So you thought the World Health Organisation was accountable to governments? Think again.

Does the man on the left have too much influence over international health policy?

Today's egregious piece of nannying fussbucketry is about the health risks associated with eating processed meats like sausages and bacon:

The World Health Organisation is reportedly planning to declare that bacon, sausages and other processed meat cause cancer.

Red meat is also expected to be listed as being “probably carcinogenic to humans”.

A source told The Daily Mail that the announcements were expected to be made on Monday with processed meat put in the same category as cigarettes, alcohol and asbestos.

Truth be told, the WHO isn't really doing this at all merely repeating again that there is some evidence linking the heavy consumption of these foods to bowel cancers. The problem is that, as we're finding out with sugar and found out with salt, the health establishments in western countries use the WHO as the source for 'evidence' to substantiate decisions around all-population health interventions (erroneously called 'public health').

For once, I'm not going to raise questions about the validity of the research on which the WHO bases its argument (although the reporting in the Daily Mail, Independent and other media is utterly misleading and appalling). Instead I want to talk about the World Health Organisation itself.

The WHO was set up in 1948 and describes its primary role as to "direct and coordinate international health within the United Nations’ system". To do this the WHO employs over 7000 people working in 150 country offices, in 6 regional offices and at their headquarters in Geneva. The organisation's recently approved budget is $4,385 million which is spent across the following areas: health systems, promoting health through the life-course, noncommunicable diseases, communicable diseases, corporate services, preparedness, surveillance and response. Although most of the spend is still on communicable diseases, disaster response and preparedness, there has been a gradual shift towards a focus on 'non-communicable' diseases like cancer, heart disease and diabetes. This reflects success (not much of which is down to the WHO) in reducing levels of communicable disease.

Now you'd have thought that this $4.4 billion budget comes from the members of the WHO - the 194 countries who subscribe to the organisation. However, you'd be wrong. While a lot of money does come from members (which is means tested to reflect differentials in national wealth), the biggest part of the WHO's income comes in the form of 'voluntary' contributions.

That money comes from two separate sources of funding: assessed contributions from WHO’s 194 member states (means tested) and voluntary contributions from member states and non-government funders such as foundations, investment banks, multi-national corporations, and non-government organisations.

Back in 2011, 80% of the WHO's income came from those voluntary contributions with the single largest contributor in that category being the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF):

Just one foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (yes Bill Gates, the man who gave the world Microsoft and his wife) donated most of that – slightly more than $446m in fact. That’s more than any other donor except the United States and 24 times more money than Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa combined

And these voluntary contributions aren't freely available to the WHO, they come with strings attached - how that $446m gets spent is determined by Bill and Melinda not by the WHO.

On one level this isn't a problem because the WHO gets extra money to spend on its great work improving the health of millions. But on another level it is a problem. The WHO is, as a UN agency, granted authority and influence over public policy decisions. In most cases this isn't direct - the WHO has no regulatory authority - but things such as the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control show how the organisation can lead on international, regional and national policy. As vapers discovered when directing their campaign to the European Union, that body was able to use the FCTC's statements on e-cigs as the basis for decision-making.

This means that private organisations like BMGF and Bloomberg Philanthropies, by providing much of the WHO's funding while exercising control over how that money is used, are more influential than the majority of national governments. And because these are philanthropic institutions there is little control or regulation of that influence (unlike for corporations or groups of corporations). The truth is that the WHO is more accountable to Bill Gates and Mike Bloomberg than it is to its recognised governance structures, let alone national member governments or the public in general.

The WHO - like other UN agencies - has a veneer of democratic accountability covering over its effective control through collaboration between private foundations and the organisation's management. You might have thought the WHO was accountable to governments, but you'd be wrong.

...

Dear Government: It's my life and what I eat, drink and smoke is none of your bloody business. Not even a little bit.

A global drive to tackle the causes of cancer linked to lifestyle, such as alcohol abuse, sugar consumption and obesity, has been urged on Monday by the World Health Organisation as it predicted the number of new cases could soar 70% to nearly 25 million a year over the next 20 years.

Others will point out the idiocy of the World Health Organisation's latest manifesto for nannying fussbucketry. Suffice it to say that the reason for the increase in what the WHO egregiously calls 'preventable' causes of ill-health isn't changes in human behaviour or, heaven forbid, people making the 'wrong' personal choices. The reason for there being more cancers, more coronary heart disease and more dementia is that fewer people are dying from communicable disease, fewer people are in abject poverty and fewer people don't have access to at least basic health services.

I'm prepared to accept that the world faces an increase in the number of people suffering from cancer - that 'tidal wave' the WHO's scaremongers are predicting. But to single out a couple of things we consume - alcohol and sugar - as the main problem (plus a nod towards those other evils red meat and sausages) is a complete misrepresentation of the facts as we know them.

This is how the news is presented to us - loads more cancer because of fast food and lager is the central message. This is quite simply, utter rubbish. However, when you look at what the WHO says elsewhere there are some good, sensible public health suggestions:

"Governments must show political commitment to progressively step up the implementation of high-quality screening and early detection programs, which are an investment rather than a cost,"

 Rather than this sensible focus on raising risk awareness (although perhaps not to the scare levels loved of our media), screening and early intervention, what we hear is another set of demands for "adequate legislation" to "encourage healthier behaviour".

With the result being comments like these:

On drinking:

"Labelling, availability and the price of alcohol should all be on the agenda,"

On soda pop:

"So should taxation of sugar-sweetened drinks, he said. The report says efforts to reduce the percentage of fizzy drinks that contain substantial amounts of added sugar should become a high priority."

And good beef and sausages:

"About half of Britons do not recognise the importance of diet in protecting them against cancer, according to a poll carried out by the World Cancer Research Fund. Eating a lot of red meat – especially processed – increases the risk of bowel cancer."

Add all this to the existing ostracising of smokers, campaigns against sun-bathing and even claims that mouth wash is dangerous - to name just three of the things on the health fascist agenda - and we get a campaign directed against the pleasures and choices of ordinary people.

Let's be clear, if people want to eat bacon, drink lemonade, go out for a beer, put salt on their chips and have cake in the tea shop that's great. It's what life's about rather than the pinched, sad, narrow, uninteresting and pleasure free existence that these nannying fussbuckets would 'nudge' us into.

This manifesto of nannying fussbucketry should be torn up and used to fuel a good barbecue - accompanied by lager and, if you want, a good cigar. It's time we looked these health fascists in the eye and told them straight:

It's my life and what I eat, drink and smoke is none of your bloody business. Not even a little bit."

....