Suchergebnisse

The inter-related nature of food, health and climate change requires a better understanding of the linkages and a greater alignment of policy across these issues to be able to adequately meet the pressing social and health challenges arising from climate change. Food price is one way through which climate change may affect health. The aim of this study of the global and Australian food systems is to provide a whole-of-system analysis of food price vulnerabilities, highlighting the key pressure points across the food system through which climate change could potentially have the greatest impact on consumer food prices and the implications for population health. We outline areas where there are particular vulnerabilities for food systems and food prices arising from climate change, particularly global commodity prices; agricultural productivity; short term supply shocks; and less direct factors such as input costs and government policies. We use Australia as a high-income country case study to consider these issues in more detail. The complex and dynamic nature of pricing mechanisms makes it difficult to predict precisely how prices will be impacted. Should prices rise disproportionately among healthy foodstuffs compared to less healthy foods there may be adverse health outcomes if less expensive and less healthy foods are substituted. Higher prices will also have equity implications with lower socio-economic groups most impacted given these households currently spend proportionately more of their weekly income on food. The ultimate objective of this research is to identify the pathways through the food system via which climate change may affect food prices and ultimately population health, thereby providing evidence for food policy which takes into account environmental and health considerations.

The decision by Australia's High Court to uphold the constitutionality of the country's ground-breaking tobacco plain packaging laws has been heralded as a victory for national sovereignty over vested interests. However, the ability of governments worldwide to introduce and implement public health policies and laws is increasingly threatened by trade and investment treaties that privilege investors over governments and provide avenues for international corporations to challenge democratically enacted public health policies in different countries.

The aim of this research is to identify how well Australian food policy adopts a public health approach and integrates considerations of climate change. In addition, the barriers and opportunities for Australian food policy to achieve a coherent public health and climate change foci will be identified. The specific objectives are to: identify the paradigms and values that exist in the policy community relating to food policy, public health and climate change; map and critically examine the existing policies in each domain (food, health, climate change); describe the actors, processes, power and governance structures that currently exist across the policy domains; develop strategies with which to address the: process and power barriers for developing and implementing Australian food policy; identify opportunities for creating Australian food policy with a coherent public health and climate change approach. This research is timely given the Australian Federal government's current food policy focus with the release of the: draft Australian Dietary Guidelines (NHMRC 2011), National Food Plan Issues paper (DAFF 2011), Food and Health Dialogue (DoHA 2011) and Australia and Food Security in a Changing World (PMSEIC 2010). In addition, it is necessary due to the Australian Federal government's release of the draft Proposed Basin Plan (MDBA 2011) and Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011(ComLaw). This poster will provide a summary of the interim literature review's findings, in particular: an assessment of the paradigms and values that exist in the policy community relating to food policy, public health and climate change. ; Australian Postgraduate Awards

Abstract Human-induced climate change will affect the lives of most populations in the next decade and beyond. It will have greatest, and generally earliest, impact on the poorest and most disadvantaged populations on the planet. Changes in climatic conditions and increases in weather variability affect human wellbeing, safety, health and survival in many ways. Some impacts are direct-acting and immediate, such as impaired food yields and storm surges. Other health effects are less immediate and typically occur via more complex causal pathways that involve a range of underlying social conditions and sectors such as water and sanitation, agriculture and urban planning. Climate change adaptation is receiving much attention given the inevitability of climate change and its effects, particularly in developing contexts, where the effects of climate change will be experienced most strongly and the response mechanisms are weakest. Financial support towards adaptation activities from various actors including the World Bank, the European Union and the United Nations is increasing substantially. With this new global impetus and funding for adaptation action come challenges such as the importance of developing adaptation activities on a sound understanding of baseline community needs and vulnerabilities, and how these may alter with changes in climate. The global health community is paying heed to the strengthening focus on adaptation, albeit in a slow and unstructured manner. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of adaptation and its relevance to global health, and highlight the opportunities to improve health and reduce health inequities via the new and additional funding that is available for climate change adaptation activities.

