Towards Preventing and Managing Conflict of Interest in Nutrition Policy? An Analysis of Submissions to a Consultation on a Draft WHO Tool

Document Type: Original Article

Authors

1 Global Health Policy Unit, Social Policy, School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

2 SPECTRUM Consortium (Shaping Public Health Policies to Reduce Inequalities and Harm), London, UK

3 Department of Noncommunicable Diseases and Mental Health, Pan-American Health Organization/World Health Organization, Washington, DC, USA

Abstract

Background
With multi-stakeholder approaches central to efforts to address global health challenges, debates around conflict of interest (COI) are increasingly prominent. The World Health Organization (WHO) recently developed a proposed tool to support member states in preventing and managing COI in nutrition policy. We analysed responses to an online consultation to explore how actors from across sectors understand COI and the ways in which they use this concept to frame the terms of commercial sector engagement in health governance.

 
Methods
Submissions from 44 Member States, international organisations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), academic institutions and commercial sector actors were coded using a thematic framework informed by framing theory. Respondents’ orientation to the tool aligned with two broad frames, ie, a ‘collaboration and partnership’ frame that endorsed multi-stakeholder approaches and a ‘restricted engagement’ frame that highlighted core tensions between public health and food industry actors.

 
Results
Responses to the WHO tool reflected contrasting conceptualisations of COI and implications for health governance. While most Member States, NGOs, and academic institutions strongly supported the tool, commercial sector organisations depicted it as inappropriate, unworkable and incompatible with the Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs). Commercial sector respondents advanced a narrow, individual-level understanding of COI, seen as adequately addressed by existing mechanisms for disclosure, and viewed the WHO tool as unduly restricting scope for private sector engagement in nutrition policy. In contrast, health-focused NGOs and several Member States drew on a more expansive understanding of COI that recognised scope for wider tensions between public health goals and commercial interests and associated governance challenges. These submissions mostly welcomed the tool as an innovative approach to preventing and managing such conflicts, although some NGOs sought broader exclusion of corporate actors from policy engagement.

 
Conclusion
Submissions on the WHO tool illustrate how contrasting positions on COI are central to understanding broader debates in nutrition policy and across global health governance. Effective health governance requires greater understanding of how COI can be conceptualised and managed amid high levels of contestation on policy engagement with commercial sector actors. This requires both ongoing innovation in governance tools and more extensive conceptual and empirical research.

