PHM-Exch> A response to the BMJ's Urgent Call for Human Rights Guidance on Diets and FoodSystems by Buse et al

[Claudio Schuftan]

*The Urgent Call for Human Rights Guidance on Diets and Food Systems *(1)

*Let’s make sure we are supporting the human right to food *

*and not the ‘rights’ of traders and investors!*



*Overview*

1. Four general points:

1.1 ‘Rights’ of traders and investors or human rights?

1.2 Let us support initiatives from below

1.3 Beware - no right to food and nutrition in the SDGs!

1.4 Identify root causes or maintain the status quo?

2. Concerns relating to the Urgent Call  (1)

3. Checklist of guiding principles underlying the right to adequate food
and nutrition

4. Excerpts from three powerful texts

4.1 The Nyeleni Declaration, Mali 2007. (2)

4.2 Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health, Hilal Elver: Interim report,
3 August 2016, A/71/282. (3)

4.3 The human right to adequate food and nutrition within a framework of
food sovereignty. (4)

*1.1 ‘Rights’ of traders and investors or human rights? *

In relation to the right to adequate food and nutrition, there is a choice
between two visions presented as follows by Valente and Montes (4) : "The
first vision represents the industrialized and commodity exporting
countries. It defends that all food insecurity and malnutrition may be
fully addressed by a liberalized international food trade system. However,
to do so, investors demand to be guaranteed a secure and enabling
environment as clearly spelled out in the strategy and country frameworks
of the G7 New Alliance of Food and Nutrition Security for Africa.

The second vision places more emphasis on all human beings having stable
access to a greater diversity of foods to be obtained either directly from
production and/or through income, mainly coming from local markets with
direct links to small scale food producers within an enabling international
and national environment, regulated by public interest, in line with the
principles and framework of food sovereignty and reflected in the national
and international regulatory bodies of public agencies and governments."

Make no mistake, the major international initiatives (High Level Task
Force, Global Partnership, WEF’s Global Redesign, etc) favor the first
vision. They are "*intensifying the promotion of the participation of TNCs
and other private sector entities, as well as philanthropic ventures in
multistakeholder governance mechanisms, *which in many instances bypass
intergovernmental bodies. These initiatives clearly favor the security of
investors and their profits, to the detriment of the well being of
populations"(4). IBFAN (International Baby Food Action Network) makes the
important point that these initiatives, in effect, unwarrantedly confer
human rights status to the private sector (as TNCs have done for decades in
the USA) and treat states as just another entity in the kaleidoscope of
‘stakeholders’.

*1.2 Let us support initiatives from below, from those most
concerned/affected and most knowledgeable*

As Valente and Montes (4) state, "the *human rights framework is a social
construct arising from the struggles of individuals, social groups and
peoples *against oppression, exploitation, discrimination and abuses of
power by governments and other powerful economic, political and religious
actors".

Moreover, in CETIM’s words: "Peasants are key to food sovereignty and the
realization of the right to food, in particular in developing countries
where they provide up to 80% of the food consumed at the local level.
Peasants offer a sustainable alternative to the dominant agro-industrial
model and they play a crucial role in the fight against climate change and
the conservation of biodiversity. Peasants together with their families
represent one third of humanity. Eighty percent (80%) of the world’s people
who suffer from hunger and poverty in the world live and work in rural
areas. Peasants are the primary victims of violations of the rights to
food, water and sanitation or adequate housing. They are evicted from their
lands and repressed when they defend their rights."

A first priority for human rights activists thus, is to *support and
promote implementation of* *the 2018 UN Declaration on the Rights of
Peasants (a victory for La* *Via Campesina) *(6)*.* This declaration
represents a significant step towards achieving the Right to Food.