AbstractThe consumption of harmful commodities drives the noncommunicable disease (NCD) epidemic globally and in Pacific small island developing states. Multisectoral committees are commonly chosen avenues to facilitate policy coherence across government sectors in regulating the commercial determinants of health (CDoH), but these committees often fail to function as intended. This paper aims to explore the institutional conditions that enable or constrain multisectoral committees in facilitating policy coherence for tobacco control in Fiji and Vanuatu. An exploratory, qualitative research design was applied, incorporating a two‐case study design with within‐case analysis and cross‐case synthesis. Data collection consisted of 70 in‐depth interviews in 2018 and 2019. Data collection and analysis were informed by an analytical framework drawn from the institutional collective action framework. The results show that the current amount of authority behind the investigated multisectoral committees in Fiji and Vanuatu is inadequate to meaningfully bring stakeholders together for an issue with high complexity. Moreover, multisectoral discussions on tobacco control have a high risk to break down, as the collaboration may generate unwanted impacts to one or more actors and the net benefits are perceived to be low. The authority behind multisectoral committees might be strengthened by the chairmanship of a cross‐sectoral, high‐level government official and the allocation of more resources for managing intersectoral engagement. Divergent preferences might be brought closer together by showcasing the socioeconomic costs of NCDs and policies affecting the availability, affordability, accessibility, and desirability of tobacco and raising awareness about CDoH in nonhealth sectors.

Effectively addressing the health risks of climate change necessitates an active crosssectoral approach because health risks arise predominantly via sectors such as water, agriculture and energy. Much has been written on climate change and its impact on health, but little attention has focused on the realpolitik of how to progress the development and implementation of health-relevant strategies and policies to reduce this impact. The objective of this paper is to propose three solutions to address current deficiencies: i) strengthening the capacity and understanding of health officials in relation to climate change and health; ii) improving cross-sectoral partnerships with sectors relevant to climate change and health, and iii) identifying organisations influential in the development of climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies and policies, with a view to better target advocacy efforts. Practical examples of each solution are provided. In conclusion, as a steward of public health, the health sector must take the initiative to encourage a cross-sectoral approach that includes capacity development, coupled with an understanding of influential organisations. If this is done effectively, health, social and economic development goals can be reached more efficiently.

Effectively addressing the health risks of climate change necessitates an active crosssectoral approach because health risks arise predominantly via sectors such as water, agriculture and energy. Much has been written on climate change and its impact on health, but little attention has focused on the realpolitik of how to progress the development and implementation of health-relevant strategies and policies to reduce this impact. The objective of this paper is to propose three solutions to address current deficiencies: i) strengthening the capacity and understanding of health officials in relation to climate change and health; ii) improving cross-sectoral partnerships with sectors relevant to climate change and health, and iii) identifying organisations influential in the development of climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies and policies, with a view to better target advocacy efforts. Practical examples of each solution are provided. In conclusion, as a steward of public health, the health sector must take the initiative to encourage a cross-sectoral approach that includes capacity development, coupled with an understanding of influential organisations. If this is done effectively, health, social and economic development goals can be reached more efficiently.

To address imminent concerns of global food security and agricultural sustainability, international research activities are increasingly focusing on ways of improving the food system's efficiency and effectiveness at providing nutritious food for all in an environmentally sustainable manner. A significant component of this will involve understanding and ultimately influencing people's dietary choices. However, for people-oriented intervention strategies to be effective, the gaps between existing behaviour and what is required for environmentally sustainable and healthy food choices must be specified. This paper identifies priority areas for behavioural change in relation to the types of food purchased, how they have been produced and the individual's food provisioning behaviour. In order to determine the most effective ways to influence people's consumption behaviour in light of these priority areas, the authors conducted a pilot study on a group of 163 Australians who would be expected to be 'early adopters' of a sustainable diet. Results show that only around 1 in 10 are presently actively engaged in reducing the environmental impact of their diets in these priority areas. Hence, there is a significant need to engage many more people in sustainable dietary behaviours. Furthermore, it was found that areas where interventions are most likely to have the largest impact, based on high cost to the environment and likelihood of citizens changing their behaviour, are reducing the amount of food waste generated in the household and lowering the amount of junk food eaten. ; The research supporting this article was funded by the Australian Government through the University of Canberra.

