Vigilance required over WHO collaboration with the drinks industry on a global strategy
This issue of The Globe is published at a crucial juncture in the effort to secure a Global Strategy to Reduce the Harmful Effects of Alcohol. Between now and May 2008, when the World Health Assembly will consider the resolution adopted by the Executive Board on 23rd January 2008, global advocates for alcohol policies will need to come to a collective decision to support the process and the resolution as it stands, or seek to amend the request to the Director General to‘collaborate’ with the‘economic operators’ by replacing it with‘to consult with the drinks industry’ on ways they could contribute to reducing harmful use of alcohol.
We have no difficulty with the issue of WHO consulting the Industry. Collaboration is a totally different matter. Section 3.1 of the Principles Governing Relations Between the World Health Organization and Non Governmental Organizations is unequivocal. The article states that the aims and activities shall be in conformity with the spirit, purposes and principles of the WHO and shall be “free from concerns which are primarily of a commercial or profit making nature”. Although this is in regard to official relations between WHO and NGO’s the principle ought to be adhered to with any organisation that collaborates with WHO. What is more the WHO Expert Committee recommended that: “WHO continue its practice of no collaboration with various sectors of the alcohol industry”.1
The Expert Committee recommendation is designed rightly to protect WHO as an expert public health agency from being forced to relate to bodies which not only are outside the public health arena, but which have an obvious potential conflict of interest with the requirements of public health in regard to alcohol. The activities of the alcohol industry are not designed to achieve public health objectives and the industry possesses no relevant expertise in regard to the medical and social harms related to alcohol or to the evidence base underpinning prevention strategies. It is for governments, not theWHO, to accommodate the alcohol industry into the policy making process and to reconcile the interests of the industry with the requirements of public health policy.
Many have worked tirelessly and over many years to move the alcohol agenda forward to where we are today. A Global Strategy is within reach, and NGOs will have legitimacy in both consultation and collaboration with the WHO. The resolution should open the way forward for the adoption of a comprehensive strategy based on the science and effective policies. The Expert Committee Report (see page 15 ) contains a summary of all the available evidence and is a good basis for building a Global Strategy. The monitoring of the Global Burden of Disease will continue, and other influential groups of scientists and advocates are coming to similar conclusions about the most effective ways of reducing the harmful impact of alcohol (see SHAAP Report page 36).
Significant progress has been achieved and we have reason to celebrate. So why advocate caution? The evidence of harm is clear; the data is reliable; the scientific and research communities are consistent in their messages; official documents reiterate the need for action on control policies; advocates are united; the World Health Assembly is on the verge of adopting a Global Strategy; yet the Executive Board acceptance of ‘collaboration’ has left many with a profound sense of unease. Collaboration at WHO level with the industry that produces, markets, distributes and sells a substance that causes untold health and economic harm to countless individuals and their families ought to be resisted at all strategic levels.
This scepticism, or realism, is borne out of knowledge and experience of seeing the drinks industry in action and whose main concern is profit for its shareholders. The Editor in Chief had first hand experience of the deviousness of the drinks industry during the 2005/6 Roundtable discussions on an EU Alcohol Strategy between DG SANCO, Member States representatives, NGOs and the Drinks Industry in Brussels. We thought we had left the Roundtable with a general agreement on strategies on which we could find common ground. However, even before DG SANCO published its strategy, the industry were heavily engaged in lobbying the European Parliament and the media against it. In this edition of The Globe, by kind permission of Blackwell Publishing and the author, readers will find a copy of a recent editorial from Addictions (About smoke and mirrors: the alcohol industry and the promotion of science –( see page 25). The editorial confirms the need to be vigilant. The industry will always attempt to deflect action away from what is proven to be effective policies. They will persuade national governments to adopt all manner of harm reduction policies that are clearly ineffective and that pose little or no threat to their economic ambition.
Other articles in this edition confirm the need for global action. SEARO’s Symposium (see page 4) held in Bali and the reports produced by PAHO (see page 32) set out the enormity of the burden attributable to alcohol across communities and regions. Reference is also made in this edition to Thailand’s response and we highlight the very real danger faced by Cambodian women as they work to promote beers. A call for action resounded from the Commonwealth Medical Association conference in Chennai as DrArulrhaj was installed as president. (see page 30) National and regional calls for action will need to echo in Geneva. Alcohol advocates have a clear responsibility to safeguard the integrity of the decision-making processes at WHO by alerting their respective Member States to the risks of WHO collaboration with the industry.
1. WHO Expert Committee Report 2007