critical analysis of a topical food policy

Order Description Critical analysis of a topical food policy Introduction Assignment 2 is a critical analysis of food policy-making. You will conduct your critical analysis on a particularly topical, complex and controversial food policy case study. The topical, complex and controversial characteristics of this case study are important because they not only make the assignment more interesting, but also provide many different issues to investigate which enables you to demonstrate your critical analysis skills. The assignment relates particularly to learnings in modules 4�6, and is designed to assess students against Unit Learning Outcomes 3�6. Assignment topic: The policy-making response to the epidemiological evidence of the relationship between peri-conceptional folic acid intake and reduced risk of neural tube defects. A policy debate on this topic currently is taking place in many countries. Some countries have commenced implementing mandatory folic acid fortification of staple foods as a policy response to the epidemiological evidence. Many countries have chosen not to adopt this mandatory food fortification policy. Several other countries (Ireland, New Zealand, UK) did recommend mandatory folic acid fortification, but then reversed or put on hold their decision. The topic captures scientific uncertainties and ethical dilemmas associated with the translation of scientific evidence into food policy. Assessment critera The assessment will be based on your ability to demonstrate application of the knowledge and skills covered in the unit. Specifically, the assignment will be marked according to the following criteria (adapt these to structure the sub-headings in your report): Description of the scientific evidence for the relationship between peri-conceptional folic acid intake and NTDs associated with this case study. A simple summary of an existing evidence (and risks) review is sufficient (~300 words, 6/40 marks) Summarise and describe the evidence of the relationship between peri-conceptional folic acid intake and NTDs. This criteria relates to Food Policy and Public Health learnings in Modules 1 and 2, and Unit Learning Outcome 3. Identification of the policy options available in response to the epidemiological evidence, and the scientific and ethical dilemmas associated with each of these options that are confronting policy-makers (~500 words, 10/40 marks) Mandatory fortification; Voluntary fortification; Promotion of folic acid supplementation; Nutrition education related to healthy (folate-rich) diet; or Maintain the status quo. This criteria relates to Food Policy and Public Health learnings in Modules 4 and 5, and Unit Learning Outcome 5. Analysis of stakeholders (where they can be identified): who are they and what are their competing values, beliefs and interests (if any) towards mandatory folic acid fortification that influenced/is influencing the policy-making process? (~300 words, 6/40 marks) The competing values, beliefs and interests; The stakeholders involved and what were their views. This criteria relates to Food Policy and Public Health learnings in Modules 4 and 6, and Unit Learning Outcomes 3 and 6. Analysis of how the issue was/is framed, power relationships, and the relevance and strength of the rational-linear model of policy-making to explain what happened with the policy-making process (~400 words, 8/40 marks) How was the issue framed? How relevant is the rational-linear model for explaining what happened? This criteria relates to Food Policy and Public Health learnings in Module 4 and Unit Learning Outcome 4. Discussion of whether or not you agree with mandatory folic acid fortification as a policy response to the policy problem and why you have this view. (~300 words, 306/40 marks) Include in your discussion a description of either: changes (if any) you might make to the current policy; or an alternative policy response. This criteria relates to Food Policy and Public Health learnings in Modules 2�4, and Unit Learning Outcome 5. Clarity and presentation (2/40 marks) Present your work in a logical, scientific manner with clear expression and accurate citations. Use discrete, relevant headings and subheadings to address one common point or theme to support the development of your argument. Stay within the word count (2000 words � 10%). Ensure your writing is free from spelling and grammatical errors. Tables, figures and references (excluded from word count, 2/40 marks) Tables and figures are not compulsory, but may be inserted to help illustrate your analysis. References are compulsory (minimum of 10 references) and are to be formatted in the Harvard style. Accurately and appropriately cite references. Make sure you refer to the rubric on CloudDeakin for detailed information on how these criteria will be assessed and the marks allocated. Note: you are expected to undertake your own literature searching and review to complete this assignment. However, details for a number of relevant (and interesting!) resources can be found on CloudDeakin to support your work and get you started.