New Delhi:
A new initiative called Access to Nutrition Index - sponsored by the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) and the Gates Foundation has been slammed by critics as a whitewash.
GAIN is a new type of public private entity which claims to work to tackle malnutrition - but Patti Rundall and Dr Arun Gupta Co-Chairs of the International Baby Food Action Network, says its work seems to focus on opening up markets for its 600 partner companies (including Danone, the world’s second largest baby food company, Mars, Pepsi, and Coca Cola)
The report scores 25 of the world’s largest food and beverage manufacturers on the basis of their written policies and statements, rather than on independent monitoring of their actions on the ground. Experts in comparing company statements with their actual practices on the ground suggest it is not surprising to find the report rewards those with the biggest PR budgets, with the highest scores going to Danone, Unilever, Nestle, PepsiCo, and Kraft. The value of this investment in PR can be seen from media coverage of the report which presents these as the " best large firms worldwide when it comes to offering products that address both the problems of obesity and poor nutrition, says a new report.
It is a truism that the companies most criticised for harmful practices tend to spend the most time on Corporate Social Responsibility reporting - and the Corporate Critic database of critical stories reported by civil society groups cites Nestle as the company with 647 reports - far and away the highest number. Unilever had 362, Danone, 127, Pepsi 179 and Coca Cola 219.
Aside from being criticised for promoting high in fat salt and sugar, that contribute to the global rise in the global epidemic of obesity and chronic diseases such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes, Nestle and Danone are the worlds largest baby food companies - and both systematically violate the World Health Assembly Resolutions for baby foods, threatening child survival and health a fact that is acknowledged by the ATNI.
Critics suggest that one reason these companies do so well on this type of reporting is that the fulfilment of the ATNI criteria, for example on governance, corporate strategy, lobbying (engagement) of policy makers, can easily be achieved by describing company activities in an idealised misleading way. For example, lobbying against UN recommendations can easily be hidden if this takes place in social situations and behind closed doors. These companies aggressively lobby to ensure that regulations about marketing, labelling and nutritional quality remain weak, rather than protective of public health.
One of the ongoing struggles the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) has had with GAIN - a sponsor of the report - is its promotion of fortified foods for babies. Most recently at the 132nd WHO Executive Board (EB) Member States deferred GAIN’s application for official relations status as an NGO, questioning its links with food corporations and its lobbying tactics.
A new initiative called Access to Nutrition Index - sponsored by the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) and the Gates Foundation has been slammed by critics as a whitewash.
GAIN is a new type of public private entity which claims to work to tackle malnutrition - but Patti Rundall and Dr Arun Gupta Co-Chairs of the International Baby Food Action Network, says its work seems to focus on opening up markets for its 600 partner companies (including Danone, the world’s second largest baby food company, Mars, Pepsi, and Coca Cola)
The report scores 25 of the world’s largest food and beverage manufacturers on the basis of their written policies and statements, rather than on independent monitoring of their actions on the ground. Experts in comparing company statements with their actual practices on the ground suggest it is not surprising to find the report rewards those with the biggest PR budgets, with the highest scores going to Danone, Unilever, Nestle, PepsiCo, and Kraft. The value of this investment in PR can be seen from media coverage of the report which presents these as the " best large firms worldwide when it comes to offering products that address both the problems of obesity and poor nutrition, says a new report.
It is a truism that the companies most criticised for harmful practices tend to spend the most time on Corporate Social Responsibility reporting - and the Corporate Critic database of critical stories reported by civil society groups cites Nestle as the company with 647 reports - far and away the highest number. Unilever had 362, Danone, 127, Pepsi 179 and Coca Cola 219.
Aside from being criticised for promoting high in fat salt and sugar, that contribute to the global rise in the global epidemic of obesity and chronic diseases such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes, Nestle and Danone are the worlds largest baby food companies - and both systematically violate the World Health Assembly Resolutions for baby foods, threatening child survival and health a fact that is acknowledged by the ATNI.
Critics suggest that one reason these companies do so well on this type of reporting is that the fulfilment of the ATNI criteria, for example on governance, corporate strategy, lobbying (engagement) of policy makers, can easily be achieved by describing company activities in an idealised misleading way. For example, lobbying against UN recommendations can easily be hidden if this takes place in social situations and behind closed doors. These companies aggressively lobby to ensure that regulations about marketing, labelling and nutritional quality remain weak, rather than protective of public health.
One of the ongoing struggles the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) has had with GAIN - a sponsor of the report - is its promotion of fortified foods for babies. Most recently at the 132nd WHO Executive Board (EB) Member States deferred GAIN’s application for official relations status as an NGO, questioning its links with food corporations and its lobbying tactics.
No comments:
Post a Comment