*1.3 Beware: no right to food and nutrition in the SDGs: mistake or
success? *(7)
There is added urgency in the debate on the right to adequate food and
nutrition today. As Vivero Pol and Schuftan point out, unlike access to
water, health and education, access to affordable and sufficient food is
not given recognition in the SDGs as a universally guaranteed human
right,.  *We need to be aware that among the obstacles to achieving the
right to food are some of the world's most powerful states acting on behalf
of their transnational corporations.*

They go on to say:  "The privatization of food-producing inputs (soil,
seeds, water) and the absolute commodification of the final output (food)
confirm the dominant discourse of both actors *(the authors are referring
to US and EU actors)* and hence in the international institutions they
control (i.e., the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary
Fund, the World Bank, the World Economic Forum). These institutions are
adamant about the absolute validity of market mechanisms to distribute food
as a commodity. Therefore, the duties and entitlements guaranteed by the
right to food clearly collide with this position." (7)

*1.4 Identify root causes or maintain the status quo? *A meaningful human
rights/social justice approach requires explicit identification of root
causes: the overwhelming power and destructive activities of TNCs and their
control over the entire agricultural and food system as part of the overall
prevailing economic system. The same can appropriately be termed ‘corporate
monopoly capitalism’ an ideology that is largely responsible for many of
the crises we face, in energy, water and, of course, climate change. The
obesity (and related NCDs) epidemic is clearly linked to this system. The
root causes of hunger, malnutrition and under nutrition are poverty and
inequality, that also result from capitalism in its exploitative,
repressive, violent, patriarchal and neo-colonial form that has destroyed
Africa's (and others’) agricultural base and prevented development of an
industrial base. In relation to the right to food, *it is essential to
remember that Africa was self sufficient in food in the 1960s*. The
discourse on ‘progress’ in this domain is dishonest on various grounds,
because *regression is what actually ought to be measured and reported*.
The role of corporate controlled media in the information domain has been
clear; it actively spreads the progress discourse.

The crisis in media and information, in particular the ‘capture’ of science
is also worrisome and relevant here. The volume and bias of much corporate
funded (or part funded) science has distorted the evidence base that is so
necessary for responsible and effective action. It is a capitalist crisis
in which TNCs’ influence over the media, including scientific and medical
research, is not just ‘undue’. TNCs now largely own the media. The bias of
the ‘science’ behind the green revolution and behind much agricultural/food
technology ‘achievements’ (the basis of many international initiatives)
must also be acknowledged.  Independent science must be sought and publicly
funded as the basis for decision-making in the public interest.

*2. Concerns relating to Buse et al’s Urgent Call *(1)

2.1.The Urgent Call and its links to Areas of Focus, Proposed Process and
Guiding Principles, actually address *obesity, unhealthy food contributing
to obesity and unhealthy diets. The authors confuse us by throwing in
references to wider issues, *such as malnutrition, undernutrition,
sustainable food systems, food security, even climate change, but these are
not further addressed in the texts. The authors recognize these are indeed
interlinked and critical, but *the way they are interlinked is left
unexplained, thus ultimately ignoring what clearly are root causes*. The
only form of malnutrition that is addressed is that brought about by the
misleading marketing of unhealthy foods. The text needs to acknowledge, but
doesn’t, that this *is, in a major way, foisted on populations by powerful
TNCs and by governments acting on behalf of their TNCs*.

In relation to the wider issues (mentioned above), excellent reports have
been produced by the Special Rapporteurs on the Right to Food (Ziegler,
Schutter and now Elver). These provide comprehensive, clear analyses and
explicit, strong recommendations that form a solid basis for guidance.

Because root causes are ignored in the Urgent Call and linked texts, the
private sector will, most likely, simply respond with commitments to
reformulate ultraprocessed foods . Marketing will persuade consumers that
slightly less harmful junk food is the way forward. Removing the private
sector from involvement in the development of guidelines is not enough: its
central role in various forms of malnutrition must be identified *and
denounced. *(8)

*Let us now look at some of the statements made in the Urgent Call :*

2.2.*"Market forces alone are failing to deliver healthy diets and
sustainable food systems**"*.

First, the subject being addressed in the Urgent Call is not sustainable
food systems, it is obesity, so this introduces confusion. Second, the
statement suggests that *if only they were assisted in the effort,* market
forces would deliver healthy diets. “Market forces” *sell *certain products
of varying nutritional value. They do not “deliver" diets of any kind. They
are however, overwhelmingly responsible for the indiscriminate foisting of
foods of varying value (or harm) on populations that are deprived of
healthy alternatives by those very forces (including that of producing
their own food on their own land).

