Healthy People and Communities—Steering Committee
Multi-Sectoral Partnerships Task Group
July 2013
Discussion Paper:
Public-Private Partnerships
with the Food Industry
Summary
Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) for public health have gained great attention and recognition among the global
public health community in the last two decades. Governments have been facing increasing pressure to take action to prevent and reduce obesity and chronic disease while also experiencing fiscal constraints. Governments
across Canada have recognized the need for all sectors, including the private sector, to work together to address
the multiple factors affecting healthy weights and obesity prevention. Although there is a wide range of industries
within the private sector that could be engaged on this issue, there is interest in the food industry given that access to healthy, nutritious and affordable food is a significant determinant of health. This is also a new area of
work for governments and some jurisdictions have already established partnerships in this area. When industry is
involved in public health research and interventions, there is potential for conflicts of interest and an examination
of these types of partnerships is warranted. In the absence of policies and guidance documents, governments have
identified the need to develop an evidence-based approach to engage with this segment of the private sector.
This paper examines the use of PPPs in public health and engaging the food industry on healthy eating. It highlights
findings from the literature regarding risks, challenges, benefits and key considerations for governments in the
development and use of PPPs in this area. A summary of experiences, interests and challenges faced in jurisdictions across Canada in developing PPPs with the food industry is also provided. The overall purpose of this paper is
to share knowledge of PPPs with the food industry and support the development of a framework to enable jurisdictions to undertake an evidence-informed approach to assess partnership development opportunities with the
food industry. The framework will also support decision making when exploring partnerships with other private
sectors for the purposes of public health.
Purpose and Scope
In September 2010, Federal-Provincial/Territorial (F-P/T) Ministers of Health
and/or Healthy Living/Health Promotion endorsed a Declaration on Prevention and Promotion and committed to making the promotion of health and
the prevention of disease, disability and injury a shared priority for action. As
the first commitment of the Declaration, Ministers endorsed the Curbing
Childhood Obesity: A Federal, Provincial and Territorial Framework for Action
to Promote Healthy Weights (Healthy Weights Framework) and committed to
working together and with other sectors on joint actions that will help Canadians live longer, healthier lives. In November 2011, all Ministers (except
Quebec) released a report entitled Actions Taken and Future Directions 2011
(Healthy Weights Report). The report proposes recommendations and actions
that can be taken by Ministers of Health and their respective governments, as
well as other sectors, to advance efforts to curb childhood obesity.
“Over the last two decades, PPPs for public health have gained great attention
and recognition among the global public health community…”
Key Terms
Public-private partnerships in
public health are defined as at
least one representatives from
government and one from the
private-for-profit sector working together to achieve a
shared public health objective
based on some degree of
shared decision-making.
The food industry is made up
of growers, producers, manufacturers, distributors, retailers
and their associations that
range in size from smallmedium enterprises to large
multi-national corporations.
Partnerships on healthy eating
cover a range of activities related to healthy weights, obesity
prevention, diet and nutrition.
2
The Healthy Weights Report recognizes the need for all sectors, including the
private sector, to work together to address the multiple factors affecting
childhood obesity across Canada. There are a number of strategies within the
Healthy Weights Framework that governments can collaborate with the private sector on, including:
 Increasing the availability and accessibility of nutritious food;
 Decreasing marketing of food and beverages high in fat, sugar and/or
sodium to children; and,
 Improving the physical environment where children live, learn and play
to promote physical activity.
Over the last two decades, public-private partnerships (PPPs) for public
health have gained great attention and recognition among the global public
health community as a strategy to potentially overcome barriers that otherwise neither sector could respond to on its own (Widdus, 2005; Reich, Hershey, Hardy, Childress & Bernheim, 2003). Governments have been facing
increasing pressure to take action to prevent and reduce obesity and chronic
disease while experiencing fiscal constraints. This has made PPPs an attractive
mechanism to collaborate with the private sector to address obesity and
chronic disease prevention (De Pinho, 2012). For the purposes of this paper,
public-private partnerships in public health are defined as at least one representative from government and one from the private-for-profit sector working together to achieve a shared public health objective based on some degree of shared decision-making.
There are a wide range of industries within the private sector that could be
engaged to address issues related to healthy eating, including: the food industry (producers, manufacturers, distributors, retailers and associations),
health care (insurance and pharmaceuticals), sports and athletics industry
Research Methodology
(teams, equipment and apparel) and children’s products and entertainments
(toys, games, TV and other media). This paper focuses on the food industry
given that access to healthy, nutritious and affordable food is a significant
determinant of health. The food industry is made up of growers, producers,
manufacturers, distributors, retailers and their associations that range in size
from small-medium enterprises to large multi-national corporations. For the
purposes of this paper, partnerships on healthy eating cover a range of activities related to healthy weights, obesity prevention, diet and nutrition. This
paper will highlight findings from the literature regarding benefits and challenges of engaging with certain segments of the food industry on healthy
eating.
This discussion paper is based
on the findings of two independent literature reviews
conducted by Ontario and
Health Canada. The review
completed by Ontario, examined the literature on PPPs for
public health with an emphasis on diet, nutrition and obesity prevention. It examined
reasons for engaging in PPPs
in public health, contentious
issues, engagement models
and barriers to working with
industry on obesity prevention. The review completed by
Health Canada focused on
research regarding benefits
and risks of collaborating with
the private sector on public
health issues. It examined the
food industry and several important factors for government to consider before developing these arrangements,
such as conflict of interest.
Collaborating with the food industry to support healthy eating is a new area
of work for government. Policies have been established to address PPPs with
other sectors, such as tobacco, alcohol and pharmaceuticals; however, there
are no guiding documents in place when it comes to the food industry. Governments have identified the need to develop an evidence-based approach to
support their decision-making process in this area. This paper aims to share
knowledge of PPPs with the food industry and support a national dialogue on
this issue. It is the first step in developing a national framework that will support jurisdictions to undertake an evidence-informed approach when assessing whether and with whom to partner with to support healthy eating
initiatives. It highlights findings from the literature regarding risks, challenges,
benefits and key considerations for governments in the development and use
of PPPs in this area.
Although it is out of scope for this paper, it is recognized that other areas of
government (outside of public health) are engaged with the food industry
and health/healthy living ministries may want to recommend that a ‘health in
all public policy’ approach be adopted. This would limit all government activities with companies in the food industry whose activities conflict with public
health goals in the same way governments have restricted activities with tobacco companies.
3
Public-Private Partnerships in Public Health
The literature on PPPs for public health lacks a well-grounded conceptualization of
the term “public-private partnership”. The term “partnership” is used loosely with no
consensus around its definition (Field & Peck, 2003), is loaded with ambiguities
(Asante & Zwi, 2007) and has become a buzzword in the field (Van Huijstee, Francken
& Leroy 2007). It is often difficult to distinguish the meaning of partnerships from
other forms of cross-organizational activities such as building an alliance, collaborating, cooperating, networking and joint-working (Huxham, Vangen Huxham & Eden,
2000). Within the field of public health, PPPs are described as any form of engagement or interaction between the public and the private sectors (Hawkes, 2008). However, different forms of engagement have varying degrees of complexity and can be
placed along a continuum (Table 1). In which case, partnerships appear at the end of
the continuum due to their higher complexity and structured, formal arrangements
(Rowitz, 2006).
