Getting to the root of the problem: the international and domestic politics of junk food industry regulation in Latin America

In response to non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in Latin America, governments have introduced impressive prevention programmes However, the purpose of this article is to better explain why several governments have yet to address arguably the ‘root of the problem’: i.e. implementing effective regulatory policies restricting the food industries’ ability to market and sale their products. Introducing a political science analytical framework merging international relations and domestic politics theory, this article claims that most governments have failed to achieve this process because of their reluctance to transfer their beliefs in human rights to health from the area of NCD prevention to regulation, thus achieving what the author refer to as ‘normative transferability’. The research design for this study entailed a documentary analysis of 44 qualitative primary and secondary documentary data sources (combined), i.e. articles, books, policy reports and the usage of these data sources for a comparative case study analysis of Chile, Brazil and Mexico. These qualitative data sources were also used to illustrate the potential efficacy of the author’s proposed analytical framework, developed from the political science and public policy literature. Quantitative epidemiological data from the World Health Organization global health observatory were used to provide a contextual backdrop of the obesity and diabetes situation in these countries. Comparing these three countries, Chile was the only one capable of achieving ‘normative transferability’ due to a strong linkage between activists, supportive institutions and policy advocates within government viewing regulatory policy as a human right to protection from aggressive industry marketing and sales tactics. To better understand differences between nations in achieving normative transferability processes and effective NCD regulatory policy outcomes, political scientists and public health scholars should work together to develop alternative analytical frameworks in the commercial determinants of health.