Simone Pettigrew1,2, Leon Booth3,4, Elizabeth Dunford3,5, Tailane Scapin6, Jacqui Webster3,4, Jason Wu3,4, Maoyi Tian3,4,7, D Praveen4,8,9, Gary Sacks6. 1. The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, NSW, Australia. spettigrew@georgeinstitute.org.au. 2. The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia. spettigrew@georgeinstitute.org.au. 3. The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 4. The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 5. Department of Nutrition, Gillings Global School of Public Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 6. The Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition (GLOBE), Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia. 7. School of Public Health, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China. 8. The George Institute for Global Health, New Delhi, India. 9. Prasanna School of Public Health, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Public support for evidence-based nutrition interventions can be an important determinant of government willingness to develop and implement such interventions. The aim of this study was to assess support for a broad range of nutrition interventions across seven countries: Australia, Canada, China, India, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Assessed interventions included those relating to food availability, affordability, reformulation, labelling, and promotion. METHODS: Approximately 1000 adults per country (total n = 7559) completed an online survey assessing support for 35 nutrition interventions/policies. ANOVA analyses were used to identify differences between countries on overall levels of support and by intervention category. Multiple regression analyses assessed demographic and diet-related factors associated with higher levels of support across the total sample and by country. RESULTS: Substantial levels of public support were found for the assessed interventions across the seven countries and five intervention categories. The highest levels were found in India (Mean across all interventions of 4.16 (standard deviation (SD) 0.65) on a 5-point scale) and the lowest in the United States (Mean = 3.48, SD = 0.83). Support was strongest for interventions involving food labelling (Mean = 4.20, SD = 0.79) and food reformulation (Mean = 4.17, SD = 0.87), and weakest for fiscal interventions (Mean = 3.52, SD = 1.06). Consumer characteristics associated with stronger support were higher self-rated health, higher educational attainment, female sex, older age, and perceptions of consuming a healthy diet. CONCLUSION: The results indicate substantial support for a large range of nutrition interventions across the assessed countries, and hence governments could potentially be more proactive in developing and implementing such initiatives.
BACKGROUND: Public support for evidence-based nutrition interventions can be an important determinant of government willingness to develop and implement such interventions. The aim of this study was to assess support for a broad range of nutrition interventions across seven countries: Australia, Canada, China, India, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Assessed interventions included those relating to food availability, affordability, reformulation, labelling, and promotion. METHODS: Approximately 1000 adults per country (total n = 7559) completed an online survey assessing support for 35 nutrition interventions/policies. ANOVA analyses were used to identify differences between countries on overall levels of support and by intervention category. Multiple regression analyses assessed demographic and diet-related factors associated with higher levels of support across the total sample and by country. RESULTS: Substantial levels of public support were found for the assessed interventions across the seven countries and five intervention categories. The highest levels were found in India (Mean across all interventions of 4.16 (standard deviation (SD) 0.65) on a 5-point scale) and the lowest in the United States (Mean = 3.48, SD = 0.83). Support was strongest for interventions involving food labelling (Mean = 4.20, SD = 0.79) and food reformulation (Mean = 4.17, SD = 0.87), and weakest for fiscal interventions (Mean = 3.52, SD = 1.06). Consumer characteristics associated with stronger support were higher self-rated health, higher educational attainment, female sex, older age, and perceptions of consuming a healthy diet. CONCLUSION: The results indicate substantial support for a large range of nutrition interventions across the assessed countries, and hence governments could potentially be more proactive in developing and implementing such initiatives.
Authors: Tony Blakely; Christine Cleghorn; Anja Mizdrak; Wilma Waterlander; Nhung Nghiem; Boyd Swinburn; Nick Wilson; Cliona Ni Mhurchu Journal: Lancet Public Health Date: 2020-07
Authors: Adam Drewnowski; Eva C Monterrosa; Saskia de Pee; Edward A Frongillo; Stefanie Vandevijvere Journal: Food Nutr Bull Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 2.069
Authors: Marlin J Broeks; Sander Biesbroek; Eelco A B Over; Paul F van Gils; Ido Toxopeus; Marja H Beukers; Elisabeth H M Temme Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2020-05-11 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Stephanie Diepeveen; Tom Ling; Marc Suhrcke; Martin Roland; Theresa M Marteau Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2013-08-15 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Oliver T Mytton; Emma Boyland; Jean Adams; Brendan Collins; Martin O'Connell; Simon J Russell; Kate Smith; Rebekah Stroud; Russell M Viner; Linda J Cobiac Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2020-10-13 Impact factor: 11.069