IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v273y2021ics0277953621000939.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Neoliberal discourse, actor power, and the politics of nutrition policy: A qualitative analysis of informal challenges to nutrition labelling regulations at the World Trade Organization, 2007–2019

Author

Listed:
  • Barlow, P.
  • Thow, A.M.

Abstract

Unhealthy diets are increasing contributors to poor health and mortality in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Government interventions targeting the structural drivers of unhealthy diets are needed to prevent these illnesses, including nutrition labelling regulations that create healthier food environments. Yet, implementation remains slow and uneven. One explanation for slow implementation highlights the role of politics, including powerful ideological discourse and its strategic deployment by economically powerful actors. In this article, we advance research on the politics of nutrition policies by analysing political discourse on nutrition labelling regulations within an influential and under-studied global institution: the World Trade Organization (WTO). We identified WTO Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee meeting minutes with reference to nutrition labelling policies proposed by Thailand, Chile, Indonesia, Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Uruguay (2007–2019; n = 47). We analysed the frames, narratives, and normative claims that feature in inter-country discourse within TBT meetings and examined how actors mobilize ideological and material sources of power via these statements. We find that informal government challenges to nutrition labelling proposals within the Committee featured a narrative that individualized the causes of and solutions to poor diet, downplayed harms from industrialised food products, and framed state regulation as harmful and unjust. These non-technical claims mobilised neoliberal ideology and rhetoric to contest the normative legitimacy of members’ proposals and to de-socialize and de-politicize poor diets. Furthermore, high-income countries (HICs) re-framed policy goals to focus on individual determinants of poor nutrition whilst calling for their preferred policies to be adopted. Patterns of discourse within TBT meetings also had striking similarities with arguments raised by multi-national food corporations elsewhere. Our findings suggest that non-technical and ideological arguments raised during TBT meetings serve as inconspicuous tools through which nutrition labelling policies in LMICs are undermined by HICs, industry, and the powerful ideology of neoliberalism.

