Creating healthy food environments in NSW: A knowledge and evidence synthesis to inform advocacy and action: Food composition

Reviews and synthesizes evidence to produce evidence-based recommendations on policy actions to improve food composition for NSW Health

Creating healthy food environments in NSW: A knowledge and evidence synthesis to inform advocacy and action: Food labeling

Reviews and synthesizes evidence to produce evidence-based recommendations on policy actions to improve food labeling for NSW Health

Creating healthy food environments in NSW: A knowledge and evidence synthesis to inform advocacy and action. Seven separate documents across the domains: Food promotion

Reviews and synthesizes evidence to make recommendations on policy actions improve food environments in the area of food promotion for NSW Health

Creating healthy food environments in N.S.W.: A knowledge and evidence synthesis to inform advocacy and action: Food pricing

Reviews and synthesizes evidence to produce evidence-based recommendations on policy actions to improve food pricing for NSW Health

Creating healthy food environments in N.S.W.: A knowledge and evidence synthesis to inform advocacy and action: Food provision

Reviews and synthesizes evidence to produce evidence-based recommendations on policy actions to improve food provision for NSW Health

Creating healthy food environments in NSW: A knowledge and evidence synthesis to inform advocacy and action. Seven separate documents across the domains: Food retail

Reviews and synthesizes nutrition policy actions to improve food retail for NSW Health

Creating healthy food environments in NSW: A knowledge and evidence synthesis to inform advocacy and action. Seven separate documents across the domains: Overview

Summaries evidence across seven domains of potential food policy action to improve food environments and food supply to prevent obesity for NSW Health

Government regulation to promote healthy food environments : a view from inside state governments

Food policy interventions are an important component of obesity-prevention strategies and can potentially drive positive changes in obesogenic environments. This study sought to identify regulatory interventions targeting the food environment, and barriers/facilitators to their implementation at the Australian state government level. In-depth interviews were conducted with senior representatives from state/territory governments, statutory authorities and non-government organizations (n = 45) to examine participants’ (i) suggestions for regulatory interventions for healthier food environments and (ii) support for pre-selected regulatory interventions derived from a literature review. Data were analysed using thematic and constant comparative analyses. Interventions commonly suggested by participants were regulating unhealthy food marketing; limiting the density of fast food outlets; pricing reforms to decrease fruit/vegetable prices and increase unhealthy food prices; and improved food labelling. The most commonly supported preselected interventions were related to food marketing and service. Primary production and retail sector interventions were least supported. The dominant themes were the need for whole-of-government and collaborative approaches; the influence of the food industry; conflicting policies/agenda; regulatory challenges; the need for evidence of effectiveness; and economic disincentives. While interventions such as public sector healthy food service policies were supported by participants, marketing restrictions and fiscal interventions face substantial barriers including a push for deregulation and private sector opposition.

Creating healthy food environments through global benchmarking of government nutrition policies and food industry practices

Unhealthy processed food products are increasingly dominating over healthy foods, making food and nutrition environments unhealthier. Development and implementation of strong government healthy food policies is currently being circumvented in many countries by powerful food industry lobbying. In order to increase accountability of both governments and the private sector for their actions, and improve the healthiness of food environments, INFORMAS (the International Network for Food and Obesity/non-communicable diseases (NCDs) Research, Monitoring and Action Support) has recently been founded to systematically and comprehensively monitor food environments and policies in countries of varying size and income. This will enable INFORMAS to rank both governments and private sector companies globally according to their actions on food environments. Identification of those countries which have the healthiest food and nutrition policies and using them as international benchmarks against which national progress towards best practice can be assessed, should support reductions in global obesity and diet-related NCDs.

An accountability framework to promote healthy food environments

Objective
To review the available literature on accountability frameworks to construct a framework that is relevant to voluntary partnerships between government and food industry stakeholders.

Design
Between November 2012 and May 2013, a desk review of ten databases was conducted to identify principles, conceptual frameworks, underlying theories, and strengths and limitations of existing accountability frameworks for institutional performance to construct a new framework relevant to promoting healthy food environments.

