In relation to health promotion, the lifestyle drift is a phenomenon whereby health policymakers begin with a recognition of the social, political and economic determinants of health ('distal' determinants of health), only to drift back into designing policies targeted largely at modifying individual behavior ('proximal' determinants of health). Looking at the 'Health in All Policies' (HiAP) agenda in the European Commission (EC), this article investigates the discursive construction of the lifestyle drift. It starts by analyzing why, in the EC context, HiAP is interpreted as inherently about multistakeholder engagement. It then draws on the EU Diet Platform as a contrasting example to explore the relation between this multistakeholder interpretation and the lifestyle drift. The article then unpacks the discursive legitimation of the multistakeholder rationale, and shows how multistakeholder engagement is presented as a reasonable and normatively neutral way to approach public policy problems. Finally, the article critically reflects upon the technocratizing effects of the normatively neutral language deemed to be required of policy-relevant knowledge.

This article explores the relation between the meaning of what constitutes ‘evidence’ in the European Commission (EC) and the Health in All Policies (HiAP) concept. Since the 2006 Finnish EU presidency, HiAP is regularly referred to by the Commission, but has not yet been implemented as an overarching political vision. While there is a growing literature on technical implementation of HiAP, little work has delved into the political obstacles to HiAP. This article explores three ways in which the dominant meaning of ‘evidence’ in the EC reinforces neoliberal institutional characteristics in a way that undermines HiAP: The problematization of health reinforces constitutional asymmetry; the definition of ‘EU added value’ hampers positive integration; and the politicization of evidence strengthens the Better Regulation meta‐regulatory agenda. The article suggests that the meaning of evidence in the EC reinforces neoliberal rationality present at institutional level, and calls for more dialogue across public health ontologies.

The World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) draft Decision-Making Process and Tool to assist governments in preventing and managing conflicts of interest in nutrition policy marks a step-change in WHO thinking on large corporations and nutrition policy. If followed closely it stands to revolutionise business-government relations in nutrition policy. Ralston and colleagues outline how the food and beverage industry have argued against the decision-making tool. This commentary expands on their study by setting industry framing within a broader analysis of corporate power and explores the challenges in managing industry influence in nutrition policy. The commentary examines how the food and beverage industry’s collaboration and partnership agenda seeks to shape how policy problems and solutions are interpreted and acted on and explores how this agenda and their efforts to define conflicts of interest effectively represent non-policy programmes. More generally, we point to the difficulties that member states will face in adopting the tool and highlight the importance of considering the central role of transnational food and beverage companies in contemporary economies to managing their influence in nutrition policy.

The increasing production of knowledge for governance has resulted in major shifts in governance practices and public policy, especially for the work of knowledge producers and those identified as relevant 'experts'. Given the centrality of knowledge to the governing of contemporary societies, how can we theorise the politics of knowledge for policy and governance and the strategies of policy influence?Palgrave Studies in Knowledge, Policy and Governance invites social scientists to explore the construction of knowledge and expertise in governance processes across policy fields (e.g. crime, education, genomics, health, migration, sustainability, etc). We support interdisciplinary scholarship that deals with theorising real world issues, as well as practice-based perspectives. Contributors commonly work within Politics, Social Policy and Sociology but we welcome proposals from a wide range of disciplinary settings as well as those working in the policy world. The series encompasses diverse topics, methods and disciplines and we are keen to receive proposals for solo-authored, co-authored and edited books in either standard Palgrave or (shorter) Palgrave Pivot formats.

No abstract