*2.3. "Human rights norms drive action".*

History shows that human rights have always been won in the streets,
through people's struggles. The authors of the guidance draw parallels with
human rights approaches to HIV. But in the case of HIV, those affected, did
mobilize, demonstrate and militate;  a magnificent effort indeed. Their
actions were the catalyst. Human rights principles, norms, declarations and
then laws were then specifically developed to fulfill rights that had
gained recognition through the struggles of different groups for years,
sometimes decades. This process of transforming human rights into
international law is of extreme importance, particularly for subsequent
actions to spread the benefits of the legal recognition of human
rights as *judiciable.
**But the Urgent Call in the BMJ ignores the struggles by people’s
movements that have produced by far the most significant advances in the
Right to Food in recent history, particularly the 2018 UN Declaration on
the Rights of Peasants *(6)*,* as said, *a victory for La Via Campesina *and
others. Public interest CSOs have also played a significant role. IBFAN for
example has brought to the fore, in UN and national policy making fora, the
importance of regulations to control marketing and end commerciogenic
malnutrition. (9) IBFAN’s highlighting of the particular harm caused by
commercial sponsoring of health professionals and monitoring systems
prompted the first and seven subsequent WHA Resolutions calling for
Conflict of Interest safeguards. (10)

2.4. “*International assistance and cooperation as a first area to focus
on”.*

By their very nature human rights are not and cannot be realized through
international "assistance". Solvent and sovereign states are primarily
responsible. Many of the world's peoples do not live in solvent and
sovereign states (often because of interference in their internal affairs
by powerful states) and/or are victims of their governments’ inaction or
repression, in good part because of a grotesquely unfair international
economic order of which international assistance is an integral part.

2.5 "*The private sector has a responsibility to act to prevent diet
related diseases" *

>From our perspective, it has no such responsibility. This is still part of
the meaningless, but convenient, concept of Corporate Social
Responsibility. This is a huge subject but basically, unless the entire
body of law relating to big business is scrapped and rewritten, TNCs have
neither a legal obligation to prevent disease nor to promote health. We
have to understand this. On the other hand, they do have a legal obligation
to make profits for shareholders. Big business quite simply is supposed to
conform to the laws of the country and to international law, human rights
law included. But they simply do not, particularly in the case of the
latter. With respect to guidance, unless these laws are binding, corporate
irresponsible behavior will remain in impunity and the right to food and
nutrition will continue to be violated. What is needed is publicly funded
and effective systems that are independent of corporate funding to hold
corporations accountable for their actions. The extent of corporate funding
of NGOs and UN bodies has resulted in much increased focus on ‘dialogue’
with TNCs, with emphasis on incremental changes and ‘here today, gone
tomorrow’ voluntary commitments. While for many, corporate funding is seen
as an important contribution to immediate humanitarian and public health
work, the risks remain, and the need for independent watch dogs,
independent monitoring systems and fundamental changes is seen as less
important. (11)

In 2017, IBFAN led a successful call to stop a proposal for a Gates-funded
monitoring system in partnership with the baby food industry.  The
rationale was that if industry is given enough ‘incentives’ through
recognition of good will, it will somehow transform itself and comply with
human rights principles. Not only does this violate the basic principle
that ‘no one should be the judge in his own case’, but it ignores the very
nature of a corporation --its obligation to maximize profits and in effect,
it would ‘allow the fox to design the chicken coop’.  (12)

Conflicts of interest cannot just be “effectively managed”; they must be
avoided and denounced. It must be emphasized that interaction with industry
has always existed and always will, but it must be carefully defined and
managed. Participation of the private sector (referring to for profit
companies, their front groups and philanthropic foundations clearly aligned
with/funded by for profit companies) in governance or policy framing/making
cannot be part of that interaction.

2.6 *"Reform international trade and investment rules, etc for ensuring
food security".*

In relation to the human right to food and to health, it is not food
security, but *food sovereignty* that is required. This distinction is
critical. Among other things, the concept of food security envisages the
provision of food through international aid. This is basically a dumping
act (unless it occurs in the context of an emergency) that further
contributes to the destruction of food systems, *thus violating the right
to food.* International trade between unequal partners has always
impoverished the poorer partner and enriched the richer partner. Close
examination of the standard setting procedures at the Codex Alimentarius
Commission, reveals the stark imbalance of power between rich and poor
countries. Governments in the South are under constant pressure by
exporting countries to weaken their laws, accept the import of substandard
ultraprocessed products (some masquerading as food aid) and forget
their sovereign
rights and duties to protect their citizens. In relation to food, "free"
trade agreements have contributed to malnutrition in these countries and to
the destruction of national agricultural systems and food sovereignty.

