How the Shielding Amendment could affect nutrition and healthy eating.

The Proposed Amendment to the Constitution (PEC) known as the "Shielding PEC" aimed to alter how the government and the Unified Health System (SUS) interact with decisions of the Federal Court of Accounts (TCU). Although the proposal was shelved, the discussion it generated is important for understanding how future legislative changes may impact nutrition and healthy eating.

How could the "Proposed Constitutional Amendment on Protection" affect nutrition and healthy eating?

Nutrition and healthy eating depend on an environment that prioritizes the health of the population. This involves regulating the food market, monitoring social programs, and promoting nutritional education. The "shielding" amendment, by reducing transparency and control over public spending, could have direct consequences in these areas.

• Weakening of food security policies: Programs such as the acquisition of food from family farming, which ensure that quality products reach needy communities and schools, could be affected. With less oversight, the funds allocated to these programs could be diverted, leading to the replacement of fresh foods with cheaper ultra-processed products.
• Reduced oversight of the food industry: Lack of control could decrease oversight of the food industry. This could lead to an increase in advertising for products high in sugar, sodium, and fat, especially targeting children. Aggressive advertising hinders the development of healthy eating habits, as it associates these products with moments of happiness and fun.
• Less funding for education and research: Nutrition and healthy eating depend on scientific research and public education programs. With decreased transparency, money allocated to research on the impact of diet on health or to educational campaigns could be redirected to other areas, leaving the population without access to quality information.

Practical examples of impact

To better understand, imagine the following scenarios:

• Scenario 1: School Lunch. A school implements a lunch program that prioritizes fruits, vegetables, and legumes from small local producers. Due to a lack of oversight, the supplier replaces these foods with cheaper boxed juices and processed cookies. Students, who previously had access to a balanced diet, begin consuming products that do not offer the necessary nutrients for their development. This can lead to an increase in childhood obesity and nutritional deficiencies.
• Scenario 2: Awareness Campaigns. The Ministry of Health, in partnership with nutritionists, develops a campaign to combat childhood obesity. The campaign includes educational materials for schools, videos, and community events. However, the money allocated to the campaign is diverted to other purposes, and it loses strength and reach. Children continue to be exposed to advertisements for fast food and soft drinks, without access to information that helps them understand the importance of a balanced diet.

In short, the "Shielding Amendment," or any other similar legislative proposal, could undermine the efforts of health professionals and public policy makers to promote nutrition and healthy eating. The lack of transparency and oversight weakens the health system, leaving the population more vulnerable to harmful food choices and diseases related to poor diet.