How Private Companies are Transforming the Global Public Health Agenda | Foreign Affairs
(too old to reply)
Sid Shniad
2014-10-12 21:55:35 UTC
Raw Message
Affairs November 9, 2011How Private Companies are Transforming the
Global Public Health Agenda*

*The companies most active in global health projects today hail from a
narrow range of industries, many of which are under fire for their negative
impact on public health. These private firms are playing a double game:
disrupting local communities with one hand and writing big checks to
ostensibly help them with the other. Often, their core financial interests
are directly at odds with the business of improving the health of the poor,
in ways that are distorting the global health agenda.Sonia Shah*

*SONIA SHAH is a science journalist. Her most recent book is The Fever: How
Malaria has Ruled Humankind for 500,000 Years.*

During the 1970s and 1980s, the World Health Organization and other global
health leaders often strove to improve the health of the world’s poor by
targeting private sector excesses. They imposed restrictions, codes, and
“ethical criteria” on the marketing of infant formula, pesticides, and
tobacco, unnerving executives and stifling business plans. Success hinged
on the cooperation of local governments, but where policymakers implemented
recommendations they achieved real results. Breastfeeding rates rose,
pesticide poisonings fell, and tobacco consumption declined.

Since then, the global health establishment has been turned on its head.
Over the last two decades, the private sector has emerged as the world’s
top source of financing and leadership in the fight against deadly disease.
The resources of some of the private industry players involved in global
health today dwarf those of the WHO. Groups such as the Global Business
Coalition aim to turn “business assets into disease-fighting assets”; the
GBC boasts a membership of nearly 200 companies, including multinationals
such as Coca-Cola, Exxon Mobil, and Pfizer. Why the interest? Firms are
responding to local demands for corporate social responsibility, but they
also have come to realize, as they look to emerging markets for future
growth, that underwriting public health is a long-term investment. As
development economist Daniel Altman recently explained, in a global
economy, “these people are your consumers, your workers, your investors.”
Several former WHO officials now work on public health issues for private
industry. Most telling is the fact that voluntary contributions from
private interests and others now bankroll four out of every five dollars of
the WHO’s budget.

The problem is that the companies most active in global health projects
today hail from a narrow range of industries, many of which are under fire
for their negative impact on public health. These private firms are playing
a double game: disrupting local communities with one hand and writing big
checks to ostensibly help them with the other. Often, their core financial
interests are directly at odds with the business of improving the health of
the poor, in ways that are distorting the global health agenda.

The extractive industry is a prime example. The mining industry, which
includes oil and gas firms, has been at the forefront of many prominent
global health projects. This year, the GBC handed out awards to six
companies for their achievements. Mining multinational Rio Tinto was lauded
for its anti-malaria work in Equatorial Guinea. The mining giant Gold
Fields Limited was praised for HIV prevention efforts in Ghana. Anglo
American has been widely praised in global health circles for providing
free antiretroviral therapy to its HIV positive workers in Africa; its
former chairman co-chairs the GBC. And ExxonMobil now contributes more
money to fight malaria than any company outside the pharmaceutical industry.

But by its nature the mining industry’s core business of extracting natural
resources is a disruptive process. Accordingly, these firms come to work on
public health with blemishes on their reputations. Rio Tinto boasts
successes against malaria in Equatorial Guinea, but in Papua New Guinea,
the company dumped billions of tons of toxic wastes and was complicit in
repressive violence that led to over 10,000 deaths, according to a class-action
suit <http://www.hbsslaw.com/cases-and-investigations/rio_tinto_lawsuit>
filed in 2000. Gold Fields has reduced sexually transmitted infections by
its mineworkers in Ghana by 90 percent since 2004, but local NGOs and
experts report <http://www2.lwr.kth.se/Publikationer/PDF_Files/MFS_Lund.pdf>
that its operations there have contaminated waterways with dangerously high
concentrations of heavy metals, depriving local villages of drinking and
irrigation water. Anglo American plays a leadership role in global health
circles, but a former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has called the
company’s exploitation of land and water around mines in Ghana a “violation
of communities’ right to maintain a sustainable livelihood.”

These examples speak to more widespread environmental disruptions committed
across the mining industry: in Nigeria’s oil-rich Niger delta, for
instance, oil companies -- including ExxonMobil -- contaminated local
waterways and fishing grounds with more than 2.4 million barrels of spilled
oil between 1976 and 1996, according to Nigerian government analyses. After
the oil companies launched community development programs to stanch
criticism, the anti-poverty charity Christian Aid called the Niger delta a
“veritable graveyard of [such] projects, including water systems that do
not work, health centers that have never opened and schools where no lesson
has ever been taught.”

Soft-drink and snack companies have also moved to the forefront of key
global health initiatives, in particular the fight against non-communicable
diseases. NCDs, which include afflictions such as cardiovascular disease
and diabetes, now cause more than half of all deaths in poor and
middle-income counties. They have vaulted to the top of the global health
agenda -- the UN made them a signature issue during this year’s General
Assembly. Through an association called the International Food and Beverage
Alliance, the world’s largest processed food and drink companies --
including Nestle, PepsiCo, Kraft, and others -- actively participated in
negotiations leading up to the summit in September, sitting in on
ministerial meetings and chairing working groups.⁠ The director of global
health policy at PepsiCo, Derek Yach, helped shape industry’s prominent
role. Yach was a UN official -- executive director of non-communicable
diseases at the WHO -- before he moved to the private sector in 2007.

