Poor diets are a leading cause of disease burden worldwide. In Australia, the Federal Government established the Food and Health Dialogue (the Dialogue) in 2009 to address this issue, primarily through food reformulation. We evaluated the Dialogue’s performance over its 6 years of operation and used these findings to develop recommendations for the success of the new Healthy Food Partnership. We used information from the Dialogue website, media releases, communiqués, e-newsletters, materials released under freedom-of-information, and Parliamentary Hansard to evaluate the Dialogue’s achievements from October 2013 to November 2015, using the RE-AIM (reach, efficacy, adoption, implementation and maintenance) framework. We also engaged closely with two former Dialogue members. Our findings update a prior assessment done in October 2013. Little data is available to evaluate the Dialogue’s recent achievements, with no information about progress against milestones released since October 2013. In the last 2 years, only one additional set of sodium reduction targets (cheese) was agreed and Quick Service Restaurant foods were added as an area for action. Some activity was identified in 12 of a possible 137 (9 %) areas of action within the Dialogue’s mandate. Independent evaluation found targets were partially achieved in some food categories, with substantial variation in success between companies. No effects on the knowledge, behaviours or nutrient intake of the Australian population or evidence of impact on diet-related disease could be identified. The new Healthy Food Partnership has similar goals to the Dialogue. While highly laudable and recognised globally as cost-effective, the mechanism for delivery in Australia has been woefully inadequate. Strong government leadership, adequate funding, clear targets and timelines, management of conflict of interest, comprehensive monitoring and evaluation, and a plan for responsive regulation in the event of missed milestones will be required if the new Healthy Food Partnership is to achieve its urgent public health goals.

Addressing non-communicable diseases (“NCDs”) and their risk-factors is one of the most powerful ways of improving longevity and healthy life expectancy for the foreseeable future – especially in low- and middle-income countries. This paper reviews the role of law and governance reform in that process. We highlight the need for a comprehensive approach that is grounded in the right to health and addresses three aspects: preventing NCDs and their risk factors, improving access to NCD treatments, and addressing the social impacts of illness. We highlight some of the major impediments to the passage and implementation of laws for the prevention and control of NCDs, and identify important practical steps that governments can take as they consider legal and governance reforms at country level.

There is growing recognition among public health circles of the need for regulatory action for overweight and obesity, but there has been limited research into whether the Australian public supports government intervention. This study aimed to determine the level of public support for food-related regulations for obesity, and to assess the determinants of support. A nationally representative sample of Australian adults (n = 2011) was recruited by market research company Online Research Unit to complete an online survey. The survey measured respondents’ perception of the obesity problem in Australia, and level of agreement on a 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree) with proposed regulations in three domains; advertising, sponsorship of children’s sport, and taxation. Binary logistic regression models were run to examine the association between demographic variables and support for regulation. The majority of respondents (92.5%) considered overweight and obesity to be a somewhat or very serious problem in Australia, and almost 90% felt there should be at least some government regulation to protect the public. Respondents agreed that the government should regulate food and beverage advertising (69.5%), with strongest support for restricting unhealthy food advertising to children (78.9%). There was lower support for prohibiting unhealthy food and beverage company sponsorship of children’s sport (63.4% agreement), and for taxing sugar-sweetened beverages (54.5%), although the majority were still in favour. Support for fiscal policies slightly increased if revenue was to be used for health purposes. Females and tertiary educated respondents showed stronger agreement with proposed regulations (p < 0.05). The survey findings suggest the majority of the Australian population recognises obesity to be a serious health problem, and support government regulation of the food environment as a population-level preventative strategy.

In Australia, the food industry and public health groups are locked in serious struggle for regulatory influence over the terms of front-of-pack food labelling. Clear, unambiguous labelling of the nutritional content of pre-packaged foods and of standardized food items sold in chain restaurants is consistent with the prevailing philosophy of 'personal responsibility'. An interpretive, front-of-pack labelling scheme has the capacity to encourage healthier patterns of eating, and to be a catalyst for improvements in the nutritional quality of food products through re-formulation. On the other hand, the strength of opposition of the Australian Food and Grocery Council to 'Traffic Light Labelling', and its efforts to promote a non-interpretive, voluntary scheme, invite the interpretation that the food industry is resistant to any reforms that could destabilise current (unhealthy) purchasing patterns and the revenues they represent.

The 'nanny state' has become a popular metaphor in debates about public health regulation. It fulfils a particular role in that debate: to caution government against taking action. This paper presents case studies of nanny state criticisms, using them to identify a series of contextual features that may assist in better understanding, evaluating and where appropriate, resisting the rhetorical force of nanny state criticisms. The case studies presented include Rush Limbaugh's reactions to Michelle Obama's efforts to encourage American food companies to market healthier food to children; Christopher Hitchens' critique of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's public health policies; and the reaction of neoliberal think tanks to Australia's plain tobacco packaging legislation. These case studies do not provide a basis for making generalisations about the practice of 'nanny state name-calling'. Nor do they preclude debate about the appropriate limits of government action. However, in appropriate cases they may assist policy-makers and public health advocates to contest the framing of public health interventions as unwarranted incursions into the private lives of individuals. One important lesson from these case studies is that the principal concern of nanny state critics is not loss of freedom as such, but the role of the state. The nanny state critique is ultimately a call for the state to be agnostic about the health of citizens, allowing market forces to dominate. Although the nanny state critique is not new, it is a significant challenge to government efforts to address lifestyle-influenced risk factors for non-communicable diseases, including tobacco use, harmful use of alcohol, and unhealthy diet.