To draw lessons from Fiji regarding the challenges and opportunities for policy initiatives to restrict (i) food marketing to children and (ii) marketing of breast milk substitutes, to inform policy for the double burden of malnutrition.

Qualitative political economy analysis of two policy case studies.

Fiji.

Eleven key informants from relevant sectors, representing public health, economic and consumer interests.

This study used two policy initiatives as case studies to examine factors influencing decision-making: Marketing Controls (Foods for Infants and Young Children) Regulations 2010, amended in 2016 to remove guidelines and restrictions on marketing in the form of labelling, and the draft Advertising and Promotion of Unhealthy Foods and Non-Alcoholic Beverages to Children Regulation developed in 2014 but awaiting review by the Solicitor General’s Office. Factors identified included: a policy paradigm in which regulation of business activity contradicts economic policy goals; limited perception by key policy actors of links between nutrition and marketing of breast milk substitutes, foods and beverages; and a power imbalance between industry and public health stakeholders in policymaking. Regulation of marketing for health purposes sits within the health sector’s interest but not its legislative remit, while within the economic sector’s remit but not interest. Opportunities to strengthen restrictions on marketing to improve nutrition and health include reframing the policy issue, strategic advocacy and community engagement.

Restricting marketing should be recognised by public health actors as a public health and an industry policy issue, to support strategic engagement with economic policy actors.

To explore the formal and informal ways in which different actors involved in shaping trade agreements pursue their interests and understand the interactions with nutrition, in order to improve coherence between trade and nutrition policy goals.

The paper draws on empirical evidence from Australian key informant interviews that explore the underlying political dimensions of trade agreements that act as barriers or facilitators to getting nutrition objectives on trade agendas.

Countries experiencing greater availability and access to diets full of energy-dense and nutrient-poor foods through increased imports, greater foreign direct investment and increasing constraints on national health policy space as a result of trade agreements.

Interviews took place with Australian government officials, industry, public-interest non-government organizations and academics.

The analysis reveals the formal and informal mechanisms and structures that different policy actors use both inside and outside trade negotiations to pursue their interests. The analysis also identifies the discourses used by the different actors, as they attempt to influence trade agreements in ways that support or undermine nutrition-related goals.

Moving forward requires policy makers, researchers and health advocates to use various strategies including: reframing the role of trade agreements to include health outcomes; reforming the process to allow greater access and voice to health arguments and stakeholders; establishing cross-government partners through accountable committees; and building circles of consensus and coalitions of sympathetic public-interest actors.

To examine key factors influencing the prioritisation of food and nutrition in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health policy during 1996–2015.

A qualitative policy analysis case study was undertaken, combining document analysis with thematic analysis of key informant interviews.

Australia.

Key actors involved in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health policy between 1996 and 2015 (n 38).

Prioritisation of food and nutrition in policy reduced over time. Several factors which may have impeded the prioritisation of nutrition were identified. These included lack of cohesion among the community of nutritionists, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders and civil society actors advocating for nutrition; the absence of an institutional home for nutrition policy; and lack of consensus and a compelling policy narrative about how priority nutrition issues should be addressed. Political factors including ideology, dismantling of public health nutrition governance structures and missing the opportunities presented by ‘policy windows’ were also viewed as barriers to nutrition policy change. Finally, the complexity and multifaceted nature of nutrition as a policy problem and perceived lack of evidence-based solutions may also have constrained its prioritisation in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health policy.

Future advocacy should focus on embedding nutrition within holistic approaches to health and building a collective voice through advocacy coalitions with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership. Strategic communication and seizing political opportunities may be as important as evidence for raising the priority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health issues.

Maximising synergies and minimising conflicts (i.e. building policy coherence) between trade and nutrition policy is an important objective. One understudied driver of policy coherence is the alignment in the frames, discourses and values of actors involved in the respective sectors. In the present analysis, we aim to understand how such actors interpret (i.e. ‘frame’) nutrition and the implications for building trade–nutrition policy coherence.

We adopted a qualitative single case study design, drawing on key informant interviews with those involved in trade policy.

We focused on the Australian trade policy sub-system, which has historically emphasised achieving market growth and export opportunities for Australian food producers.

Nineteen key informants involved in trade policy spanning the government, civil society, business and academic sectors.

Nutrition had low ‘salience’ in Australian trade policy for several reasons. First, it was not a domestic political priority in Australia nor among its trading partners; few advocacy groups were advocating for nutrition in trade policy. Second, a ‘productivist’ policy paradigm in the food and trade policy sectors strongly emphasised market growth, export opportunities and deregulation over nutrition and other social objectives. Third, few opportunities existed for health advocates to influence trade policy, largely because of limited consultation processes. Fourth, the complexity of nutrition and its inter-linkages with trade presented difficulties for developing a ‘broader discourse’ for engaging the public and political leaders on the topic.

Overcoming these ‘ideational challenges’ is likely to be important to building greater coherence between trade and nutrition policy going forward.