2.7 *"Promote accountability of the State and the private sector to
guarantee the protection of rights and ensure healthy diets etc.".  *

The private sector has no role whatsoever in guaranteeing protection of
human rights. Our aim must be to legislate appropriately so that the
private sector either respects or breaks the law with the normal legal
consequences. It is probably unintentional, but the drafters of the Urgent
Call seem to assign responsibility jointly to State and private sector and,
of course, this reflects the current appalling situation in which State and
private sector are often holding hands under the same roof and sometimes,
they are one and the same.

*2.8 "A register of lobbyist activity in international and national fora". *

Surely the question here should be rather, the legitimacy of lobbying
altogether, in such fora ? This again raises the critical issue of private
sector participation in policy making  --be it at national or global (UN)
level. Unfortunately, and increasingly, as a result of public-private
partnerships, the inappropriate and undue influence of the private sector
has become ‘normalized’. (13) But it is neither normal nor acceptable. It
must be seen as a violation of fundamental democratic principles and as the
major obstacle to national and international capacity to govern and set
norms and standards responsibly and to ensure respect for human rights. (14)

*3. Checklist of principles underlying the human right to adequate food and
nutrition*

*Together with others, it is our opinion that as public health
nutritionists, we should be guided by the following principles when
discussing the prospects of sustainable healthy diets from a human rights
perspective. Through this discussion, we aim to have colleagues voice their
views and to eventually endorse these principles. Working together towards
them will make our demands stronger, by emphasizing:*

∙Food sovereignty, not food security.

∙Local production, small scale food producers, not liberalized
international trade in industrial food and commodities.

∙Farmers’ rights to land, seeds and water, not TNC rights to purchase huge
tracts of lands for industrialized agriculture and extractive purposes, or
to control the market in seeds and other agricultural inputs.

∙Living wages, sustainable rural livelihoods and environments through
agroecological interventions, not forced eviction, urban slums and
environmental devastation.

∙Nutritious and diverse foods and diets, not energy-high and nutrient-low
monotonous foods (empty calories!).

∙Human rights, social and economic justice, not international "aid"/not
charity/not philanthrocapitalism.

·       Global commons as a foundation for human rights, not the
privatization and commodification of food, basic and public services,
education, knowledge, land, water, seeds, livestock and our natural
heritage.

∙Agrochemical, food and beverage industries are not partners in the
struggle for the Right to Food. PPPs for food *sovereignty *is a
contradiction in terms. Partnerships are by definition arrangements for
« shared governance » to achieve « shared goals ». Indeed shared decision
making is their single most unifying feature.

∙The private sector is not a partner in achieving any human rights. It is
simply one among many societal actors to be governed by clear regulations,
by law, including human rights laws.

∙Trade and development should be the responsibility of UNCTAD not the WTO.
The legitimacy, rationale and existence of the latter organization is
(rightly) much questioned.

∙As with Health for All, a New International Economic Order is required. No
national government can solve these problems within the crushing confines
of an exploitative, imperialist, neocolonial, international order.

*4. Excerpts from some powerful texts: a solid basis for the Right to Food *

Below are excerpts from three selected sources. These texts are worth
reading in full (about an hour's work). *They provide more than enough
material to draw up essential points for guidance on the Right to Adequate
Food and Nutrition within a framework of food sovereignty. *It is also
worth reading in full the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and
Others Working in Rural Areas, October 2018. (15)

*Excerpts from the Nyeleni Declaration (2), Mali, 2007*

Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to healthy and culturally
appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable
methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems.
It puts those who produce, distribute and consume food at the heart of food
systems and policies rather than the demands of markets and corporations.
It defends the interests and inclusion of the next generation. It offers a
strategy to resist and dismantle the current corporate trade and food
regime, and directions for food, farming, pastoral and fisheries systems
determined by local producers. Food sovereignty prioritizes local and
national economies and markets and empowers peasant and family
farmer-driven agriculture, artisanal - fishing, pastoralist-led grazing,
and food production, distribution and consumption based on environmental,
social and economic sustainability. Food sovereignty promotes transparent
trade that guarantees just income to all peoples and the rights of
consumers to control their food and nutrition. It ensures that the rights
to use and manage our lands, territories, waters, seeds, livestock and
biodiversity are in the hands of those of us who produce food. Food
sovereignty implies new social relations free of oppression and inequality
between men and women, peoples, racial groups, social classes and
generations…

