This page: https://www.globalissues.org/article/590/corruption.
To print all information (e.g. expanded side notes, shows alternative links), use the print version:
Corruption is both a major cause and a result of poverty around the world. It occurs at all levels of society, from local and national governments, civil society, judiciary functions, large and small businesses, military and other services and so on.
Corruption affects the poorest the most, in rich or poor nations, though all elements of society are affected in some way as corruption undermines political development, democracy, economic development, the environment, people’s health and more.
Around the world, the perception of corruption in public places is very high:
World map of the 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index by Transparency International. Blue indicates less perception of corruption, whereas red indicates higher perception of corruption. Image source
But it isn’t just in governments that corruption is found; it can permeate through society.
The issue of corruption is very much inter-related with other issues. At a global level, the international (Washington Consensus-influenced) economic system that has shaped the current form of globalization in the past decades requires further scrutiny for it has also created conditions whereby corruption can flourish and exacerbate the conditions of people around the world who already have little say about their own destiny. At a national level, people’s effective participation and representation in society can be undermined by corruption, while at local levels, corruption can make day to day lives more painful for all affected.
A difficult thing to measure or compare, however, is the impact of corruption on poverty versus the effects of inequalities that are structured into law, such as unequal trade agreements, structural adjustment policies, so-called free trade agreements and so on. It is easier to see corruption. It is harder to see these other more formal, even legal forms of corruption. It is easy to assume that these are not even issues because they are part of the laws and institutions that govern national and international communities and many of us will be accustomed to it—it is how it works, so to speak. Those deeper aspects are discussed in other parts of this web site’s section on trade, economy, & related issues.
That is not to belittle the issue of corruption, however, for its impacts are enormous too.
Globalization, Multinational Corporations, and Corruption
Corruption scandals that sometimes make headline news in Western media can often be worse in developing countries. This is especially the case (as the previous link argues) when it is multinational companies going into poorer countries to do business. The international business environment, encouraged by a form of globalization that is heavily influenced by the wealthier and more powerful countries in the world makes it easier for multinationals to make profit and even for a few countries to benefit. However, some policies behind globalization appear to encourage and exacerbate corruption as accountability of governments and companies have been reduced along the way. For example,
For multinationals, bribery enables companies to gain contracts (particularly for public works and military equipment) or concessions which they would not otherwise have won, or to do so on more favorable terms. Every year, Western businesses pay huge amounts of money in bribes to win friends, influence and contracts. These bribes are conservatively estimated to run to US$80 billion a year—roughly the amount that the UN believes is needed to eradicate global poverty.
Dr Hawley also lists a number of impacts that multinationals’ corrupt practices have on the South (another term for Third World, or developing countries), including:
They undermine development and exacerbate inequality and poverty.
They disadvantage smaller domestic firms.
They transfer money that could be put towards poverty eradication into the hands of the rich.
They distort decision-making in favor of projects that benefit the few rather than the many.
They also
Increase debt;
Benefit the company, not the country;
Bypass local democratic processes;
Damage the environment;
Circumvent legislation; and
Promote weapons sales.
(See the previous report for detailed explanation on all these aspects.)
IMF and World Bank Policies that Encourage Corruption
At a deeper level are the policies that form the backbone to globalization. These policies are often prescribed by international institutions such as the World Bank and IMF. For years, they have received sharp criticism for exacerbating poverty through policies such as Structural Adjustment, rapid deregulation and opening barriers to trade before poorer countries are economic ready to do so. This has also created situations ripe for corruption to flourish:
As Western governments and the World Bank and IMF shout ever more loudly about corruption, their own policies are making it worse in both North and South. Particularly at fault are deregulation, privatization, and structural adjustment policies requiring civil service reform and economic liberalization. In 1997, the World Bank asserted that:
any reform that increases the competitiveness of the economy will reduce incentives for corrupt behavior. Thus policies that lower controls on foreign trade, remove entry barriers to private industry, and privatize state firms in a way that ensure competition will all support the fight.
