Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University,221 Burwood Highway, Geelong, Melbourne, VIC 3125,Australia.
School of Regulation and Global Governance (RegNet), Australian National University,Canberra,Australia.
Public Health Nutr. 2019 Aug;22(12):2329-2337. doi: 10.1017/S1368980019000752. Epub 2019 May 21.
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.
最大化贸易和营养政策之间的协同效应，最小化冲突（即建立政策一致性）是一个重要目标。政策一致性的一个研究较少的驱动因素是参与各自部门的行为体的框架、论述和价值观的一致性。在本分析中，我们旨在了解这些行为体如何解释（即“框架”）营养以及对建立贸易-营养政策一致性的影响。
我们采用了定性的单一案例研究设计，借鉴了参与贸易政策的关键知情人的访谈。
我们专注于澳大利亚贸易政策子系统，该系统历史上强调为澳大利亚食品生产商实现市场增长和出口机会。
19 名参与贸易政策的关键知情人，涵盖政府、民间社会、企业和学术界。
由于以下几个原因，营养在澳大利亚贸易政策中的“突出度”较低。首先，在澳大利亚国内，营养问题不是一个政治优先事项，在其贸易伙伴中也是如此；很少有倡导团体在贸易政策中倡导营养。其次，食品和贸易政策部门的“生产主义”政策范式强烈强调市场增长、出口机会和放松管制，而不是营养和其他社会目标。第三，健康倡导者几乎没有机会影响贸易政策，这主要是因为协商过程有限。第四，营养的复杂性及其与贸易的相互联系给制定一个更广泛的论述以吸引公众和政治领导人参与这一主题带来了困难。
克服这些“观念挑战”可能对未来建立贸易和营养政策之间更大的一致性至关重要。
