PHM-Exch> WHO Global Forum in Moscow. Tackling food-related diseases: voluntary measures or regulation - carrot or stick?

[Claudio Schuftan]

From: Patti Rundall <prundall at babymilkaction.org>

*for online version see:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease01may110*

*WHO Global Forum in Moscow. Tackling food-related diseases: voluntary
measures or regulation - carrot or stick?*

The World Health Organization's global forum in Moscow on 27th April,
* Addressing
the challenge of noncommunicable diseases,* sparked concern from public
health campaigners and Member States about the potential  for food industry
influence on WHO and governments' strategies to curb food-related diseases.


The meeting was part of a global effort to raise the profile of
non-communicable diseases such as *heart disease, diabetes, stroke, lung
cancer* and* chronic respiratory disease - * diseases which account for 63
percent of deaths worldwide — 70 percent in the United States and 90 percent
in Russia.

Describing the importance of the NCD problem, *Dr **Margaret Chan*, WHO's
Director General identified the harm being caused by the promotion of
tobacco and unhealthy foods: *“For some countries it is no exaggeration to
describe the situation as an impending disaster. I mean a disaster for
health, for society, and most of all for national economies....Today, many
of the threats to health that contribute to noncommunicable diseases come
from corporations that are big, rich and powerful, driven by commercial
interests, and far less friendly to health....Here is a question I would
like to ask the food and beverage industries. Does it really serve your
interests to produce, market, globally distribute, and aggressively
advertise, especially to children, products that damage the health of your
customers? Does this make sense in any mission statement with a social
purpose?...  I strongly believe that the rise of chronic diseases calls for
some serious thinking about what the world really means by progress**. What
is the net gain if the benefits of modernization and economic growth are
cancelled out by the costs, like medical bills, lost productivity, and
premature death, of a preventable disease?  **Unless they wake up, and take
a hard look at policies across-the-board, some countries may very well see
that the benefits of economic progress are quite literally cut up and
devoured by a knife and a fork.  *(1)

WHO's call for urgent action was strongly supported by IBFAN and all who
attended the meetings including Prime Minister *Vladimir Putin* who attended
on the 28th.  The Recommendations from the Forum and the subsequent
Ministerial meeting on the 28th and 29th will go forward to the World Health
Assembly in May and then to the UN High level meeting in New York in
September.

Of concern however, was the fact that for the  "Global Forum" on the first
day - WHO's usual protocol and procedures were discarded and representatives
from corporations which represent a conflict of interest,  such as *PepsiCo,
Coca Cola, Nestlé* and the *World Federation of Advertisers*, attended in
their own capacity or as part as of a new group called the*International
Food and Beverage Alliance *(IFBA), rather than as bodies in official
relations with WHO. (2) Tobacco companies were the only industry deemed to
be beyond the pale. in the working group on food and drink, chaired by *Jorge
Casimiro* of Coca Cola, *Janet Voute* of Nestlé  presented IFBA's voluntary,
self-regulated proposals to reformulate foods, extend 'responsible
advertising' and support public private partnerships. With no non-profit
NGOs speakers and a rapporteur from the Public Private Partnership, *Global
Health Council*,  it was left to  Member States and health NGOs in the
audience to point out the weaknesses and loopholes of the proposals and to
suggest more effective strategies such as controlling junk food marketing
and reformulation with legislation.

*Sirpa Sarlio-Lahteenkorva,* an official in the *Finnish Health
Ministry* explained
that Finland tried to reduce the amount of salt in food by seeking voluntary
commitments from manufacturers, with mild success.  But when the Government
required salt labeling, consumption dropped sharply, she said. The same
happened when the Government increased taxes on alcohol. (Finland is the
world leader in reducing deaths from non-communicable disease.) (3)
*Patti Rundall*, OBE, Policy Director of *Baby Milk Action* and the UK
member the *International Baby Food Action Network* (IBFAN) raised concerns
about the message that could be conveyed to Member States and recalled WHO's
mandate to protect health for all and its responsibility to advocate changes
that are  'fit for purpose.' Since industry can and does already make
representations at each World Health Assembly, is there really a need to
give industry greater opportunities to influence policies?  Before making
any fundamental changes WHO is being asked to:

   - implement strong and clear ground rules to protect its role and
   independence and prevent undue corporate influence on WHO's health policy
   setting process;
   -  to provide guidance on how to minimise and determine what is and is
   not an acceptable conflict of interest.

In her closing remarks at the end of Wednesday's Forum, and in response to
Ms Rundall's remarks, *Dr  Chan* reassured the meeting that she was not
intending to change WHO's constitution and that Member States would always
make the final policy decisions.  But fears about WHO's independence
remained as a result of the repeated calls for an increase in the role of
the private sector and the possibility of funding from them. Dr Chan
qualified her call to 'trust' the industry and work with them, with a demand
that they deserve that trust and  *'walk the talk' * - ie not overdo their
promises. But she fell short of explaining where the hard evidence would in
future be found to validate their promises or whether partnerships
would undermine
NGOs independent watchdog role. IBFAN has ample evidence of how easily
companies can give the illusion of compliance with WHA Resolutions on infant
food marketing. (3)  In her final remarks Dr Chan stressed the importance of
breastfeeding and the first 1,000 days of life.

Member States will debate this issue again at the World Health Assembly in
Geneva in May and it remains to be seen whether an amendment to the draft
Resolution on NCDs proposed by *India*and *Bangladesh* will be retained: *"to
implement the WHO action plan for the global strategy for the prevention and
control of noncommunicable diseases, and to seek the active engagement and
support of all relevant non-health sectors, while adhering to principles
relating to avoidance of  conflicts of interest"* (4)

Commenting Patti Rundall  said:  *"Member States have to decide whether the
industry's voluntary strategies  are the right way to go. They can be
alluring because they are so easy and can sound marvellous. But the lack of
impact and loopholes often become evident only when they are examined and
monitored carefully by a totally independent body. Rarely does industry
accept such findings, preferring self or third-party monitoring where it can
influence the criteria and conclusions. IBFAN has monitored the baby food
industry for the last 30 years, using World Health Assembly resolutions as
benchmarks rather than industry's weaker policies. We have used this
evidence to help governments bring Resolutions into law in over 60
countries, forcing companies to end the promotion which does so much to
mislead parents and undermine infant and young child health.  If voluntary
measures are promoted as the solution to NCDs Member States may lose the
will to legislate and tackle the problems effectively. Health services and
families will pick up the costs." (5)*

Commenting on the meeting, *Prof. Philip  James*,  President of the
*International
Association for the Study of Obesity* (IASO) said: * "The current focus on
non-communicable diseases is very welcome but few Ministries of Health seem
to realise that the real determinants are often far removed from the health
sector and are fundamentally tied in to business practices and current
governmental policies. So far there is little mention of either the
importance of the first 1000 days of life or the key factors - other than
smoking and salt intake - which actually cause the problem!"*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phm.phmovement.org/pipermail/phm-exchange-phmovement.org/attachments/20110506/0ca3f4ad/attachment.html>