Table 1: Forms of Engagement with the Private Sector
Donation
Charitable financial or in-kind
donations that
enhance each
partner’s brand
image.
Platforms for
Discussion
Sponsorship
Alliances
Partnerships
Platforms for
discussion are
often created
for information
sharing. They
bring together
different actors
to map out
strategies for
addressing
changes.
Any form of
monetary or inkind payment or
contribution to
an event, activity or individual
that promotes a
company’s
name, brand,
products or
services.
Alliances are
groups of organizations that
combine forces
to address specific public
health issues.
They create
informal agreements to provide programs
or services to
the community.
A partnership is
a mechanism
based on shared
decision-making
that brings together a diversity of skills and
resources of
various organizations in innovative ways to
improve specific
outcomes.
Lower-level of Complexity
Higher-level of Complexity
There are important elements that distinguish these forms of engagement which
influence how it is designed, implemented and evaluated. For example, a “platform
for discussion” is often created to share information and has no formal governance
structure. On the other hand, “partnerships” are more formal and encompass a set
of key elements, such as: the presence of multiple actors; having shared goals; developing commitments, roles and responsibilities as part of the agreement; a mutually
agreed division of resources and expertise; and, a decision-making process negotiated among partner organizations (Ridley, 2001; Buse & Waxman, 2001; Widdus, 2005;
Reich, 2000; Peters, 1998; The Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships,
2011).
4
Another difficulty with the term PPPs is determining what constitutes the
“public” and the “private” sectors (Reich, 2000; Hawkes, 2008; Buse & Walt,
2000; Kickbusch & Lister, 2006). In this paper, the “public sector” refers to
any level of government or governmental agency and the “private sector”
refers to for-profit organizations, associations representing for-profit organizations or private foundations (e.g. the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation).
Non-profit organizations and inter-governmental agencies, such as the World
Health Organization, are considered the third party within PPPs. These differences can be fundamental as they have implications for governance, accountability, values and ethical considerations (De Pinho, 2012).
Types of Partnerships in Public Health
Public-private partnerships within the public health sector are not a new development and have been taking place since the early 2000s. Within the literature, the predominant form of classification is based on the goals or objectives of the partnership (Reich, 2002). Using a goal oriented classification, the
majority of PPPs have been found to cluster into partnerships for disease control, which in turn is split into two categories of partnerships. Firstly, PPPs for
product development, which focuses on research and development of drugs,
vaccines and new diagnostics, and secondly, PPPs for access to drug and vaccines, involving the provision of discounted or donated drugs and vaccines
(Widdus, 2005). Additionally, PPPs for strengthening health services, (Dewan ,
Lal, Lonnroth, Wares, Uplekar, Sahu, et al, 2006; Newell, Pande , Baral, Bam,
& Malla 2005; Balasubramanian, Rajeswari & Vijayabhaskara et al, 2006;
Boyle, Gardner & Callaway 1998; Lonnroth, Uplekar & Arora et al, 2004), improving advocacy and education (Clasen, 2002; Bravo, 2007; Yerby, 1998;
Meredith & Ziemba, 2007), improving regulation, quality and standards (The
Pharmaceutical Security Institute, 2011) and global financing coordination
(Hardon, 2001; Levine, Cherian , Shah & Batson, 2004) are among the subset
of goal-oriented PPPs.
The organizational structures of PPPs are inherently different as partnerships
are considered context specific (De Pinho, 2012). PPPs can be structured in a
way that they are legally dependent, not-for-profit organizations, such as
Medicine for Malaria Ventures (MMV) and Global Alliance for Vaccines and
Immunization (GAVI) (De Pinho Campos, Norman & Jadad, 2011). Others are
less structured and have been designed as informal collaboration between
the public and private for-profit health providers in the form of socialmarketing activities, vouchers, pre-packaging, contracting-out, franchising,
training (Patouillard, Goodman, Hanson & Mills, 2007), and health service
delivery (Dewan et al 2006; Newell et al 2005; Balasubramanian et al 2006;
Boyle, 1998; Lonnroth et al 2004).
5
Public-Private Partnerships for Healthy Eating
Information Gaps
Although PPPs in public health
are not a new development,
research on PPPs with the food
industry is still an emerging
topic. Most of the literature is
focused on large manufacturers who process foods high in
sugar, fat and/or sodium. This
discussion paper acknowledges
that the food industry is made
up of growers, producers,
manufactures, distributors,
retailers and their associations
that vary in size and represent
a range of roles, interests and
motivations. However, research on growers/producers
and retailers regarding PPPs in
public health is very limited
and the specific benefits and
challenges of working with this
sector have not been fully examined. Many of the risks and
challenges associated with
manufactures of processed
food may not apply to all companies within the food industry.
Examples of initiatives involving the food industry and the government to promote
healthy eating are emerging in the literature (Kraak & Story, 2010), although key
information related to shared decision-making, resources and expertise are not
provided. This limits the understanding of whether those initiatives are actual
partnerships or another form of engagement. The literature on PPPs for healthy
eating is very limited and refers to a wide variety of interactions and forms of engagement (not necessarily partnerships)(De Pinho, 2012). Hawkes and Buse examined existing European examples of partnerships between the government and
the food industry and found that the term ‘partnership’ was used generically. This
created misleading expectations of the partnerships and a shared decision-making
power among partner organizations was not evident in the partnership (Hawkes &
Buse, 2011).
Examples of PPPs for healthy eating come mostly from Europe and a few from the
US. These PPPs involve some form of participation of the government and the
food industry through the provision of funding, technical expertise, management/
leadership or a combination of these. Some are funded by the government, others
by the industry and others jointly; some are initiated by the government, others
by industry; some are led by the public sector, others by the food industry; and
some involve large multinational companies (Hawkes & Buse, 2011).
These partnerships also differ in their purpose and activities, both of which fall
into five broad categories: public education and information, product reformulation, research, access to healthy foods, and platform for discussion (Hawkes, 2008;
Hawkes & Buse, 2011). Public education and information includes partnerships for
diet and nutrition skills, training, healthy-eating messages and nutrition labeling.
Product reformulation often refers to partnerships for sodium reduction in food
products, when the PPPs are public-led, or expansion to healthier products, when
the PPPs are private-led. PPPs for research bring together food or beverage companies, academia, and public research-funding agencies to support research in the
areas of food and health. Partnerships for access to healthy foods refer to access
of fruit, vegetables and other healthy food products in underserved communities.
Moreover, partnerships as a platform for discussions between the government
and industry is a mechanism for developing recommendations, guidelines, and
advice or strategies related to food, diet and health (e.g. marketing of food to children) (Hawkes, 2008; Agurto, Rodriguez & Zacarias, 2011).
