To evaluate the extent of implementation of public policies aimed at creating healthy eating environments in Senegal compared to international best practice and identity priority actions to address the double burden of malnutrition.

The Healthy Food Environment Policy Index (Food-EPI) was used by a local expert panel to assess the level of implementation of forty-three good practice policy and infrastructure support indicators against international best practices using a Likert scale and identify priority actions to address the double burden of malnutrition in Senegal.

Senegal, West Africa.

A national group of independent experts from academia, civil society, non-governmental organisations and United Nations bodies (n =15) and a group of government experts from various ministries (n =16) participated in the study.

Implementation of most indicators aimed at creating healthy eating environments were rated as ‘low’ compared to best practice (31 on 43, or 72 %). The Gwet AC2 inter-rater reliability was good at 0·75 (95 % CI 0·70, 0·80). In a prioritisation workshop, experts identified forty-five actions, prioritising ten as relatively most feasible and important and relatively most effective to reduce the double burden of malnutrition in Senegal (e.g. develop and implement regional school menus based on local products (expand to fourteen regions) and measure the extent of the promotion of unhealthy foods to children).

Significant efforts remain to be made by Senegal to improve food environments. This project allowed to establish an agenda of priority actions for the government to transform food environments in Senegal to tackle the double burden of malnutrition.

To determine and compare the level of implementation of policies for healthy food environments in Thailand with reference to international best practice by state and non-state actors.

Data on the current level of implementation of food environment policies were assessed independently using the adapted Healthy Food Environment Policy Index (Food-EPI) by two groups of actors. Concrete actions were proposed for Thai Government. A joint meeting between both groups was subsequently held to reach consensus on priority actions.

Thailand.

Thirty state actors and twenty-seven non-state actors.

Level of policy implementation varied across different domains and actor groups. State actors rated implementation levels higher than non-state actors. Both state and non-state actors rated level of implementation of monitoring of BMI highest. Level of implementation of policies promoting in-store availability of healthy foods and policies increasing tax on unhealthy foods were rated lowest by state and non-state actors, respectively. Both groups reached consensus on eleven priority actions for implementation, focusing on food provision in public-sector settings, food composition, food promotion, leadership, monitoring and intelligence, and food trade.

Although the implementation gaps identified and priority actions proposed varied between state and non-state actors, both groups achieved consensus on a comprehensive food policy package to be implemented by the Thai Government to improve the healthiness of food environments. This consensus is a platform for continued policy dialogue towards cross-sectoral policy coherence and effective actions to address the growing burden of non-communicable diseases and obesity in Thailand.

To review the available literature on accountability frameworks to construct a framework that is relevant to voluntary partnerships between government and food industry stakeholders.

Between November 2012 and May 2013, a desk review of ten databases was conducted to identify principles, conceptual frameworks, underlying theories, and strengths and limitations of existing accountability frameworks for institutional performance to construct a new framework relevant to promoting healthy food environments.

Food policy contexts within high-income countries to address obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases.

Eligible resources (n 26) were reviewed and the guiding principles of fifteen interdisciplinary frameworks were used to construct a new accountability framework.

Strengths included shared principles across existing frameworks, such as trust, inclusivity, transparency and verification; government leadership and good governance; public deliberations; independent bodies recognizing compliance and performance achievements; remedial actions to improve accountability systems; and capacity to manage conflicts of interest and settle disputes. Limitations of the three-step frameworks and ‘mutual accountability’ approach were an explicit absence of an empowered authority to hold all stakeholders to account for their performance.

We propose a four-step accountability framework to guide government and food industry engagement to address unhealthy food environments as part of a broader government-led strategy to address obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases. An independent body develops clear objectives, a governance process and performance standards for all stakeholders to address unhealthy food environments. The empowered body takes account (assessment), shares the account (communication), holds to account (enforcement) and responds to the account (improvements).