Keywords


  1. Moodie R, Stuckler D, Monteiro C, et al. Profits and pandemics: prevention of harmful effects of tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food and drink industries. Lancet. 2013;381(9867):670-679. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(12)62089-3
  2. Kickbusch I, Allen L, Franz C. The commercial determinants of health. Lancet Glob Health. 2016;4(12):e895-e896. doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(16)30217-0
  3. Hernandez-Aguado I, Zaragoza GA. Support of public-private partnerships in health promotion and conflicts of interest. BMJ Open. 2016;6(4):e009342. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009342
  4. Ruckert A, Labonté R. Public–private partnerships (PPPs) in global health: the good, the bad and the ugly. Third World Q. 2014;35(9):1598-1614. doi:10.1080/01436597.2014.970870
  5. Monterrosa EC, Campirano F, Tolentino Mayo L, et al. Stakeholder perspectives on national policy for regulating the school food environment in Mexico. Health Policy Plan. 2015;30(1):28-38. doi:10.1093/heapol/czt094
  6. Knai C, Petticrew M, Durand MA, et al. Has a public–private partnership resulted in action on healthier diets in England? an analysis of the public health responsibility deal food pledges. Food Policy. 2015;54:1-10. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.04.002
  7. Jones A, Magnusson R, Swinburn B, et al. Designing a healthy food partnership: lessons from the Australian food and health dialogue. BMC Public Health. 2016;16:651. doi:10.1186/s12889-016-3302-8
  8. Collin J, Hill SE, Kandlik Eltanani M, Plotnikova E, Ralston R, Smith KE. Can public health reconcile profits and pandemics? An analysis of attitudes to commercial sector engagement in health policy and research. PLoS One. 2017;12(9):e0182612. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0182612
  9. Richter J. WHO reform and public interest safeguards: an historical perspective. Soc Med. 2012;6(3):141-150.
  10. Buse K, Hawkes S. Sitting on the FENSA: WHO engagement with industry. Lancet. 2016;388(10043):446-447. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(16)31141-2
  11. Brown K, Rundall P, Lobstein T, Mwatsana M, Jeffery B. Open letter to WHO DG candidates: keep policy and priority setting free of commercial influence. Lancet. 2017;389(10082):1879. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)31146-7
  12. Cullerton K, Adams J, Francis O, Forouhi N, White M. Building consensus on interactions between population health researchers and the food industry: Two-stage, online, international Delphi study and stakeholder survey. PLoS One. 2019;14(8):e0221250. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0221250
  13. Hawkes C, Buse K. Public health sector and food industry interaction: it's time to clarify the term 'partnership' and be honest about underlying interests. Eur J Public Health. 2011;21(4):400-401. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckr077
  14. World Health Organization (WHO). Comprehensive Implementation Plan on Maternal, Infant and Young Child Nutrition. Geneva: WHO; 2014.
  15. Bäckstrand K, Kylsäter M. Old wine in new bottles? the legitimation and delegitimation of UN public–private partnerships for sustainable development from the Johannesburg Summit to the Rio+20 Summit. Globalizations. 2014;11(3):331-347. doi:10.1080/14747731.2014.892398
  16. United Nations. United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/.  Accessed August 20, 2019. Published 2016.
  17. World Health Assembly. Third report of Committee A (Draft) A67/65. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014.
  18. World Health Organization (WHO). Addressing and Managing Conflicts of Interest in the Planning and Delivery of Nutrition Programmes at Country Level. Report of a technical consultation convened in Geneva, Switzerland, on 8-9 October 2015. Geneva: WHO; 2016.
  19. World Health Organization (WHO). Safeguarding Against Possible Conflicts of Interest in Nutrition Programmes. Draft approach for the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in the policy development and implementation of nutrition programmes at country level: Introductory Paper. Geneva: WHO; 2017. https://www.who.int/nutrition/consultation-doi/nutrition-introductory-paper-1stversion.pdf.
  20. World Health Organization (WHO). Safeguarding Against Possible Conflicts of Interest in Nutrition Programmes: Draft approach for the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in the policy development and implementation of nutrition programmes at country level. Geneva: WHO; 2017. https://www.who.int/nutrition/consultation-doi/Discussion-paper-nutrition.pdf.
  21. World Health Organization (WHO). Safeguarding Against Possible Conflicts of Interest in Nutrition Programmes. Draft approach for the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in the policy development and implementation of nutrition programmes at country level: Proposed Decision-Making Process and Tool. Geneva: WHO; 2017. https://www.who.int/nutrition/consultation-doi/nutrition-tool-1stversion.pdf?ua=1.
  22. World Health Organization (WHO). Safeguarding Against Possible Conflicts of Interest in Nutrition Programmes. Draft approach on the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in the policy development and implementation of nutrition programmes at country level: Introductory Paper. Geneva: WHO; 2017. https://www.who.int/nutrition/consultation-doi/nutrition-introductory-paper.pdf.
  23. World Health Organization (WHO). Safeguarding Against Possible Conflicts of Interest in Nutrition Programmes. Report by the Director General on the Draft approach for the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in the policy development and implementation of nutrition programmes at country level. Geneva: WHO; 2017. http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB142/B142_23-en.pdf?ua=1.
  24. World Health Organization (WHO). Safeguarding Against Possible Conflicts of Interest in Nutrition Programmes. Draft approach on the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in the policy development and implementation of nutrition programmes at country level: Proposed Decision-Making Process and Tool. Geneva: WHO; 2017. https://www.who.int/nutrition/consultation-doi/nutrition-tool.pdf?ua=1.
