Transformando entornos alimentarios, análisis comparativo de políticas públicas en México y Chile

Magdalena Jensen; Gislaine Granfeldt; Ana Laura Gonzalez Alejo; Alejandra Contreras Manzano; Octelina Castillo Ruíz

doi:10.12873/

Authors

Magdalena Jensen Departamento de Ingeniería Industrial, Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de Concepcion, Concepcion, Chile https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8672-6256
Gislaine Granfeldt Departamento de Nutrición y Dietética, Facultad de Farmacia, Universidad de Concepcion, Concepcion, Chile
Ana Laura Gonzalez Alejo Escuela Nacional de Ciencias de la Tierra (ENCiT), Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Ciudad de México, México
Alejandra Contreras Manzano Center for Research on Nutrition and Health, National Institute of Public Health, Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico
Octelina Castillo Ruíz Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas, Unidad Académica Multidisciplinaria Reynosa-Aztlán, Departamento de Seguridad Alimentaria. Ciudad Reynosa, Tamaulipas, México

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12873/

Keywords:

políticas alimentarias, entornos alimentarios, etiquetado nutricional, sistemas alimentarios sostenibles

Abstract

Objective: Compare the public food policies implemented
in Mexico and Chile to transform their food environments into healthier, more sustainable ones.
Methods: A comparative documentary analysis was con
ducted on 18 official food policy documents (2010–2024) and NDCs (2015–2022), which were obtained from government records and the UNFCCC. The analysis categorized food system strategies according to regulatory scope and approach.

Results: Both countries implemented similar strategies,
such as octagonal front-of-package labeling and taxes on sugary drinks, which highlight food deserts that affect marginalized populations. Mexico passed the General Law on Adequate and Sustainable Food in 2024, creating SISAMAC, while Chile launched the ENSSA in 2023 with 84 measures. The NDCs (Nationally Determined Contributions) demonstrate divergent trajectories. Mexico developed a systemic conceptualization of
food security as climate justice, while Chile maintained its focus on nature-based solutions.
Conclusions: Regulatory policies have reduced the purchase of unhealthy products, which has the potential to reduce environmental footprints. However, there is no evidence of positive changes in health indicators (overweight/obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia) in the general population. The regulatory frameworks in Mexico and Chile offer adaptable models for the regional transformation of food systems. However, they require multidimensional monitoring
systems to evaluate their long-term effectiveness and facilitate the transfer of experiences to more equitable systems in Latin America.

References

1. FAO, FIDA, OMS, PMA y, UNICEF. El estado de la seguridad alimentaria y la nutrición en el mundo 2021. Transformación de los sistemas alimentarios en aras de la seguridad alimentaria, una nutrición mejorada y dietas asequibles y saludables para todos. Vol. 1, El estado de la seguridad alimentaria y la nutrición en el mundo 2021. 2021. 1–262 p.

2. Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, Springmann M, Lang T, Vermeulen S, et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet. 2019;393(10170):447–92.

3. Afshin A, Sur PJ, Fay KA, Cornaby L, Ferrara G, Salama JS, et al. Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. The Lancet. 2019 May 11;393(10184):1958–72.

4. Crippa M, Solazzo E, Guizzardi D, Monforti-Ferrario F, Tubiello FN, Leip A. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat Food [Internet]. 2021 Mar 8;2(3):198–209. Available from: http://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00225-9

5. Campbell BM, Beare DJ, Bennett EM, Hall-Spencer JM, Ingram JSI, Jaramillo F, et al. Agriculture production as a major driver of the earth system exceeding planetary boundaries. Ecology and Society. 2017;22(4).

6. IPCC. Climate Change 2022 – Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge University Press; 2022.

7. Downs SM, Ahmed S, Fanzo J, Herforth A. Food environment typology: Advancing an expanded definition, framework, and methodological approach for improved characterization of wild, cultivated, and built food environments toward sustainable diets. Foods. 2020 Apr 1;9(4).

8. Taillie LS, Bercholz M, Popkin B, Rebolledo N, Reyes M, Corvalán C. Decreases in purchases of energy, sodium, sugar, and saturated fat 3 years after implementation of the Chilean food labeling and marketing law: An interrupted time series analysis. PLoS Med. 2024 Sep 1;21(9).

9. Rebolledo N, Ferrer-Rosende P, Reyes M, Smith Taillie L, Corvalán C. Changes in the critical nutrient content of packaged foods and beverages after the full implementation of the Chilean Food Labelling and Advertising Law: a repeated cross-sectional study. BMC Med. 2025 Dec 1;23(1).

10. Pano O. Nutritional policies for health in Mexico: the message is (not) clear. Vol. 39, Nutricion Hospitalaria. ARAN Ediciones S.A.; 2022. p. 3–4.

11. Rivera JA, Colchero MA, Pérez-Ferrer C, Barquera S. Perspective: Mexico’s Experience in Building a Toolkit for Obesity and Noncommunicable Diseases Prevention. Advances in Nutrition. 2024 Mar 1;15(3).

12. González-Alejo AL, Frejomil EP, Rosales-Tapia AR. Spatial patterns of access to retail food outlets in Mexico City. Finisterra. 2019;54(111):133–52.

13. Kain J, Sandoval MH, Orellana Y, Cruz N, Díez J, Weisstaub G. Socio-Spatial Segregation of Unhealthy Food Environments across Public Schools in Santiago, Chile. Nutrients. 2023 Dec 28;16(1):108.