Here fundamental business interests collide with global health concerns,
too. Soft-drink and snack companies make a living by reducing whole foods
into easy-to-manufacture processed ones -- the kinds of foods that increase
the risk of developing NCDs. To maintain their financial health, these
firms need to sell more of their products in the very countries where NCD
deaths are rising. With sales in developed countries flat, the industry now
relies on increasing revenues in emerging markets to sustain future growth.
Between 1982 and 2000, U.S. companies quadrupled their investments in
overseas food processing companies, and sales of processed foods overseas
grew from $39.2 billion to $150 billion.⁠ The average Mexican now consumes
nearly 30 gallons of Coca-Cola drinks every year, more than the average
American. Rates of NCDs have risen accordingly

The industry most involved in global health initiatives is undoubtedly the
drug industry. Novartis donates drugs to the WHO to fight leprosy and
develops new vaccines for dengue and tuberculosis. Merck and Pfizer have
made important drug donations to tackle diseases such as onchocerciasis and
trachoma. But big pharma is in a similarly complicated position. The most
effective global health interventions undermine their core business, which
is selling brand-name drugs at premium prices. That’s why Novartis is
currently attempting to weaken India’s patent laws in ways that the aid
group Médecins Sans FrontiÚres says will have a “devastating impact” on the
poor’s access to medicine. In 1998, 39 top drug companies sued the South
African government for implementing a law designed to make antiretroviral
drugs more accessible to poor people dying of AIDS.

It’s not that the WHO and other public sector leaders fail to recognize
their new partners’ conflicts. The fact is they have nowhere else to turn.
In 1950, the WHO’s budget derived from assessed dues on member nations.
Over the past few decades, that financing stream has run dry. In reaction
to the perceived politicization of UN organizations such as UNESCO and the
WHO, major UN donors introduced a policy of zero real growth to the UN
system’s budgets in 1980 and of zero nominal growth in 1993.

Starved of public financing, the WHO has had to rely upon voluntary
contributions from donor countries, private philanthropies, companies, and
NGOs. Unlike funds from assessed dues, individual donors can earmark
“extrabudgetary” monies for whatever specific purpose they like, thus
circumventing WHO control. In 1970, these private contributions constituted
a quarter of the agency’s budget. By 2008, they constituted nearly 80
percent. Thus it is now the private donors, not the WHO, who can call the
shots in Geneva, and thereby shape the global health agenda.

Their influence is clear. The WHO allocates its regular budget to the
diseases that account for the most mortality around the world.
Extrabudgetary funds, in contrast, support different interests. According
to an analysis of the agency’s 2004-05 budget, 91 percent of the WHO’s
extrabudgetary funds were earmarked for diseases that account for just 8
percent of global mortality. Given the dominance of extrabudgetary funds in
the WHO’s overall expenditures, the WHO ended up spending 60 percent of its
funds on illnesses that account for just 11 percent of global mortality. A
substantial portion went toward developing vaccines for infectious
diseases, which are in line with private industry’s general preference for
expensive, high-tech research over cheap, low-tech prevention. It’s hard to
see how such a misalignment between the needs of the world’s sick and the
distribution of WHO’s funds helps the agency meet its core mission.

This is not to say that the world’s poorest and sickest do not need the
attention of the mining industry and fast-food makers. Voluntary
commitments from food processing companies have taken hundreds of thousands
of tons of sugar, salt, and fat out of popular products. Since 2004, Nestle
has reduced the amount salt in its products by more than 6,800 tons, and
sugar by more than 290,000 tons.⁠ Thanks largely to private-sector
involvement, external financing for the fight against malaria has
skyrocketed, from about $100 million a year in 1998 to over $1 billion by
2008. While their current dominance over the global health agenda is
counterproductive, these companies need to be at the table, despite their
conflicts of interest.

Nor would it be feasible, in today’s world of increasing privatization, to
go back to the old model in which the public sector subjects the rest of
the world to its global health edicts. Rather, private sector involvement
should be expanded to include those companies whose financial interests
directly align with those of global health. In addition to mining
companies, the fight against malaria could, for example, include insurance
companies and tourism operators who will reap long-term profits from
healthier customers and less fearful tourists. Similarly, the battle
against NCDs could enlist the participation of local farmers and ranchers
whose businesses will grow more nutritious, locally sourced whole foods and
sell them to more people. Private companies like these, with health-aligned
business interests, are much more likely to realize the promise of
private-public partnerships than those that have damages to hide.

So far, these other players have largely stayed on the sidelines, and there
has been little discernible effort to change that. Cash-strapped for too
long, many global health advocates are basking in the resources from their
wealthy new private sector partners. But to set the global health agenda
right, they’ll need to spend some of those resources reaching out to new
companies and industries with compatible concerns, even if those companies
don’t sign big checks. With a wider base of private sector donors
supporting it, the WHO -- still an unparalleled source of public health
expertise and uniquely accountable to the international community -- could
re-establish its authority over the global health agenda, not to mention
its own budget.

*Research support was provided by the Investigative Fund at The Nation
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sid-l" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sid-l+***@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.