Search

Background: Government policies promoting healthier food environments can contribute to healthier diets and prevent obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases. Objective: To assess the level of implementation of internationally recommended food environment policies in Norway and establish prioritised actions to create healthier food environments. Design: The Healthy Food Environment Policy Index (Food-EPI) was adapted to the Norwegian context. It comprised 45 good practice indicators of government food environment policy and infrastructure support. Systematically compiled evidence of relevant policies was verified by government officials and formed the basis for assessing the level of implementation of these policies compared against international best practice benchmarks. The assessment was done by a national non-government expert panel (n = 35). The experts thereafter proposed and prioritized policy actions for government implementation. Results: Most indicators were rated at a medium or high degree of implementation in both the policy action (69%) and the infrastructure support (77%) components. No indicators were rated as having ‘none or very little implementation’. Among the 14 recommended policy actions, active use of price regulation to increase the price of unhealthy foods and decrease the price of healthy foods was the highest priority. Other top priorities were ensuring healthy food environments in public settings and introducing free school meals. Demonstrating knowledge-based and coherent political leadership in public health nutrition policies was the highest priority among the 11 recommended infrastructure support actions. Conclusion: The overall policies in Norway to promote a healthy diet show a medium to high level of implementation. This study highlights that there is still room for additional improvements in Norwegian policies and infrastructure support to promote healthy food environments.

Food systems in Europe are largely unjust and not sustainable. Despite substantial negative consequences for individual health, the environment and public sector health and care services, large multi-national corporations continue to benefit from the way food systems are designed—perpetuating “Lose–Lose–Lose–Win” food systems that see these large corporations benefit at the expense of health, the environment and public sector finances. Transitioning to “Win–Win–Win–Win” food systems is challenging because of the heterogeneity, complexity and unpredictable nature of food systems—one-size fits-all solutions to correct imbalances and injustices cannot exist. To address these challenges, we propose the use of heuristics—solutions that can flexibly account for different contexts, preferences and needs. Within food systems, food democracy could be a heuristic solution that provides the processes and can form the basis for driving just transitions. However, ensuring that these transition processes are fair, equitable, sustainable and constructive, requires an approach that can be used across vertical and horizontal governance spheres to ensure the voices of key stakeholders across space, time and spheres of power are accounted for. In this manuscript we outline a new Horizon project, FEAST, that aims to use multilevel governance approaches across vertical and horizontal spheres of governance to realize constructive food democracy. We envisage this as a means to inform just processes that can be used to design and implement policies, in line with food democracy, to facilitate transitions to “Win–Win–Win–Win” food systems across Europe that makes it easy for every European to eat a healthy and sustainable diet.

Background: An upsurge in policy evaluation research within public health sciences has led to multi-disciplinary research networks like the ‘Policy Evaluation Network’ (PEN). This multi-disciplinary collaboration highlighted the need for consensus on clear, common terminology and definitions to facilitate the multi-disciplinary research. This article outlines the development process of the PEN definitions glossary tool, with a focus on the key domains of policy design, implementation and outcomes as they apply to physical activity, sedentary behaviour and dietary behaviours.Methods: A project specific participatory process was undertaken, involving PEN researchers (n = 48) from seven European countries across various disciplinary backgrounds. All involved researchers were invited to identify and collate definitions that were commonly used in their research field. Terms and definitions were discussed and debated during three online workshops. Subsequently, the definitions were discussed and refined until consensus was reached.Results: Consensus definitions for 93 terms related to the evaluation of policy design, implementation and outcomes are provided. Consensus was reached on a range of terms where the terms were understood and used differently across represented disciplines (e.g. ‘Outcome’ and ‘Impact’). A conceptual ‘Inter-relations in policy-related concepts’ diagram was developed to enable navigation through an online database with key terms.Conclusions: The definitions resulting from this participatory process has supported PEN researchers and practitioners across disciplines to reach a shared understanding of different terms related to policy evaluation. Thus, providing a platform for avoiding conflicting use of the same terms in differing contexts over the course of the PEN work programme, facilitating clear and consistent communication, and allowing for clarity within collaborative multi-disciplinary projects and in public-facing messages.