Setting
Food policy contexts within high-income countries to address obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases.

Subjects Eligible resources (n 26) were reviewed and the guiding principles of fifteen interdisciplinary frameworks were used to construct a new accountability framework.

Results
Strengths included shared principles across existing frameworks, such as trust, inclusivity, transparency and verification; government leadership and good governance; public deliberations; independent bodies recognizing compliance and performance achievements; remedial actions to improve accountability systems; and capacity to manage conflicts of interest and settle disputes. Limitations of the three-step frameworks and ‘mutual accountability’ approach were an explicit absence of an empowered authority to hold all stakeholders to account for their performance.

Conclusions
We propose a four-step accountability framework to guide government and food industry engagement to address unhealthy food environments as part of a broader government-led strategy to address obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases. An independent body develops clear objectives, a governance process and performance standards for all stakeholders to address unhealthy food environments. The empowered body takes account (assessment), shares the account (communication), holds to account (enforcement) and responds to the account (improvements).

A Q methodology study of stakeholders' views about accountability for promoting healthy food environments in England through the responsibility deal food network

In March 2011, the United Kingdom's (UK's) Government launched five Public Health Responsibility Deal Networks to address public health priorities. The Networks used voluntary partnerships to influence peoples' choice architecture to move them toward healthier behaviors. The purpose of this research was to conduct an exploratory study of diverse stakeholders' perspectives about perceived responsibility and accountability expectations to improve food environments in England through the Food Network partnerships. A purposive sample of policy elites (n=31) from government, academia, food industry and non-government organizations sorted 48 statements related to improving food environments in England. Statements were grounded in three theoretical perspectives (i.e., legitimacy, nudge and public health law). PQMethod 2.33 statistical software program used factor analysis to identify viewpoints based on intra-individual differences for how participants sorted statements. The results revealed three distinct viewpoints, which explained 64% of the variance for 31 participants, and emphasized different expectations about responsibility. The food environment protectors (n=17) underscored government responsibility to address unhealthy food environments if voluntary partnerships are ineffective; the partnership pioneers (n=12) recognized government-industry partnerships as legitimate and necessary to address unhealthy food environments; and the commercial market defenders (n=1) emphasized individual responsibility for food choices and rejected government intervention to improve food environments. Consensus issues included: protecting children's right to health; food industry practices that can and should be changed; government working with industry on product reformulation; and building consumer support for economically viable healthy products. Contentious issues were: inadequacy of accountability structures and government inaction to regulate food marketing practices targeting children. We conclude that understanding different viewpoints is a step toward building mutual trust to strengthen accountability structures that may help stakeholders navigate ideologically contentious issues to promote healthy food environments in England.

An empirical study on accountability for promoting healthy food environments in England through the public health responsibility deal food network

Objective: In 2011, the United Kingdom launched five Public Health Responsibility Deal Networks inspired by ‘nudge theory’ to facilitate healthy-lifestyle behaviors. This study used Q methodology to examine stakeholders’ views about responsibility and accountability for healthy food environments to reduce obesity and diet-related chronic diseases. Design: A purposive sample of policy elites (n=31) from government, academia, food industry and civil society sorted 48 statements grounded in three theoretical perspectives (i.e., legitimacy, nudge and public health law). Factor analysis identified intra-individual statement sorting differences. Results: A three-factor solution explained 64 percent of the variance across three distinct viewpoints: food environment protectors (n=17) underscored government responsibility to address unhealthy food environments; partnership pioneers (n=12) recognized government-industry partnerships as legitimate; and the commercial market defenders (n=1) emphasized individual responsibility for food choices and rejected any government intervention. Conclusions: Building trust and strengthening accountability structures may help stakeholders navigate differences to engage in constructive actions. This research may inform efforts in other countries where voluntary industry partnerships are pursued to address unhealthy food environments.

