1. Home
  2. Public policy measures to manage nutrition-related health risks

Public policy measures to manage nutrition-related health risks

PDF (Русский)
Отправить по e-mail Связаться с автором Цитировать
URL
https://www.city-healthcare.com/index.php/magazine/article/view/109
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47619/2713-2617.zm.2022.v3i1;65-72
Authors
Natalia А. Grechushkina
Institutions
Research Institute of Healthcare Organization and Medical Management of the Moscow Healthcare Department
Issue
Vol. 3 No. 1 (2022): Archive
Published
2022-04-10
Pages
65-72
Section
Reviews
Keywords:
public health, health risk management, irrational nutrition, state regulation of healthy eating

Abstract

Introduction. Modern diets characterized by high consumption of ultra-processed foods and reduced physical activity are leading to poor health outcomes and increased premature mortality, as well as higher health care costs. This requires that governments implement more effective models of public management in the field of nutrition which require evaluation of the impact of each management tool, as well as their cumulative effects. Objective. To summarize and characterize the key public policies that exist worldwide to reduce the risks of diet-related non-communicable diseases. Materials and methods. A content analysis of scientific and internet publications on nutrition and dietary management was used. Discussion. A common set of policy tools for many countries includes fiscal policy measures, quality standardization and food labeling, public education, financial incentives for responsible food behavior, development of national recommendations for healthy eating and its promotion, etc. Recently, these approaches have begun to rely on epidemiological monitoring data and studies evaluating the effectiveness of a particular type of intervention. Not all of the existing interventions are equally effective. Therefore, when choosing policy instruments, it is necessary to consider their potential, as well as their level of impact: individual, socio-cultural, industrial, governmental, etc. Conclusion. Rationalization of nutrition is the most important element of social policy of the state and one of the factors in the formation of a healthy lifestyle. This indicates the need for a comprehensive science-based systematic approach to solving problems in the field of healthy eating. The implementation of policy in this area should be based on scientific evidence, with the involvement of business and a wide range of the public, on the principle of interagency cooperation and taking into account multi-level factors that affect the formation of individual and population model of food behavior.

Полный текст

Author Biography

Natalia А. Grechushkina, Research Institute of Healthcare Organization and Medical Management of the Moscow Healthcare Department PhD, Research analyst

Список литературы

  1. Abarca-Gomez L, Abdeen ZA, Hamid ZA, et al. Worldwide trends in body-mass index, underweight, overweight, and obesity from 1975 to 2016: a pooled analysis of 2416 population-based measurement studies in 128.9 million children, adolescents, and adults. Lancet. 2017; 390(10113): 2627-2642.
  2. Popkin BM, Corvalan C, Grummer-Strawn LM. Dynamics of the double burden of malnutrition and the changing nutrition reality. Lancet. 2020; 395: 65-74.
  3. Baker P, Machado P, Santos T, et al. Ultra-processed foods and the nutrition transition: global, regional and national trends, food systems transformations and political economy drivers. Obes. Rev. 2020; 21(12). doi: 10.1111/obr.13126.
  4. Reardon T, Tschirley D, Liverpool-Tasie LSO, et al. The processed food revolution in African food systems and the double burden of malnutrition. Global. Food Secur. 2021; 28(3). doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100466.
  5. Mozaffarian D, Angell SY, Lang T, Rivera JA. Role of government policy in nutrition–barriers to and opportunities for healthier eating. BMJ. 2018; 361. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k2426.
  6. Long MW, Tobias DK, Cradock AL, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of restaurant menu calorie labeling. Am. J. Public Health. 2015; 105. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2015.302570.
  7. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Changes to the Nutrition Facts Label. Secondary Changes to the Nutrition Facts Label. 2016. URL: http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/ LabelingNutrition/ucm385663.htm#Summary (accessed: 07.02.2022).
  8. Pomeranz JL, Wilde P, Huang Y, et al. Legal and administrative feasibility of a federal junk food and sugar-sweetened beverage tax to improve diet. Am. J. Public Health. 2018; 108: 203-209. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2017.304159.
  9. Healthier Dining Programme // Health Promotion Board: website. URL: https://www.hpb.gov.sg/healthy-living/food-beverage/healthier-dining-programme (accessed: 18.02.2022).
  10. Cawley J, Frisvold D, Hill A, Jones D. The impact of the Philadelphia beverage tax on purchases and consumption by adults and children. J. Health Econ. 2019; 67:102225. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2019.102225.
  11. Edmondson EK, Roberto CA, Gregory EF, et al. Association of a Sweetened Beverage Tax With Soda Consumption in High School Students. JAMA Pediatr. 2021; 175(12): 1261-1268. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.3991.
  12. Sacks G, Sacks G, Kwon J, Backholer K. Do taxes on unhealthy foods and beverages influence food purchases? Curr. Nutr. Rep. 2021; 10(3): 179-187. doi: 10.1007/s13668-021-00358-0.
  13. Food Assistance // The United States government: an official website. URL: https://www.usa.gov/food-help#item-35787 (accessed: 02.02.2022).
  14. Bipartisan Policy Center. Leading with Nutrition: Leveraging Federal Programs for Better Health. 2018. URL: http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/SNAP (accessed: 07.02.2022).
  15. Public Health England. Guidelines on reducing sugar in food published for industry. 2017. URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/guidelines-on-reducing-sugar-in-food-published-forindustry (accessed: 07.02.2022).
  16. Brambila-Macias J, Shankar B, Capacci S, et al. Policy interventions to promote healthy eating: a review of what works, what does not, and what is promising. Food Nutr. Bull.  2011; 32: 365-75. doi: 10.1177/156482651103200408.
  17. Harbers MC, Middel CNH, Stuber JM, et al. Determinants of Food Choice and Perceptions of Supermarket-Based Nudging Interventions among Adults with Low Socioeconomic Position: The SUPREME NUDGE Project. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2021; 7,18 (11): 6175. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18116175.
  18. New pilot to help people eat better and exercise more // Website of the Government UK. URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-pilot-to-help-people-eat-better-and-exercise-more (accessed: 22.10.2021).
  19. Cheung TTL, Gillebaart M, Kroese FM, et al. Cueing healthier alternatives for take-away: a field experiment on the effects of (disclosing) three nudges on food choices. BMC Public Health. 2019; 22, 19(1): 974. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-7323-y.
  20. Geaney F, Di Marrazzo JS, Kelly C, et al. The food choice at work study: effectiveness of complex workplace dietary interventions on dietary behaviours and diet-related disease risk – study protocol for a clustered controlled trial. Trials. 2013; 6,14: 370. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-370.
  21. White EJ. The problem of obesity and dietary nudges. Politics Life Sci. 2018; 37(1): 120-125. doi: 10.1017/pls.2018.4.

Файлы

Статистика

Просмотры аннотации: 454
Просмотры XML: 0
Просмотры PDF: 353
Всего: 807