"Conflicted" Conceptions of Conflict of Interest: How the Commercial Sector Responses to the WHO Tool on Conflict of Interest in Nutrition Policy Are Part of Their Standard Playbook to Undermine Public Health Comment on "Towards Preventing and Managing Conflict of Interest in Nutrition Policy? An Analysis of Submissions to a Consultation on a Draft WHO Tool".

A Rob Moodie

doi:10.34172/ijhpm.2020.164

Abstract

Managing conflict of interest (CoI) among the interested stake-holders in nutrition policy is a vexed and controversial issue. This commentary builds on Ralston and colleagues’ highly informative analysis of the 44 submissions to the World Health Organization (WHO) draft tool on preventing and managing CoI in national nutrition programs. The commentary proposes that the commercial sector actors are, by definition, too conflicted to objectively respond to the draft tool. The responses of the commercial sectors are predictable, as they mimic their positions during the prior negotiation for the development of the Framework for Engagement of Non-State Actors (FENSA). Their overall approach, and specific responses, are typical of the now standard methods of the ultra-processed food and beverage industry’s ‘corporate playbook.’ In addition, Ralston et al’s analysis raises a number of other issues, such as: why these corporations are so keen to be included in the world of multi-stakeholder partnerships, why so few member states responded to the draft tool, and problems with the term ‘private sector.’ The commentary ends with a suggestion for WHO to seek broader involvement from the 160+ member states who have yet to participate in the consultations regarding the draft tool.

Highlights

In the last three decades, the global burden of disease due to poor nutrition has increased[1,2] alongside the rapidly expanding global reach of ultra-processed food and beverage corporations.[3]
It has been estimated that trillions of dollars in funding will be required to reach these with the hope that much of it can be sourced from the private sector.[8,9]
Ralston and colleagues[13] have identified the ‘centrality of competing conceptions of conflict of interest (CoI)’ as a critical challenge to global health governance. This commentary on their highly informative analysis will focus on the responses of the commercial sector actors[1], how their responses mimic their positions during the Framework for Engagement with non‐State actors (FENSA) negotiations, and how their responses form part of the ultra-processed food and beverage industries ‘corporate playbook.’

Summary

Introduction

In the last three decades, the global burden of disease due to poor nutrition has increased[1,2] alongside the rapidly expanding global reach of ultra-processed food and beverage corporations.[3]. This commentary on their highly informative analysis will focus on the responses of the commercial sector actors[1], how their responses mimic their positions during the Framework for Engagement with non‐State actors (FENSA) negotiations, and how their responses form part of the ultra-processed food and beverage industries ‘corporate playbook.’ A number of fascinating issues will be explored such as why these corporations are so keen to be included in the world of multistakeholder partnerships; who responded and who did not, and problems with the term ‘private sector.’ The commentary finishes with a suggestion for WHO to continue to seek active involvement from the 160+ member states who have yet to Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Results

Conclusion