The anti-politics of food in South Africa: Transformation, accountability and the nutrition policy subsystem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine power and governance arrangements in food and nutrition policy formulation and agenda setting in South Africa. DESIGN: Analysis of the policy implementation environment and in-depth interviews were conducted focusing on: existing policy content and priorities across food system sectors; institutional structures for cross-sectoral and external stakeholder engagement; exercise of power in relation to food system policies and opportunities to strengthen action on nutrition. SETTING: South Africa. PARTICIPANTS: 2). RESULTS: This study found that there are power dynamics involved in shaping the planning agenda that is inadvertently generating a food system that undermines the right to food. The concept of nutrition governance remains poorly defined and applied in different ways and usually based on a relatively narrow interpretation - therefore limiting policy coherence and coordination. South Africa has strong legal institutions and practices, and social policies that support public provisioning of food, but a non-interventionist approach to the food system. CONCLUSIONS: The right to food and nutrition, as outlined in the South African Constitution, has not yet been effectively utilised to establish a robust normative and legal basis for tackling the dual challenges of food insecurity and malnutrition. Currently, the governance of the food system is grappling with substantial obstacles, balancing the influence of powerful stakeholders who uphold the status quo against its responsibilities for food justice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".