculiar na gestão do patrimônio cultural ocorreu no estado de Minas Gerais, no qual o Instituto Estadual do Patrimônio Histórico e Artístico de Minas Gerais (IEPHA/MG) assumiu um valioso papel na preservação do patrimônio cultural, onde as ações municipais voltadas ao patrimônio cultural no Estado contam com repasses financeiros, via distribuição do Imposto Sobre Mercadorias e Serviços (ICMS). Esse cenário propiciou um campo para a reflexão e debate sobre o papel e a função desse órgão estadual frente às práticas de identificação, valorização e promoção do patrimônio imaterial de Minas Gerais.