*What are we fighting against?*

Imperialism, neo-liberalism, neo-colonialism and patriarchy, and all
systems that impoverish life, resources and eco-systems, and the agents
that promote the above such as international financial institutions, the
World Trade Organization, free trade agreements, transnational corporations
and governments that are antagonistic to their peoples;

The dumping of food at prices below the cost of production in the global
economy;

The domination of our food and food producing systems by corporations that
place profits before people, health and the environment;

Technologies and practices that undercut our future food producing
capacities, damage the environment and put our health at risk. These
include transgenic crops and animals, terminator technology, industrial
aquaculture and destructive fishing practices, the so-called White
Revolution of industrial dairy practices, the so-called ‘old’ and ‘new’
Green Revolutions, and the “Green Deserts” of industrial bio-fuel
monocultures and other plantations;

The privatization and commodification of food, basic and public services,
knowledge, land, water, seeds, livestock and our natural heritage;

Development projects/models and extractive industries that displace people
and destroy our environments and natural heritage, *etc, *

*Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Hilal Elver, interim report 3
August 2016 A/71/282 (3)*

"It is imperative that global food systems move away from agro-industrial
production methods that are responsible for dietary monotony and reliance
on ultra processed food and beverages towards a system that supports food
sovereignty, small scale producers and local markets, based on ecological
balance, agro-biodiversity and traditional practices. Food sovereignty
allows people to define their own policies and strategies for sustainable
production, distribution and consumption of food. Globally, the majority of
food is supplied by local farmers. Therefore efforts to combat malnutrition
should support smallholder farmers and promote nutrition sensitive
production. Agroecology ensures food and nutrition security without
compromising the economic, social and environmental needs of future
generations. It focuses on maintaining productive agriculture that sustains
yields and optimizes the use of local resources while minimizing the
negative environmental and socioeconomic impacts of modern technologies.*" *
(p.22)

*The Special Rapporteur recommends (among many other things)*

- a legally binding instrument to regulate the activities of transnational
corporations

- that States ensure the political and financial commitment needed to shift
from current industrial agricultural systems to nutrition sensitive
agroecology that is healthy for people and sustainable for the planet.

- States adopt an initiative similar to the WHO Framework Convention on
Tobacco Control to regulate the food and beverage industry and protect
individuals form the negative health and nutrition effects of highly
processed foods.

*Human rights and social justice or the ‘Rights’ of Traders and Investors?
(4)*

The primacy of human rights law over all other legal frameworks, enshrined
in the UN Charter and UN Bill of Rights, has been sidelined by the economic
power of corporate and financial interests, and the instruments to judge
disputes between the interests of private investors and those of society as
a whole, in particular of those most affected by exclusion, discrimination,
poverty, violence and exploitation, are totally private in nature, off
limits for public scrutiny and counting on the political collusion of the
select group of highly industrialized countries. » (Authors’ note : the WTO
is key to the impunity of corporate crimes)

The food sovereignty framework brings the dimension of power to the fore,
identifying who should control natural and productive resources and their
uses; who should define food and nutrition and related policies and who
should regulate powerful economic actors, including those at the
international level, particularly TNCs.

It is important to note that various initiatives of the "international
community" (including the High Level Task Force on Global Food and
Nutrition, the G8 Global Partnership for Agricultural and Food security,
the Global Redesign Initiative of the WEF, and SUN and the New Alliance on
Food Security and Nutrition for Africa), appear to contribute to further
violations of the Right to Food.  "Despite lip service paid to reducing
hunger and malnutrition, *the workplans concentrate on dismantling national
customary or legislated law on land tenure, seeds and water, which might
interfere with the wish of investors and TNCs* to purchase large extensions
of former commons for agriculture or extractive purposes (including water),
control the seed market and forbid traditional practices of seed exchange.
The process is well advanced in several countries and will certainly result
in massive displacement of rural populations, increasing the migratory
pressure towards unprepared urban centres or Europe. (4)

Valente and Montes note that government confidence in vision one (see 1.1
above) has decreased following the "food crises of 2007-2008 characterized
by food price volatility, great speculation in commodity futures, blockages
of food exports and acute intensification of land grabbing practices."

