Agenda Item 3.7 Diet, Physical Activity and Health

Statement by Patti Rundall on behalf of Consumers International

Mr Chair, honourable members of the Executive Board, Director General.

On behalf of Consumers International, the International Baby Food Action Network, and Health Action International, I welcome this opportunity to take the floor on this very important issue.

We wish to express our warm support for this urgently needed strategy which attempts to address the epidemic of non-communicable diseases that we are all now so acutely aware of. There is wide agreement amongst the scientific community about what does constitute a healthy diet, and its clear that WHO's proposals, which were developed though extensive consultation, are based on sound science. It is only parts of the food industry which question this and try to muddy the water.

We urge government delegates here and the WHO to stand firm against attempts to undermine, sideline or delay this strategy. We note that one of the countries with the highest obesity rates in the world, has called for a policy based in large part on 'individual responsibility" – shifting responsibility away from industry. According to the Centre for Science in the Public Interest that policy has been tried in that very country and has failed. Is it right now to export this failed strategy to the rest of the world? Consumers have a right to expect their governments to develop effective policies and where necessary regulation to promote and protect public health.

In order to achieve this it is critically important that WHO takes up the Gambia’s suggestion and provides guidelines which protect its integrity and its policy-making process. We have seen a good example of this with the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, where tobacco companies are specifically excluded from policy setting. The Global Strategy on Infant and Young Child Feeding also addresses the issue of conflicts of interest by identifying an appropriate role for the food industry. One wonders where the evidence is that involving commercial companies in policy setting is an effective strategy in the protection of health.

We are pleased that the draft Diet Strategy mentions the important role that breastfeeding and appropriate complementary feeding plays in preventing non-communicable diseases throughout the whole life cycle.It is essential that these references are retained and we would urge that they are highlighted in the Report and proposed Resolution (EB113/44).

As international NGO networks working in the NON-profit sector we offer our support to WHO to develop this strategy for the benefit of citizens in both industrialised and non-industrialised countries, and we are pleased that the DG mentioned the importance of this collaboration in his opening address. It would be helpful if the importance of such collaboration was mentioned in the Strategy as it has been since its inception.

Lastly I must mention our concerns about placing too much emphasis on health and nutrition claims as an agent for change. IBFAN and CI have worked for many years on the issue of health claims, at Codex and in other fora, and have shown how health claims can be used to project a healthful image to what otherwise are unhealthy products and are rarely on fresh fruits and vegetables. Health claims are not appropriate at all for foods for infants and young children. We need the food industry to reduce salt, fat and sugar levels in many foods, not to hide these ingredients or pretend that they are not a problem. Neither is fortifying foods made with inherently poor nutritional quality an acceptable way forward. Coca Cola fortified with calcium or chocolate flavoured Cerelac is not the answer. We must consider issues such as sustainability and the impact of these foods on national and family economies, healthy indigenous and traditional foods, in terms of import, purchasing and health service costs.

Chairman, delegates, we urge you to endorse the Strategy without further delay or weakening. Thank you.

For further information contact:

Patti Rundall, Baby Milk Action, 23 St Andrews St, Cambridge, CB2 3AX.

Tel: +44 1223 464420 mob: + 44 7786 523493

www.babymilkaction.org

www.ibfan.org

Intervention by Infact to the 113th Session of the WHO Executive Board

Agenda Item 3.7: Integrated Prevention of Noncommunicable Diseases

Infact welcomes the proposed Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health. As a corporate accountability organization, we particularly applaud the emphasis in the Strategy on provision of accurate information to consumers, and the recognition that food advertising affects food choices and influences dietary habits. Encouraging WHO Member States to curtail advertising of unhealthy food is consistent with the finding in the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) that tobacco advertising bans reduce consumption, and with the inclusion of a comprehensive ban on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship in the first global health and corporate accountability treaty.

In light of the precedents of the FCTC, however, Infact is concerned about the failure to insulate the Global Strategy from potential conflicts of interest. Throughout the FCTC negotiating process, WHO excluded the tobacco corporations, their subsidiaries and affiliates on the grounds that their aims run counter to those of the treaty. The final text obligates parties to protect public health policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry. These provisions in the FCTC represent an important evolution in the global community's attitude to the deliberate production, distribution and marketing of a dangerous and deadly product.

While WHO has made no distinction among so-called "stakeholders" in the Global Strategy, evidence is now emerging that the food industry is aggressively attempting to water down the Strategy. The assertion that marketing of energy-dense food does not increase the risk of obesity is eerily reminiscent of the tobacco giants' insistence that tobacco marketing doesn't increase consumption. In both cases, multibillion-dollar corporate advertising budgets draw these claims into question. And there is a corporate connection between the two issues: the transnational now known as Altria owns Philip Morris, the world's most profitable tobacco corporation, and Kraft, one of the world's largest food corporations.

WHO has saluted voluntary initiatives by the food industry to limit dangerous ingredients and portion sizes. Here again, the lessons of the tobacco control movement bear scrutiny. Tobacco corporations have long sought to fend off regulation by putting forth voluntary marketing codes. Voluntary standards are non-binding, lack independent oversight, and have often proven ineffective in curbing the abusive practices they are nominally intended to address. The tobacco industry's supposed concessions even reinforce its own promotional strategy, echoing the very themes that have made the Marlboro cowboy lethally effective at addicting kids around the world.

The tobacco industry also stalled public health policies for decades, demanding more studies linking its product to death and disease—while tens of millions of people died. Where there is evidence that certain products or practices can be harmful to health, the precautionary principle must apply, shifting the burden of proof to those who seek to continue such production and promotion.
Infact urges that the proposed Global Strategy be strengthened to acknowledge the potential conflicts of interest for food corporations and other private sector actors with the Strategy's goals and objectives, and to insulate implementation of its action plan from such conflicts.