Strengthening of accountability systems to create healthy food environments and reduce global obesity

To achieve WHO's target to halt the rise in obesity and diabetes, dramatic actions are needed to improve the healthiness of food environments. Substantial debate surrounds who is responsible for delivering effective actions and what, specifically, these actions should entail. Arguments are often reduced to a debate between individual and collective responsibilities, and between hard regulatory or fiscal interventions and soft voluntary, education-based approaches. Genuine progress lies beyond the impasse of these entrenched dichotomies. We argue for a strengthening of accountability systems across all actors to substantially improve performance on obesity reduction. In view of the industry opposition and government reluctance to regulate for healthier food environments, quasiregulatory approaches might achieve progress. A four step accountability framework (take the account, share the account, hold to account, and respond to the account) is proposed. The framework identifies multiple levers for change, including quasiregulatory and other approaches that involve government-specified and government-monitored progress of private sector performance, government procurement mechanisms, improved transparency, monitoring of actions, and management of conflicts of interest. Strengthened accountability systems would support government leadership and stewardship, constrain the influence of private sector actors with major conflicts of interest on public policy development, and reinforce the engagement of civil society in creating demand for healthy food environments and in monitoring progress towards obesity action objectives.

A review of methods and tools to assess the implementation of government policies to create healthy food environments for preventing obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases

BACKGROUND: Policies to create healthy food environments are recognized as critical components of efforts to prevent obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases. There has not been a systematic review of existing methods and tools used to assess the implementation of these government policies. The purpose of this study was to review methods and tools used for assessing the implementation of government policies to create healthy food environments. The study conducted a systematic literature search. Multiple databases as well as the grey literature were searched. All study designs and review papers on assessing the implementation of government policies to create healthy food environments were included. A quality assessment of the methods and tools identified from relevant studies was carried out using the following four criteria: comprehensiveness, relevance, generalizability and feasibility. This quality assessment was completed by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: The review identified 52 studies across different policy areas, levels and settings. Self-administered questionnaires and policy checklists were most commonly applied to assess the extent of policy implementation, whereas semi-structured interviews were most commonly used to evaluate the implementation process. Measures varied widely, with the existence of policy implementation the aspect most commonly assessed. The most frequently identified barriers and facilitators for policy implementation were infrastructure support, resources and stakeholder engagement. The assessment of policy implementation on food environments was usually undertaken in combination with other policy areas, particularly nutrition education and physical activity. Three tools/methods were rated 'high' quality and 13 tools/methods received 'medium' quality ratings. CONCLUSIONS: Harmonization of the available high-quality methods and tools is needed to ensure that assessment of government policy implementation can be compared across different countries and settings and over time. This will contribute to efforts to increase government accountability for their actions to improve the healthiness of food environments.

Level of implementation of best practice policies for creating healthy food environments: assessment by state and non-state actors in Thailand

OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the level of implementation of policies for healthy food environments in Thailand with reference to international best practice by state and non-state actors.
DESIGN: Data on the current level of implementation of food environment policies were assessed independently using the adapted Healthy Food Environment Policy Index (Food-EPI) by two groups of actors. Concrete actions were proposed for Thai Government. A joint meeting between both groups was subsequently held to reach consensus on priority actions.
SETTING: Thailand.
SUBJECTS: Thirty state actors and twenty-seven non-state actors.
RESULTS: Level of policy implementation varied across different domains and actor groups. State actors rated implementation levels higher than non-state actors. Both state and non-state actors rated level of implementation of monitoring of BMI highest. Level of implementation of policies promoting in-store availability of healthy foods and policies increasing tax on unhealthy foods were rated lowest by state and non-state actors, respectively. Both groups reached consensus on eleven priority actions for implementation, focusing on food provision in public-sector settings, food composition, food promotion, leadership, monitoring and intelligence, and food trade.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the implementation gaps identified and priority actions proposed varied between state and non-state actors, both groups achieved consensus on a comprehensive food policy package to be implemented by the Thai Government to improve the healthiness of food environments. This consensus is a platform for continued policy dialogue towards cross-sectoral policy coherence and effective actions to address the growing burden of non-communicable diseases and obesity in Thailand.