Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The Nutrition Challenge: Can evidence and con flict of interests go hand in hand? 'Manipula tion by association’ seems to be a clever s trategy used by the private sector in marketi ng,

Expand Messages
  • Prof. Umesh Kapil
    The Nutrition Challenge: Can evidence and conflict of interests go hand in hand? Arun Gupta Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on linkedinMore Sharing
    Message 1 of 6 , Jul 19, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      The Nutrition Challenge: Can evidence and conflict of interests go hand in hand?
      Jul 17, 2013
      'Manipulation by association’ seems to be a clever strategy used by the private sector in marketing, 

      In an unprecedented gesture of advocacy on nutrition, the Lancet , a scientific and academic journal, launched its Series on Nutrition in London and Delhi in June 2013. Ten  “evidence” based nutrition specific interventions are recommended, eight of which are products. It has a chapter on nutrition sensitive interventions and another on “The politics of reducing malnutrition: building commitment and accelerating progress”.
      An Indian expert group shot a letter to the Government of India and Minister Jairam Ramesh who was to inaugurate. They challenged the academic excellence and power of evidence and pointed out that authors of Lancet Series had conflict of interest.
      This statement was widely quoted in the media before and after the launch.
      Priority in Lancet
      The Lancet authors have done an exercise to estimate total additional annual cost of achieving 90% coverage with ten nutrition interventions, in 34 countries with more than 90% of the burden of malnutrition. It comes to about 9.6 billion dollars and large part of this is expected to be spent on nutrition products. It is recommended that priority should be given to management of ‘severe and moderate acute malnutrition’ (SAM and MAM) as these can prevent highest number of under five deaths. As per the indications in Lancet, most children suffering from SAM would be expected to consume Ready to Use Therapeutic Foods (RUTFs), almost at a unit cost of US $ 220. In fact out of 9.6 billion dollars projected, 27% i.e. about 2.6 billion dollars has been estimated to be spent on SAM management. This was challenged and so was the use of multiple micronutrient powders.
      What went wrong? The science behind it, and conflict of interest
      An Indian professor of pediatrics Prof. Vinod Paul at AIIMS, who was among the panel of experts at the launch, said in no uncertain words, “4 out of 10 recommendations will not work in India”. He shared that an independent and transparent exercise involving over 60 Indian scientists and policy makers, had rejected four Key Interventions (mega-dose Vitamin A supplementation, preventive zinc supplementation, multiple micronutrient supplementation in pregnancy and management of MAM).
      At the same time two new systematic reviews by the Cochrane Collaboration appeared on the scene and provided solid arguments to challenge the evidence presented in Lancet. Cochrane is recognized as the international benchmark for evaluating the effectiveness of health interventions. In the first analysis of Ready to Use Therapeutic Foods (RUTFs) for the home treatment of children with Severe Acute Malnutrition (SAM), the Cochrane authors conclude "Current evidence is limited and, therefore, we cannot conclude that there is a difference between RUTF and flour porridge as home treatment for severely malnourished children, or between RUTF given in different daily amounts or with different ingredients. Either RUTF or standard diet such as flour porridge can be used to treat severely malnourished children at home. Decisions should be based on availability, cost and practicality. In order to determine the effects of RUTF, more high-quality studies are needed".
      In this context I do want to let the readers know that India was under tremendous pressure from the UNICEF and others in 2009 to use commercial RUTF for SAM. After this Government of India did constitutes a committee to undertake local research and results should be made available in 1-2 years.
      The second Cochrane analysis reveals that giving Lipid-based nutrient supplements (LNS) does not reduce progression from Moderate Acute Malnutrition (MAM) to SAM and has no impact on child mortality. Whatever benefit emerged from the studies on MAM was in the form of weight gain (which was not as lean body mass- the muscle mass), and higher rates of recovery; however, a significant proportion of recovered infants and children relapse into MAM within six months. It also takes note that no research was done to compare commercial with home-made foods and continued breastfeeding – the most sustainable approach to reducing the burden of child malnutrition.
      What do you do when you have such an influential journal on one side and other experts have an opposing view? If we believe the Cochrane and Indian experts views to be right, you have to ignore Lancet. Treating SAM and MAM finds a high value in saving under five child deaths in the Lancet without convincing evidence. Going by the calls to spend as much as 27% on SAM management then is questionable. The authors later denied that they are for commercial RUTF products; they recommend local foods with good quality. However, costing is done with RUTF use. 
      Conflict of interest
      Conflict of interest weakened the power of evidence. The Lancet seems to have ignored the fact that many of the authors or advisors have a perceived or declared conflict of interest. The lead author and one more have declared that they sit on the ‘Nestlé’s Shared Value Advisory Committee’. I believe, if any one is a member of this committee of world’s largest baby food manufacturer he or she subscribes to the viewpoint of the company. It is not about financial transactions or paid positions. It is about “association”. ‘Manipulation by association’ seems to be a clever strategy used by the private sector in marketing. How do people interpret such associations?
