4.3 Editorial Material

Should Public Health and Policy Communities Interact With the Food Industry? It Depends on Context Comment on Towards Preventing and Managing Conflict of Interest in Nutrition Policy? An Analysis of Submissions to a Consultation on a Draft WHO Tool Comment

期刊

出版社

KERMAN UNIV MEDICAL SCIENCES
DOI: 10.34172/ijhpm.2020.176

关键词

Nutrition; Health Governance; Conflict of Interest; Food Industry; Policy-Making

资金

  1. Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence
  2. British Heart Foundation
  3. Cancer Research UK
  4. Economic and Social Research Council
  5. Medical Research Council
  6. National Institute for Health Research
  7. Wellcome Trust, under the UK Clinical Research Collaboration [MR/K023187/1]
  8. MRC [MC_UU_00006/7] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The food industry's opposition to the WHO tool goes beyond details to the very concept of it. It is important to consider how to advance public health policy without favoring business goals when interacting with the food industry. Despite the complexity of the issue, we believe there are opportunities for progress.
The issue of public health and policy communities engaging with food sector companies has long caused tension and debate. Ralston and colleagues' article 'Towards Preventing and Managing Conflict of Interest in Nutrition Policy? An Analysis of Submissions to a Consultation on a Draft WHO Tool' further examines this issue. They found widespread food industry opposition, not just to the details of the World Health Organization (WHO) tool, but to the very idea of it. In this commentary we reflect on this finding and the arguments for and against interacting with the food industry during different stages of the policy process. While involving the food industry in certain aspects of the policy process without favouring their business goals may seem like an intractable problem, we believe there are opportunities for progress that do not compromise our values as public health professionals. We suggest three key steps to making progress.

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

4.3
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