I was watching one of the matches a few days back, and when i noticed the logo of one of the popular fast food companies, i couldnt shake the thought off my mind as to why the sporting body would send such mixed messages; sports are associated with a healthy lifestyle, while such junk as sold by those fast food companies is just packaged "for sure disease-causing and life-destroying supplements". The fast food companies and those that make SSBs knew what target audience they would potentially reach through the games, and the big money was too tempting for the sporting body to resist, I suppose. The politics behind such things must be tackled head-on because these companies and organizations will not listen to the voice of reason or some scientific evidence that will push them out of business. The highest health bodies must pull strings and often engage in "dirty" politicking to beat these guys. You simply have to beat them into submission at their game, no matter the price!

Interestingly, while some comments in the Lancet vilify multi-national corporate involvment in health promotion, other statements endorse it. A recent "call to action" on physical activity promotion encourages the private sector to: "Orient marketing, advertising, and promotional messages to encourage physical activity and discourage physical inactivity and sedentary behaviours [and] Collaborate with government and non-governmental organisations in the creation and promotion of opportunities to promote and engage in physical activity" (Kohl et al., 2012, p. 302).

That is, private companies are specifically encouraged to promote physical activity.

Also corporate intervention has been endorsed by the World Health Organisation, which has suggested that the private sector "could become partners with governments and nongovernmental organizations in implementing measures aimed at sending positive and consistent messages …. Because many companies operate globally, international collaboration is crucial" (WHO, 2004, p. 13).

These types of statements demonstrate the non-linear, multifaceted nature of appeals to ‘health’.

This is such a challenging issue (and a great question!) and is one of the five critical challenges to public health that Shiriki Kumanyika noted in a recent paper (Health Education and Behaviour 2014, DOI: 10.1177/1090198113511818). One of the biggest challenges is that we tend to consider the two sides of the energy balance equation separately, either food or physical activity. This allows the food industry to focus attention on one aspect (e.g. promotion of physical activity) while downplaying the role of the other (e.g. food intake). The vast power and reach the food industry has in shaping not only public consumption (what we put in our mouths) but also public discourse (what we believe about the causes and consequences of what we consume) can seem overwhelming. The food industry controls the food supply and the choices we have, but makes us believe that we have choice (and even chose what they supply), thereby creating consternation when any form of regulation is suggested. I have co-authored an editorial that discussed this a few years ago (attached), and there is other great work going on relating to food industry sponsorship of sporting events, particularly from Australia (e.g. Simone Pettigrew). I would also recommend that interested readers check out the work of Marion Nestle and Michelle Simon from the US, who have written extensively about the role of food industry in undermining public health. There is another excellent book just out called Lethal and Legal by Nicholas Freudenberg, which examines multiple threats to public health. If we are to successfully challenge (or engage with) the food industry, we need to be more sophisticated in our messaging, savvy in our approach and better at engaging citizens in the public discourse around our food supply. Can we work with Food Industry to create new metrics beyond profit alone, I like to think so, but it will only happen if we can generate enough pressure on their bottom line.

Article Running away with the facts on food and fatness

Thank you, Mustapha, Joe and Sara, for sharing your expertise, insightful opinions and thoughts. We should question if the playing field is even - something even FIFA endorses during this World Cup through advertisements. Anne -Emmanuelle Birn has painstakingly documented the good wrought by private money on international health (e.g. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61013-2), and Vincente Navarro's book, "The Political Economy of Social Inequalities" cogently outlined broader history and impacts. Yet, our buying patterns and governments have helped build private industry. As governments claim fewer available resources and private industry inexorably grows - how do we successfully engage and where is the balance?

Without clear rules for engagement and guidelines around conflict of interest in any "public-private" endeavour, money will ultimately prevail - whatever the intent. Certainly funneling efforts through groups like the People's Health Movement, the new economics foundation (Happy Planet Index) and even WHO can help to shift mindsets and actions locally and globally.

An interesting extension of this question/discussion in BMJ today, today at:

http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2014/06/19/the-bmj-today-candy-crush-saga-health-warnings-and-whos-financial-woes/?g=widget_default

"....In their Analysis article, they also provide a breakdown of the WHO’s current financial quandary, explaining why smaller donor countries are increasingly worried that the organisation is becoming a puppet to the larger donor countries, such as the UK and the US, who make up a considerable proportion of donations to WHO.

While on the subject of the WHO, a letter has been sent to Margaret Chan, director general of WHO, signed by a group of 129 public health doctors. The letter urges Chan to stick to the evidence, and ignore the tobacco industry’s attempt to align themselves as “partners,” when deciding how to regulate the use of electronic cigarettes. The News story outlines the main points of the letter and makes for interesting reading. Signatories hail from across the globe, including the main donor states of WHO, which, incidentally, are also home to many of the tobacco industry’s main players, so I’ll be watching this play out with increased interest.

Tinuke Bernard is assistant editor, web production, The BMJ."

Interesting analysis Paul, thanks for sharing. I have been reading "The Trouble with Billionaires" by Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks that discusses similar quandaries. I completely agree with you on the need for clear rules of engagement and would be interested to know if anyone has an example they could share. It is so important that we have this dialogue.

I too have been watching the extent of World Cup junk food sponsorship with interest.  The promotion of the MacDonald's sponsorship started a month prior to the event with country named burgers a month, our major supermarkets running cross promotions aimed at children with discount CocaCola and soccer balls, and Gatorade TVCs aimed at children. www.businessinsider.com.au/gatorade-world-cup-commercial-2014-5 as well as the infield, App, naming rights, etc advertising.

Healthway, the Western Australian Health Promotion Foundation, established on hypothecated funding from cigarette taxes, has developed effective co-sponsorship guidelines for food and alcohol related sponsorships (attached).

Also, the Public Health Association of Australia has fairly rigorous guidelines. Unfortunately the Dietitians Association does not --as yet. Not sure what happened to my font but will send anyway as writing this on an IPad.

healthway.wa.gov.au/programs/co-sponsorship-policy-and-guidelines

Education, education, education.

It is not just the World Cup...

Aboriginal Health ‏@NACCHOAustralia

@OPCAustralia @AUSOlympicTeam should promote active lifestyles healthy eating. Not Coke, Maccas, Cadbury #riobesity