Although not explicitly framed as a public-private partnership, the Canadian government’s Sodium Working Group has been cited as an example of a platform for
discussion (between the public and private sectors) whose aim is to facilitate a
voluntary reduction of sodium levels in processed food products and foods sold in
foodservices establishments (Health Canada, 2010). Hawkes and Buse found that
the dominant characteristics of PPPs for obesity prevention were funding arrangements (e.g. funding flowing from one to another organization), platform for discussions among partners (e.g. the development of the food and nutrition strategy
in Finland), and organizational structures involving representatives of the public
and the private sectors to manage cooperation between these two sectors
(Hawkes & Buse, 2011).
6
Risks and Challenges
Encountering challenges is inherent to the process of partnership engagement. The greatest challenge for government in engaging with the private
sector is the alignment with and focus on public health goals while avoiding
any real or perceived conflict of interest. Throughout the literature, scholars
have pointed out considerable scepticism about the motives of the private
sector in partnering with the public sector (Reich, 2000). Much of the criticism is concerned with motives of private firms using the partnership as a
mechanism to achieve profits, or influencing the agenda of intergovernmental organizations (influencing tax reduction for financial reasons),
or even obtaining subsidized public funds for new products (Richter, 2004;
Reich, 2000). These concerns have lead researchers to believe that, PPPs
could undermine the roles and responsibilities of public institutions in society,
leading to distortion of national policies and public-health funding (Buse &
Walt, 2000).
“The greatest challenge for government in engaging with the private sector is the
alignment with and focus on public health goals while avoiding any real or perceived conflict of interest.”
In the case of promoting healthy eating, some companies within the food
industry, in particular those who manufacture foods high in fat, sugar and/or
sodium, are positioning themselves as part of the obesity solution through
efforts such as self-regulation and collaboration with public health organizations and governments (Lewin, Lindstorm and Nestle, 2006). However, research has linked highly processed food and beverages with obesity and other
chronic diseases which makes it important to understand the implications of
collaborating with this segment of food industry before doing so (Moodie,
Stuckler, Monteiro, et al., 2013; Gilmore, Savell and Collin, 2011).
A review of literature (not authored or sponsored by industry) found no evidence to support effectiveness or safety of food industry self-regulation or
public-private partnerships with “highly processed” food industry to improve
public health (Moodie et al., 2013; Lewin et al., 2006). Most research cautions
against working with the “highly processed” food industry for the purpose of
public health for several reasons.
Although industries strongly assert that self-regulation is sufficient to protect
the public, there is no enforcement of third party monitoring of their effects
(Lewin et al, 2006) and researchers assert that they may be self-serving, stall
other potential government action, and protect “business as usual” (Moodie
et al., 2013; Sharma, Teret and Brownell, 2010; Brownell & Warner, 2009).
Similarly, companies have modified product formulas and promised to shift
marketing efforts toward more nutritious products, while continuing to make
and promote less nutritious versions (Moodie et al., 2013; Lewin et al., 2006).
Following their review of processed food company promises versus practice,
Lewin and colleagues (2006) state that for business reasons alone, these companies cannot – and will not – stop making and marketing nutritionally questionable food products to children. Sharma and colleagues state that food
industry self-regulation may only succeed “with public health input in the
planning and execution of regulations, transparency in creating standards,
and external, objective evaluation of impact” (Sharma et al, 2010).
7
There is an inherent conflict of interest between public health goals and that
of “highly processed” food industry due their legal responsibility to make a
profit to return to investors (Wiist, 2011). More specifically, some stipulate
that the highly processed food industry has two basic strategic options to
enhance shareholder revenue: 1) persuade consumers to eat more; or 2) increase profit margins, especially by marketing reformulated or repackaged
products (Ludwig & Nestle, 2008). And since much higher profits come from
processed foods compared to fresh foods, advising people to eat less or more
healthily contradicts the core business models of food companies (Ludwig &
Nestle, 2008).
There are other, less obvious risks to partnering with “highly processed” food
industry. Literature states that food industry often uses similar tactics as tobacco to build relationships with public health organizations by promising to
self-regulate and/or funding public health initiatives in order to gain influence
at the public health table and undermine more effective public health action
that would affect their bottom line (Moodie et al., 2013; Gilmore et al., 2011;
Koplan & Brownell, 2010; Brownell & Warner, 2009; Ludwig & Nestle, 2008;
Lexchin, Bero, Djulbegovic, & Clark, 2003).
“Most researchers caution public health professionals and organizations to be
aware that corporate enticements of partnerships and funding can blur or disguise the distinction between these differing purposes, goals and values .”
Studies also suggest that food industry has an “especially insidious influence”
on the conduct of research and development of public health policy (Ludwig
& Nestle, 2008) and challenging the integrity of research that challenges
their bottom line (Moodie et al., 2013; Tereskerz, Hamric, Uterbock, & Moreno, 2009; Gilmore et al., 2011).
Overall, there is a risk of perceived loss of integrity of a public health organization when associated with “highly processed” food industry who market
products that directly conflict with public health recommendations (e.g. high
in fat, sugar, sodium). Food companies often pressure health organizations to
enter cause-related marketing relationships, offering the appeal of leveraging
these companies’ broad reach to public health organizations with limited resources. The results may undermine the credibility of these public health organizations and may facilitate access to companies to enhance the marketing
of energy-dense products by association with trusted health organizations
(Kraak, Kumanyika & Story, 2009). Research warns when favourable nutrition
information and/or health claims are presented on products, consumers have
more favourable attitudes, including nutrition attitudes, and purchase intentions towards the product (Kozup, Kreyer & Burton, 2003). Furthermore,
some have questioned whether industry should be entrusted to convey public health messages by using advertising as a solution to address a problem
attributed to excessive advertising (Schor & Ford, 2007).
8
Although research shows that exclusive focus on physical activity is insufficient to offset excess energy consumption associated with marketing practices that promote unhealthy diets (Ludwig & Nestle, 2008) it is increasingly
common for “highly processed” food industry to deflect negative attention
from processed foods and sugar-sweetened beverages by focusing resources
and marketing on physical activity, “implicitly de-emphasizing the role of food
quality and portion size in reducing obesity risk” and placing sole responsibility on the individual (Kraak, Kumanyika, & Story, 2009; Lewin et al., 2006;
Koplan & Brownell, 2010). Some literature therefore cautions against cobranding with these companies in an effort to eliminate contradictions in
both explicit and implicit healthy lifestyle messages children receive around
food and activity choice (Hesketh, Waters, Green, Salmon & Williams, 2005).
Intrinsically, the purpose, goal and values of public health and that of processed food corporations are fundamentally different. Most researchers caution public health professionals and organizations to be aware that corporate
enticements of partnerships and funding can blur or disguise the distinction
between these differing purposes, goals and values (Moodie et al., 2013;
Wiist, 2011; Ludwig & Nestle, 2008; Brownell & Warner, 2009). Of further
concern is that at the end of the day, “when public health and corporate
goals conflict, corporate profit imperatives often trump public health imperatives” (Lewin et al., 2006).
