‘Baby killer’ case shows how good evidence is only the starting point for good policy
Powerful commercial interests will always try to roll back regulatory oversight, and this is exactly what happened at the World Health Assembly in Geneva
There is wide agreement that policy should be based on evidence. Indeed, a useful trick in any policy negotiation is to demand solid evidence in support of your opponents’ positions. This has created a growth industry for academics as well as generating a range of spurious methodologies. Sometimes though, the tactic can backfire. So spare a thought for the US health policy negotiators at the recent UN World Health Assembly (WHA). They always have a tough time with a health community that naively puts the public good ahead of details like industrial profitability and national trade balances. And, this year, they had to deal with emotive proposals to place new global curbs on the marketing of baby foods. This issue has a history. When it comes to feeding young babies, there is consensus that "breast is best". Despite this, it has long been alleged that the world’s food companies have tried to encourage new mothers to do otherwise. As a result, a global campaign was launched in the 197...
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Subscribe now to unlock this article.
Support BusinessLIVE’s award-winning journalism for R129 per month (digital access only).
There’s never been a more important time to support independent journalism in SA. Our subscription packages now offer an ad-free experience for readers.
Cancel anytime.
Questions? Email helpdesk@businesslive.co.za or call 0860 52 52 00. Got a subscription voucher? Redeem it now.