4.6 Article

The INFORMAS healthy food environment policy index (Food-EPI) in Mexico: An assessment of implementation gaps and priority recommendations

期刊

OBESITY REVIEWS
卷 20, 期 -, 页码 67-77

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/obr.12814

关键词

government officials; healthy food environments; independent actors; industry representatives; non-communicable diseases; policy implementation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mexico is one of the countries with the highest prevalence of obesity and recently declared a national epidemic of diabetes. Healthy food environments have the potential to improve the diet of the population and decrease the burden of disease. The aim of the study was to assess the efforts of the Mexican Government towards creating healthier food environments using the Healthy Food Environment Policy Index (Food-EPI). The tool was developed by the International Network for Food and Obesity/Non-communicable Diseases Research, Monitoring and Action Support (INFORMAS). Then, it was adapted to the Latin-American context and assessed the components of policy and infrastructure support. Actors from academia, civil society, government, and food industry assessed the level of implementation of food policies compared with international best practices. Actors were classified as (1) independents from academia and civil society (n = 36), (2) government (n = 28), and (3) industry (n = 6). The indicators with the highest percentage of implementation were those related to monitoring and intelligence. Those related to food retail were rated lowest. When stratified by type of actor, the government officials rated several indicators at a higher percentage of implementation compared with independent actors. None of the indicators were rated at high implementation. Government officials and independent actors agreed upon nine priority actions to improve the food environment in Mexico. These actions have the potential to improve government commitment and advocacy efforts to create healthier food environments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据