The Bank has so far shown no signs of taking back this view. It continues to claim that corruption can be battled through deregulation of the economy; public sector reform in areas such as customs, tax administration and civil service; strengthening of anti-corruption and audit bodies; and decentralization.
Yet the empirical evidence, much of it from the World Bank itself, suggests that, far from reducing corruption, such policies, and the manner in which they have been implemented, have in some circumstances increased it.
Jubilee Research (formerly the prominent Jubilee 2000 debt relief campaign organization) has similar criticisms, and is also worth quoting at length:
Rich country politicians and bank officials argue that because dictators like Marcos, Suharto, and Mobutu were kept in power with western arms and were given loans to squander on ill-judged and repressive schemes, that the people of those countries—who often fought valiantly against those dictators—cannot be trusted not to waste the money released by debt cancellation. This may seem confusing to people not familiar with the logic of the IMF and World Bank. In summary:
Creditors colluded with, and gave loans to dictators they knew were corrupt and who would squander the money.
Creditors gave military and political aid to those dictators—knowing arms might be used to suppress popular opposition
Therefore, successor democratic governments and their supporters, who may have been victims of corruption and oppression, cannot be trusted.
To many people in the South, this seems irrational and illogical—the logic of blaming the victim. It is the logic of power rather than of integrity, and is used to benefit the rich rather than the poor in developing countries.
A similar logic argues that if the World Bank and government export credit agencies promoted inappropriate and unprofitable projects, then southern governments proved their inability to control money because they accepted the ill-advised projects in the first place. Thus, if money is released by debt cancellation, it must be controlled by agencies which promoted those failed projects.
This is the logic that says if people were stupid enough to believe cigarette advertising, then they are too stupid to take care of themselves and the reformed cigarette companies should be put in charge of their health care.
The same institutions who made the corrupt loans to Zaire and lent for projects in Africa that failed repeatedly are still in charge, but their role has been enhanced because of their success in pushing loans. Can we trust these institutions to suddenly only lend wisely; to not give loans when the money might be wasted?
Preventing new wasted loans and new debt crises, and ensuring that there is not another debt crisis, means that the people who pushed the loans and caused this crisis cannot be left in charge.
The creditors or loan pushers cannot be left in charge, no matter how heartfelt their protestations that they have changed. Pushers and addicts need to work together, to bring to an end the entire reckless and corrupt lending and borrowing habit.
And in terms of how lack of transparency by the international institutions contributes to so much corruption structured into the system, Hanlon and Pettifor continue in the same report as cited above:
Structural adjustment programs cover most of a country’s economic governance.
… The most striking aspect of IMF/World Bank conditionality [for aid, debt relief, etc] is that the civil servants of these institutions, the staff members, have virtual dictatorial powers to impose their whims on recipient countries. This comes about because poor countries must have IMF and World Bank programs, but staff can decline to submit programs to the boards of those institutions until the poor country accepts conditions demanded by IMF civil servants.
There is much talk of transparency and participation, but the crunch comes in final negotiations between ministers and World Bank and IMF civil servants The country manager can say to the Prime Minister, unless you accept condition X, I will not submit this program to the board. No agreed program means a sudden halt to essential aid and no debt relief, so few ministers are prepared to hold out. Instead Prime Ministers and presidents bow to the diktat of foreign civil servants. Joseph Stiglitz also notes that reforms often bring advantages to some groups while disadvantaging others, and one of the problems with policies agreed in secret is that a governing elite may accept an imposed policy which does not harm the elite but harms others. An example is the elimination of food subsidies.
As further detailed by Hanlon and Pettifor, Christian Aid partners (a coalition of development organizations), argued that top-down conditionality has undermined democracy by making elected governments accountable to Washington-based institutions instead of to their own people. The potential for unaccountability and corruption therefore increases as well.
One of the pillars of democracy is transparency; knowing what goes on in society and being able to make informed decisions should improve participation and also check unaccountability.
The above-cited report by Hanlon and Pettifor also highlights a broader way to try and tackle corruption by attempting to provide a more just, democratic and transparent process in terms of relations between donor nations and their creditors:
Campaigners from around the world, but particularly the South, have called for a more just, independent, accountable and transparent process for managing relations between sovereign debtors and their public and private creditors.
