Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T06:40:40.829Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why the Bush administration and the global sugar industry are determined to demolish the 2004 WHO global strategy on diet, physical activity and health

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2007

Geoffrey Cannon
Geoffrey Cannon*
Affiliation:
World Health Policy Forum, 24 West 12th Street, New York, NY 10011, USA
*
*Corresponding author: Email [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objective:

To indicate why the world's most powerful nation state and one powerful sector of the food and drink production and manufacturing industry are determined to demolish the 2004 WHO (World Health Organization) global strategy on diet, physical activity and health, and to disassociate it from the 2003 WHO/FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) expert report on diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases, which with its background papers is the immediate scientific basis for the strategy. To encourage representatives of nation states at the 2004 WHO World Health Assembly to support the strategy together with the report, so that the strategy is explicit and quantified, and responds to the need expressed by member states at the 2002 World Health Assembly. This is for an effective global strategy to prevent and control chronic diseases whose prevalence is increased by nutrient-poor food low in vegetables and fruits and high in energy-dense fatty, sugary and/or salty foods and drinks and also by physical inactivity. Of these diseases, obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and cancers of several sites are now the chief causes of morbidity and mortality in most countries in the world.

Method:

A summary of the global strategy and its roots in scientific knowledge accumulated over the last half-century. Reasons why the global strategy and the expert report are opposed by the current US government and the world sugar industry, with some reference to modern historical context. A summary of the trajectory of the global strategy since its first draft made in early 2003, and a further summary of its weaknesses, strengths and potential.

Conclusion:

The 2004 WHO global strategy and the 2003 WHO/FAO expert report are perceived by the current US administration as an impediment to US trade and international policy, within a general context of current US government hostility to the UN (United Nations) system as a brake on the exercise of its power as the world's dominant nation. Policy-makers throughout the world should be aware of the contexts of current pressures put on them by powerful nation states and sectors of industry whose ideologies and commercial interests are challenged by international initiatives designed to improve public health and to leave a better legacy for future generations.

Keywords

WHO Global Strategy 2004WHO/FAO 916 report 2003Chronic disease preventionEconomic globalisationFood and nutrition policyFood systems
Type
Research Article
Information
Public Health Nutrition , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , May 2004 , pp. 369 - 380
Copyright
Copyright © CAB International 2004

