Search

Competing Interests: CH reports grants from the UK National Institutes for Health Research, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the George Institute for Global Health, the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition, UNICEF, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation; honoraria from Imperial College London and Cornell University; and support for attending meetings from the Glasgow Centre for Population Health, the EAT Forum, the FAO, Co-Create, Bloomberg Philanthropies, Deakin University, the World Food Summit Copenhagen, the European Commission, GAIN, UNICEF, Food Active, Southampton City Council, LEAP, Salzburg Global, UKRI, Parabere, and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation. RA reports grants from Purdue University, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Eleanor Crook Foundation, the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and the EAT Forum. KA reports grants from Deakin University, the Australian Department of Health, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, HORT Innovation Australia, and the Meat and the Livestock Association of Australia. JB reports grants from the School of Health Sciences Research Sustainability Fund, School of Health Sciences, City, University of London. LC reports grants from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Global Health Advocacy Incubator (GHAI), the Ministry of Health Government of Argentina, UNICEF Argentina, and the Pan-American Health Organization. NF reports grants from the UKRI Transforming UK Food Systems Strategic Priorities Fund as part of the UK Food Systems CDT. HM reports grants from CGIAR Trust Fund contributors, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), and the IDRC. AN reports grants and support to attend meetings from the International Rescue Committee and grants from European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations, UNICEF, and BHA. FS reports grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and consulting fees from USAID Advancing Nutrition. MU reports grants from the National Council for Science and Technology and consulting fees from the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). MNW reports grants from the IDRC. CZ reports grants from Deakin University and the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth), the Australian Government, and Cancer Council Victoria, an award from the Victorian Government for Victorian Premier's Awards for Public Health Research, and scholarships awards to attend conferences from Deakin University, the Public Health Association of Australia, and Dietitians Australia.

In May 2010, 192 Member States endorsed Resolution WHA63.14 to restrict the marketing of food and non-alcoholic beverage products high in saturated fats, trans fatty acids, free sugars and/or salt to children and adolescents globally. We examined the actions taken between 2010 and early 2016 - by civil society groups, the World Health Organization (WHO) and its regional offices, other United Nations (UN) organizations, philanthropic institutions and transnational industries - to help decrease the prevalence of obesity and diet-related noncommunicable diseases among young people. By providing relevant technical and policy guidance and tools to Member States, WHO and other UN organizations have helped protect young people from the marketing of branded food and beverage products that are high in fat, sugar and/or salt. The progress achieved by the other actors we investigated appears variable and generally less robust. We suggest that the progress being made towards the full implementation of Resolution WHA63.14 would be accelerated by further restrictions on the marketing of unhealthy food and beverage products and by investing in the promotion of nutrient-dense products. This should help young people meet government-recommended dietary targets. Any effective strategies and actions should align with the goal of WHO to reduce premature mortality from noncommunicable diseases by 25% by 2025 and the aim of the UN to ensure healthy lives for all by 2030.

Objective: Local governments have integral roles in contributing to public health. One recent focus has been on how local governments can impact community nutrition by engaging food service outlets to improve their food offer. The Healthier Catering Commitment (HCC) is an initiative where London local governments support takeaways and restaurants to meet centrally defined nutrition criteria on their food options. Using the case of HCC, the current study aims to provide (1) practical learnings of how local governments could facilitate and overcome barriers associated with implementing healthy food service initiatives in general, and (2) specific recommendations for enhancements for HCC.Design: Key informant, semi-structured interviews were conducted with local government staff involved in HCC, exploring barriers and facilitators to HCC implementation in food businesses. A thematic analysis approach was used, with results presented according to a logic pathway of ideal implementation in order to provide practical, focused insights.Setting: Local governments implementing HCC.Participants: Twenty-two individuals supporting HCC implementation.Results: Facilitators to implementation included flexible approaches, shared resourcing and strategically engaging businesses with practical demonstrations. Barriers were limited resources, businesses fearing negative customer responses and low uptake in disadvantaged areas. Key suggestions to enhance implementation and impact included offering additional incentives, increasing HCC awareness and encouraging recruited businesses to make healthy changes beyond initiative requirements.Conclusions: In order to facilitate the implementation of healthy food initiatives in food outlets, local governments would benefit from involving their environmental health team, employing community-tailored approaches and focusing on supporting businesses in disadvantaged areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Five decisions by supermarket operators have important dietary implications: the location of their outlets; the foods they sell; the prices they charge; the promotional strategies they use; and the nutrition-related activities they implement. These decisions influence food accessibility, availability, prices and desirability, which in turn influence the decisions consumers make about food. Based on a comprehensive literature review, this article finds that the dietary implications are both positive – supermarkets can make a more diverse diet available and accessible to more people – and negative – supermarkets can reduce the ability of marginalised populations to purchase a high-quality diet, and encourage the consumption of energy-dense, nutrient-poor highly-processed foods. Overall, the most universally applicable dietary implication is that supermarkets encourage consumers to eat more, whatever the food. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Trade liberalization remains at the forefront of debates around globalization, particularly around the impact on agriculture and food. These debates, which often focus on how poorer countries can ‘trade their way’ out of poverty, pay limited attention to dietary health, especially in the light of the WHO's Global Strategy for Diet, Physical Activity and Health (2004), which warned that future health burdens will be increasingly determined by diet-related chronic diseases. This article examines the diet transition as the absent factor within debates on liberalizing trade and commerce. We describe the evolution of trade agreements, noting those relevant to food. We review the association between trade liberalization and changes in the global dietary and disease profile. We illustrate some of the complex linkages between trade liberalization and the ‘diet transition’, illustrated by factors such as foreign direct investment, supermarketization and cultural change. Finally, we offer three scenarios for change, suggesting the need for more effective ‘food governance’ and engagement by public health advocates in policy making in the food and agriculture arena. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]