An independent process would have five goals:
to restore some justice to a system in which international creditors play the role of plaintiff, judge and jury, in their own court of international finance.
to introduce discipline into sovereign lending and borrowing arrangements—and thereby prevent future crises.
to counter corruption in borrowing and lending, by introducing accountability through a free press and greater transparency to civil society in both the creditor and debtor nations.
to strengthen local democratic institutions, by empowering them to challenge and influence elites.
to encourage greater understanding and economic literacy among citizens, and thereby empower them to question, challenge and hold their elites to account.
A trusted government is more likely to result in a positive political and economic environment, which is crucial for developing countries, as well as already industrialized ones.
This is a large topic in itself. Over time, more will be added, but for now you can start at the following:
Transparency International has a Corruption Perception Index. It provides many reports, statistics and information.
The World Bank, despite criticisms about it not looking at its own policies as being a factor, do, however have a lot about corruption. A search result on World Bank site on corruption reveals many articles.
The Corner House is a UK-based charity that provides many articles looking at corruption, bribery and related issues.
Diet and weight talk is all around us! While we can do our best to change the subject or leave the room, it can also help to build resilience to that rhetoric. Sharing three tips on the blog today to become more resilient to diet talk!
Diet culture is the sea we are swimming in. And like a fish who doesn’t recognize it’s in the water because that’s all it knows, we too can become unaware of the reality surrounding us.
Once folks learn about diet culture and develop an understanding of it, many people share a common experience of seeing and hearing it everywhere. It can often feel kinda overwhelming and hard to manage.
There are tangible ways to handle this like changing the subject, leaving the room, or setting a boundary, which I talk about in my post on 3 ways to navigate diet talk, but what about the inner work?
How do we develop a greater capacity for tolerating the discomfort that comes along with hearing this? How do we stay sturdy within ourselves so we don’t internalize what’s coming into our sphere?
Some folks may be more apt to being resilient than others based on their ability to cope, resources in place, and how they view the world. But it’s not that you’re either born resilient or not.
According to the APA, research shows us that resilience can be practiced and cultivated with various resources and skills.
So yes, with time and practice and intentionality, you can strengthen your resilience muscle!
3 tips for building resilience to diet talk
1. Build or lean on your non-diet community.
Connection is key for building resilience. It’s hard to do radical, counter-cultural work on your own – it can feel super lonely and isolating. It can make you question whether or not you’re on the right path.
Connect with people who are understanding and empathetic to how challenging it is to choose to heal your relationship with food in a culture that praises weight loss and prioritizes dieting. Having a few trustworthy friends who can validate your feelings around frustration or grief that your officemates were talking about their weight loss challenge at the lunch table again can help you build resilience.
If you’re working 1:1 with a clinician who specializes in a weight-inclusive, non-diet or intuitive eating approach, they will likely have recommendations for local support groups for you.
2. Get clear on your values.
Values are like an internal compass that help give your life direction and meaning. They can help pull you toward a more rich and meaningful life.
Having a clear set of values can also help you stay rooted and grounded when diet and weight loss talk is all around you.
You can say to yourself something like “that path doesn’t align with my values of compassion, authenticity, trust, and acceptance.”
Then you can take action from a place of your values rather than letting someone else’s actions persuade you.
Have you ever done a values exercise? It’s one of my favorite activities to do with clients.
To discover your own values, consider buying a values card deck or for an easier and more cost-effective route, google “values list” and print one out! Not every set of values will look the same and they never will be exhaustive so feel free to add your own if you feel like something is missing.
Once you have your values list, try to narrow down your personal values to a top 10 list. And then a top 5 list! Maybe even a top 3 list.
Maybe you ask yourself:
Is this diet and weight loss rhetoric moving me in the direction of my values or away from my values?
How do these top values relate to my desired relationship with food and body?
3. Take action toward your goals.
Making progress toward your goals, however big or small, can feel empowering and can help cultivate feelings of resilience.
