4.4 Review

The role of the food industry in health: lessons from tobacco?

期刊

BRITISH MEDICAL BULLETIN
卷 125, 期 1, 页码 131-143

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bmb/ldy002

关键词

food industry; denialism; public health; diet; disease; prevention policy

资金

  1. MRC [G0900847] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Medical Research Council [G0900847] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this review, we highlight poor diet as the biggest risk factor for non-communicable diseases. We examine the denial tactics used by the food industry, how they reflect the tactics previously used by the tobacco industry, and how campaigners can use this knowledge to achieve future public health successes. Data sources are wide ranging, notably publications relating to public health, obesity and processed food, the effectiveness hierarchy and food industry denialism tactics. Global burden of disease analyses consistently demonstrate that poor diet produces a bigger burden of non-communicable disease than tobacco, alcohol and inactivity put together. The lessons learnt from the tobacco control experience of successfully fighting the tobacco industry can be applied to other industries including processed food and sugary drinks. Tackling obesity and poor diet is a more complex issue than tobacco. Food industries continue to promote weak or ineffective policies such as voluntary reformulation, and resist regulation and taxation. However, the UK food industry now faces increasing pressure from professionals, public and politicians to accept reformulation and taxes, or face more stringent measures. The rise in childhood and adult obesity needs to be arrested and then reversed. Unhealthy processed food and sugary drinks are a major contributing factor. There is increasing interest in the tactics being used by the food industry to resist change. Advocacy and activism will be essential to counter these denialism tactics and ensure that scientific evidence is translated into effective regulation and taxation.

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

4.4
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