Suggested Citation

  • Barlow, P. & Thow, A.M., 2021. "Neoliberal discourse, actor power, and the politics of nutrition policy: A qualitative analysis of informal challenges to nutrition labelling regulations at the World Trade Organization, 2007–2019," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 273(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:273:y:2021:i:c:s0277953621000939
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113761
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953621000939
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113761?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baker, Phillip & Gill, Timothy & Friel, Sharon & Carey, Gemma & Kay, Adrian, 2017. "Generating political priority for regulatory interventions targeting obesity prevention: an Australian case study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 141-149.
    2. Maira Bes-Rastrollo & Matthias B Schulze & Miguel Ruiz-Canela & Miguel A Martinez-Gonzalez, 2013. "Financial Conflicts of Interest and Reporting Bias Regarding the Association between Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Weight Gain: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-9, December.
    3. Johan P. Olsen & James G. March, 2004. "The logic of appropriateness," ARENA Working Papers 9, ARENA.
    4. Blair Kidwell & Adam Farmer & David M. Hardesty, 2013. "Getting Liberals and Conservatives to Go Green: Political Ideology and Congruent Appeals," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 40(2), pages 350-367.
    5. Harvey, David, 2007. "A Brief History of Neoliberalism," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199283279.
    6. Jeremy Shiffman & Stephanie Smith, 2007. "Generation of Political Priority for Global Health Initiatives: A Framework and Case Study of Maternal Mortality," Working Papers 129, Center for Global Development.
    7. Andreas Dür & Leonardo Baccini & Manfred Elsig, 2014. "The design of international trade agreements: Introducing a new dataset," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 353-375, September.
    8. Baker, P. & Hawkes, C. & Wingrove, K. & Demaio, A. & Parkhurst, Justin & Thow, A.M. & Walls, H., 2018. "What drives political commitment for nutrition? A review and framework synthesis to inform the United Nations Decade of Action on Nutrition," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 86630, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Carter, Eric D., 2015. "Making the Blue Zones: Neoliberalism and nudges in public health promotion," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 374-382.
    10. Lencucha, Raphael & Drope, Jeffrey & Labonte, Ronald, 2016. "Rhetoric and the law, or the law of rhetoric: How countries oppose novel tobacco control measures at the World Trade Organization," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 100-107.
    11. Wijkström, Erik & McDaniels, Devin, 2013. "International standards and the WTO TBT Agreement: Improving governance for regulatory alignment," WTO Staff Working Papers ERSD-2013-06, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    12. McGrady,Benn, 2011. "Trade and Public Health," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107008410, October.
    13. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/53gvesh9a58lq804hmvlk76n1l is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Braveman, P.A. & Kumanyika, S. & Fielding, J. & LaVeist, T. & Borrell, L.N. & Manderscheid, R. & Troutman, A., 2011. "Health disparities and health equity: The issue is justice," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 101(SUPPL. 1), pages 149-155.
    15. Dür, Andreas & Baccini, Leonardo & Elsig, Manfred, 2014. "The design of international trade agreements: introducing a new dataset," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 59179, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    16. Smith, Stephanie L. & Shiffman, Jeremy, 2016. "Setting the global health agenda: The influence of advocates and ideas on political priority for maternal and newborn survival," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 86-93.
    17. Sweet, Elizabeth, 2018. "“Like you failed at life”: Debt, health and neoliberal subjectivity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 86-93.
    18. Townsend, Belinda & Schram, Ashley & Labonté, Ronald & Baum, Fran & Friel, Sharon, 2019. "How do actors with asymmetrical power assert authority in policy agenda-setting? A study of authority claims by health actors in trade policy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 1-1.
    19. Chaufan, Claudia & Saliba, Daniel, 2019. "The global diabetes epidemic and the nonprofit state corporate complex: Equity implications of discourses, research agendas, and policy recommendations of diabetes nonprofit organizations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 223(C), pages 77-88.
    20. Henderson, Julie & Coveney, John & Ward, Paul & Taylor, Anne, 2009. "Governing childhood obesity: Framing regulation of fast food advertising in the Australian print media," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1402-1408, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dori Patay & Sharon Friel & Ashley Schram & Susan Sell, 2023. "How do interests, ideas, and institutions affect multisectoral governance? The case of tobacco governance in two Pacific small island developing states," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 313-327, April.
    2. Patay, Dori & Schram, Ashley & Friel, Sharon, 2022. "The role of causal ideas in the governance of commercial determinants of health. A qualitative study of tobacco control in the pacific," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 314(C).
    3. Barlow, Pepita & Gleeson, Deborah & O'Brien, Paula & Labonte, Ronald, 2022. "Industry influence over global alcohol policies via the World Trade Organization: a qualitative analysis of discussions on alcohol health warning labelling, 2010–19," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 113820, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Barlow, P. & Stuckler, D., 2021. "Globalization and health policy space: Introducing the WTOhealth dataset of trade challenges to national health regulations at World Trade Organization, 1995–2016," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 275(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Barlow, P. & Stuckler, D., 2021. "Globalization and health policy space: Introducing the WTOhealth dataset of trade challenges to national health regulations at World Trade Organization, 1995–2016," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 275(C).
    2. Clarke, Brydie & Swinburn, Boyd & Sacks, Gary, 2020. "Understanding the LiveLighter® obesity prevention policy processes: An investigation using political science and systems thinking," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    3. Barlow, Pepita & Sanap, Rujuta & Garde, Amandine & Winters, L. Alan & Mabhala, Mzwandile A. & Thow, Anne Marie, 2022. "Reassessing the health impacts of trade and investment agreements: a systematic review of quantitative studies, 2016–20," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 113791, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Wani, Mr. Nassir Ul Haq & Rehman, Mr. Noor, 2017. "Determinants of FDI in Afghanistan: An Empirical Analysis," MPRA Paper 81975, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 03 May 2016.
    5. Rahel Aichele & Gabriel Felbermayr, 2016. "The Trans-Pacific Partnership Deal (TPP): What Are the Economic Consequences for In- and Outsiders?," CESifo Forum, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 16(04), pages 53-64, January.
    6. Cornelius Hirsch & Harald Oberhofer, 2017. "Bilateral Trade Agreements and Trade Distortions in Agricultural Markets?," WIFO Working Papers 531, WIFO.
    7. Kox, Henk L.M. & Rojas Romasgosa, Hugo, 2019. "Gravity estimations with FDI bilateral data: Potential FDI effects of deep preferential trade agreements," MPRA Paper 96318, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Wen Yue & Qingxia Lin & Siyu Xu, 2023. "Investment effect of regional trade agreements: an analysis from the perspective of heterogeneous agreement provisions," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, December.
    9. Mariam Camarero & Sergi Moliner & Cecilio Tamarit, 2021. "Is there a euro effect in the drivers of US FDI? New evidence using Bayesian model averaging techniques," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 157(4), pages 881-926, November.
    10. Matteo Fiorini & Bernard Hoekman, 2020. "EU services trade liberalization and economic regulation: Complements or substitutes?," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 247-270, January.
    11. Felbermayr, Gabriel & Teti, Feodora & Yalcin, Erdal, 2019. "Rules of origin and the profitability of trade deflection," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    12. Campi, Mercedes & Dueñas, Marco, 2019. "Intellectual property rights, trade agreements, and international trade," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 531-545.
    13. Sébastien Miroudot & Davide Rigo, 2019. "Preferential Trade Agreements and Multinational Production," RSCAS Working Papers 2019/14, European University Institute.
    14. Schneider, Sophie Therese, 2018. "North-South trade agreements and the quality of institutions: Panel data evidence," Hohenheim Discussion Papers in Business, Economics and Social Sciences 27-2018, University of Hohenheim, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences.
    15. repec:wsr:ecbook:2021:i:vii-006 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Hinnerk Gnutzmann & Arevik Gnutzmann‐Mkrtchyan, 2019. "The silent success of customs unions," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(1), pages 178-224, February.
    17. Patricia AUGIER & Olivier CADOT & Marion DOVIS, 2016. "Regulatory harmonization, profits, and productivity: Firm-level evidence from Morocco," Working Papers P162, FERDI.
    18. Katharina Längle, 2020. "Upgrading of Exports: Does the Integration into Trade Agreements Pave the Way to Product Upgrading?," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 20006, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    19. Kolcava, Dennis & Nguyen, Quynh & Bernauer, Thomas, 2019. "Does trade liberalization lead to environmental burden shifting in the global economy?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 98-112.
    20. Mulabdic, Alen & Rotunno, Lorenzo, 2022. "Trade barriers in government procurement," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    21. Benz, Sebastian & Jaax, Alexander, 2019. "Quantifying the costs of regulatory barriers to trade in services: New estimates of ad valorem equivalents based on the OECD STRI," Conference papers 333096, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:273:y:2021:i:c:s0277953621000939. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.