  25. Collin J. Tobacco control, global health policy and development: towards policy coherence in global governance. Tob Control. 2012;21(2):274-280. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050418
  26. Fooks GJ, Smith J, Lee K, Holden C. Controlling corporate influence in health policy making? an assessment of the implementation of article 5.3 of the World Health Organization framework convention on tobacco control. Global Health. 2017;13(1):12. doi:10.1186/s12992-017-0234-8
  27. Townsend B, Schram A, Baum F, Labonté R, Friel S. How does policy framing enable or constrain inclusion of social determinants of health and health equity on trade policy agendas? Crit Public Health. 2020;30(1):115-126. doi:10.1080/09581596.2018.1509059
  28. Hawkins B, Holden C. Framing the alcohol policy debate: industry actors and the regulation of the UK beverage alcohol market. Crit Policy Stud. 2013;7(1):53-71. doi:10.1080/19460171.2013.766023
  29. Smith KE. Understanding the influence of evidence in public health policy: what can we learn from the ‘tobacco wars’? Soc Policy Adm. 2013;47(4):382-398. doi:10.1111/spol.12025
  30. Jenkin GL, Signal L, Thomson G. Framing obesity: the framing contest between industry and public health at the New Zealand inquiry into obesity. Obes Rev. 2011;12(12):1022-1030. doi:10.1111/j.1467-789X.2011.00918.x
  31. Weiss JA. The powers of problem definition: the case of government paperwork. Policy Sci. 1989;22(2):97-121. doi:10.1007/BF00141381
  32. Private Sector Mechanism to the UN Committee on World Food Security. Feedback on the draft “Approach on the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in the policy development and implementation of nutrition programmes at country level” (version dated September 11, 2017). https://www.who.int/nutrition/consultation-doi/private_sector_un_mechanism_cfs.pdf. Published 2017.
  33. Food Industry Asia (FIA). Feedback on the draft “Approach on the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in the policy development and implementation of nutrition programmes at country level” (version dated September 11, 2017). https://www.who.int/nutrition/consultation-doi/food_industry_asia.pdf. Published 2017
  34. United States of America. Feedback on the draft “Approach on the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in the policy development and implementation of nutrition programmes at country level” (version dated September 11, 2017). https://www.who.int/nutrition/consultation-doi/united_states.pdf. Published 2017.
  35. Federalimentare - Italian Food & Drink Industry Federation. Feedback on the draft “Approach on the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in the policy development and implementation of nutrition programmes at country level” (version dated September 11, 2017). https://www.who.int/nutrition/consultation-doi/italian_food-drink_industry_federation.pdf. Published 2017.
  36. International Food and Beverage Alliance. Feedback on the draft “Approach on the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in the policy development and implementation of nutrition programmes at country level” (version dated September 11, 2017). https://www.who.int/nutrition/consultation-doi/international_food_and_beverage_alliance.pdf. Accessed September 5, 2019. Published 2017.
  37. Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), United States of America. Feedback on the draft “Approach on the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in the policy development and implementation of nutrition programmes at country level” (version dated September 11, 2017). https://www.who.int/nutrition/consultation-doi/grocery_manufacturers_association_united_states_of_america.pdf. Published 2017.
  38. The International Council of Beverages Associations (ICBA). Feedback on the draft “Approach on the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in the policy development and implementation of nutrition programmes at country level” (version dated September 11, 2017). https://www.who.int/nutrition/consultation-doi/international_council_of_beverages_associations.pdf. Published 2017.
  39. Alliance for Food and Health (AFH). Feedback on the draft “Approach on the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in the policy development and implementation of nutrition programmes at country level” (version dated September 11, 2017). https://www.who.int/nutrition/consultation-doi/alliance_for_food_and_health.pdf. Published 2017.
  40. International Dairy Federation (IDF). Feedback on the draft “Approach on the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in the policy development and implementation of nutrition programmes at country level” (version dated September 11, 2017). https://www.who.int/nutrition/consultation-doi/international_dairy_federation.pdf.
  41. Global Dairy Platform. Feedback on the draft “Approach on the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in the policy development and implementation of nutrition programmes at country level” (version dated September 11, 2017). https://www.who.int/nutrition/consultation-doi/global_dairy_platform.pdf.
  42. Lo B, Field MJ. Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. Washington DC: National Academies Press; 2009.
  43. Thompson DF. Understanding financial conflicts of interest. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(8):573-576. doi:10.1056/nejm199308193290812
  44. Rowe S, Alexander N, Weaver CM, et al. How experts are chosen to inform public policy: can the process be improved? Health Policy. 2013;112(3):172-178. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.01.012
  45. Alexander N, Rowe S, Brackett RE, et al. Achieving a transparent, actionable framework for public-private partnerships for food and nutrition research. Am J Clin Nutr. 2015;101(6):1359-1363. doi:10.3945/ajcn.115.112805
