Voluntary food fortification policy in Australia: did ‘formal’ stakeholder consultation influence the outcome?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bronwyn Ashton ◽  
Cassandra Star ◽  
Mark Lawrence ◽  
John Coveney
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Policy Process ◽  
Policy Development ◽  
Food Fortification ◽  
Policy Debate ◽  
Stakeholder Consultation ◽  
Regulatory Decision ◽  
Food Regulation ◽  
Ministerial Council

Summary This research aimed to understand how the policy was represented as a ‘problem’ in food regulatory decision-making in Australia, and the implications for public health nutrition engagement with policy development processes. Bacchi’s ‘what’s the problem represented to be?’ discourse analysis method was applied to a case study of voluntary food fortification policy (VFP) developed by the then Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council (ANZFRMC) between 2002 and 2012. As a consultative process is a legislated aspect of food regulatory policy development in Australia, written stakeholder submissions contributed most of the key documents ascertained as relevant to the case. Four major categories of stakeholder were identified in the data; citizen, public health, government and industry. Predictably, citizen, government and public health stakeholders primarily represented voluntary food fortification (VF) as a problem of public health, while industry stakeholders represented it as a problem of commercial benefit. This reflected expected differences regarding decision-making control and power over regulatory activity. However, at both the outset and conclusion of the policy process, the ANZFRMC represented the problem of VF as commercial benefit, suggesting that in this case, a period of ‘formal’ stakeholder consultation did not alter the outcome. This research indicates that in VFP, the policy debate was fought and won at the initial framing of the problem in the earliest stages of the policy process. Consequently, if public health nutritionists leave their participation in the process until formal consultation stages, the opportunity to influence policy may already be lost.

scholarly journals The challenge of bringing evidence in decision-making for public health emergencies: can preparedness reach out to HTA?

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
C E Chronaki ◽  
A Miglietta
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Policy Development ◽  
Digital Health ◽  
Resource Planning ◽  
Public Health Emergency ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Public Health Emergencies ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Evidence Based Decision Making

Abstract Evidence-based decision-making is central to public health. Implementing evidence-informed actions is most challenging during a public health emergency as in an epidemic, when time is limited, scientific uncertainties and political pressures tend to be high, and reliable data is typically lacking. The process of including data for preparedness and training for evidence-based decision making in public health emergencies is not systematic and is complicated by many barriers as the absence of common digital tools and approaches for resource planning and update of response plans. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is used with the aim to improve the quality and efficiency of public health interventions and to make healthcare systems more sustainable. Many of today's public health crises are also cross-border, and countries need to collaborate in a systematic and standardized way in order to enhance interoperability to share data and to plan coordinated response. Digital health tools have an important role to play in this setting, facilitating use of knowledge about the population that can potentially affected by the crisis within and across regional and national borders. To strengthen the impact of scientific evidence on decision-making for public health emergency preparedness and response, it is necessary to better define and align mechanisms through which interdisciplinary evidence feeds into decision-making processes during public health emergencies and the context in which these mechanisms operate. Activities and policy development in the HTA network could inform this process. The objective of this presentation is to identify barriers for evidence-based decision making during public health emergencies and discuss how standardization in digital health and HTA processes may help overcome these barriers leading to more effective coordinated and evidence-based public health emergency response.

Regulatory Decision-Making and Economic Analysis

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar ◽  
Jerry L. Mashaw
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Economic Analysis ◽  
National Security ◽  
Technology Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Regulatory Activity ◽  
Regulatory Decision ◽  
Over Time

The economic analysis of regulation is a broad topic, with implications for environmental protection, communications and technology policy, public health, immigration, national security, and other areas affecting risk and welfare in society. This chapter covers only a portion of the relevant ground, focusing on the following essential topics: First, what do we mean by “economic analysis” and what do we mean by “regulation”? Second, why has this topic become an important one, not only the United States, but in most advanced democracies? Third, why is economic analysis and regulation a contested, even contentious, aspect of modern regulatory activity? Finally, and most important, how is economic analysis structured into regulatory decision-making, and how might existing arrangements evolve over time?

