Second chance for governments to make history and agree to an Arms Trade Treaty

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

Cross posted from Oxfam

 

3.20

 

 

 

 

“Seeing young boys carrying AK-47’s, and young girls with their babies in one arm and a gun in the other was a frightening sight.”

Djimon Hounsou

Actor and Oxfam ambassador

 

 

Governments from over 190 member states have a second chance to make history this month by agreeing the first ever Arms Trade Treaty, a coalition of NGOs and human rights groups said.

 

Diplomats are meeting in New York for two weeks of negotiations at the United Nations, to agree an Arms Trade Treaty, which will control the international supply of arms and ammunition.

 

The Control Arms coalition, supported by Academy Award nominee Djimon Hounsou, urged diplomats to use the time effectively to close the massive loopholes in the current draft text and agree a treaty that will truly save lives.

 

In July 2012, member states were unable to reach agreement on the ATT after a number of countries including the US and Russia requested more time in the final hours of negotiations. Since July, there have been indications that some of those major exporters are more open to agreeing a treaty this time around.

 

Bring the arms trade under control

 

“It’s ‘crunch time’ in New York this week. The negotiations must successfully deliver a strong treaty text as the world can wait no longer for a global treaty to bring the arms trade under control. Too many unscrupulous regimes, militias, arms dealers and criminals can easily get their hands on dangerous weapons. Too many innocent civilians including teachers, doctors or children die as a result of the current situation. It’s now time to put an end to this and agree on robust and clear rules that will bring the trade of M16s, AK47s, attack helicopters and countless rounds of ammunition under control,” said Anna Macdonald, Oxfam’s Head of Arms Control.

 

“Seeing young boys carrying AK-47’s, and young girls with their babies in one arm and a gun in the other was a frightening sight, like something out of a Hollywood movie, but for me it was a painful reminder of what I myself could’ve become,” said Djimon Hounsou, Actor and Oxfam ambassador. “But it’s apparent that the people of South Sudan long for peace with both their brothers to the north and within their own borders.”

 

“It doesn’t solve every problem, but a strong Arms Trade Treaty on weapons and ammunition is not something we can question. It is something we must act upon; today,” continued Hounsou.

 

The Control Arms coalition said that the draft text from July 2012 contains many of the basic elements needed to better regulate the global arms trade. However, the campaigners say the text also includes a number of weaknesses which threaten to fatally undermine the treaty’s overall effectiveness.

 

Several weaknesses and loopholes

 

In its current form, Control Arms believes, the treaty does little to increase responsibility and restraint in the global arms trade. One major concern is that ammunition, a deadly trade worth more than $US4 billion annually, is covered by weaker provisions than other types of weapons.

 

“We cannot have a treaty that regulates the trade in arms but excludes one of the main causes of death: the bullets. Some conflicts in Africa have been prolonged because of the ability of combatants to reload. We need to regulate how ammunitions are transferred from the production line, to the end destination,” said Geoffrey Duke, National Coordinator of the South Sudan Action Network on Small Arms (SSANSA).

 

Another clause could exempt weapons transfers from the treaty if they are labeled as being part of a “national defence cooperation agreement”. This clause, introduced by India, would mean that transfers made under existing defence contracts, between Russia and Syria for example, would be allowed to stay outside of the jurisdiction of a future treaty.

 

Control Arms is also worried that the criteria that set out whether or not an arms transfer is permissible are too weak and contain loopholes that could allow some irresponsible deals to continue to slip through the net.

 

“These ‘escape clauses’ have been pushed by a vocal minority of states. They want a Swiss cheese Treaty, full of holes to continue their deadly trade with impunity. The majority of governments who are craving for a safer world must speak out and get the most robust ATT agreed in two weeks’ time,“ said Allison Pytlak, Campaign Manager at Control Arms.

 

Oxfam has also recently published a report Getting it Right: The pieces that matter for the Arms Trade Treaty

Spending on drugs slows due to increased use of generics but new price increases loom

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

Spending on prescription drugs nationwide has been slowing for years, reports the New York Times, because of the increasingly widespread use of low-cost generics. But in 2012, something unheard-of happened: money spent on prescription drugs actually dropped. But some are warning that the ever-expanding use of generics has masked a growing problem for the government, insurers and others who pay the bill for prescription drugs: the rising cost of complex specialty medicines that treat cancer, rheumatoid arthritis and other diseases.

Access to Nutrition Index: Corporate responsibility or opening markets?

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

A new initiative launched today called Access to Nutrition Index – sponsored by the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) (1) 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, Co-Chair 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).