9
Benefits
Experiences Across
Canada
A survey was conducted to
capture experiences, interests
and challenges faced across
Canada in developing PPPs
with the food industry. According to the survey, retailers
represented by grocery stores,
convenience stores and farmers’ markets seem to be “the
most popular” food sector to
engage with. Partnerships
seem most likely to happen
with retailers, often to promote healthy food at point-ofpurchase, followed closely by
growers (e.g. fruit and vegetables) and producers (e.g. milk,
eggs).
Most jurisdictions who responded to the survey indicated that they were interested in
developing a national framework and/or sharing information, knowledge and expertise on PPPs with the food
industry. For example, one
jurisdiction mentioned that the
“food industry is multi-national
and affects most Canadian
jurisdictions” and that by working together, we would have
“stronger influence”. A national dialogue on how to engage
with the food industry will
allow jurisdictions to capitalize
on the expertise and
knowledge of other jurisdictions and provide guidance to
help governments address the
challenges and risks involved in
public-private partnerships.
See Appendix 1 for more detail.
10
The food industry has made some voluntary attempts to introduce or reformulate
existing products to promote healthier choices (Swinburn, Sacks & Hall, 2011; Gortmaker, Swinburn & Levy, 2011; WHO, 2004). The primary motivation might not be to
promote better nutrition or to reduce dietary risks. It may simply reflect the recognition that nutrition and dietary issues will continue to be of concern to many governments, researchers, international organizations, professional organizations, advocacy
groups and consumers (Cash, 2006; Popkin, 2009). For example, PepsiCo through its
subsidiary Frito-Lay has eliminated trans-fats from its salty snacks and developed
some baked-snack options (Cash, 2006). Danone, a global producer of bottled water
products, has reduced the sugar content in its sweetened water by 40 percent
(compared to its original calorie value) in six countries. Others companies, such as
Kraft, Nestle, Unilever have also worked on reducing calories and added sugar in
many of their products (Popkin, 2009). In Canada, Loblaw’s introduced the PC Blue
Menu Line with the aim of making healthier eating easy and affordable. This line now
contains more than 400 products with at least one of the following health benefits:
lower fat, lower calories, high fibre, omega-3, soy protein, and lower sodium
(Loblaws, 2008). Despite the importance of these measures, the food industry is not
eliminating the “unhealthy” food products of their line to truly alter dietary behaviours at a population level (Popkin, 2009). Although it is still not known whether
these voluntary measures will promote health benefits at a population level, the reformulation of these products have resulted in healthier choices (e.g. less sugar or
less sodium) (De Pinho, 2012).
Until recently, the role of the private sector in public health has been viewed with
“antagonism, suspicion, confrontation” (Lucas, 2002) by many actors in the field.
Governments and inter-governmental organizations are now recognizing that it is
necessary to involve multiple stakeholders, including the private sector in the pursuit
of a healthy and sustainable society (Rowitz, 2006; WHO, 2004). This recognition has
been accompanied with a reassessment of the roles, strengths and limitations of the
public sector, the private sector and the civil society in responding to health problems (Widdus, 2001). Proponents of PPPs for public health argue that this form of
collaboration has become compelling in an environment of complex health problems
(Widdus, 2001), tremendous community need and competition for limited resources
(Reich et al, 2003). This is an environment in which neither side can on its own
achieve its specific goals (Lucas, 2002). According to Widdus, partnerships seem to be
most justifiable when traditional ways of working independently have a limited impact on a problem, the specific desired goals can be agreed by the collaborating players, complementary expertise is interchanged between both sectors, the long-term
interests of each sector are fulfilled (i.e. there are benefits to all players involved) and
contributions of expertise and resources are reasonably balanced (Widdus, 2001).
Whether strategies for obesity prevention are based on increasing physical activity or
promoting healthy eating or on both, the strategies cannot be seen as the sole responsibility of one sector (WHO, 2000). The Lancet’s series on obesity prevention
suggests that the obesity epidemic is driven by complex forces that require a systems
approach to reverse the obese epidemic, further suggesting that strategies be multisectoral and involve the active participation of governments and the food industry
(Gortmaker et al, 2011; WHO, 2000). Governments are important actors in reversing
the obesity epidemic, because protection and promotion of public health is a core
responsibility of government (Gortmaker et al, 2011). The food industry is also a significant player due to its role in producing, distributing and providing food products.
Governments around the world have allocated this role to the private sector and allowed companies to generate economic activity from food, which is a product essential for public life and health (Hawkes and Buse, 2011).
The Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health by the WHO suggests that the private sector become partners with governments to facilitate
and enable integrated efforts to encourage healthier environments (WHO,
2004). The shared responsibilities and partnerships between the public and
private sector allows for multiple strategies for the prevention and management of obesity (WHO, 2000) and multifaceted solutions that cut across sectors (Gortmaker et al 2011). To reduce obesogenic environments, which is
defined as “the sum of influences that the surroundings, opportunities, or
conditions of life have on promoting obesity in individuals or populations” (Lake, 2006: 262), a multi-sectoral approach that mobilizes the combined energy, resources and expertise of all actors is essential for sustained
progress. This collective power can achieve sustainable change (Gortmaker et
al, 2011; WHO 2003) in a number of core activity areas, including:
1.
Health Promotion and communication campaigns (e.g. information
leaflets and posters);
2. Diet and nutrition education in formal and informal leaning venues
(e.g. building cooking skills);
3. Communicating information on food products (e.g. nutrition labeling
and healthy food logos);
4. Controlling advertising and marketing of food products (e.g. advertising codes on marketing);
5. Increasing or decreasing access to food products (e.g. fruits and vegetables, vending machines);
6. Conducting or supporting research (e.g. on development of novel
foods);
7. Developing or reformulating food products (e.g. reducing sodium);
8. Developing recommendations, guidelines, advice, and strategies for
governments and industry (e.g. government forum that includes the
food industry);
9. Encouraging private sector action in general, such as providing a forum for commitments (e.g. platforms); and,
10. Funding for above activities connected to healthy eating (Hawkes and
Buse, 2001: 7).
Some scholars claim that PPPs can bring meaningful social changes in the
promotion of physical activity and healthful eating (Kraak & Story, 2010). In
their view, PPPs should prioritize policies with a broader population-based
approach rather than those policies focused on individual behavioural approaches. Other scholars go further in claiming that if properly designed,
PPPs for obesity prevention can expedite the adoption of new rules that apply to a wide range of competing companies (Huang & Yaroch, 2009).