This also helps orient you toward your purpose or set of values. Maybe self-care is a value and so one of your goals is eating regularly throughout the day.
Taking action toward that goal could look like:
setting reminders on your phone every few hours to eat
writing out a grocery list to go shopping
Getting foods in the house that are easily accessible / don’t require much effort to make
When you hear someone talking about how they lost 5 pounds, rather than internalizing that and wondering if you should be working on that too, ask yourself what are the goals I’m working on right now, and can I take one small step toward that goal today?
Remember, developing resilience is a practice that takes time, effort, and intention. Be patient with yourself if diet and weight loss talk still triggers you. Take care of yourself in the ways that you need to in the meantime, meaning feel free to step away from the conversation or set a boundary.
And of course, our team would love to further support you on your journey. Click here to book a nutrition assessment today.
Tell me in the comments below, how do you develop resilience to diet and weight loss comments?
For more on a non-diet approach, check out my posts below:
Mandaue City Councilor Cynthia Cinco-Remedio. | CDN Digital file photo
MANDAUE CITY, Cebu – A Mandaue City Councilor has called for an investigation into the purchase of a city-owned lot by Lone District Rep. Emmarie “Lolypop” Ouano-Dizon and her husband, Opao barangay captain Nixon Dizon.
Councilor Cynthia Cinco-Remedio, the proponent of the resolution, said the matter should be looked into by the city government because this involved a city-owned property.
She want the investigation spearheaded by the committee on laws and ordinances of the Mandaue City Council, in coordination with a lawyer.
READ: Visayas Ombudsman asked to probe Lolypop, husband for plunder, graft
If the accusation raised by broadcaster Edward Ligas is proven true, Cinco-Remedio said that the city government should take legal actions against the couple to recover the property in question and protect its interests.
“Na-involve man gud ang city, so akoa lang gihimoan og resolution para atoang ma-forward sa chairman sa committee on laws and ordinances para macheck lang sad. So, ang atoa lang transparency nga makahibaw sad ta, makahibaw ang siyudad kung unsa to ang gi-file nga kaso,” Cinco-Remedio said in an interview after the Council’s regular session on Monday, September 30.
READ: Regal Oliva tells Lolypop to stop lying: ‘Bakakon siyang daku’
Administration Councilors Malcolm Sanchez, Jimmy Lumapas, Marie Immaline Cortes-Zafra, Jennifer Del Mar, Jesus Arcilla, Editha Flores Cabahug, Oscar Del Castillo, Dante Borbajo and Flueritz Gayle Jumao-as acted as co-proponents of the approved resolution.
Plunder
Last September 24, Ligas asked the Office of the Ombudsman in the Visayas to probe the Dizon couple on allegations of plunder, graft and corruption and the falsification of documents.
READ: Rep. Ouano-Dizon allocates P2.9B worth of projects for Mandaue this year
He alleged that the two took advantage of Rep. Ouano-Dizon’s employment at City Hall to acquire a 2, 500 square meter lot that was part of the 186-hectare north reclamation project implemented by a private developer in 1992.
Cinco-Remedio said that case was also worth looking into by the city government to check on the veracity of the accusations raised by Ligas.
“Pero og wala. So, fine, kung wala ray (truth) unsa to ang aligasyon, wala ra say kaso,” she added.
Dr. Emedio Bustillo, the media consultant of Rep. Ouano-Dizon said on Monday afternoon that the congresswoman is yet to receive a copy of the complaint filed by Ligas.
In an earlier interview, Ouano-Dizon expressed confidence that the case will be dismissed asserting that she and her husband have not done “anything wrong or illegal.”
Ouano-Dizon said that she was still a private citizen when the lot purchase was made more than 30 years ago.
Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.
Read Next
Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.
Hezbollah’s deputy leader Naim Qassem has delivered the group’s first video message since the killing of its leader Hassan Nasrallah, telling supporters that it will continue to fight and is ready to face any Israeli ground attack in Lebanon.
You guys are always asking for quick & easy ways to use our spice blends, so we’re kicking off a new series where we’ll feature one blend each week & will give you 9 ideas on what to do with each one.
