ArticleGlobalization and health2021
Who influences nutrition policy space using international trade and investment agreements? A global stakeholder analysis.
Article in Globalization and health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trade, power, and public health: a political economy analysis of Thailand's CPTPP negotiation process.Globalization and health · 2026Article
- Sodium content of Packaged foods in Uruguay by country of origin: regulatory challenges and trade considerations.Globalization and health · 2026Article
- How food regulations help or hinder the implementation of policies to promote healthy population diets: a review of food regulations in the Western Pacific Region.Public health nutrition · 2025Review
- The role of policy actors' belief systems and interests in framing public health nutrition problems: a case study of obesity in Australia.Public health nutrition · 2025Article
- Safeguarding health in bilateral investment treaties: the Uruguayan experience.Globalization and health · 2025Article
- "All of these things interact, that's why it's such a wicked problem": Stakeholders' perspectives of what hinders low back pain care in Australia and how to improve it.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- The needed link between open science and science diplomacy-A Latin American perspective.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2024Article
- Protecting children from unhealthy food marketing: a comparative policy analysis in Australia, Fiji and Thailand.Health promotion international · 2023Article
- On the Pathogenicity of the Oral Biofilm: A Critical Review from a Biological, Evolutionary, and Nutritional Point of View.Nutrients · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRegulation of food environments is needed to address the global challenge of poor nutrition, yet policy inertia has been a problem. A common argument against regulation is potential conflict with binding commitments under international trade and investment agreements (TIAs). This study aimed to identify which actors and institutions, in different contexts, influence how TIAs are used to constrain policy space for improving food environments, and to describe their core beliefs, interests, resources and strategies, with the objective of informing strategic global action to preserve nutrition policy space.
methodsWe conducted a global stakeholder analysis applying the Advocacy Coalition Framework, based on existing academic literature and key informant interviews with international experts in trade and investment law and public health nutrition policy.
resultsWe identified 12 types of actors who influence policy space in the food environment policy subsystem, relevant to TIAs. These actors hold various beliefs regarding the economic policy paradigm, the nature of obesity and dietary diseases as health problems, the role of government, and the role of industry in solving the health problem. We identified two primary competing coalitions: 1) a 'public health nutrition' coalition, which is overall supportive of and actively working to enact comprehensive food environment regulation; and 2) an 'industry and economic growth' focussed coalition, which places a higher priority on deregulation and is overall not supportive of comprehensive food environment regulation. The industry and economic growth coalition appears to be dominant, based on its relative power, resources and coordination. However, the public health nutrition coalition maintains influence through individual activism, collective lobbying and government pressure (e.g. by civil society), and expert knowledge generation.
conclusionsOur analysis suggests that industry and economic growth-focussed coalitions are highly capable of leveraging networks, institutional structures and ideologies to their advantage, and are a formidable source of opposition acting to constrain nutrition policy space globally, including through TIAs. Opportunities for global public health nutrition coalitions to strengthen their influence in the support of nutrition policy space include strategic evidence generation and coalition-building through broader engagement and capacity-building.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.