Safeguarding the continued existence of humanity requires building societies that cause minimal disruptions of the essential planetary systems that support life. While major successes have been achieved in improving health in recent decades, threats from the environment may undermine these gains, particularly among vulnerable populations and communities. In this article, we review the rationale for governments to invest in environmental Common Goods for Health (CGH) and identify functions that qualify as such, including interventions to improve air quality, develop sustainable food systems, preserve biodiversity, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and encourage carbon sinks. Exploratory empirical analyses reveal that public spending on environmental goods does not crowd out public spending on health. Additionally, we find that improved governance is associated with better performance in environmental health outcomes, while the degrees of people's participation in the political system together with voice and accountability are positively associated with performance in ambient air quality and biodiversity/habitat. We provide a list of functions that should be prioritized by governments across different sectors, and present preliminary costing of environmental CGH. As shown by the costing estimates presented here, these actions need not be especially expensive. Indeed, they are potentially cost-saving. The paper concludes with case examples of national governments that have successfully prioritized and financed environmental CGH. Because societal preferences may vary across time, government leaders seeking to protect the health of future generations must look beyond electoral cycles to enact policies that protect the environment and finance environmental CGH.
The Healthy Food Environment Policy Index (Food-EPI) aims to assess the extent of implementation of recommended food environment policies by governments compared with international best practices and prioritize actions to fill implementation gaps. The Food-EPI was applied in 11 countries across six regions (2015-2018). National public health nutrition panels (n = 11-101 experts) rated the extent of implementation of 47 policy and infrastructure support good practice indicators by their government(s) against best practices, using an evidence document verified by government officials. Experts identified and prioritized actions to address implementation gaps. The proportion of indicators at "very low if any," "low," "medium," and "high" implementation, overall Food-EPI scores, and priority action areas were compared across countries. Inter-rater reliability was good (GwetAC2 = 0.6-0.8). Chile had the highest proportion of policies (13%) rated at "high" implementation, while Guatemala had the highest proportion of policies (83%) rated at "very low if any" implementation. The overall Food-EPI score was "medium" for Australia, England, Chile, and Singapore, while "very low if any" for Guatemala. Policy areas most frequently prioritized included taxes on unhealthy foods, restricting unhealthy food promotion and front-of-pack labelling. The Food-EPI was found to be a robust tool and process to benchmark governments' progress to create healthy food environments.