Search

Our dominant food system is a primary driver of worsening human and planetary health. Held in March 2022, the Public Health Association of Australia’s Food Futures Conference was an opportunity for people working across the food system to connect and advocate for a comprehensive, intersectoral, whole-of-society food and nutrition policy in Australia to attenuate these issues. Conference themes included food systems for local and global good; ecological nutrition; social mobilisation for planetary and public good; food sovereignty; and food equity. Students and young professionals are integral in transforming food systems, yet are under-represented in the academic workforce, across publishing, scientific societies, and conference plenaries. A satellite event was held to platform initiatives from early career researchers in areas integral for improving planetary and public good. The research topics discussed in this commentary reflect sub-themes of the conference under investigation by early career researchers: food systems governance and regulation; local food policies; commercial determinants of health; sustainable healthy diets; and food equity and sovereignty.

The recent concerns raised about commercial determinants of health (CDoH) are not new. Numerous organizations around the world are working on these issues. These groups have emerged in response to specific issues and contexts and bring with them a diversity of interests, worldviews and strategies for change. In creating the ‘Governance, Ethics and Conflicts of Interest in Public Health’ network in 2018, our hope was to broaden our engagement with other actors advocating for change and strengthen our collective efforts. For academics, this requires moving further beyond the collective comfort zone of peer-reviewed publications, working with the media and those with political expertise, and learning from and supporting other stakeholders with a common vision.

A submission to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee's Inquiry on Definitions of Meat and Other Animal Products. This submission is provided by a collection of academics working on food policy in Australia and internationally with a specific focus on public health and sustainability. Our submission contains the following: • An overview of the terminology regarding novel meat analogues • A summary of the regulatory regime for novel meat analogues with a focus on food descriptors • A review of research and regulatory agency perspectives on whether the labelling and marketing used by developers of novel meat analogues is misleading • An overview of the research on ultra-processed foods and on the optimal regulatory approaches to ultra-processed food • An overview of the reasons why Australia needs to transition towards more sustainable and ethical models of food production and consumption including the issues with novel meat analogues and existing animal agricultural models for achieving this transition Our key message is that the Inquiry is asking the wrong questions. It is focused on meat and dairy descriptors and, more broadly, on whether novel meat analogues undermine existing meat and dairy industries in Australia. This is essentially a concern of two different industries: the meat and dairy industry versus the novel meat analogue industry. We need broader inquiries on regulating ultra-processed foods and regulating for more sustainable, ethical and healthier animal production and consumption systems in Australia. On these grounds, our submission makes the following recommendations: • Recommendation 1: Expand focus from descriptors of “meat” and “dairy” • Recommendation 2: Support a wider inquiry into regulating ultra-processed foods in Australian rather than a focus on novel meat analogues • Recommendation 3: Contribute to food policy and law that focuses on planetary health, s

Background Soft drink corporations face scrutiny from governments and public health experts for the contribution of their products to obesity and non-communicable diseases. Historically, the soft drink industry sought to deny the contribution of its products to the incidence of obesity and undermine public health policies that it perceived as threatening. This oppositional strategy has evolved into a more conciliatory approach, in which the soft drink industry has sought to position itself as “part of the solution” to obesity though the implementation of corporate health promotion strategies. This thesis begins with the proposition that, like lobbying and more overtly oppositional political strategies, corporate health promotion is fundamentally a political strategy. To interrogate this proposition, this thesis explores the political dimensions and consequences of corporate health promotion. It aims to answer the following research question: How and why has the soft drink industry attempted to position itself as “part of the solution” to obesity? Methods This thesis analyses three case studies of corporate health promotion strategies used by the Australian soft drink industry: its provision of nutrition education and information; its reformulation of soft drinks to reduce calories and sugar; and its engagement with the policy process via the development of self-regulation. This thesis also explores the various forms of power that corporate stakeholders exercise to minimise the risk of government regulation and to maintain the sales of their products, including instrumental, structural and discursive forms of power. Results The first case study analysed the different forms of nutrition education and information that the Australian Beverages Council and Coca-Cola Australia provided to the Australian public. This study found that most initiatives informed consumers about the importance of calorie counting, which benefited the soft drink industry in several ways. The se