  46. Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Secretariat. Feedback on the draft “Approach on the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in the policy development and implementation of nutrition programmes at country level” (version dated September 11, 2017). https://www.who.int/nutrition/consultation-doi/sun_secretariat.pdf.
  47. Brazil. Feedback on the draft “Approach on the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in the policy development and implementation of nutrition programmes at country level” (version dated September 11, 2017). https://www.who.int/nutrition/consultation-doi/brazil.pdf.
  48. Colombia. Feedback on the draft “Approach on the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in the policy development and implementation of nutrition programmes at country level” (version dated September 11, 2017). https://www.who.int/nutrition/consultation-doi/colombia.pdf.
  49. Namibia. Feedback on the draft “Approach on the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in the policy development and implementation of nutrition programmes at country level” (version dated September 11, 2017). https://www.who.int/nutrition/consultation-doi/namibia.pdf.
  50. Canada. Feedback on the draft “Approach on the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in the policy development and implementation of nutrition programmes at country level” (version dated September 11, 2017). https://www.who.int/nutrition/consultation-doi/canada.pdf. Published 2017.
  51. Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Feedback on the draft “Approach on the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in the policy development and implementation of nutrition programmes at country level” (version dated September 11, 2017). https://www.who.int/nutrition/consultation-doi/oecd.pdf. Published 2017.
  52. Centre for Health Science and Law. Feedback on the draft “Approach on the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in the policy development and implementation of nutrition programmes at country level” (version dated September 11, 2017). https://www.who.int/nutrition/consultation-doi/centre_for_health_science_and_law.pdf. Published 2017.
  53. University of Sydney. Feedback on the draft “Approach on the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in the policy development and implementation of nutrition programmes at country level” (version dated September 11, 2017). https://www.who.int/nutrition/consultation-doi/university_of_sydney_australia.pdf.
  54. International Baby Food Action Network. Feedback on the draft “Approach on the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in the policy development and implementation of nutrition programmes at country level” (version dated September 11, 2017). https://www.who.int/nutrition/consultation-doi/ibfan.pdf.
  55. Healthy Latin America Coalition. Feedback on the draft “Approach on the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in the policy development and implementation of nutrition programmes at country level” (version dated September 11, 2017). https://www.who.int/nutrition/consultation-doi/healthy_latin_america_coalition_.pdf. Published 2017.
  56. University of Cambridge. Feedback on the draft “Approach on the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in the policy development and implementation of nutrition programmes at country level” (version dated September 11, 2017). https://www.who.int/nutrition/consultation-doi/university_of_cambridge_uk.pdf.
  57. European Public Health Alliance. Feedback on the draft “Approach on the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in the policy development and implementation of nutrition programmes at country level” (version dated September 11, 2017). https://www.who.int/nutrition/consultation-doi/european_public_health_alliance.pdf.
  58. World Public Health Nutrition Association. Feedback on the draft “Approach on the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in the policy development and implementation of nutrition programmes at country level” (version dated September 11, 2017). https://www.who.int/nutrition/consultation-doi/world_public_health_nutrition_association.pdf.
  59. Geneva Infant Feeding Association. Feedback on the draft “Approach on the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in the policy development and implementation of nutrition programmes at country level” (version dated September 11, 2017). https://www.who.int/nutrition/consultation-doi/gifa.pdf.
  60. Peters A, Handschin L. Conflict of Interest in Global, Public and Corporate Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012:489.
  61. United Nations. United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 17.4. https://stats.unctad.org/Dgff2016/partnership/goal17/target_17_4.html.  Accessed September 5, 2019. Published 2017.
  62. Collin J, Casswell S. Alcohol and the Sustainable Development Goals. Lancet. 2016;387(10038):2582-2583. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(16)30827-3
  63. World Health Organization (WHO). Executive Board 142/1 Agenda. Geneva: WHO; 2018. http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB142/B142_1Rev1-en.pdf.
  64. World Health Organization (WHO). Informal Technical Member State Consultation: Risk assessment and management tools for safeguarding against potential conflicts of interest in nutrition. https://www.who.int/nutrition/events/2019-memberstates-consultation-COI-4Feb-report.pdf?ua=1. Published 2019.
  65. World Bank. World Bank Country and Lending Groups. Washington DC: World Bank; 2019.
  66. Ministry of Health of Brazil. Methodology Developed for Piloting the WHO Draft Tool in Brazil. Ministry of Health of Brazil; 2019.
  67. Freudenberg N. Defining appropriate roles for corporations in public health research and practice. Am J Public Health. 2018;108(11):1440-1441. doi:10.2105/ajph.2018.304714
  68. Cullerton K, Adams J, Forouhi N, Francis O, White M. What principles should guide interactions between population health researchers and the food industry? systematic scoping review of peer-reviewed and grey literature. Obes Rev. 2019;20(8):1073-1084. doi:10.1111/obr.12851