First up, COFFEE BBQ blend!
What Can I Cook with COFFEE BBQ Blend?
1. COFFEE BBQ Wings
Preheat your oven to 375F, toss 2 dozen wings in 2 tablespoons EVOO, then season liberally with COFFEE BBQ. Bake for 45-50 mins until the skins are crispy.
2. COFFEE BBQ Chicken Breast or Thighs
Season the chicken a few hours ahead of time to act as a dry-rub, then cook the meat any way you please. (We always recommend 2 tablespoons of my spice blends per pound of meat.)
If you need tips on grilling the most succulent chicken breast ever, click here!
3. COFFEE BBQ Chicken Tacos
Same idea as the above “recipe” – simply season your chicken with COFFEE BBQ, grill, then stuff into a taco with your favorite fixings!
4. COFFEE BBQ Maple Spiced Nuts
You can find this recipe on our Instagram feed – it’s really easy to make & perfectly snackable. Use any nuts you like!
5. COFFEE BBQ Bacon Burgers
This will quickly become your new favorite burger recipe. It’s a burger but with bacon ground up into it. Yes, you read that right! You can find the full recipe on our blog.
6. COFFEE BBQ Salmon
Use my recipe for 6-Minute Salmon with COFFEE BBQ blend… it only takes 6 minutes and you’re done!
7. COFFEE BBQ Steak
I love a bavette or hangar cut for this – simply dry-rub the steak with COFFEE BBQ then grill for 3.5-4 minutes each side over high heat. Cut against the grain into thin slices.
8. COFFEE BBQ Ribs
These ribs are GOOOOOOD. Don’t slack on the seasoning, you really want to maximize that flavor. You can find the recipe here, though once you make it once, you won’t need a recipe – it’s that easy!
9. COFFEE BBQ Instant Pot Chicken
If you don’t want to use store-bought BBQ sauce (often loaded with gums or other additives!) or you don’t have on-hand, this Instant Pot BBQ Chicken recipe is for you!
Looking for even more recipes using COFFEE BBQ blend? Here are a couple more of our favorites:
Let us know in the comments what your favorite way to use COFFEE BBQ is!
The tight end position is always a tough one to fill for fantasy football managers. It doesn’t get any easier during bye weeks. The 2024 NFL season has reached Week 5 and the Philadelphia Eagles, Detroit Lions, Los Angeles Chargers, and Tennessee Titans are all sitting out the first bye week of the year.
The byes mean fantasy managers will be without Dallas Goedert, Sam LaPorta, Hayden Hurst, and Will Dissly. If you’re shorthanded this weekend, here are a few tight ends worth considering. They’re touchdown-or-bust lottery tickets, but they’re likely available in most of your leagues.
Cade Otton, Buccaneers (15% rostered)
Otton has put together consecutive strong games, hauling in a combined 13 receptions on 17 targets against the Eagles and Broncos the past two weeks. He didn’t find the end zone, but the uptick in work raises his floor as long as he is held out of the end zone.
Tyler Kraft, Packers (4% rostered)
Kraft broke out in Jordan Love’s Week 4 return to the lineup. He caught six of nine targets for 53 yards and a touchdown. He surpassed his season total for targets and equaled his season total for receptions. He remains a bit of a lottery ticket, but if you’re missing a tight end due to a bye, he’s got a great matchup in Week 5 against a Rams squad that has given up the fourth most fantasy points to tight ends.
Blake Whiteheart (0% rostered)
David Njoku was a scratch for the game and Whiteheart finally cashed in. He caught three passes for 13 yards and a touchdown. He’s a TD-or-bust option while Njoku is sidelined. If you have a spare roster spot, you can make a claim, but if you’re unsure, hold off. He’ll likely remain available and you can decide more once Njoku’s status is finalized for Week 5 against the Commanders.
This page: https://www.globalissues.org/article/588/global-health-overview.
To print all information (e.g. expanded side notes, shows alternative links), use the print version:
This article was originally written, on request, for Risk Group LLC, for their December 2005 edition on health care risks. It has been reposted here, reformatted for this web site, and as with most articles on this site, has and will be updated more as time allows.
