PHA-Exch> WHO and the Fizzy Drinks Industry

[Claudio Schuftan]

From: Kireen Marion <kireenmm at tm.net.my>
and Mohamed Idris idrismd at tm.net.my  Consumer Associatin of Penang



CAP came across an article which appeared in the December 6, 2008 issue of
the Lancet, Vol. 372 entitled, “*Corporate capture and Coca-Cola*”. It was
written by Mr. Ian Roberts of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical
Medicine (LSHTM).

 The writer describes how an arrangement was made by World Health
Organization (WHO) staff for him to meet with representatives from Coca-Cola
regarding the company’s proposal to fund research on physical activity. The
proposal was subsequently forwarded from this company to the writer.

 Apparently, according to the Coca-Cola people, this proposal was the
culmination of discussions that they had been having with WHO over the past
few months and where a keen interest was collectively expressed in
understanding better the potential relationship between physical activity,
as active transport – walking, cycling, etc, health and potential
environmental benefits, that is carbon emissions. The proposal indicated a
desire to get people active.

 Mr Roberts points out that it is not surprising that a company selling an
energy-dense soft drink might want to focus attention on the output side of
the personal energy-balance equation, and that it would be more convenient
to blame people’s fatness on “*a lack of cycle paths paths, than on the 35 g
of sugar contained in a 330 ml Coke can*” (emphasis CAP’s).

 The writer believes that there must be many private contract-research
organizations that would be able to do Coca-Cola’s research for them, and
that sending him a research proposal which he was then expected to send back
to them for funding seemed to him like an insensitive attempt at “corporate
capture”. He felt sure that Coca-Cola would find other universities eager to
avail themselves of industry-sponsored research. He then laments the “*sad
abuse of the rare freedom granted to publicly funded academics to seek
answers to socially important questions**”.* (emphasis CAP’s)

 The writer goes on to postulate what this episode actually says about WHO,
and queries, “What benefits are there to public health from brokering
research deals between the beverage industry and a university school of
public health?”

 The writer also informs readers that Derek Yach, the former director of
non-communicable diseases and mental health at WHO is now Director of Global
Health Policy for PepsiCo. Yach, has apparently stated, referring to
policies on nutrition and physical activity, that “work with colleagues
while at the WHO convinced me that such policies need to be developed and
implemented in partnership with the corporate food sector if they are to
achieve maximum impact”.

 Mr Robert ends the article expressing his concern that close links with the
industry could influence the extent to which WHO pursues public health
objectives when these objectives come up against corporate interests.

 Referring to this article in the Lancet, we at CAP are surprised that Mr.
Derek Yach, formerly a key staff of WHO, and well-known worldwide, has
joined PepsiCo. This means that while in jobs at WHO, such staff are
probably already being influenced by these companies; and once they retire
they jump to these companies.

 We have written to the Director General of WHO, Madam Margaret Chan,
expressing our concern regarding the fact that WHO staff are apparently
brokering deals between the industry and public institutions; and that key
staff are also probably being influenced by the industry while in office.
We have queried on the action that will be taken to address the situation.

 We believe that the scenario we have summarized above is not unique to WHO
and the fizzy drinks industry, but is rampant – where public health
institutions, including government agencies and public universities,
collaborate with the various industries (whose products have an adverse
impact on health) for research and other joint ventures.

 Perhaps you might like to refer to the full article in the Lancet, plus
take some individual action – including perhaps writing to WHO; or
identifying similar patterns locally where your concerns can be raised.

 We look forward to hearing about any action you have taken, or even just a
short comment on your views.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phm.phmovement.org/pipermail/phm-exchange-phmovement.org/attachments/20090324/cbf30d74/attachment-0001.html>