ArticleBMC public health2026
Evaluation and prioritization of food environment policies in Türkiye using the Healthy Food Environment Policy Index (Food-EPI).
Article in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTürkiye is facing an alarming rise in diet-related non-communicable diseases, including obesity and type 2 diabetes. Tackling this issue demands a more proactive policy approach that fosters healthier food environments and supports long-term dietary improvements. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the implementation level of government policies aimed at creating healthy food environments in Türkiye, using the Healthy Food Environment Policy Index (Food-EPI), an internationally recognized framework for assessing implementation levels of food environment policies and comparing them to international best practices.
methodThe Food-EPI process in Türkiye was conducted in five main stages between May 2024 and June 2025. The policy and infrastructure support indicators were adapted to the national context, and evidence on national policies and international benchmarks was compiled. A panel of 38 national experts assessed policy implementation through structured evidence review and workshops to identify gaps. In total, 45 policy actions and 50 infrastructure support actions were initially identified, of which 26 policy actions and 28 infrastructure support actions were selected for prioritisation.
resultsAcross all assessed domains, none of the food policy or infrastructure support indicators in Türkiye reached a “high” level of implementation, with half of the policy indicators (50%) and more than half of the infrastructure support indicators (54%) assessed as having a “low” level of implementation. The top two highest-ranked policy actions identified through the weighted prioritisation process were: (1) reducing taxes on healthy and staple foods and (2) supporting healthy, local, and minimally processed food systems through agricultural policies and direct-to-consumer sales. The top two highest-ranked infrastructure support actions were: (1) increasing dietitian employment in primary care to enhance nutrition monitoring and (2) establishing systems to monitor children’s growth, nutritional status, and physical fitness.
conclusionTürkiye shows weak implementation across key domains of food environment policy. Experts prioritized actions targeting fiscal measures, agricultural systems, food marketing regulation, product reformulation, and strengthened nutrition monitoring and political commitment. Together, these prioritized actions provide a structured, evidence-informed roadmap to strengthen Türkiye’s food policy environment and support progress toward healthier food systems.
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.