In Ethiopia, our partners at Mathiwos Wondu Foundation (MWF) have been working with the Ministry of Health and the Ethiopian Food and Drug Authority to advance an Unhealthy Diets Proclamation for the purposes of promoting healthier diets. This comprehensive policy package includes eliminating industrial trans fats and partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs), introducing mandatory front-of-package warning labels, restricting marketing to children and strengthening public food procurement standards. Over the course of the campaign, our partners have learned key lessons on the value of bundling policies, ensuring strong government leadership over the process, using local and global evidence to persuade decision-makers and countering industry interference.
In February, MWF presented on their campaign progress during the second convening of the Global Health Advocacy Incubator’s (GHAI) Food & Nutrition Program Africa Cross-Country Learning and Sharing Series—a virtual platform designed to bring partners together to exchange practical lessons on advancing strong healthy food policies on the continent. The Ethiopian campaign was spotlighted following the successful completion of an intensive seven-month stakeholder consultation process on the draft Unhealthy Diets Control Proclamation.
We sat down with MWF’s Tizita Wondwossen, Program Manager, and Zelalem Mengistu, Program Director, to reflect on their strategy, partnerships and key lessons learned during this ongoing advocacy campaign. Below are excerpts from that conversation:
Why has it been important to pursue a comprehensive policy package rather than a single standalone measure?
Unhealthy diets and related noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are driven by multiple interconnected risk factors. Combining front of package warning labels, marketing restrictions and PHO bans address these factors simultaneously and creates a stronger impact on both consumer behavior and the food environment. Front of package warning labels help consumers quickly identify unhealthy products (excess salt, sugar and trans-fat) and make informed choices. Marketing restrictions, especially those targeting children, reduce exposure to aggressive promotion of unhealthy foods. Trans fat restrictions and a PHO ban remove harmful ingredients from the food supply. We also bundled policy elements to increase their political feasibility. We linked them to broader government priorities, including reducing NCDs, improving child health and achieving economic gains through lower healthcare costs and improved productivity. This approach strengthened political support and encouraged collaboration across ministries and stakeholders, making the overall policy package more acceptable and feasible.
What role did evidence, data or examples from other countries play in making the case for a full policy package?
Policymakers prioritize evidence-based decision-making when considering regulatory reforms. Recognizing gaps in locally generated data, a sub-team of the Technical Working Group conducted a comprehensive desk review to compile and analyze available national evidence. In addition, a secondary assessment was undertaken to estimate the economic burden of unhealthy diets and the potential return on investment from implementing regulatory interventions. Such economic evidence is highly valued by decision-makers and is crucial for responding to economic arguments often raised by industry actors. Policymakers also prefer to learn from the experiences of other countries before adopting new legislation, particularly from nations with similar socioeconomic contexts. Therefore, evidence was gathered on the successes and challenges of implementing comparable policies in several countries, especially within the African region.
How did the government take ownership of the policy process, and what did that leadership look like in practice?
Civil society organizations (CSO) leveraged the credibility and trust they gained with government institutions which was built through previous collaboration in supporting the adoption and implementation of tobacco control policies. We maintained regular engagement with senior officials through courtesy visits, evidence-based advocacy and strategic communication with influential actors, including advisors and parliamentary policy champions. As a result, the government took stronger leadership in the legislative process and ensured coordinated progress of the policy agenda.
How did you navigate and respond to opposition and influence from the private sectors throughout the process?
When opposition arose from the food and beverage industry, we responded by presenting data, evidence, global best practices and the long-term benefits of regulation for public health. In addition, we worked closely with policymakers, media and civil society coalitions to build a strong public health narrative. This collective approach helped counter industry influence and ensured that the proclamation remained aligned with best practices.
What value have you found in participating in a cross-country community of practice like this one?
The Africa Cross Country Learning and Sharing Series provides a crucial platform for shared learning, exchange of experiences, successes and challenges that inform practical strategies for policy passage. Since countries are at varying stages of their campaigns, the series provides an important opportunity to strengthen technical knowledge by offering tailored guidance on best food policy design, advocacy strategies, monitoring mechanisms and enforcement practices. Participants are able to learn about the diverse country approaches they can adapt to their own national contexts.