      While I appreciate Lancets role in advocacy on nutrition, I wonder what consideration was given to the public perception that a lead author is a member of a board created by the world’s largest food company that violates internationally agreed recommendations and laws on a routine systematic basis. This is not history – these violations continue.
      The industry front organisation Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) is an advisor. GAIN's stated objective is to benefit the 600 odd industries in order to reduce malnutrition with a focus on fortification. Did Lancet look at the conflict of in this case? GAIN is a significant player in the infant and young child nutrition world that lobbies governments and the UN to open up markets for its many corporate partners. Issues around GAIN have been raised since 2008 in India. In India GAIN briefed a group of MPs, and within few weeks a private members Bill on fortification was introduced.
      In January 2013 GAIN was refused accreditation by WHO as an NGO pending answers about “the nature and extent of the Alliance’s links with the global food industry, and the position of the Alliance with regard to its support and advocacy of WHO’s nutrition policies, including infant feeding and marketing of complementary foods”
      Lets have a look at the organisers in India launch in the context of conflicting interests. Event in India was co-sponsored by Coalition of Nutrition Security that has never set its rules to avoid conflict of interests (personal experience) and it has GAIN as its members. It is hosted by ‘Save the Children India’ who receive funding from many including Pepsi. Another organiser was IFPRI, who had organised an international event in 2011 on nutrition and agriculture funded by Gates foundation and Pepsi. This is what Pepsi representative said to Times Of India at that time, “We would need market based solutions that will leverage the capabilities of food companies like PepsiCo that have competencies across the value chain ranging from agriculture, processing and mass distribution.''
      Is it about private sector or science?
      I think this Lancet series is quite an example of promotion of private sector. The Paper 4 “The politics of reducing malnutrition: building commitment and accelerating progress,” suggests that the private sector is called upon for the “Generation of evidence about the positive and negative effects of private sector and market-led approaches to nutrition.” This provides no clarity on how the private sector should be involved but suggests that new forms of Public Private Partnerships should be found. The Scaling up Nutrition movement (SUN) is presented as a viable alternative to a fragmented nutrition system. Yet SUN has food industries and GAIN on its lead body and promotes the creation of multi-stakeholder platforms at national level with a  ‘business network’ as an integral part. The authors agreed when asked a question about SUN’s promotion but deny that they promote any product or industry.
      There are more pointers to promote or take a soft view of private sector and its role in tackling nutrition. The impression is given that a big opportunity would be lost if we failed to engage with private sector. Another Lancet article in February 2013 in fact points the opposite concluding, “Despite the common reliance on industry self-regulation and public—private partnerships, there is no evidence of their effectiveness or safety. Public regulation and market intervention are the only evidence-based mechanisms to prevent harm caused by the unhealthy commodity industries”
      Private sector is known to call for friendly legislations. It is worth mentioning here that India faced a tough call in 2005, when a call to repeal one of its progressive legislations Infant Milk Substitutes Feeding Bottles, and Infant Foods (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act 1992, and Amendment Act 2003 was proposed to be repealed and it took many months to un do that decision.
      The World Health Assembly has been repeatedly calling for the application of clear conflict of interest rules since 1996, so that private commercial entities are not allowed undue influence over policymaking. But private sector continues relentlessly to defeat this agreed intent. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of India recently observed that while scientific panels can consult with industries, the members of the panels must be independent and conflict of interest free.
      In the interest of translating evidence into policy – rather than policy driven evidence - and maintaining the credibility of science, I think the Lancet could have seen this conflict of interest more effectively. Declaration is not enough. If that is enough, readers have their interpretations presented here. It is a call for revisiting existing policies in academic journals.
      Laudable work of the Lancet, with its important implications for public health, should not be allowed to tainted with the suspicion of its authors and their conflict of interest.
      Arun Gupta is Member, Indian Prime Ministers’ Council on India’s Nutrition Challenges and Convener, Alliance Against Conflict of Interests(AACI).
      Dr. Umesh Kapil 
      Professor Public Health Nutrition 
      Room Number 118; 
      Human Nutrition Unit,
      Old OT Block,
      All India Institute of Medical Sciences 
      New Delhi,  India ,110029
      Mobile 91-9810609340


      From: Prof. Umesh Kapil <umeshkapil@...>
      To: "iapsm_youthmembers@yahoogroups.com" <iapsm_youthmembers@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 12:18 AM
      Subject: Re: [iapsm_youthmembers] Fwd: Javid chowdhary Report -WHO never ordered the closure of Vaccine PSU's-Relevant pages


      Dear All

      GOI program is for 6-59 months , who is pushing Aganwadi workers to give Vitamin A ? 

