To achieve WHO's target to halt the rise in obesity and diabetes, dramatic actions are needed to improve the healthiness of food environments. Substantial debate surrounds who is responsible for delivering eff ective actions and what, specifi cally, these actions should entail. Arguments are often reduced to a debate between individual and collective responsibilities, and between hard regulatory or fi scal interventions and soft voluntary, education-based approaches. Genuine progress lies beyond the impasse of these entrenched dichotomies. We argue for a strengthening of accountability systems across all actors to substantially improve performance on obesity reduction. In view of the industry opposition and government reluctance to regulate for healthier food environments, quasiregulatory approaches might achieve progress. A four step accountability framework (take the account, share the account, hold to account, and respond to the account) is proposed. The framework identifi es multiple levers for change, including quasiregulatory and other approaches that involve government-specifi ed and government-monitored progress of private sector performance, government procurement mechanisms, improved transparency, monitoring of actions, and management of confl icts of interest. Strengthened accountability systems would support government leadership and stewardship, constrain the infl uence of private sector actors with major confl icts of interest on public policy development, and reinforce the engagement of civil society in creating demand for healthy food environments and in monitoring progress towards obesity action objectives.

Resumo

Estimar a prevalência de insegurança alimentar em famílias de Duque de Caxias, município localizado na Região Metropolitana do Rio de Janeiro, e avaliar a associação entre indicadores socioeconômicos e insegurança alimentar. 1 Este estudo faz parte do projeto "Avaliação do estado nutricional, hábitos alimentares e insegurança alimentar no município de Duque de Caxias, Rio de Janeiro: desenvolvimento de um instrumento simplificado para avaliação de consumo alimentar saudável". Apoio financeiro: Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia, Ministério do Desenvolvimento Social e Combate à Fome e Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, a partir do Edital MCT/MESA/CNPq/CT-Agronegócio 01/2003 (processo CNPq nº 503139/2003-3), Instituto Nacional do Câncer e Ministério da Saúde.

No abstract

Background: With multi-stakeholder approaches central to efforts to address global health challenges, debates around conflict of interest (COI) are increasingly prominent. The World Health Organization (WHO) recently developed a proposed tool to support member states in preventing and managing COI in nutrition policy. We analysed responses to an online consultation to explore how actors from across sectors understand COI and the ways in which they use this concept to frame the terms of commercial sector engagement in health governance. Methods: Submissions from 44 Member States, international organisations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), academic institutions and commercial sector actors were coded using a thematic framework informed by framing theory. Respondents’ orientation to the tool aligned with two broad frames, ie, a ‘collaboration and partnership’ frame that endorsed multi-stakeholder approaches and a ‘restricted engagement’ frame that highlighted core tensions between public health and food industry actors. Results: Responses to the WHO tool reflected contrasting conceptualisations of COI and implications for health governance. While most Member States, NGOs, and academic institutions strongly supported the tool, commercial sector organisations depicted it as inappropriate, unworkable and incompatible with the Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs). Commercial sector respondents advanced a narrow, individual-level understanding of COI, seen as adequately addressed by existing mechanisms for disclosure, and viewed the WHO tool as unduly restricting scope for private sector engagement in nutrition policy. In contrast, health-focused NGOs and several Member States drew on a more expansive understanding of COI that recognised scope for wider tensions between public health goals and commercial interests and associated governance challenges. These submissions mostly welcomed the tool as an innovative approach to preventing and managing such conflicts, although some NGOs sought broader exclusion of corporate actors from policy engagement. Conclusion: Submissions on the WHO tool illustrate how contrasting positions on COI are central to understanding broader debates in nutrition policy and across global health governance. Effective health governance requires greater understanding of how COI can be conceptualised and managed amid high levels of contestation on policy engagement with commercial sector actors. This requires both ongoing innovation in governance tools and more extensive conceptual and empirical research.

Many human cancers develop as a result of exposure to risk factors related to the environment and ways of life. The aim of this study was to estimate attributable fractions of 25 types of cancers resulting from exposure to modifiable risk factors in Brazil. The prevalence of exposure to selected risk factors among adults was obtained from population-based surveys conducted from 2000 to 2008. Risk estimates were based on data drawn from meta-analyses or large, high quality studies. Population-attributable fractions (PAF) for a combination of risk factors, as well as the number of preventable deaths and cancer cases, were calculated for 2020. The known preventable risk factors studied will account for 34% of cancer cases among men and 35% among women in 2020, and for 46% and 39% deaths, respectively. The highest attributable fractions were estimated for tobacco smoking, infections, low consumption of fruits and vegetables, excess weight, reproductive factors, and physical inactivity. This is the first study to systematically estimate the fraction of cancer attributable to potentially modifiable risk factors in Brazil. Strategies for primary prevention of tobacco smoking and control of infection and the promotion of a healthy diet and physical activity should be the main priorities in policies for cancer prevention in the country.

ObjectiveTo identify examples of the ‘corporate political activity’ (CPA) of the industry producing and selling ultra-processed food and drink products (UPP) in Latin America and the Caribbean.DesignSearches were conducted on the national websites and social media accounts of large industry actors. Coding was deductive and based on a framework for classifying the CPA of the food industry.SettingFifteen countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.ParticipantsTwelve members of the International Food and Beverage Alliance (IFBA) and major trade associations and chambers of commerce in the region.ResultsDuring the current pilot study, more than 200 examples of CPA were found in Latin America and the Caribbean. The UPP industry lobbied governments during the development of national health policies. UPP companies tried to build alliances with health professionals, but also with communities where they operated and with policy makers. In addition, the UPP industry fought against regulation in court and proposed weaker alternatives to public health policies, such as self-regulation.ConclusionsFood systems in low- and middle-income countries, including in Latin America and the Caribbean, are increasingly penetrated by the UPP industry. These countries are at risk of being influenced by the CPA strategies described in the present study. There is a need to further identify, monitor and evaluate the impact of these CPA strategies on public health policies and public opinion in the region, in order to develop mechanisms to effectively prevent such interference.

ObjectiveWe identified mechanisms for addressing and/or managing the influence of corporations on public health policy, research and practice, as well as examples of where these mechanisms have been adopted from across the globe.DesignWe conducted a scoping review. We conducted searches in five databases on 4 June 2019. Twenty-eight relevant institutions and networks were contacted to identify additional mechanisms and examples. In addition, we identified mechanisms and examples from our collective experience working on the influence of corporations on public health policy, research and practice.SettingWe identified mechanisms at the national, regional and global levels.ResultsThirty-one documents were included in our review. Eight were peer-reviewed scientific articles. Nine discussed mechanisms to address and/or manage the influence of different types of industries; while other documents targeted specific industries. In total, we identified 49 mechanisms for addressing and/or managing the influence of corporations on public health policy, research and practice, and 43 of these were adopted at the national, regional or global level. We identified four main types of mechanisms: transparency; management of interactions with industry and of conflicts of interest; identification, monitoring and education about the practices of corporations and associated risks to public health; prohibition of interactions with industry. Mechanisms for governments (n=17) and academia (n=13) were most frequently identified, with fewer for the media and civil society.ConclusionsWe identified several mechanisms that could help address and/or manage the negative influence of corporations on public health policy, research and practice. If adopted and evaluated more widely, many of the mechanisms described in this manuscript could contribute to efforts to prevent and control non-communicable diseases.Trial registration detailsThe protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework on 27 May 2019 (https://osf.io/xc2vp).