A vicious circle: Declining sales lead gun and sugary beverage corporations to hypermarketing and hyperlobbying

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch
An ad for Bushmaster, Credit
An ad for Bushmaster, Credit 

 

A recent report in the New York Times found that the share of American households with guns has declined sharply over the last forty years. In the 1970s, an average of 50 percent of American households owned guns; by 2012 the proportion had fallen to 34 percent.

 

The decline in gun owner was most precipitous among younger Americans, reports the Times.  Household ownership of guns among elderly Americans remained virtually unchanged from the 1970s to this decade at about 43 percent, while ownership among Americans under the age of 30 fell to 23 percent this decade from 47 percent in the 1970s. The survey showed a similar decline for Americans ages 30 to 44.

 

Declining Soda Sales

Credit: New York Times
Credit: New York Times

As shown in the chart to the left, consumption of carbonated soft drinks, sugary and diet beverages associated with a variety of health problems, has also declined in the United States.  It fell from a high of 2.4  eight  ounce servings per week in 1998 to a low of  just under 2 in 2011, a drop in per capita consumption of about 16 percent since the peak in 1998, according to Beverage Digest, a trade publication.

 

Hypermarketing and Hyperlobbying

What’s the connection between the declines in these two very different legal but lethal products?  In both cases, demographic changes in the consumer market and public health campaigns contributed to decreased sales.  In both cases, the response of the industry was to amplify its marketing and lobbying campaigns in an effort to reverse these declines.

 

The gun industry stokes the apprehension that each mass shooting and each proposed gun safety measure may lead to the confiscation of the more than 300 million guns American own.  The NRA has learned that generating fear helps to sell guns, further strengthening  its alliance with the gun makers who help to fund it.  For the gun industry, declines in sales have led to new efforts to advertise to men (“Consider your man cared reissued”, says Bushmaster) and women. The New York Times described an advertisement by Colt in the 1990s that showed a mother tucking a child into bed — “Self-protection is more than your right … it’s your responsibility,” the ad said.

 

According to the Wall Street Journal, a prolonged drop in U.S. soda revenues would represent a serious blow to the beverage industry since soda represents nearly 25% of the U.S. beverage market.  For decades, its massive scale has also guaranteed profit margins for decades.  To counter the threat, PepsiCo has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in marketing to turn around its U.S. soda business after losing market share to Coke. In January, Coke launched new television ads this week to counter consumer concerns about obesity and moves by officials to restrict soda sales.

 

So here’s the problem:  public health successes in reducing demand for unhealthy or dangerous products leads industries to double down on marketing the unhealthy product in an effort to overcome declining sales.  This effort can take several forms. It can lead to increased advertising to the same market or to new market segments (e.g., youth, women, Blacks and Hispanics) that are seen to present opportunities for growth.  Or it can lead industries to take their unhealthy products overseas—the soda industry is hoping to restore global profits in China, India and elsewhere.  Finally, as we have seen with the gun and soda industries, the campaign to restore sales can lead to aggressive political efforts to discredit the science and public health messages that contribute to declining sales or to remove or water down regulations or taxes that might further discourage sales.

 

In these cases, corporations are simply fulfilling their mandate to maximize profits. For public health, however, this hypermarketing and hyperlobbying presents a “can’t win for losing” dilemma.  If our successes accelerate the very practices we seek to end, then perhaps we need to consider broader and deeper strategies for modifying the business and political practices that harm public health.

 

 

New report on tobacco industry efforts to undermine health in Latin America

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

A new report, issued in Spanish under the title “Health is non-negotiable; Civil society addresses the tobacco industry’s strategies in Latin America” describes the range of strategies the global tobacco industry  deploys to circumvent the restrictions imposed on cigarette advertising. The report was prepared by the Argentine and Mexican chapters of the Inter-American Heart Foundation (Fundación Interamericana del Corazón, FIC) and Brazil’s Alliance for the Control of Tobacco Use (Aliança de Controle do Tabagismo, ACT), among other organizations.

New York Times urges Bloomberg to pursue soda tax instead of portion size limitation

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

In an editorial, the New York Times urged Mayor Bloomberg  not to appeal a judge’s decision to reject the city’s proposed limitation on soda portion size and instead to pursue a penny-per ounce state tax on sugary drinks.  “Just as taxes helped cut the use of cigarettes,” argued the Times, “taxes could help cut the public’s indulgence in high-calorie, giant drinks.”