If well developed, PPPs with the food industry may offer several advantages
for governments to make progress in these areas and provide other benefits
(De Pinho, 2012), such as:







Better understanding of each other;
Collaborative rather than confrontational approach (food industry
might be willing to comply with government’s interventions);
Innovative mechanism to address societal problem;
Leverage food industry expertise;
Leverage food industry resources;
Provide access to industry data, information, and expertise for research and evaluation (e.g. sales data); and
Influence food industry practice towards healthy eating.
11
Key Considerations
Due to the broad spectrum of potential partners for PPPs to increase public health,
it is important to acknowledge that PPPs involve different types of engagement
and activities (Hawkes & Buse, 2011). This is especially evident when referring to
food industry given the diversity of segments (i.e., manufactures, producers, retailers, restaurant services). For example, an engagement with food retailers on
health messaging is very different from a research collaboration or a forum for discussing reducing marketing to children with manufacturers. No clear guidelines
and governance structures exist to guide public health organizations’ decisions on
whether and how to engage effectively and efficiently with the food industry
(Hawkes & Buse, 2011). A comprehensive but flexible tool is needed in order to:
1) Determine whether private sector engagement would help advance the public
health goals and, if so, set criteria for private sector engagement; 2) Define the
type of engagement activity; 3) Identify shared goals and possible conflicts of interest; 4) Assess the influence of potential private partners on public health research
and policy; and 5) Establish a good governance structure.
First, it is important to set criteria for private sector engagement. Some claim that
the current reality is one where public-private collaborations have assumed a role
in the exercise of power that affect decisions about how to address chronic diseases and their modifiable factors, like healthy eating (Hawkes & Buse, 2011). In order
to ensure that partnerships will advance public health goals and avoid conflict or
interest or lost integrity, academics and some in the public health field are calling
for clear guidelines to assist organizations to clarify the purpose, terms and management of private-sector engagement.
In the context of healthy eating, Hawkes (2011) urges that “it is only after the public health objective has been set that policy makers should even think about engaging with the food industry”. This does not mean there can be no engagement, but
Hawkes (2011) suggests only doing so after answering these three questions:
1. Would engaging with food industry help achieve the objective faster and
more effectively?
2. Would the interests involved (on both sides) enhance or threaten the likelihood of achieving the specific objective as well as longer-term public health
objectives?
3. If interaction is a viable option, what form of engagement would most effectively achieve the objective while accounting for the different interests: a
real partnership or less formal type of collaboration?
It is crucial that the partnership or collaboration only be initiated if it will help advance the public health goal, and that the partnership itself it not seen as the outcome (Nishtar, 2004). With the public health goal paramount, not partnering or
disengaging is always an option, and sometimes the better one, since
“incompatible and poorly executed partnerships can damage public trust, credibility and all partners’ brand reputations” (Kraak et al., 2011) along with potentially
causing more harm to public health than not undertaking the initiative in the first
place (Brady & Rundall, 2011; Hawkes & Buse, 2011; Brownell, 2012).
12
Second, it is important to distinguish between a partnership and the broader term
of ‘collaboration’, and whether there is a responsible way to engage with the food
industry. Some experts believe that collaboration may work if strict criteria are
established and a risk analysis is conducted at the outset, transparency and accountability mechanisms are firmly established, and any decision to collaborate is
based solely on the ultimate public health objective (Kraak et al., 2009). The term
Info graphic: Who owns what in the food industry? (Source: Fritz Kreiss/Occupy Monsanto)
“partnership” in the literature refers to anything from education campaigns to joint research activities and may involve a
range of processes and structures. But as Hawkes writes:
There is an important distinction that can be made: interactions characterized by ‘shared decision-making power
among partners’ and those characterized simply by ‘participation’ from both sectors. In the former, both sectors
play a role in decisions about the agenda, goals, strategies, resources, roles and responsibilities of the initiative;
in the latter, there may be mutual support, but no shared decision-making. The distinction between
‘partnership’-based and ‘participation’-based initiatives may appear academic and even immaterial given that
influence in decision-making can be exerted in the absence of formal structures for decision-making. Still, making
the distinction is critical. For a start, using the term ‘partnership’ imprecisely can create misleading expectations.
For example, a public sector-led initiative may embrace private sector actors as ‘partners’ even when its only
interest is gaining private sector concessions or funding with few or no conditions. But by giving the impression
to the private sector that it is a real ‘partner’, the public sector is, like it or not, inviting for-profit actors to use
the arrangement to serve their own private sector interests… If public health officials want to draw on the potential power of civil society to serve their interests, they would be advised to be clearer about when they need civil
society ‘participation’ in an initiative, or actual ‘partners’ (Hawkes and Buse, 2011: 400-01).
It is crucial to distinguish the type of engagement a public health organization aims to enter with industry. For example,
‘partnership’ is appropriate when the interaction involves both sectors having a voice in decision-making. If decision making is not shared, terms like ‘interaction’ or ‘engagement’ should be used in order to be clear (Hawkes & Buse, 2011).
Third, researchers have identified shared goals and possible conflicts of interest as an imperative consideration when engaging in PPPs. The key to the effectiveness of these relationships is the avoidance of conflict of interest (Kraak et al.
2011; Kraak and Story, 2010). If the public health goals and those of the industry collaborator do not conflict, there is potential for an effective collaboration. Avoiding conflict of interest is challenging when choosing food industry collaborators
to prevent obesity or promote healthy eating due to inherent business objectives of some segments of the industry
(Wiist, 2011; Gilmore et al., 2011). However, the concept of shared goals and working with other private sector collaborators with whom there is no potential conflict of interest could hold promise.
13
Fourth, governments need to consider the influence of the private sector
over research and public health policy. Lesser et al (2007) analyzed 206 nutrition-related scientific articles published over a 5-year period that addressed
the health effects of milk, fruit, juices, and soft drinks. The likelihood of a conclusion favourable to the financial interests of the sponsoring company was 4fold to 8-fold higher if the study received full rather than no industry funding,
pointing to a systematic bias. Food companies also donate large sums of
money to professional associations in order to receive “a national platform
via events and programs with prominent access to key influencers, thought
leaders and decision makers” (Ludwig and Nestle, 2008) in an attempt to
“gain a seat” at in those forums and influence public health policy (Moodie et
al., 2013; Lexchin et al., 2003; Gilmore et al., 2011; Koplan & Brownell, 2010).
For example, 10 of 12 partners and sponsors of the American Academy of
Nutrition and Dietetics are processed food companies (Academy of Nutrition
and Dietetics’ website, 2013). In a recent report, public health attorney and
author Michele Simon claimed that this undermines the integrity of those
professionals most responsible for educating Americans about healthy eating
(Simon, 2013). Throughout the literature, there is considerable evidence that
companies use tactics to undermine public health taxation and regulations
(Stuckler and Nestle, 2012) and deflect criticisms of their core practices by
introducing and promoting healthier processed foods (Brownell, 2012 and
Moodie et al, 2013).
“A well designed and executed partnership can support transformative systems
change while an incompatible and poorly executed one can damage public trust
and the credibility of all partners.”
