Trade agreements are a major determinant of the operation of food systems. Here, we examine how different aspects of trade can constrain or enable governments’ ability to implement food system-level actions aimed at enhancing nutrition and mitigating climate change. Concerning technical aspects, we focus on the potential impact of trade agreements on three major strategies for transforming food systems—namely the removal of market barriers for agricultural commodities, the protection of regulatory policy space and the revision of subsidies. Concerning non-technical aspects, we review the evidence on the political economy of trade to show that coherence between trade-policy goals and public-interest goals, such as nutrition and climate change, involves actors’ interests, ideas, and formal and informal institutional processes at various levels. With international agreements to liberalize trade and investment being binding, and recommendations to address malnutrition and climate change being non-binding, there is potential for trade to hinder efforts against malnutrition and climate change. Tempering this will require a deeper understanding of the complex trade–food system––nutrition–climate nexus and a new regulatory framework consistent with such complexity, as well as strategic stakeholder engagement.

Progressing public policies that improve health equity requires understanding and addressing the creation, use and distribution of power. This glossary provides an overview of some of the most relevant conceptualisations of the dynamics of power in policy with implications for health equity. The aim is to provide an accessible overview of the different theories and perspectives behind power for public health focused policy researchers and advocates. The Glossary demonstrates how the broad literature on power in policy deepens understanding of the institutional dynamics that creates and maintains health inequities.

Background: Despite growing evidence on the social determinants of health and health equity, political action has not been commensurate. Little is known about how political will operates to enact pro-equity policies or not. This paper examines how political will for pro-health equity policies is created through analysis of public policy in multiple sectors. Methods: Eight case studies were undertaken of Australian policies where action was either taken or proposed on health equity or where the policy seemed contrary to such action. Telephone or face-to-face interviews were conducted with 192 state and non-state participants. Analysis of the cases was done through thematic analysis and triangulated with document analysis. Results: Our case studies covered: trade agreements, primary healthcare (PHC), work conditions, digital access, urban planning, social welfare and Indigenous health. The extent of political will for pro-equity policies depended on the strength of path dependency, electoral concerns, political philosophy, the strength of economic and biomedical framings, whether elite interests were threatened and the success or otherwise of civil society lobbying. Conclusion: Public health policy actors may create political will through: determining how path dependency that exacerbates health inequities can be broken, working with sympathetic political forces committed to fairness; framing policy options in a way that makes them more likely to be adopted, outlining factors to consider in challenging the interests of elites, and considering the extent to which civil society will work in favour of equitable policies. A shift in norms is required to stress equity and the right to health.

Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) kill 40 million people each year and are the cause of 70% of global deaths annually. Proximal risk factors include tobacco use, physical inactivity, the harmful use of alcohol and consumption of unhealthy food, which are shaped by the social and economic conditions of daily life, known as the social and commercial determinants of health. It is well recognised within the global health community that policy coherence across all levels of government at the national and international level is required to address NCDs. To date, however, there has been little coherence between health and trade policy, which directly affects access to unhealthy or healthy commodities. This paper explores policy actors’ views of the challenges in achieving coordinated and coherent NCD policy across health and trade sectors. Drawing on interviews (n = 18) with key policy actors and using a policy framework that focuses on ideas, power and the ‘deep core’ of neoliberalism, we identify the role of competing frames, power asymmetries and interests in constraining policy coherence. We also find differences between NCD risk factor domains. Tobacco control was highlighted as one area of generally successful coherence internationally. In contrast, alcohol and nutrition were identified as areas with little coherence. Industry power, the role of evidence, presence of absence of a treaty, the extent of coordinated advocacy and leadership by intergovernmental organisations were key factors influencing coherence. In light of these constraints, the role of advocacy by non-governmental organisations was highlighted as the key for much-needed policy change.

Background: Trade and investment agreements negotiated after the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) have included increasingly elevated protection of intellectual property rights along with an expanding array of rules impacting many aspects of pharmaceutical policy. Despite the large body of literature on intellectual property and access to affordable medicines, the ways in which other provisions in trade agreements can affect pharmaceutical policy and, in turn, access to medicines have been little studied. There is a need for an analytical framework covering the full range of provisions, pathways, and potential impacts, on which to base future health and human rights impact assessment and research. A framework exploring the ways in which trade and investment agreements may affect pharmaceutical policy was developed, based on an analysis of four recently negotiated regional trade agreements. First a set of core pharmaceutical policy objectives based on international consensus was identified. A systematic comparative analysis of the publicly available legal texts of the four agreements was undertaken, and the potential impacts of the provisions in these agreements on the core pharmaceutical policy objectives were traced through an analysis of possible pathways. Results: An analytical framework is presented, linking ten types of provisions in the four trade agreements to potential impacts on four core pharmaceutical policy objectives (access and affordability; safety, efficacy, and quality; rational use of medicines; and local production capacity and health security) via various pathways. Conclusions: The analytical framework highlights provisions in trade and investment agreements that need to be examined, pathways that should be explored, and potential impacts that should be taken into consideration with respect to pharmaceutical policy. This may serve as a useful checklist or template for health and human rights impact assessments and research on the implications of trade agreements for pharmaceuticals.