The European Policy Evaluation Network (PEN), initiated in autumn 2018, aimed at advancing the evidence base for public policies impacting dietary behaviour, physical activity and sedentary behaviours in Europe. This is needed because non-communicable diseases—the leading cause of global mortality—are substantially caused by physical inactivity and unhealthy dietary behaviours, which in turn are driven by upstream factors that have not yet been addressed effectively by prevention approaches. Thus, successful policy interventions are required that target entire populations and tackle the ‘causes of the causes’. To advance our knowledge on the effective implementation of policies and their impact in terms of improving health behaviours, PEN focused on five research tasks: (i) Adaptation and implementation of a Food Environment Policy Index (Food-EPI) and development of a Physical Activity Environment Policy Index (PA-EPI); (ii) Mapping of health-related indicators needed for policy evaluation and facilitating a harmonized pan-European approach for surveillance to assess the impact of policy interventions; (iii) Refining quantitative methods to evaluate the impact of public policies; (iv) Identifying key barriers and facilitators of implementation of policies; and (v) Advance understanding the equity impact of the development, implementation and evaluation of policies aimed at promoting physical activity and a healthy diet. Finally, and in order to provide concrete evidence for policymaking, existing exemplary policies, namely sugar-sweetened beverages taxation, active transport policies and school policies on nutrition and physical activity were assessed in consideration of these five tasks. At the end of the PEN project’s formal runtime, considerable advancements have been made. Here, we present an overview of the most important learnings and outputs.

Background: Poland is facing the growing problem of overweight and obesity in the pop-ulation, which makes it necessary to conduct a thorough assessment of the existing food environment policies. The aims of the study were: (1) to depict the strength of healthy food environment policies in Poland and identify implementation policies and infrastructure support gaps; (2) to identify and prioritise improvement policies, taking into account their importance, achievability and equity. Methods: We used the Healthy Food Environment Policy Index (Food-EPI). An experts’ panel rated Polish policies and infrastructure compared to international best practices and developed a list of recommended improvement actions addressing both components. Results: eight of the twenty-two policy and four of the twenty-two infrastructure indicators achieved the “no/very weak policy” result. Another four policy and five infrastructure indicators were considered “weak”. Another seven and eight indicators, respectively, were assessed as “moderate”. Among the identified actions, the highest priority was given to a food labelling system and training for persons in-volved in nutrition in schools. Conclusions: The Polish healthy food environment has been assessed as very weak or weak in most aspects. The infrastructure was assessed as slightly better compared to the policies domain, with more indicators receiving the “moderate” score.

Background Food environments impact on diets, obesity and non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Government policies are essential to create healthy food environments. This study aimed to assess the strength of European Union (EU)-level policies, and identify and prioritize actions for the EU to create healthy food environments.Methods The Healthy Food Environment Policy Index (Food-EPI) was applied. The Food-EPI included 26 policy and 24 infrastructure support indicators. Independent experts (n = 31) rated the strength of EU-level policies and infrastructure support for each of these indicators (on a 5-point scale, from very weak to very strong) and identified and prioritized actions to improve food environments.Results For 65% of the 26 policy indicators, EU-level policies were rated as weak and for 23% as very weak. For 63% of the 24 infrastructure support indicators, EU-level policies were rated as moderate and for 33% as weak. The experts recommended 18 policy and 19 infrastructure support actions to the EU. The Top 5 prioritized policy actions included three actions in the food composition domain (e.g. setting mandatory food composition targets), one action in the food prices domain and one action in the food promotion domain. The Top 5 prioritized infrastructure support actions included three actions in the leadership domain (e.g. developing a high-level NCDs Prevention Strategy) and two actions in the monitoring domain.Conclusions There is large potential for the EU to strengthen its policies and infrastructure support in order to improve food environments. This study specifies priority actions for the EU to create healthy food environments.