HEIA tools: inclusion of migrants in health policy in Canada

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 697-705 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Pottie ◽  
Branka Agic ◽  
Douglas Archibald ◽  
Ayesha Ratnayake ◽  
Marcela Tapia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Health Equity ◽  
Policy Development ◽  
Health Inequities ◽  
Migrant Communities ◽  
Migrant Populations ◽  
Health Practitioners

Abstract This paper introduces the Migrant Populations Equity Extension for Ontario’s Health Equity Impact Assessment (HEIA) initiatives. It provides a mechanism to address the needs of migrant populations, within a program and policy framework. Validation of an equity extension framework using community leaders and health practitioners engaged in HEIA workshops across Ontario. Participants assessed migrants’ health needs and discussed how to integrate these needs into health policy. The Migrant Populations Equity Extension’s framework assists decision makers assess relevant populations, collaborate with immigrant communities, improve policy development and mitigate unintended negative impacts of policy initiatives. The tool framework aims to build stakeholder capacity and improve their ability to conduct HEIAs while including migrant populations. The workshops engaged participants in equity discussions, enhanced their knowledge of migrant policy development and promoted HEIA tools in health decision-making. Prior to these workshops, many participants were unaware of the HEIA tool. The workshops informed the validation of the equity extension and support materials for training staff in government and public health. Ongoing research on policy implementation would be valuable. Public health practitioners and migrant communities can use the equity extension’s framework to support decision-making processes and address health inequities. This framework may improve policy development and reduce health inequities for Ontario’s diverse migrant populations. Many countries are now using health impact assessment and health equity frameworks. This migration population equity extension is an internationally unique framework that engages migrant communities.

The development of the Australian environmental offsets policy: from theory to practice

2015 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 306-314 ◽  
Author(s):  
KATHERINE L. MILLER ◽  
JAMES A. TREZISE ◽  
STEFAN KRAUS ◽  
KIMBERLEY DRIPPS ◽  
MEGAN C. EVANS ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Policy Development ◽  
Stakeholder Consultation ◽  
Theory To Practice ◽  
Policy Goals ◽  
Policy Development Process ◽  
Academic Researchers ◽  
Degree Of Confidence ◽  
Ecological Equivalence ◽  
Support Decision Making

SUMMARYEnvironmental offsetting involves compensating for the residual adverse impacts of an action on the environment by generating an equivalent benefit elsewhere. As the prevalence of environmental offsetting grows, so does the challenge of translating no-net-loss goals to workable policy. From 2011–2012, the Australian Government developed an Environmental Offsets Policy and an accompanying metric (the Offsets Assessment Guide) to support decision making about offset requirements under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Through extensive stakeholder consultation and in collaboration with academic researchers, the Guide was developed with the aim of accounting appropriately for ecological equivalence in a transparent and flexible manner. This paper outlines the Australian Government's environmental offset policy development process, and describes the approach adopted for evaluating the suitability of proposed offsets in meeting the policy goals. The Guide explicitly estimates the extent to which an offset will improve the target biota and/or avert future losses, the degree of confidence that the offset will be implemented successfully, and the time it will take to deliver a conservation benefit. Since implementation of the Environmental Offsets Policy and the Guide, there has been a shift in focus from estimating offset requirements based on simplistic area ratios, toward directly evaluating the components of an offset action that determine its environmental performance. Achieving a balance between scientific robustness and policy workability is an ongoing challenge. The Environmental Offsets Policy and Guide represent an important step towards consistency and transparency in environmental offset decision-making.

scholarly journals A renewed framework for the essential public health functions in the Americas

2020 ◽  
Vol 44 ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Ernesto Bascolo ◽  
Natalia Houghton ◽  
Amalia del Riego ◽  
James Fitzgerald
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Policy Development ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Intersectoral Collaboration ◽  
Policy Cycle ◽  
Road Map ◽  
Health Authorities ◽  
Public Health Functions ◽  
Integrated Policy

This report presents the results of a consensus decision making process conducted to elaborate a renewed conceptual framework of the essential public health functions for the Americas. The emerging framework consists of four pillars encompassing action-oriented components relating to the new scope and concerns of public health. The four pillars call for adopting a human rights approach to public health, addressing the social determinants of health, ensuring access to both individuals and population-based services, and expanding the stewardship role of health authorities through a collaborative implementation of public health functions. Public health functions were conceptualized as a set of capacities that are part of an integrated policy cycle the encompasses four stages: assessment, policy development, allocation of resources, and access. The framework provides a road map for evaluation and development by health authorities of integrated enabling public health policies through intersectoral collaboration. The application of the framework would require engaging countries working to improve public health through national assessments and systematic incorporation of these findings into quality improvement efforts and sectoral and intersectoral decision-making processes around policy and investments priorities promoted by governments. Work is ongoing in the definition of a list of public health functions that gives operational clarity to each dimension of this framework and guides performance evaluation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document