An analysis of the transformative potential of Australia's national food policies and policy actions to promote healthy and sustainable food systems.

OBJECTIVE: Despite commitment by many countries to promote food system transformation, Australia has yet to adopt a national food policy. This study aimed to evaluate Australian Federal Government's (AFG) food policies and policy actions potential to promote healthy and sustainable food systems. DESIGN: This study is a desk-based policy mapping followed by a theoretically guided evaluation of policy actions. This involved three steps: (1) identification of government departments and agencies that could influence Australia's food system; (2) identification of food policies and policy actions within these departments and (3) use of a conceptual framework to evaluate policy actions' potential of changing the food system as adjust (first-order change), reform (second-order change) or transform (third-order change). SETTING: Australia. PARTICIPANTS: None. RESULTS: Twenty-four food policies and sixty-two policy actions were identified across eight AFG departments and the Food Regulation System and evaluated based on the order of change they represented. Most policies were led by individual departments, reflecting the absence of a joined-up approach to food policy in Australia. Most policy actions (n 25/ 56·5 %) were evaluated as having adjust potential, whereas no transformative policy action was identified. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that Australia is likely to proceed incrementally towards achieving food system change through adjustments and reforms but lacking transformative impact. To promote transformative change, all three orders of change must be strategically implemented in a coherent and coordinated matter. A comprehensive national food policy and a national coordinating body are needed to ensure a cohesive approach to policy.

Combining public health evidence, policy experience and communications expertise to inform preventive health: reflections on a novel method of knowledge synthesis.

Knowledge synthesis methods help summarize evidence and utilize content expertise to draw out key messages to aid knowledge mobilization and translation. Systems thinking and coproduction can support this by facilitating a multiperspective view and ensuring that knowledge is mobilized and translated in a useful and meaningful way for policy-makers and practitioners. In this paper, we describe the development of a knowledge synthesis approach that utilizes coproduction with policy-makers to combine the findings of a programme of research with policy knowledge to support decision-makers working in chronic disease prevention. The process developed by The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre combined the expertise of research, policy and science communications experts. We reflect on how we used coproduction processes to embed policy-makers as partners in the evidence synthesis process via research-policy dialogues, and embedded science communication into the development and presentation of the findings. This differs from a more common approach of researchers generating evidence for policy with limited input from policy-makers themselves. By collaborating with policy-makers and using coproduction, we can better inform policy-relevant research and generate policy-relevant knowledge. We describe the development of our knowledge synthesis approach using two case studies: the first drawing on a body of work in public health law, and the second on a body of work focused on the first 2000 days of life. We consider how these case studies demonstrate the value of working with policy partners as part of a knowledge synthesis process, and discuss how this process could be adapted and used in future.

'The university should promote health, but not enforce it': opinions and attitudes about the regulation of sugar-sweetened beverages in a university setting.

BACKGROUND: The study aimed to determine the opinions and attitudes of a university population regarding the regulation of sugar-sweetened beverages in a university setting, primarily looking at differences in opinion between younger adults (under 30 years of age) and older adults (30 years of age or older). METHODS: An online survey was conducted at an Australian university in April-May 2016 using a convenience sample of students and staff between the ages of 16 and 84 years. The survey included questions about consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and level of agreement and support of proposed sugar-sweetened beverage interventions. Quantitative response data and qualitative open-ended response data were analysed. RESULTS: Nine hundred thirteen responses from students and staff were analysed. In this population, consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages was low and awareness of the health risks of sugar-sweetened beverages was high. Overall, the surveyed population indicated more support for interventions that require higher levels of personal responsibility. The population did support some environment-centred, population-based interventions, such as increasing access to drinking water and reducing the price of healthier beverage alternatives. However there was less support for more restrictive interventions such as removing sugar-sweetened beverages from sale. Young adults tended to be less supportive of most interventions than older adults. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate there is some support for environment-centred, population-based approaches to reduce the availability and appeal of sugar-sweetened beverages in an adult environment such as a university setting. However these results suggest that public health may need to focus less on educating populations about the harms associated with sugar-sweetened beverages. Instead, there should be greater emphasis on explaining to populations and communities why environment-centred approaches relating to the sale and promotion of sugar-sweetened beverages should be prioritised over interventions that simply target personal responsibility and individual behaviours.