Socioeconomic inequalities in diets need to be tackled to improve population diets and prevent obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases. The potential of food environment policies to reduce such inequalities has to date however not been appraised. The objective of this umbrella review was to assess the impact of food environment policies on socioeconomic inequalities in diets and to identify knowledge gaps in the existing literature, using the Healthy Food Environment Policy Index as a conceptual framework. The policies considered in the umbrella review are within six domains: 1) food composition 2) food labelling 3) food promotion 4) food provision 5) food retail 6) food pricing. A systematic search for systematic literature reviews on the effect of food environment policies on dietary-related outcomes across socioeconomic groups and published in English between 2004 and 2019 was conducted. Sixteen systematic literature reviews encompassing 159 primary studies were included, covering food composition (n = 2), food labelling (n = 3), food provision (n = 2), food prices (n = 13) and food in retail (n = 4). Quality assessment using the “Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews” quality rating scale showed that review quality was mainly low or critically low. Results suggest that food taxation may reduce socioeconomic inequalities in diets. For all other policy areas, the evidence base was poor. Current research largely fails to provide good quality evidence on impacts of food environment policies on socioeconomic inequalities in diets. Research to fill this knowledge gap is urgently needed.

Government policies that promote healthy food environments are considered promising to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in diet. Empirical evidence of effects on these inequalities, however, is relatively scarce and, with a few exceptions, tends to be inconclusive. We use two contemporary theories that help to understand socioeconomic inequalities in health and health-related behaviours (Bourdieu's capital theory and Mullainathan and Shafir's scarcity theory) to reason how policies influencing food environments may differentially impact lower and higher socioeconomic groups. In essence, these theories enable us to understand how specific elements of broader daily living conditions (e.g. social practices that lead to habitus formation, material conditions that shape experiences of scarcity) may lead to a greater benefit of certain food environment policies for the healthfulness of diets of lower or higher socioeconomic groups. We conclude that the application of theories on the mechanisms underlying socioeconomic inequalities in health can help to guide future empirical studies in testing theory-based hypotheses on differential effects of policies, and thereby enhance the development of effective policies tackling socioeconomic inequalities in dietary intakes.

Government policies that promote healthy food environments are considered promising to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in diet. Empirical evidence of effects on these inequalities, however, is relatively scarce and, with a few exceptions, tends to be inconclusive. We use two contemporary theories that help to understand socioeconomic inequalities in health and health-related behaviours (Bourdieu's capital theory and Mullainathan and Shafir's scarcity theory) to reason how policies influencing food environments may differentially impact lower and higher socioeconomic groups. In essence, these theories enable us to understand how specific elements of broader daily living conditions (e.g. social practices that lead to habitus formation, material conditions that shape experiences of scarcity) may lead to a greater benefit of certain food environment policies for the healthfulness of diets of lower or higher socioeconomic groups. We conclude that the application of theories on the mechanisms underlying socioeconomic inequalities in health can help to guide future empirical studies in testing theory-based hypotheses on differential effects of policies, and thereby enhance the development of effective policies tackling socioeconomic inequalities in dietary intakes.

Socioeconomic inequalities in diets need to be tackled to improve population diets and prevent obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases. The potential of food environment policies to reduce such inequalities has to date however not been appraised. The objective of this umbrella review was to assess the impact of food environment policies on socioeconomic inequalities in diets and to identify knowledge gaps in the existing literature, using the Healthy Food Environment Policy Index as a conceptual framework. The policies considered in the umbrella review are within six domains: 1) food composition 2) food labelling 3) food promotion 4) food provision 5) food retail 6) food pricing. A systematic search for systematic literature reviews on the effect of food environment policies on dietary-related outcomes across socioeconomic groups and published in English between 2004 and 2019 was conducted. Sixteen systematic literature reviews encompassing 159 primary studies were included, covering food composition (n = 2), food labelling (n = 3), food provision (n = 2), food prices (n = 13) and food in retail (n = 4). Quality assessment using the “Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews” quality rating scale showed that review quality was mainly low or critically low. Results suggest that food taxation may reduce socioeconomic inequalities in diets. For all other policy areas, the evidence base was poor. Current research largely fails to provide good quality evidence on impacts of food environment policies on socioeconomic inequalities in diets. Research to fill this knowledge gap is urgently needed.