To address imminent concerns of global food security and agricultural sustainability, international research activities are increasingly focusing on ways of improving the food system's efficiency and effectiveness at providing nutritious food for all in an environmentally sustainable manner. A significant component of this will involve understanding and ultimately influencing people's dietary choices. However, for people-oriented intervention strategies to be effective, the gaps between existing behaviour and what is required for environmentally sustainable and healthy food choices must be specified. This paper identifies priority areas for behavioural change in relation to the types of food purchased, how they have been produced and the individual's food provisioning behaviour. In order to determine the most effective ways to influence people's consumption behaviour in light of these priority areas, the authors conducted a pilot study on a group of 163 Australians who would be expected to be 'early adopters' of a sustainable diet. Results show that only around 1 in 10 are presently actively engaged in reducing the environmental impact of their diets in these priority areas. Hence, there is a significant need to engage many more people in sustainable dietary behaviours. Furthermore, it was found that areas where interventions are most likely to have the largest impact, based on high cost to the environment and likelihood of citizens changing their behaviour, are reducing the amount of food waste generated in the household and lowering the amount of junk food eaten. ; The research supporting this article was funded by the Australian Government through the University of Canberra.

OBJECTIVE: To articulate a healthy and sustainable (H&S) diet; outline key health and environmental sustainability principles that can be applied in the selection of foods for inclusion in such a diet; and describe a methodology with which to assess the availability and affordability of a H&S food basket. DESIGN: We synthesized publically available evidence on the environmental impact of different foods from academic, government, industry and non-government sources and constructed a hypothetical H&S equivalent of the typical Australian diet. Based on this, we constructed a weekly H&S food basket for a household of two adults and two children. SETTING: Australia. SUBJECTS: Australian populations. RESULTS: The H&S diet is based on three overarching principles: (i) any food that is consumed above a person's energy requirement represents an avoidable environmental burden in the form of greenhouse gas emissions, use of natural resources and pressure on biodiversity; (ii) reducing the consumption of discretionary food choices, which are energy-dense and highly processed and packaged, reduces both the risk of dietary imbalances and the use of environmental resources; and (iii) a diet comprising less animal- and more plant-derived foods delivers both health and ecological benefits. CONCLUSIONS: We have focused on the articulation of a H&S diet not to facilitate 'policy drift' to focus on individual dietary choice, but rather to provide evidence to extend dietary guideline recommendations so as to integrate environmental considerations within the scope of food and health policy advice in Australia and elsewhere. ; This research received support from the Climate and Health Cluster which is funded by the CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Flagship Collaboration Fund.

OBJECTIVE: To articulate a healthy and sustainable (H&S) diet; outline key health and environmental sustainability principles that can be applied in the selection of foods for inclusion in such a diet; and describe a methodology with which to assess the availability and affordability of a H&S food basket. DESIGN: We synthesized publically available evidence on the environmental impact of different foods from academic, government, industry and non-government sources and constructed a hypothetical H&S equivalent of the typical Australian diet. Based on this, we constructed a weekly H&S food basket for a household of two adults and two children. SETTING: Australia. SUBJECTS: Australian populations. RESULTS: The H&S diet is based on three overarching principles: (i) any food that is consumed above a person's energy requirement represents an avoidable environmental burden in the form of greenhouse gas emissions, use of natural resources and pressure on biodiversity; (ii) reducing the consumption of discretionary food choices, which are energy-dense and highly processed and packaged, reduces both the risk of dietary imbalances and the use of environmental resources; and (iii) a diet comprising less animal- and more plant-derived foods delivers both health and ecological benefits. CONCLUSIONS: We have focused on the articulation of a H&S diet not to facilitate 'policy drift' to focus on individual dietary choice, but rather to provide evidence to extend dietary guideline recommendations so as to integrate environmental considerations within the scope of food and health policy advice in Australia and elsewhere. ; This research received support from the Climate and Health Cluster which is funded by the CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Flagship Collaboration Fund.