Suchergebnisse

We aimed to identify and categorize the types of policies that have been adopted to protect Americans from harmful exposures that could also be relevant for addressing diet‐related chronic diseases. This article examines and categorizes the rationales behind government regulation. Our interest in the historical analysis is to inform judgments about how best to address newly emergent risks involving diet‐related chronic disease within existing regulatory and information‐based frameworks. We assessed exemplars of regulation with respect to harmful exposures from air, water, and food, as well as regulations that are intended to modify voluntary behaviors. Following the comparative analysis, we explored how exposures that lead to diet‐related chronic diseases among the general population fit within models of regulation adopted for other comparable risks. We identified five rationales and five approaches that protect people from harmful exposures. Reasons for regulation include: protection from involuntary exposure to risk, high risk of death or chronic illness, ubiquity of risk, counteraction to limit compulsive behaviors, and promotion of population health. Regulatory approaches include: mandatory limits on use, mandatory limits on exposure, mandatory controls on quality, mandatory labeling, and voluntary guidance. In contrast to the use of mandates, the prevention of diet‐related chronic diseases thus far has largely relied on information‐only approaches and voluntary adoption of guidelines. There is ample precedent for mandatory regulatory approaches that could address harms related to exposure to unhealthy diets, but several barriers to action would need to be overcome.

In October 2012, Hurricane Sandy struck the East Coast of the United States, devastating communities across the region. This disaster motivated the federal government to examine how it might improve community and infrastructure resilience so that communities are better prepared for existing and future threats, including those exacerbated by climate change. To ensure that federal agencies incorporate key principles of resilience into their formulation, evaluation, and prioritization of infrastructure investments related to Sandy rebuilding, the Presidential Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force developed its Infrastructure Resilience Guidelines in the spring and summer of 2013. On behalf of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience Interagency Policy Committee's Subcommittee on Recovery and Mitigation, the RAND Corporation conducted an initial assessment of federal agencies' implementation of the guidelines. The main goal of this study was to identify the lessons learned from the opportunities and challenges encountered when implementing the guidelines. Researchers conducted semistructured interviews of 67 individuals employed by federal, state, and local government agencies and departments and nongovernmental organizations. An analysis of the interview notes and other documents provided information on different approaches to implementing the guidelines, the opportunities or challenges encountered during implementation, and whether the guidelines would be feasible to implement in nonrecovery environments. Overall, the guidelines were viewed as reflecting worthy resiliency principles that merit broader pursuit--and not just in a disaster recovery context