Search

The Trans Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP), emblematic of the new generation of free trade agreements, is a regional agreement among 12 Pacific Rim countries. This paper reports on a study into how the food industry has framed issues in an effort to influence the TPP. We undertook a thematic analysis of the issues raised in publicly available submissions by the food industry to the trade negotiating bodies of four TPP countries: Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States of America (USA). The food industry is an active player in trade negotiations, mainly through food industry associations and other business associations. The submissions assumed that trade liberalization would result in more exports and investment, as well as raise living standards and benefit the economy and country. There was little mention of food as anything other than a commodity, focusing on types and quantities of food traded and what this meant for revenue generation, with no connection to nutritional health. The TPP could affect food systems and population health in ways that are not readily apparent to governments, policy makers or the public. The written submissions mechanism is one way in which the food industry could have shaped the agreement by framing the issues, influencing the content and direction of the TPP negotiations and agreement itself. If coherence between trade and health goals is to be strengthened, the public health community needs to engage with industry arguments and build a strong counter-argument that gives more prominence to health concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

As the articles in the recent special issue on harm reduction illustrate, the last decade has seen an impressive expansion of harm reduction in public health. Policies and programs using it have dramatically improved the formerly ignored health problems of marginalized populations. This article looks at the history of harm reduction, and the growing role that the medicalization of social and political problems plays in the governance of the margins in the neo-liberal state. It describes how the acceptance of harm reduction approaches coincided with a political need to address social disorder and reduce expense in health and legal services, and criticizes the current assumption that more harm reduction services will automatically result in a more humane society. While this paper supports those authors who urge a greater political engagement from harm reduction advocates in public health, it also urges a direct political critique of the social and legal systems that create harm, and the harm reduction research that critically examines how harm reduction, while aiming to prevent harm in the short term, may sustain systems of harm in a larger sense. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hand hygiene is a long-standing concern in the health sciences literature, but its emergence as a public health issue in the news is a more recent development. Drawing on Alan Hunt’s work on moral regulation and responsibilization, this article analyses 30 years of Canadian newspaper coverage of hand hygiene. Concerns associated with hand hygiene and trends in coverage were identified in a sample of 518 articles, published between 1986 and 2015. Although the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and H1N1 influenza epidemics emerged as important triggers, healthcare-associated infection (HAI) was the dominant trigger for hand hygiene coverage. The articles tend to present hand hygiene as a unidimensional approach to infection control. They tend to responsibilize individuals-first members of the general public, then healthcare providers and increasingly patients-for managing the risk of infection, rather than focus upon social, cultural, political and economic factors that would promote a more broad-based and structural response to HAI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Comprehensive agri-food policy includes food waste reduction as an important policy goal. Food bank donor indemnification is codified in law in several countries to support the charitable food sector. Other policy instruments to address waste reduction have emerged recently, among them tax measures to incentivize private sector action. These have been increasingly linked to the discourse on hunger in many jurisdictions. We asked 17 Canadian food insecurity policy entrepreneurs to comment on a vignette scenario featuring a hypothetical proposal for food waste diversion as a policy response to household food insecurity; the polarization in responses – ‘Not human garburators,’ vs. ‘everyone wins’ – was remarkable. This case of an unexpected divergence in the response to a policy idea in the food insecurity realm provides an opportunity to understand fundamental differences in societal perspectives that might be relevant to public health more generally. In particular we address the parallel humanist and ecological imperatives at work in contemporary public health practice. It appears that objections to food waste diversion for human consumption could be crystallized in terms of Mary Douglas’s theory of morality within particular worldviews. From a humanist viewpoint, the proposal was an indignity; for those with an ecological worldview, it was sensible and pragmatic. Public health has embraced ecosystem thinking and takes for granted that its ecological approach is sensitive to humanist perspectives but the two worldviews may differ and humanist ideals of dignity may raise moral rancor when considered in the context of ecological good. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]