This article looks at some global aspects of health issues, such as the impact of poverty and inequality, the nature of patent rules at the WTO, pharmaceutical company interests, as well as some global health initiatives and the changing nature of the global health problems being faced.
Despite incredible improvements in health since 1950, there are still a number of challenges, which should have been easy to solve. Consider the following:
Although the statistics above make for grim reading, an important underlying cause of all these deaths is poverty. The World Health Organization (WHO) and others repeatedly point out that many of these diseases are diseases of poverty.
However, some diseases are now not only the result of poverty, but have been contributing to poverty—a nasty feedback loop. In the case of malaria, for instance, the WHO notes that,
Malaria has significant measurable direct and indirect costs, and has recently been shown to be a major constraint to economic development.
… Annual economic growth in countries with high malaria transmission has historically been lower than in countries without malaria. Economists believe that malaria is responsible for a growth penalty of up to 1.3% per year in some African countries.
… The indirect costs of malaria include lost productivity or income associated with illness or death.
… Malaria has a greater impact on Africa’s human resources than simple lost earnings. Although difficult to express in dollar terms, another indirect cost of malaria is the human pain and suffering caused by the disease. Malaria also hampers children’s schooling and social development through both absenteeism and permanent neurological and other damage associated with severe episodes of the disease.
The simple presence of malaria in a community or country also hampers individual and national prosperity due to its influence on social and economic decisions. The risk of contracting malaria in endemic areas can deter investment, both internal and external and affect individual and household decision making in many ways that have a negative impact on economic productivity and growth.
Structural Adjustment—Cutting back on vital health and education services
Economic policies, such as Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), enforced by the IMF and World Bank for decades on poor countries have had a disastrous effect on health. SAPs were designed as an economic measure to promote fiscal austerity for poor countries that were burdened with heavy debt repayments to the rich countries. With the economic and third world debt crisis in the 1970s and 1980s, developing countries were pressured to take on Structural Adjustment. Economies were restructured to ensure debt repayment to the rich countries, but this meant reducing the standards of living for most people. Side NoteThat much of third world debt has been considered odious debt, is another issue in its own right!
The typical prescription to this economic medicine included:
Privatization at all costs;
Capital market liberalization;
Market-based pricing; and
Free Trade.
Regardless of specific circumstances, almost all developing countries were handed the same medicine.
As former World Bank Chief Economist and Nobel Prize winner for economics, Joseph Stiglitz noted, the IMF typically handed out these policies with a blind allegiance to market fundamentalism. This had a number of effects:
Poor countries, typically without fully developed market economies, were driven into further poverty as state protection and nurturing of domestic industries were abandoned, leaving the country open to foreign takeover of key services and sectors;
Cost of food, health services, education and other critical functions went up as important subsidies and other such programs were removed;
Social unrest, or as Stiglitz called it, IMF riots occurred as the cost of living became unbearable
Barriers to trade were removed, but in its place were the WTO rules, which favor the rich countries.
In terms of health, services were reduced or removed, and now health care is either unavailable for the poor in many parts of the world, or is too expensive. As noted above, 1 billion lack access to health care.
In Africa, for example,
The health care systems inherited by most African states after the colonial era were unevenly weighted toward privileged elites and urban centers. In the 1960s and 1970s, substantial progress was made…. Most African governments increased spending on the health sector during this period. They endeavored to extend primary health care and to emphasize the development of a public health system to redress the inequalities of the colonial era.
… With the economic crisis of the 1980s, much of Africa’s economic and social progress over the previous two decades began to come undone. As African governments became clients of the World Bank and IMF, they forfeited control over their domestic spending priorities. The loan conditions of these institutions forced contraction in government spending on health and other social services.
… The economic austerity policies attached to World Bank and IMF loans led to intensified poverty in many African countries in the 1980s and 1990s. This increased the vulnerability of African populations to the spread of diseases and to other health problems.