      Regards, Umesh Kapil

      ABP News 

      Child dies, 21 taken ill after taking Vitamin A tablet
      Press Trust of India

      Gaya (Bihar): After midday meal tragedies in Chhapra and Madhubani, one child died and 21 other children fell ill after taking vitamin A tablets given to them at an anganwadi centre in Gaya district on Wednesday.
      The tablets were given to children, aged between 8 -12, by the anganwadi centre at Kumbharan Bigha village under Atri police station, District Magistrate Bala Murugan D said.
      Altogether 22 children out of 36 who were given the tablet fell ill and were taken to Anugrah Narayan Magadh Medical College and Hospital (ANMMCH) here.
      One of them, identified as Roshan Kumar (10), died during treatment in ANMMCH, the DM said adding others were discharged from the hospital late this evening.
      The family of the deceased would be paid a compensation of Rs 1.50 lakh.
      Civil Surgeon of Gaya has gone to the village to look into the incident. 

      Dr. Umesh Kapil 
      Professor Public Health Nutrition 
      Room Number 118; 
      Human Nutrition Unit,
      Old OT Block,
      All India Institute of Medical Sciences 
      New Delhi,  India ,110029
      Mobile 91-9810609340


      From: Jugal Kishore <drjugalkishore@...>
      To: iapsm_youthmembers@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 6:07 AM
      Subject: Re: [iapsm_youthmembers] Fwd: Javid chowdhary Report -WHO never ordered the closure of Vaccine PSU's-Relevant pages

      Then why they were silent so long when it was appearing in newpapers and various channels. Now government is in favor and seeing the futility of closure then making the statement at this point of time is just washing their hands from the damage they have incured.

      On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Omesh Bharti <bhartiomesh@ yahoo.com> wrote:
      [Attachment(s) from Omesh Bharti included below]
      Dear Friends,
                            As the enclosed report specifies that WHO never said for the closure of the public sector Vaccine units, we must look for the traitors who were hand in glove with private vaccine manufacturers to force closure of the vaccine units in government sector in India.

      Dr. Omesh Kumar Bharti
      M.B.B.S.,D.H. M.,M.A.E. (Epidemiology)
      Directorate of Health Safety and Regulation,
      SHIMLA, Himachal Pradesh, India.

      --- On Wed, 21/7/10, drbabukv <drbabukv@gmail. com> wrote:

      From: drbabukv <drbabukv@gmail. com>
      Subject: Fwd: Javid chowdhary Report -WHO never ordered the closure of Vaccine PSU's-Relevant pages
      To: fourth-estate- critique@ googlegroups. com, growingknowledge@ googlegroups. com, "Omesh Bharti" <bhartiomesh@ yahoo.com>, madhukairali@ gmail.com, "Madhavi Yennapu" <y_madhavi01@ hotmail.com>, sajukr@gmail. com
      Date: Wednesday, 21 July, 2010, 2:01 PM

      ---------- Forwarded message ----------
      From: drbabukv <drbabukv@gmail. com>
      Date: Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 8:34 PM
      Subject: Javid chowdhary Report -WHO never ordered the closure of Vaccine PSU's-Relevant pages
      To: 1977nishad@gmail. com, basanth67@gmail. com, jk_narikkutty@ yahoo.com, Saikiran K P <kpsaikiran@hotmail. com>, "oc.mohanraj" <oc.mohanraj@ gmail.com>, Brinda Karat <brinda@cpim. org>, bajji01@gmail. com

      Pl see the attachments

      Prof. Jugal Kishore
      Department of Community Medicine, Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi, India

      Please visit for more details: http://drjugalkisho re.blogspot. com

      Exectuvie Director (Hony): Center for Inquiry, India

      President (Hony): Kishore Foundations, Sabasva Foundation,

      Authors of:
      National Health Programs of India
      A Dictionary of Public Health
      Practical and Viva of Community Medicine
      A Comprehensive Review of Community Medicine
      A Textbook of Health for Health Care workers
      Biomedical Waste Management in India
      A pioneering Social Reformers of India
      Great Warriers of Human Rights Movement From India
      Vanishing Girl Child
      Living With out God
      Bhavnayen (An anthology of poems in Hindi)

      For my books please Visit http://centurypubli cations.co. in

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.