"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"

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.

Ultra-Processed Profits: The Political Economy of Countering the Global Spread of Ultra-Processed Foods – A Synthesis Review on the Market and Political Practices of Transnational Food Corporations and Strategic Public Health Responses

“…In fact, they should learn from Big Food TNCs who, despite competing against each other in the marketplace, collaborate and pool organisational, financial, and human resources to undermine, delay, or stop effective public health action. 110 , 155 To increase their credibility, networks should partner with practitioners and researchers from a broad range of disciplines, including international agencies, bilateral aid agencies, philanthropists, 156 and journalists. 157 Additionally, there are many aligned and genuinely non-conflicted, non-health harming organisations which work in trade, poverty alleviation, environment and education as well as in the private sector that public health could partner with.…”