Lastly, to maximize benefits and minimize risks, good governance structures
are required to support government collaboration with the food industry.
There is a governance gap and no clear structure in place to enable governments to engage with the food industry to promote healthy eating (Hawkes
and Buse, 2011). This makes it important to establish formal governance
structures when collaborating with private partners. The type of engagement
and kind of activity to be undertaken must be considered as different skills,
functions, resources, roles and responsibilities are required. Any identified
risks should also be addressed within the governance structure as it is designed (Hawkes and Buse, 2011). Accountability processes should be developed within the governance structure to balance private and public health
interests, manage conflicts of interest, ensure co-branded activities support
healthy products and healthy eating environments, comply with ethical codes
of conduct, assess partnership compatibility and monitor partnership outcomes (Kraak et al, 2011). Given the risks involved for both public and private
partners, a process to disengage and dissolve a partnership should be established within the governance structure. A well designed and executed partnership can support transformative systems change while an incompatible
and poorly executed one can damage public trust and the credibility of all
partners (Kraak et al, 2011).
14
Conclusion
Encountering challenges is inherent to the process of deciding whether to
develop PPPs with the food industry. In order to overcome these challenges,
governments need to consider a number of issues before pursuing engagement opportunities. It is important to be clear on underlying goals of potential partners and determine whether: 1) collaboration will advance short and
long-term public health goals, 2) what type of engagement activity is most
effective (e.g. platform for discussion, alliance, partnership), and 3) the goals
of the potential collaborator are not in conflict with the public health objective.
A number of jurisdictions across Canada are already engaged in PPPs with
food industry and have expressed interest in a national dialogue on this issue.
This paper will support that dialogue and is the first step in developing a national framework on how to engage with the food industry.
15
Appendix 1: Interest and Experience across Canada
In addition to completing a literature review, a brief survey was conducted to capture experiences, interests and challenges faced across Canada in developing PPPs
with the food industry. In November 2012, the Public Health Agency of Canada
circulated the survey to all 13 provinces and territories. Eight out of 13 jurisdictions
responded the survey. Six jurisdictions reported that they have engaged with the
food industry and seven reported that they are very interested or interested in
exploring options for partnerships with the food industry.
Among the six jurisdictions that have engaged with the food industry, all of them
have entered into a partnership model, and more than half have engaged in a
“platform for discussion” created for information sharing. The majority of jurisdictions have also engaged in lower levels of engagement through donation or sponsorship.
Jurisdictions have reported multiple types of engagement with the food industry
and are approaching the full spectrum of the food sector ranging from producers
to retailers. According to the survey, retailers represented by grocery stores, convenience stores and farmers’ markets seem to be “the most popular” food sector
to engage with. Partnerships seem most likely to happen with retailers, often to
promote healthy food at point-of-purchase, followed closely by growers (e.g. fruit
and vegetables) and producers (e.g. milk, eggs).
Each jurisdiction was asked to rank which type of partnership would be most relevant to their jurisdiction. Partnerships to increase access to healthy foods (e.g. fruit
and vegetables) were viewed as the most relevant type of partnership to develop
with the food industry, followed by partnerships for public education and information (e.g. promotion of healthy-eating messages, food skills, etc.). These two
types of partnerships do not seem to be mutually exclusive, as public education
and information approaches can be used to promote access to healthy foods.
In any partnership, partners expect to obtain certain benefits as the result of the
engagement. It was interesting that jurisdictions across Canada expect, as the most
important benefit, to influence food industry practices to promote healthy eating
while leveraging food industry resources (e.g. financial, human and physical resources) and their ability to “get the message out” efficiently. Jurisdictions also
acknowledged that the most appropriate role for the government in a PPP with the
food industry is to build trust among partner organizations and provide leadership
in the overall partnership. These aspects are also reported in other examples of
PPPs for public health (e.g. PPPs with pharmaceutical companies, partnerships with
private health providers).
Research indicates that there is still considerable skepticism about the motives of
the private sector in partnering with the public sector. This skepticism can undermine any attempt to overcome mistrust among partner organizations and create
an environment for collaboration. Building trust among partner organization is an
essential step in the process of developing a PPP (De Pinho, 2012).
The question is how to make the most of the food industry’s role and expertise to
prevent obesity presents numerous challenges. Conflicting values (often explained
by the profit motives vs. public health goals) and the perceived co-option of publichealth goals by commercial interest were identified by jurisdictions as the most
risky aspects of engaging with the food industry. Scholars have suggested that
partner organizations adopt systematic and transparent accountability processes in
order to maximize the benefits and reduce these types of risks. For example:
16





Managing conflict of interest and bias in decision making;
Ensuring that co-branded activities support healthy products and healthy
eating;
Complying with ethical codes of conduct;
Undertaking due diligence to assess partnerships; and,
Monitoring and evaluating partnership outcomes.
Government priorities seem to determine whether a jurisdiction decides to enter
into a partnership with the food industry, followed by having a previous or existing
relationship with the food industry. Jurisdictions that had not engaged with the
food industry provided reasons related to conflicting values/goals between the
public and the privates sectors, concerns about public perception and limited organizational capacity to build these partnerships.
Jurisdictions with previous experience in engaging with the food industry reported
similar challenges (e.g. mistrust of industries to partner with the government;
different priorities among partner organizations, etc.) Other challenges included:
finding an appropriate partner for effective partnerships; the need for a champion
to facilitate access to industry partners; appropriate measures for monitoring the
purchase and consumption of healthy food; the need to ‘recognize’ the efforts and
achievements of the food industry; and, the need to ensure program sustainability.
At the same time, jurisdictions reported positive outcomes, such as:



Increased awareness and demand for local foods by establishing venues
for dialogue with consumers about topics associated with food (e.g. food
preparation);
Interest from the food and beverage industry in supporting healthy eating
programs such as school healthy eating policies; and
Increased availability and accessibility to foods such as fruit and vegetables
by increasing investments in local food infrastructure and partnership development with the food industry and promotion of healthy food at pointof-purchase.
Jurisdictions also reported a number of lessons learned, such as:




Making initiatives voluntary but “irresistible”;
Maximizing linkages with other partners and programs;
Maintaining communication is essential; and
Having leadership at the federal level is required to support consistent
messaging regarding healthy eating and PPPs.
Most jurisdictions who responded to the survey indicated that they were interested
in developing a national framework and/or sharing information, knowledge and
expertise on PPPs with the food industry. For example, one jurisdiction mentioned
that the “food industry is multi-national and affects most Canadian jurisdictions”
and that by working together, we would have “stronger influence”. A national dialogue on how to engage with the food industry will allow jurisdictions to capitalize
on the expertise and knowledge of other jurisdictions and provide guidance to help
governments address the challenges and risks involved in public-private partnerships.
17
Reference List
Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Who are the Academy’s Corporate Sponsors: http://www.eatright.org/
corporatesponsors/ (retrieved March 2013).
Agurto I, Rodriguez L, Zacarias I. (2011). Food and vegetable promotion and the 5-a-day programme in Chile for the
prevention of chronic non-communicable diseases: across-sector relationships and public-private partnerships. In: Blas
E, Sommerfeld J, Sivasankara Kurup A (eds.). Social Determinants Approaches to Public Health: from concept to practice. World Health Organization: Geneva 2011.
Asante AD, Zwi AB. (2007). Public-private partnerships and global health equity: prospects and challenges. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 4, 176-80.
Balasubramanian R, Rajeswari R, Vijayabhaskara RD, Jaggarajamma K, Gopi PG, Chandrasekaran V, et al. (2006). A rural
public-private partnership model in tuberculosis control in South India. International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung
Disease, 10, 1380-85.
Boyle DP, Gardner J, Callaway J. (1998). A partial hospitalization program provided through a public-private partnership. Clinical gerontologist, 19, 21-37.
Brady, M., & Rundall, P. Governments should govern, and corporations should follow the rules. SCN News 2011, 39, 51
-56.
Bravo NR. (2007).The challenge for NIH ethics policies: preserving public trust and biomedical progress. Cleveland Clinic journal of medicine, 74, S29-31.
Brownell, K.D., Kersh, R., Ludwig, D.S., Post, R.C., Puhl, R.M., Schwartz, M.B. & Willett, W.C. (2010). Personal Responsibility and Obesity: A Constructive Approach to a Controversial Issue. Health Affairs, 29(3), 379-387
Brownell, K.D., & Warner, K.E. (2009). The Perils of Ignoring History: Big Tobacco Played Dirty and Millions Died. How
Similar is Big Food? The Milbank Quarterly, 87(1), 259-294.
Brownell, K.D. (2012). Thinking forward: The quicksand of appeasing the food industry. PLoS, 9(7), e10001254.
Buse K, Walt G. (2000). Global public-private partnerships: part II - what are the health issues for global governance?
Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 78, 699-709.
Buse K, Waxman A. (2001). Public-private health partnerships: a strategy for WHO. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 79, 748-54.
Cash SB, Goddard EW, Lerohl M. (2006). Canadian Health and Food: The links between Policy, Consumers and Industry.
Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 54, 605-29.
Clasen TF. (2002). The public-private partnership for the Central American hand washing initiative: reflections from a
private sector perspective. Tropical Medicine & International Health, 7, 197-200.
De Pinho Campos, K. (2012). Public-Private Partnerships for Obesity Prevention. Paper prepared for the qualifying examination of the doctoral program in the Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto (unpublished).
De Pinho Campos , K., Norman, C.D., Jadad, A.R. (2011). Product development public-private partnerships for public
health: A systematic review using qualitative data. Social science & medicine, 73, 986-94.
Dewan, P.K., Lal, S.S., Lonnroth, K,. Wares, F., Uplekar, M., & Sahu, S, et al. (2006). Improving tuberculosis control
through public-private collaboration in India: literature review. BMJ, 332, 574-78.
Field JE, Peck E. (2003). Public-private partnerships in healthcare: the managers' perspective. Health & Social Care in
the Community, 11, 494-501.
Gilmore, A.B., Savell, E., & Collin, J. (2011). Editorial: Public health, corporations and the new responsibility deal: promoting partnerships with vectors of disease? Journal of Public Health 33(1), 2-4.
18
Gortmaker, S.L., Swinburn, B.A., Levy, D., Carter, R., Mabry, P.L., Finegood, D.T., Huang, T., March, T., & Moodie, M.
(2011). Changing the future of obesity: science, policy, and action. Lancet,378, 838-847.
Hardon A. (2006). Immunisation for all?: A critical look at the first GAVI partners meeting. HAI Europe, 6 (1), 2-9.
Hawkes, C. (2004). Marketing Food to Children: the Global Regulatory Environment. Geneva: World Health Organization;
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/zoo4/9241I591579.pdf (Retrieved March 2013).
Hawkes C. (2008). Working Paper on Public-Private Partnerships for Health. High Level Group - Working Paper. European
Commission 2008.
Hawkes C, Buse K. (2011). Public health sector and food industry interaction: it's time to clarify the term 'partnership'‚
and be honest about underlying interests. The European Journal of Public Health, 21, 400-01.
Hawkes C, Buse K. Public-Private Engagement For Diet and Health: Addressing the Governance Gap. SCN News. 2011;
39: 6-10.
Hesketh, K., Waters, E., Green, J., Salmon, L, & Williams, J. (2005). Healthy eating, activity and obesity prevention: a
qualitative study of parent and child perceptions in Australia. Health Promotion International, 20(1), 19-26.
Huang TT, Yaroch AL. (2009). A public-private partnership model for obesity prevention. Preventing Chronic Disease, 6
(3), 1-2.
Huxham C, Vangen S, Huxham C, Eden C. (2000). The Challenge of Collaborative Governance. Public Management Review, 2, 337-57.
Kickbusch I, Lister G. (2006). Europe must establish a societal dialogue for global health: Public-private partnership. European Perspective on Global Health: A policy glossary. European Foundation Centre: Brussels, Belgium 2006.
Koplan, J.P., & Brownell, K.D. (2010). Response of the Food and Beverage Industry to the Obesity Threat. JAMA 304(13),
1487-1488.
Kozup, J.C., Kreyer, E. H., & Burton, S. (2003) Making Healthful Food Choices: The Influence of Health Claims and Nutrition Information on Consumers' Evaluations of Packaged Food Products and Restaurant Menu Items. Journal of Marketing 67(2), 19-34
Kraak VI, Kumanyika SK, Story M. (2009). The commercial marketing of healthy lifestyles to address the global child and
adolescent obesity pandemic: prospects, pitfalls and priorities. Public Health Nutrition, 2009, 12, 2027-36.
Kraak VI, Story M. (2010). A public health perspective on healthy lifestyles and public-private partnerships for global
childhood obesity prevention. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 110, 192-200.
Kraak VI, Swinburn BA, Lawrence JM, Harrison P. (2011). The Accountability of Public-Private Partnership with Food,
Beverage and Quick-Serve Restaurant Companies to Address Global, Hunger, and the Double Burden of Malnutrition.
SCN News, 39, 11-22.
Lake, A. (2006). Obesogenic environments: exploring the built and food environments. The Journal of The Royal Society
for the Promotion of Health, 126(6), 262-267.
Lesser, L.I., Ebbeling, C.B., Goozner, M., Wypij, D., & Ludwig, D.S. (2007). Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition-related scientific articles. PLoS Med, 4(1), e5.
Levine OS, Cherian T, Shah R, Batson A. (2004). PneumoADIP: An example of translational research to accelerate pneumococcal vaccination in developing countries. Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition, 22, 268-74.
Lewin A, Lindstrom L, Nestle M. (2006). Food Industry Promises to Address Childhood Obesity: Preliminary Evaluation.
Journal of Public Health Policy, 27, 327-454.
Lexchin, J., Bero, L.A., Djulbegovic, B., & Clark, O. (2003). Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome
and quality: systematic review. BMJ, 326, 1160-1170
Loblaw. (2008). The Way We Do Business. Corporate Social Responsibility Report. Loblaw Companies Limited.
19
Lonnroth K, Uplekar M, Arora VK, Juvekar S, Lan NTN, Mwaniki D, et al. (2004). Public-private mix for DOTS implementation: what makes it work? Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 82, 580-86.
Lucas AO. Public-Private Partnerships: Ilustrative Examples. In: Reich MR (ed.). (2002). Public-Private Partnerships for
Public Health. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA 2002
Ludwig, D.S., & Nestle, M (2008). Can the Food Industry play a constructive role in the obesity epidemic? J am Med
Assoc, 300, 1808-1811.
Meredith S, Ziemba E. (2007). A new landscape of partnerships. Global Forum Update on Research for Health: Equitable Access: Research challenges for health in developing countries. Global Forum for Health Research: Geneva, Switzerland 2007.
Ministry of Health of Canada. Sodium Reduction Strategy for Canada: Recommendations of the Sodium Working
Group. In: Division NE (ed.). Ministry of Health of Canada: Ottawa 2010.
Mitchell-Weaver C, Manning B. (1991). Public-private partnerships in third world development: A conceptual overview. Studies in Comparative International Development (SCID), 26, 45-67
Moodie, R., Stuckler, D., Monteiro, C., Sheron, N., Neal, B, Thamarangsi, T., Lincoln, P., & Casswell, S. (2013). Profits
and pandemics: prevention of harmful effects of tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food and drink industries. The
Lancet, 381(9867), 670–679. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62089-3 (retrieved March 2013).
Newell JN, Pande SB, Baral SC, Bam DS, Malla P. (2005). Leadership, management and technical lessons learnt from a
successful public-private partnership for TB control in Nepal. International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, 9,
1013-17.
Nishtar S. (2004). Public-private 'partnerships' in health - A global call to action. Health Research Policy and Systems, 2
(5), 1-7.
Patouillard E, Goodman CA, Hanson KG, Mills AJ. (2007). Can working with the private for-profit sector improve utilization of quality health services by the poor? A systematic review of the literature. International Journal for Equity in
Health, 6, 6-17.
Peters BG. (1998). With a Little Help From Our Friends: Public-Private Partnerships as Institutions and Instruments. In:
Pierre J (ed.). Partnerships in urban governance : European and American experience. St. Martin's Press Inc: New York
1998; 11-33.
Popkin BM. (2009). The World Is Fat: The fads, trends, policies, and products that are fattening the human race. New
York: Penguin Group (USA).
Reich, M. R. (2000). Public-private partnerships for public health. Nature medicine, 6: 617-20.
Reich MR. (2002). Public-private partnerships for public health. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
Reich MR, Hershey JH, Hardy GE, Jr., Childress JF, Bernheim RG. (2003). Workshop on public health law and ethics I &
II: The challenge of public/private partnerships (PPPs). Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 31 (s4): 90-93.
Richter, J. (2004). Public-Private Partnerships for Health: A Trend with no alternatives? Development, 47: 43-48.
Ridley RG. (2001). Putting the "partnership" into public-private partnerships. WHO Drug Information, 15, 57-58.
Rowitz L. (2006). Public Health for the 21st Century: the prepared leader. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers,
Inc.
Schor, J. & Ford, M. (2007). From tastes great to cool: children’s food marketing and the rise of the symbolic. J Law
Med Ethics 35, 10–21.
Sharma, L.L., Teret, S.P., & Brownell, K.D. (2010). The Food Industry and Self-Regulation: Standards to Promote Success
and to Avoid Public Health Failures. American Journal of Public Health, 100(2), 240-246.
20
Simon, M. (2013). Are America’s nutrition professionals in the pocket of Big Food? Eat Drink Politics: http://
www.appetiteforprofit.com/2013/01/22/and-now-a-word-from-our-sponsors-new-report-from-eat-drink-politics/
(retrieved March 2013).
Stuckler D, Nestle M. (2012). Big Food, Food Systems, and Global Health. PLoS Med 9(6): e1001242. doi:10.1371/
journal.pmed.1001242
Swinson, B.A., Sacks, G., Hall, K.D., McPherson, K., Finegood, D.T., Moodie, M.L., & Gortmaker, S.L. (2011). The global
obesity pandemic: shaped by global drivers and local environments. Lancet, 378, 804-814.
Tereskerz, P., Hamric, A.B., Uterbock, T.M., & Moreno, J.D. (2009). Prevalence of industry support and its relationship to
research integrity. Accountability in Research, 16, 78–105.
The Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships. Definitions of PPP. Toronto 2011; http://www.pppcouncil.ca/
resources/about-ppp/definitions.html.
The Pharmaceutical Security Institute. Partnership for Safe Medicines. http://www.safemedicines.org/: 2011.
Van Huijstee MM, Francken M, Leroy P. (2007). Partnerships for sustainable development: a review of current literature. Environmental Sciences, 4, 75-89.
WHO. (2000). Obesity: Preventing and Managing the Global Epidemic, Technical Report Series No. 894. Geneva: World
Health Organization: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_894.pdf, (retrieved March 2013).
WHO. (2002) Health: Marketing and Youth Conference. Italy: World Health Organization: http://www.who.int/healthmktg/ about_conference.htm (retrieved March 2013).
WHO (2003). FAO. Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases, Technical Report Series No. 916. Geneva:
World Health Organization: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_9 6.pdf (retrieved March 2013).
WHO (2004). Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/
dietphysicalactivity/strategy/eb11344/strategy_english_web.pdf
Widdus R.(2005). Public-private partnerships: an overview. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene, 99, S1-8.
Widdus R. (2001). Public-private partnerships for health: their main targets, their diversity, and their future directions.
Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 79, 713-20.
Wiist, B. (2011). The Risks to Public Health from Partnerships with Corporations. Corporations and Health Watch: Tracking the effects of corporate partnerships on health. http://corporationsandhealth.org/2011/05/11/the-risks-to-publichealth-from-partnerships-with-corporations/ (retrieved March 2013).
Yerby MS. (1998). A north american registry for epilepsy and pregnancy, a unique public/private partnership of health
surveillance. Epilepsia, 39, 793-98.
21
Multi-Sectoral Partnership Task Group
The mandate of the Task Group is to develop a guiding framework to support jurisdictions
to undertake an evidence-informed approach to partnership development with the food
industry. This Task Group will be established from March to September 2013.
The goals of the Task Group are to:

Articulate how PPPs from public health differ from other types of engagements with
the private sector;

Explore how PPPs for public health are organized and their objectives;

Identify key issues when assessing the development of partnerships between the government and the food industry;

Discuss mechanisms/tools for the partnership development with the food industry;
and

Provide examples of empirical PPPs in diet, nutrition and obesity prevention nationally
and internationally.
22