References

1World Health Organization (WHO). Shaping the Future. World Health Report 2003. Geneva: WHO, 2003.Google Scholar
2World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF)/American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR). Food, Nutrition and the Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective. Washington, DC: WCRF/AICR, 1997.Google Scholar
3World Health Organization (WHO). Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases. Report of a Joint WHO/FAO Expert Consultation. Technical Report Series No. 916. Geneva: WHO, 2003. Also available at www.who.int.hpr.Google Scholar
4Oxfam. Rigged Rules and Double Standards. Trade, Globalization and the Fight against Poverty. Oxford: Oxfam, 2002.Google Scholar
5Sen, A. Development as Freedom. New York: Anchor Books, 1999.Google Scholar
6 International Union of Nutritional Sciences. Statement to the FAO COAG meeting, Rome, 9 02 2004. Available at www.iotf.org.Google Scholar
7 World Health Organization. Global strategy on diet, physical activity and health, 04 2004. Available at www.who.int.hprGoogle Scholar
8Cannon, G. Food and Health: The Experts Agree. An Analysis of the Findings of 100 Authoritative Expert Reports on Food, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases Published between 1961 and 1991. London: Consumers' Association, 1992.Google Scholar
9World Health Organization (WHO). Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases. Report of a WHO Study Group. Technical Report Series No. 797 Geneva: WHO, 1990.Google Scholar
10Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations/World Health Organization (WHO). International Conference on Nutrition. World Declaration and Plan of Action for Nutrition. Rome: FAO/WHO, 1992.Google Scholar
11Nishida, C, Shetty, P, eds. Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases: scientific background papers of the Joint WHO/FAO Expert Consultation (Geneva, 28 January – 1 February 2002) [Special Issue]. Public Health Nutrition 2004; 7(1A): 99–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12 World Health Organization, World Health Assembly 55th meeting. Global strategy on diet, physical activity and health. Resolution WHA55.23, 2002. Available at www.who.int.hprGoogle Scholar
13World Health Organization (WHO). Reducing Risks, Promoting Healthy Life. World Health Report 2002. Geneva: WHO, 2002.Google Scholar
14World Health Organization (WHO)/United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). Global Strategy on Infant and Young Child Feeding. Geneva: WHO/UNICEF, 2004.Google Scholar
15 UN General Assembly. Road Map Towards the Implementation of the United Nations Millienium Declaration . Report of the Secretary General A/56/326,2001. Available at http:// www.millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/mi/mi_goals.aspGoogle Scholar
16 World Health Organization. Integrated prevention of noncommunicable diseases. Global strategy on diet, physical activity and health, 11 2003. Formerly available at www.who.int.hprGoogle Scholar
17 Government of the USA. Statement to WHO, 27 02 2004. Available at www.who.int.hprGoogle Scholar
18Trowell, H, Burkitt, D, eds. Western Diseases: Their Emergence and Prevention. London: Edward Arnold, 1981.Google Scholar
19Cannon, G.. The Fate of Nations. Food and Nutrition Policy in the New World. London: Caroline Walker Trust, 2003. Also available at [email protected]Google Scholar
20Brillat-Savarin, J. In: Fisher, M, trans. The Physiology of Taste. Or, Meditations on Transcendental Gastronomy. Washington, DC: Counterpoint, 1999.Google Scholar
21Skidelsky, R. John Maynard Keynes. Economist, Philosopher, Statesman. London: Macmillan, 2003.Google Scholar
22Monbiot, G. The Age of Consent. A Manifesto for a New World Order. London: Flamingo, 2003.Google Scholar
23Stiglitz, J. Globalization and its Discontents. London: Allen Lane, 2002.Google Scholar
24Soros, G. George Soros on Globalization. Oxford: Public Affairs, 2002.Google Scholar
25Hardt, M, Negri, A. Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
26Magdoff, H. Imperialism without Colonies. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2003.Google Scholar
27Phillips, K. American Dynasty. Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush. New York: Viking, 2004.Google Scholar
28Johnson, C. Blowback. The Costs and Consequences of American Empire. New York: Henry Holt, 2000.Google Scholar
29US Department of Health and Human Services. Blueprint for Action on Breastfeeding. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2000. Also available at www.cdc.gov/breastfeeding.Google Scholar
30 Available at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/ris/24236.htmGoogle Scholar
31 US Department of Health and Human Services. Requests for changes in the WHO global strategy ‘inal’ draft of 25 09 2003. Letter to WHO. Undated, Unpublished. Available from this writer.Google Scholar
32 US Department of Health and Human Services. Letter to WHO Director-General, 5 01 2004. Unpublished. Available at www.commercialalert.org.Google Scholar
33 Statements from 52 members states on the Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health. Available at www.who.int.hprGoogle Scholar
34Blum, W. Rogue State. A Guide to the World's Only Superpower. London: Zed, 2000.Google Scholar
35Johnson, C. The Sorrows of Empire. Militarism, Secrecy and the End of the Republic. New York: Henry Holt, 2004.Google Scholar
36Smith, N.. American Empire. Roosevelt's Geographer and the Prelude to Globalization. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 2003.Google Scholar
37Zimmerman, W. First Great Triumph. How Five Americans made their Country a World Power. New York: Farrar, Straus Giroux, 2002.Google Scholar
38Davis, M. Late Victorian Holocausts. El Nino Famines and the Making of the Third World. London: Verso, 2001.Google Scholar
39Mintz, S. Sweetness and Power. The Place of Sugar in Modern History. London: Viking Penguin, 1985.Google Scholar
40Revill, J, Harris, P. US sugar barons ‘block global war on obesity’. The Observer, 18 01 2004.Google Scholar
41 International Sugar Association. Joint WHO/FAO technical report on: ‘Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases’. Memorandum (04)05 from the Executive Director. Unpublished. Available from this writer.Google Scholar
42 Sugar Association. Sound science and prospects for sugar consumption. Presentation to the Agricultural Outlook Forum, 28 01 2004. Available from this writer.Google Scholar
43UK Department of Health. Nutritional Aspects of Cardiovascular Disease. Report of the Cardiovascular Review Group, Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy. London: HMSO, 1994.Google Scholar
44Cannon, G. The Politics of Food. London: Century, 1987.Google Scholar
45 World Bank. Sugar Policies: Opertunities for Change . World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3222, 02 2004. Available at www.econ.worldbank.orgGoogle Scholar
46Margetts, B. Editorial. Public Health Nutrition 2004; 7(3): 361–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed