They will release an agreed declaration that is meant to pave the way to
reducing the number of premature deaths from non-communicable diseases – or NCDs
- the vast majority of which take place in poorer countries.
Yet, despite this enormous burden, rich countries, including Australia, are
joining forces with tobacco, food, alcohol and pharmaceutical corporations to
water down commitments that might flow from this meeting.
In the past nine months, governments, private industry groups, non-government
organisations and international bodies like the World Health Organization (WHO)
have held hundreds of meetings round the globe, jostling to shape the final
document to emerge from the UN meeting.
In the early stages, WHO and public interest groups hoped that agreements
on targets and commitments would provide the boost to mobilisation on NCDs that
a similar UN meeting achieved for HIV/AIDS a decade ago. This turned out to be
a rather naive and optimistic hope. Since the proposed policies include
smoke-free environments, restrictions on food marketing to children, increased
alcohol tax and the promotion of generic medicines those multinational
businesses see them as a threat to the sales of their products, and, as
experience has shown, they do not take that threat lightly.
In Europe the food industry spent €1 billion opposing proposals for
front-of-pack ''traffic light'' labels on their products.
The rich countries, particularly the US and European Union but also
Australia, Canada and New Zealand, are active accomplices in watering down the
draft UN statements.
Take for example a clause in earlier documents that related to what it calls
the ''development and implementation of cost-effective ways to reduce saturated,
transfats, salt and sugar in foods by discouraging the production and marketing
of unhealthy foods''.
With the help of Australia, Canada and US, that clause is now destined to be
excised from the final document.
A statement with commitments to tangible outcomes has long been tossed aside
and been replaced with a much weaker political statement with all targets and
accountability mechanisms removed.
The whole negotiation process has ground to a halt with the G77 group of low
and middle-income countries in one corner in a stand-off with the rich countries
and multinational companies in the other corner.
Where does Australia stand? Firstly, Australia has its own proud track
record on NCDs: smoking has plummeted to 15 per cent under a world-leading
tobacco control strategy; cardiovascular disease mortality has been reduced by
about 75 per cent in the past 40 years, and the Preventative Health Taskforce
has provided the blueprint for action on obesity, tobacco and alcohol.
If any country knows how to take a public health approach to reduce NCDs,
Australia does. In addition, Australia continues to lift its aid commitments
towards the target of 0.5 per cent of gross national income, so we are providing
foreign aid leadership as well.
This raises important questions: Why does Australia not support low-cost,
effective policies such as restricting junk food marketing to children in
Australia and globally?
Will Australia not support WHO's target of reducing the global preventable
NCD mortality rate by 25 per cent by 2025? Simply by implementing globally what
Australia has already achieved nationally in tobacco control would achieve this
target.
Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd recently met UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon and
I wrote to Rudd putting the case that Australia, with its track record, should
be a champion for reducing the NCD burden in poor countries because such
diseases are seriously impairing their economic and human development. We should
not be using our muscle power as rich nations to play bodyguard for
multinational corporate profits.
Rudd, himself, felt the sharp end of commercial vested interests as prime
minister in his failed attempt to impose a fair rent tax on mining super
profits. The mining magnates did not fancy sharing their super profits with the
rest of Australia and they mounted a multimillion-dollar campaign against the
policy, which proved to be the straw that broke the back of Rudd's
leadership.
Unfortunately, as in the case of the mining tax, this pattern of private
interests dictating public policies seems to be on the increase at both national
and global levels. Industry lobbying has become ever more sophisticated and
heavily financed and politicians have become ever more risk-averse and subject
to industry pressure.
If anyone can see the need for putting the ''public'' back into public
policy, it should be Rudd. And if any country can provide a global exemplar for
poorer countries to reduce NCDs, it should be Australia. So, rather than
opposing the poorer countries' efforts to improve their health, let's see
Australia show some positive leadership and humanity at the UN Meeting.
Boyd Swinburn is the Alfred Deakin Professor and director, WHO
Collaborating Centre for Obesity Prevention at Deakin
University.
