|
Madam
Chair, Chairman,
On behalf
of Consumers International, and the International
Baby Food Action Network. I welcome this opportunity to
take the floor on this very important issue.
We warmly
welcome this report and Dr Brundtland’s statement outlining
WHO’s intention to "reinvigorate its work on diet
and nutrition and to address the issue of excessive consumption
of fatty, sugary and salty foods." She is right.
"Getting loyalty to brand names is the key to influencing
consumer behaviour - from the time children start to walk."
And this can start even earlier, before even the baby is
conceived and can impact on health throughout the whole life
cycle.
Consumers
International and IBFAN have long experience in tracking the
ways that food companies influence our perceptions of what is,
and what is not, a healthy diet, so this report is very welcome
and we promise strong support for it.
However,
there are three important aspects, which must be addressed before
we give our unequivocal support.
FIRSTLY
PARTNERSHIPS: We ask WHO to assure us that, in its efforts
to address this problem, it will not, by default, draw the not-for
profit NGO sector into an ‘unhealthy’ relationship
with the food industry – an industry which is itself part
of the problem. WHO is well aware, through its dealings with
the tobacco industry, of the risks we are talking about. The
processed food industry in particular, has an enormous vested
interest in promoting highly profitable, but unhealthy, highly
packaged and environmentally unsustainable foods. These foods
can have a devastating impact on national and family economies
in terms of import, purchasing and health service costs. While
it may be useful to hear the views of such compnies, we hope
that they will not be described as partners or used for resource
mobilisation.
We see
Public-private partnerships as satellite bodies that can go
off into orbit. They can be used by the for-profit sector to
enter and expand markets and policy setting arenas, the very
arenas that need to be strong if this problem is going to be
adequately addressed and our children’s future safeguarded.
A Press
article last week referred to the new Global Alliance for Improved
Nutrition, called GAIN – ironically the name of an infant
formula. Apparently the companies involved in GAIN expect the
UN system to intervene on their behalf to lobby for favourable
tariffs and tax rates and a speedier regulatory review of new
products in targeted countries. Although this may not have been
promised, we would welcome clarification about WHOs position
regarding this.
These
companies include Kraft, a wholly owned subsidiary of Philip
Morris, the tobacco giant, and Heinz a company well known for
its violations of the baby food Code. These companies are all
involved in pushing unhealthy brands. If this can happen, perhaps
an urgent review and change in WHO’s checking procedures
and strategies is needed. Such initiatives should not be allowed
to undermine the progress we have all made in respect to the
International Code and
Resolutions.
SECONDLY:
HEALTH CLAIMS: IBFAN and CI have worked for many years on
the issue of health claims, at Codex and in other for a and
have shown how companies use health claims to project a healthful
image to what otherwise are unhealthy products. Last week Codex
Alimentarius guidelines moved one step further to banning health
and nutrition claims on foods for infants and young children.
Fortified junk foods are not the answer.
If health
messages are to be disseminated, then surely Governments, UN
agencies and non-profit NGOs working in the public interest
should advise and determine sound national policies on this.
For-profit companies and industry-funded science should not
be allowed to influence such decisions.
There
is much consensus amongst the scientific community about what
does constitute a healthy diet. It is only when one listens
to the confounding research supported by the food industry,
that one, for example starts to doubt that, sugar or fat may
be partly responsible for increasing rates of obesity!
There
is now growing concern in the health and NGO community about
the promotion of sugary fatty and salty foods and many NGOs
in the UK and other countries are calling for an end to the
promotion of these products to children. This is a major challenge
and we must expect it to be opposed vigorously. If WHO were
to develop a code addressing marketing to children and schools
we would strongly support it.
Education
services are major marketing opportunities to captive audiences.
How can our children to become healthy, active and critically
aware 21st century citizens, if education materials are sponsored
by the food industry, and teachers are under pressure to present
Coca Cola or Nestle as leaders in health and sustainable protection.
The money on offer may well be tempting – but the risks
to health are high.
LASTLY:
We would like to see WHO, as part of this initiative, instigate
truly independent research into the impact of marketing on the
very poor, so that we can all promote food systems that are
sustainable, indigenous, equitable, and environmentally friendly
– rather than quick fix solutions.
Thank
you Madam Chair.
|