Encouragingly, in 2016, the European Parliament approved a resolution that
aligns itself with the criticisms made by civil society organizations about
initiatives such as the G8 New Alliance. (reported in Valente and Montes
but no reference)

*Epilogue:*

180 colleagues are signatories to the Urgent Call referred to in this
discussion piece. It is to them and all those involved in the struggle for
the right to food that we address this reflection piece, not because we
think that everything in the Urgent Call is wrong --this is not at all the
case-- but because we feel that some of the basic tenets are misleading and
tend to support the underlying system that needs replacement in order for
the right to food to become a reality.

January 2020

Alison Katz (People's Health Movement, Centre Europe Tiers Monde)

Patti Rundall (International Baby Food Action Network)

Claudio Schuftan (People's Health Movement, World Public health Nutrition
Association)



*References*



1.     Buse K, Patterson D, Magnusson R and Toebes, B.  *Urgent call for
human rights guidance on diet and food systems*. BMJ 30 Oct 2019.
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2019/10/30/urgent-call-for-human-rights-guidance-on-diets-and-food-systems/?utm_source=Global+Health+NOW+Main+List&utm_campaign=94ec801d8a-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_10_31_12_49&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8d0d062dbd-94ec801d8a-876099

2.     The Nyeleni Declaration, Mali, 2007.
https://nyeleni.org/IMG/pdf/DeclNyeleni-en.pdf

3.     Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food and nutrition
(A/71/282).

4.     Flavio Luiz Schiek Valente and Denisse Cordova Montes. *The human
right to adequate food and nutrition within a framework        of food
sovereignty*. Policy in Focus, Vol 13(2) Oct 2016.

5.     CETIM (Centre Europe Tiers Monde), Geneva, 2015.
https://www.cetim.ch/a-un-declaration-on-the-rights-of-peasants/

6.
https://viacampesina.org/en/united-nations-third-committee-approves-the-un-declaration-on-the-rights-of-peasants-and-other-people-working-in-rural-areas/

7.     Jose Luis Vivero Pol and Claudio Schuftan. *No right to food and
nutrition in the SDGs: mistake or success?* BMJ Glob Health
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5321330/>. 2016; 1(1):
e000040.Published online 2016 Jun 7. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2016-000040
<https://dx.doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmjgh-2016-000040>

8.      Carlos A. Monteiro and Geoffrey Cannon. The Impact of Transnational
“Big Food” Companies on the South: A View from Brazil. July 3, 2012
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001252

9.     The International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (WHO
1981) and subsequent relevant resolutions.

10. 1996 WHA Res 49.15 : Preambular para : « Concerned that health
institutions and ministries may be subject to subtle pressure to accept,
inappropriately, financial or other support for professional training in
infant and child health ». . . urged Member States . . .(2) to ensure that
the financial support for professionals working in infant and young child
health does not create conflicts of interest, especially with regard to the
WHO/UNICEF Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative ; (3) to ensure that
monitoring the application of the International Code and subsequent
relevant resolutions is carried out in a transparent, independent manner,
free from commercial influence :
http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/WHA49.15_iycn_en.pdf?ua=1
<http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/WHA49.15_iycn_en.pdf?us=1>

11. Dialogue or engineering of consent ? Opportunities and risks of talking
to industry. Judith Richter. h
ttp://www/gifa.org/publications/dialogue-or-engineering-of-consent-opportunitities-and-risks
<http://www/gifa.org/publications/dialogue-or-engineering-of-consent-opportunitities-and-risks>
-of-talking-to-industry/

12. Protecting infant health : IBFAN stands up to a new initiative by the
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
http://www.babymilkaction.org/archives/15050

13. Interference in public health policy : examples of how the baby food
industry uses tobacco industry tactics. World Nutrition, 2017.
http://worldnutritionjournal.org/index.php/wn/article/view/155

14. 240 civil society organizations and 40 international networks have
called on the UN Secretary-General to end the UN’s Strategic Partnership
Agreement with the World Economic Forum (WEF) which they claim is
delegitimizing the United Nations and weakening the rôle of states in
global decision making. September 2019 bit/ly/21DRuV

15. https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/73/165
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phm.phmovement.org/pipermail/phm-exchange-phmovement.org/attachments/20200127/56ae08e9/attachment.html>