London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022 Dec 6;11(11):2727-2731. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2022.7008. Epub 2022 Feb 26.
According to Lacy-Nichols and Williams, the food industry is increasingly forestalling regulation with incremental concessions and co-option of policy-making discourses and processes; bolstering their legitimacy via partnerships with credible stakeholders; and disarming critics by amending their product portfolios whilst maintaining high sales volumes and profits. Their assessment raises a number of fundamental philosophical questions that we must address in order to form an appropriate public health response: is it appropriate to treat every act of corporate citizenship with cynicism? If voluntary action leads to better health outcomes, does it matter whether profits are preserved? How should we balance any short-term benefits from industry-led reforms against the longer-term risk stemming from corporate capture of policy-making networks? I argue for a nuanced approach, focused on carefully defined health outcomes; allowing corporations the benefit of the doubt, but implementing robust binding measures the moment voluntary actions fail to meet independently set objectives.
根据 Lacy-Nichols 和 Williams 的说法,食品行业越来越多地通过逐步让步和对政策制定话语和过程的选择性采用来阻碍监管;通过与可信利益相关者建立合作伙伴关系来增强其合法性;通过修改产品组合来削弱批评者,同时保持高销售额和利润。他们的评估提出了一些我们必须解决的基本哲学问题,以便形成适当的公共卫生应对措施:是否应该对企业公民的每一个行为都持怀疑态度?如果自愿行动能带来更好的健康结果,那么利润是否得到保留是否重要?我们应该如何平衡行业主导的改革带来的任何短期利益与企业对政策制定网络的长期影响?我主张采取一种细致入微的方法,重点关注精心定义的健康结果;给予企业一定的信任,但一旦自愿行动未能达到独立设定的目标,就立即实施强有力的约束措施。