Articles

 

• create new profile

    Print this Page Email this Page

WLF Assesses the Impact of the UN High-Level Meeting on Non-Communicable Diseases: Part 1 of 2

Rebecca Perl, Associate Director of Communications and Special Projects

Can you tell us something about WLF’s activities that week? What was it like being around all the UN activity?

The week of the UN’s High-Level Meeting was a very exciting time to be in New York. Even for me, a completely jaded New Yorker! There was a real buzz around; it was thrilling to be a part of it. That week, WLF attended 17 events in four days, including a four-day workshop on new media, and a two-day event at the New York Academy of Medicine. Also that week we:

Everyone on staff had a role in our NCD work.

Were there any notable successes which resulted from the summit?

I think, overall, the meeting was a win—a big, tremendous win. We got NCDs on the global map, and they’re not going to go away. That’s a very big deal.

Also, in general, tobacco control fared quite well in the outcome—and there are a couple of reasons for that. One reason is that we know tobacco control is an effective tool; there are a lot of studies to support that. [Tobacco control] is also relatively inexpensive, cost-effective, and tobacco control advocates have considerable experience with global treaties because of the FCTC (Framework Convention on Tobacco Control). When it comes to tobacco, we know the situation, we know what can be done, and we know the most effective tools to use. And that was an imporatant outcome because reducing tobacco use reduces the occurrence of all four of the major NCDS—diabetes, cancer, heart disease and lung disease.

Another victory was the inclusion of language about the problem of inefficient cookstoves. Nearly three billion people in the world cook by burning wood, grass, or dung over an open fire in the home. ] Inefficient cookstoves have a tremendously detrimental effect on respiratory disease rates—particularly among women and children, who are the ones at home involved in the cooking. We also saw some important recognition that NCDs are a development problem; they’re a problem of poverty. You have to deal with that issue if you’re going to fight NCDs.

Were there any notable disappointments ?

We certainly didn’t get everything we wanted—no luck on targets, real funding mechanisms, allowing countries to purchase much needed drugs at generic prices—but overall, it was still a victory.

There was a lot of concern, as we headed toward the summit, about industry influence. Do you think that will continue to be an issue, going forward?

Well, it’s ultimately going to need to be dealt with—there’s disagreement within the advocacy community about how we handle the role of industry. We know we don’t want to welcome the tobacco industry, but do we welcome the food industry with open arms? What about Pepsico, Coke, the alcohol industry? They want a seat at the table, and the WHO has suggested they can have that seat, [saying that] a problem of this scale will take all comers. But there are strong feelings, amongst some advocates, that these industries are part of the problem. While I believe they should have a role, I think we have to figure out what that role is and review the record of their past behavior.

You’ve previously written about the food industry’s troubling role in determining public policy; many representatives from those industries attended the summit. What role did you see them playing?

They were attending, they had side events, and they were allowed to speak up. I think they were trying to make a big show of all of the good things they’ve done. I think some companies have done some good things—but (for instance), I went to an event where Coke was on the panel, and the industry representative got up and talked about all of the good things that they’re doing, like taking salt and fat out of products, but they didn’t mention sugar. Sugar is the 800-pound gorilla in the room. I’ve seen this sort of behavior more than once. The International Food and Beverage industry, which represents leading international food companies, talked about how they’re encouraging exercise—which is great, but how about making the foods they sell healthier?

They’re trying to get out in front of potential legislation; they’re calling, instead, for voluntary regulation. Tobacco advocates, like myself, feel strongly cautious about industry’s role because we’ve seen the same tricks used by the tobacco industry: calling for ‘voluntary targets’ and trying to create goodwill (and thus buy influence) by investing in the arts. I’ve heard non-profits health organizations who take money from the food industry say “Well, we’re not influenced by it”—but I wonder about that. Politicians say the same thing.

What are some challenges that await in the continuing fight against NCDs, and how did the summit help in that fight?

One of the next big challenges facing us is that there were no targets, unfortunately, included in the final document—although there is language that states that within the next year, they will create targets. So that will be the next push: trying to create targets for tobacco and for NCDs generally—perhaps for things like asthma, salt and fats and sugars as well.

Fortunately, in 2014, there will be a review process—so in the next two years, we’ll be able to reflect on lessons learned, and reassess how we can move ahead. We’ll also be trying to include NCDs as part of the Millennium Development Goals effort between now and 2015.

[The UN meeting] was a big step. Now, advocates for public health can go back to countries and say, “Okay, your country agreed to this at the UN—so you need to start working on these issues!” That’s a great tool for us.