Retailer just says no to exploiting children

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

Cross posted from Corporate Accountability International

Sign at Mom's Organic Market
Sign at Mom’s Organic Market

 

As the frequent bearer of bad news about the food industry, I am thrilled to share a positive story. Last month, MOM’s Organic Market, a small retail chain based in the Baltimore area, announced it would stop carrying products featuring children’s cartoon characters:

 

Products ranging from Dora the Explorer frozen soybeans to Elmo juice boxes will be discontinued and replaced with organic alternatives in cartoon-free packaging.

 

Company CEO Scott Nash blogged last August about how his young daughter begged for a cereal she never tasted because of “Clifford the Big Red Dog” on the box, putting the store’s policy into motion. The company sent me this list of discontinued items, which includes numerous Earth’s Best products, along with a few other natural food companies.

 

While MOM’s is a small chain targeting a specific audience, the move is still significant, especially considering the greenwashing many natural and organic companies engage in. MOM’s community outreach representative Laura Holley-Poole told me many food makers were taken by surprise:

 

Several producers said they thought their products would be OK because they used mostly organic ingredients, or because they choose cartoon characters who had a positive or educational message. But they may be missing how using cartoon characters to target kids doesn’t go over to well with a lot of parents who buy their products.

 

As an example, she pointed to this confused apology from green household products maker Seventh Generation, in the wake of customer outcry over the company’s decision to co-brand its diapers with Dr. Seuss’ “The Lorax.”

 

The move is very significant in the current discourse over the ongoing problem of marketing to children.

 

As I’ve written before, our federal government has turned its back on this issue so the only place left to demand change is with industry. But food companies are engaging in a massive public relations charade designed to make us believe they are making positive changes.

 

For example, Kellogg has a new product, Scooby-Doo! That’s the actual name of the cereal – Scooby Doo! – but this is less important the image on the box. Some think this product is a positive development because it contains “only” six grams of sugar per serving. But it’s very likely that Kellogg’s motivation was to be eligible for the very lucrative WIC (Women, Infants, and Children federal assistance program) market, for which six grams of sugar per serving is the maximum allowed. Kellogg says as much on this community feedback page where it also appears not everyone is so happy with the product, leading Marion Nestle to ponder if the product will last very long.

 

When I asked MOM’s CEO Scott Nash about marketing “healthy food” to children, he answer was simple: “The ends don’t justify the means. Marketing to children is wrong, no matter what is being marketed.” He believes marketing to children “should be illegal.” I couldn’t agree more and that’s why I support Corporate Accountability International’s ongoing campaign to stop McDonald’s from exploiting children (as opposed to just making “healthier” Happy Meals).

 

Supermarket News described the market’s announcement as “bold” and showing leadership but noted that “MOM’s caters to a specific demographic, so this kind of action wouldn’t float at a mainstream retailer.” Still, the article noted “taking a stand is controversial, but it’s empowering; it defines the retailer against the backdrop of everyone else.” This is exactly the point: the policy creates a new standard for other retailers to follow. Are you listening Whole Foods CEO John Mackey?

 

The company also hopes others, such as progressive co-ops and independent retailers follow its lead. Holley-Poole told me the largest impact would be on product manufacturers in the organic food industry. “I would not be surprised to see many of the discontinued items re-introduced with new cartoon-free packaging in a couple years,” she said. Susan Linn, director of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood praised the new policy:

Using beloved media characters to sell kids on a particular brand of food is wrong, even if it’s healthy food. Children should not be trained to pick foods based on the cartoon on the box. We congratulate MOM’s for taking this courageous stance on behalf of families and urge other companies to follow suit.

 

I am often asked: who in the food industry is doing it right? I am very happy to finally have an answer to that question.

 

High court allows Amgen suit

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

The Wall Street Journal reports that the Supreme Court on Wednesday cleared the way for a securities-fraud lawsuit alleging Amgen Inc played down safety concerns about two drugs used to treat anemia. The court’s 6-3 decision, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, affirmed a lower-court ruling that had certified the lawsuit to proceed as a class action. The suit, brought by Connecticut pension funds on behalf of purchasers of Amgen stock, alleged the Thousand Oaks, Calif., company repeatedly reassured investors about the safety of anemia drugs Aranesp and Epogen even as clinical trial data raised concerns that the drugs could harm cancer patients. Amgen’s statements led to inflated share prices, the suit alleged.

Brand-specific consumption of alcohol among underage youth in the United States

Posted on by Corporations and Health Watch

A new article in Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research reports that underage youth alcohol consumption, although spread out over several alcoholic beverage types, is concentrated among a relatively small number of alcohol brands. The alcohol brands with highest prevalence of past 30-day consumption by youth were Bud Light (27.9%), Smirnoff malt beverages (17.0%), and Budweiser (14.6%). The authors conclude that this finding has important implications for alcohol research, practice, and policy.