目的:本研究旨在批判性地分析澳大利亚当前和拟议的减少添加糖消费的政策措施。过量食用添加糖是一个重要的公共卫生营养问题。相互竞争的利益,利益相关者之间的价值观和信念意味着他们对哪些政策行动更可取,以减少添加糖的消耗有不同的看法。
方法:使用目的性的半结构化访谈,滚雪球抽样和政策映射。政策行动按两个框架分类:感知(例如,行为改变沟通、食物环境和食物系统)和变化命令(例如,第一顺序:技术调整,第二个顺序:改革体制,第三级:改造系统)。
方法:澳大利亚。
方法:来自食品行业的22个利益相关者,食品监管,政府,公共卫生团体和学术界。
结果:所有建议和现有的政策行动都针对食品环境/行为的变化;大多数被评估为一级变化,和还原主义者(特定的营养)。对政策行动的影响包括行业力量,利益相关者碎片化,政府意识形态/政治意愿和公众压力。很少有利益相关者考虑到政策行动的潜在风险,特别是非营养甜味剂替代或其他政策的机会成本。
结论:澳大利亚减少添加糖消耗的大部分政策行动都是还原性的。参考特定的营养素,一级政策行动可以反映既得利益的影响,营养科学和政策的历史上占主导地位的还原论取向,以及追求二阶或三阶变化的感知难度。仅采取一级政策行动可能会导致“令人遗憾的”替代,并为旨在调整更广泛的粮食系统的更全面政策创造机会成本。
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to critically analyse Australia\'s current and proposed policy actions to reduce added sugar consumption. Over-consumption of added sugar is a significant public health nutrition issue. The competing interests, values and beliefs among stakeholders mean they have disparate views regarding which policy actions are preferable to reduce added sugar consumption.
METHODS: Semi-structured interviews using purposive, snowball sampling and policy mapping. Policy actions were classified by two frameworks: NOURISHING (e.g. behaviour change communication, food environment and food system) and the Orders of Change (e.g. first order: technical adjustments, second order: reforming the system, third order: transforming the system).
METHODS: Australia.
METHODS: Twenty-two stakeholders from the food industry, food regulation, government, public health groups and academia.
RESULTS: All proposed and existing policy actions targeted the food environment/behaviour change; most were assessed as first-order changes, and reductionist (nutrient specific) in nature. Influences on policy actions included industry power, stakeholder fragmentation, government ideology/political will and public pressure. Few stakeholders considered potential risks of policy actions, particularly of non-nutritive sweetener substitution or opportunity costs for other policies.
CONCLUSIONS: Most of Australia\'s policy actions to reduce added sugar consumption are reductionist. Preferencing nutrient specific, first-order policy actions could reflect the influence of vested interests, a historically dominant reductionist orientation to nutrition science and policy, and the perceived difficulty of pursuing second- or third-order changes. Pursuing only first-order policy actions could lead to \'regrettable\' substitutions and creates an opportunity cost for more comprehensive policy aimed at adjusting the broader food system.