PHA-Exchange> More on Nestle Nutrition Institute in Africa - NNIA

[Aviva]

  (excerpts from a letter)

  I am concern about NNIA partly from my own experiences over the years with this kind of corrupting approach taken by the baby food industry. There are few health professionals or nutritionists even in Northern countries that can maintain a principled stance when offered industry largesse. Thus one can hardly blame anyone  at the individual level who is in an underprivileged position, though the professor who sent the original letter is no doubt as well to do as many northern academics (he is a white South African). 

  The breastfeeding movement has chosen to polarize in very strong terms regarding the acceptance of support from the industry so that people who do decide to take industry money understand in as clear terms as possible that they are crossing a line. I know several cases of leading international public health experts who have turned down things for fear of harming their reputations. 

  I suspect that half or more of the people on this list were not aware of that they were doing so. But for our movement, it is important that they are known, so that in debates, policy discussions, international meetings, etc. one can take into account the bias that comes from associating in this way with industry. 

  My former boss is on the Board of the Nestle Foundation, an international equivalent of NNIA. He claimed it was "clean" and had no Nestle influence, as it was run not by the company but by a fund that Nestle had no direct control over. He invited me to investigate to find out if this was not the case. What I found out was:

  (1) A high level manager from Nestle is always present as a non-voting participant in NF meetings. (The excuse for this was that his expertise in nutrition was valuable to the group.)

  (2) NF's executive director claimed they were independent but admitted they had never been critical of Nestle's actions.

  (3) NF had asked for more money to be added to the fund. Nestle agreed. If NF had ever criticized them, one doubts they have received it.

  (4) The Board of NF complained about the low quality of proposals they received from developing countries for research projects. Thus they were allowed to apply themselves for the support and much if not most of it goes to them. I saw the 1995 budget and the head of the Board had the largest grant. I was informed that each of them walks out when his own proposals are dealt with. The oppportunity for mutual back-scratching among these half-dozen or so colleagues is clear. 

  (5) On at least one occasion I was informed by a researcher at the research institute headed by the head of the NF Board that the institute needed equipment which was too expensive to be covered by the NF budget and therefore the company agreed to provide the extra funds. I asked why the company did not do this directly and he said this child health research institute would never risk its reputation by taking money directly from the company. Thus (a) NF was laundering the money for the head of its board, and (b) there were examples that let the Board know that if they behaved in ways that Nestle liked (and which its informal Nestle staff participant could report to the company), they could ask for and receive extra money. 

  (6) I reported back to our professor on this. He claimed he did not know this. He stated that clinicians must maintain contact with baby food companies to help them develop better products (which he did for another company earlier). I pointed out that he was no longer a clinician, but working with public health . He called for a seminar run by an expert in the ethics of contacts between health workers and industry. 

  (7) We held such a seminar with a doctoral student in theology who was doing his disseration on development assistance. He pointed out that each work place has its own ethical stances and when one changes work places one must respect those of the new place. He also said that cooperation with industry should be undertaken only on two conditions: (a) one shares objectives regarding this particular activity, and (b) one has thought through and judged as small the risk that this cooperation be exploited to achieve objectives one does not share with them.

  (8) Our professor was asked by the chancellor of the University to get off the NF Board two years ago but still has not done so.

  There have been many examples over the years of people trying to reason and negotiate with industry and being exploited for doing so, achieving no more than helping the companies in the public relations efforts. As you may know, these were described in detail in a new book by Judith Richter.

  I do not see that there is any possibility for a shared objective between the breastfeeding movement and the infant food industry. Seeming exceptions are simply public relations efforts. As I pointed out in my previous letter, this will be enforced by shareholders. Even you and I would be dissapointed if, when we retire, we are informed that we get no pension because the companies in which our stocks were invested decided to focus on child health instead of making money. Child health can never be the responsibility or goal of industry.

  Best,
  Ted

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phm.phmovement.org/pipermail/phm-exchange-phmovement.org/attachments/20011218/d4612f59/attachment-0001.html>