… Declining living conditions and reduced access to basic services have led to decreased health status. In Africa today, almost half of the population lacks access to safe water and adequate sanitation services. As immune systems have become weakened, the susceptibility of Africa’s people to infectious diseases has greatly increased.
… Even as government spending on health was cut back, the amounts being paid by African governments to foreign creditors continued to increase. By the 1990s, most African countries were spending more on repaying foreign debts than on health or education for their people. Health care services in African countries disintegrated, while desperately needed resources were siphoned off by foreign creditors…. Across Africa, debt repayments compete directly with spending on Africa’s health care services.
Despite these problems, the recommended solution by the IMF and others was privatization of the health system. For Africa, however, and many other poor countries, this was not appropriate.
Even in most developed countries, health is accepted as a fundamental human right, not a privilege, and is indeed enshrined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights (see Article 25, paragraph 1.) A solely market-based system for health services is even resisted, therefore, in some of the richest countries in the world. Canada, Australia, and many European nations, for example, boast rich public health systems, though some are under pressure to privatize at least partly, as well. Even in the US, where a privatized health system is generally in place, some 45 million people were without health insurance in 2003. If the rich countries are struggling on this issue, for poorer countries, it is even harder:
Throughout Africa, the privatization of health care has reduced access to necessary services. The introduction of market principles into health care delivery has transformed health care from a public service to a private commodity. The outcome has been the denial of access to the poor, who cannot afford to pay for private care…. For example … user fees have actually succeeded in driving the poor away from health care [while] the promotion of insurance schemes as a means to defray the costs of private health care … is inherently flawed in the African context. Less than 10% of Africa’s labor force is employed in the formal job sector.
… Beyond the issue of affordability, private health care is also inappropriate in responding to Africa’s particular health needs. When infectious diseases constitute the greatest challenge to health in Africa, public health services are essential. Private health care cannot make the necessary interventions at the community level … is less effective at prevention, and is less able to cope with epidemic situations. Successfully responding to the spread of HIV/AIDS and other diseases in Africa requires strong public health care services.
The privatization of health care in Africa has created a two-tier system which reinforces economic and social inequalities…. Despite these devastating consequences, the World Bank and IMF have continued to push for the privatization of public health services.
Furthermore, poverty has contributed to the phenomena of brain drain whereby the poor countries educate some of their population to key jobs such as in medical areas and other professions only to find that some rich countries try to attract them away. The prestigious journal, British Medical Journal (BMJ) sums this up in the title of an article: Developed world is robbing African countries of health staff. (Rebecca Coombes, BMJ, Volume 230, p.923, April 23, 2005.)
Large Pharmaceutical Companies—Profit at all costs?
Multinational pharmaceutical companies neglect the diseases of the tropics, not because the science is impossible but because there is, in the cold economics of the drugs companies, no market.
There is, of course, a market in the sense that there is a need: millions of people die from preventable or curable diseases every week. But there is no market in the sense that, unlike Viagra, medicines for leishmaniasis are needed by poor people in poor countries. Pharmaceutical companies judge that they would not get sufficient return on research investment, so why, they ask, should we bother? Their obligation to shareholders, they say, demands that they put the effort into trying to find cures for the diseases of affluence and longevity—heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer’s. Of the thousands of new compounds drug companies have brought to the market in recent years, fewer than 1% are for tropical diseases.
…
In the corporate headquarters of major drug companies, the public relations posters display the image they like to present: of caring companies that bring benefit to humanity, relieving the suffering of the sick. What they don’t say, is that, so far, their humanity has not extended beyond the limits of the pockets of the sick.
For many years, the large pharmaceutical companies and their lobby groups have come under sharp criticism for intensely lobbying rich country governments to protect their interests around the world through things like enforcement of strict patents laws on medicines, allowing companies to monopolize their products, charging high prices for medicines that people around the world depend on.
For the large companies, they feel their investment into research and development would suffer if other companies then simply copy what they produce. Yet, a lot of the base science and research that the large companies have benefited from has been publicly funded—through university programs, government subsidized research, and other health programs. Privatizing such profits may be acceptable to a certain degree. Certainly, the large pharmaceutical companies have created medicines that have saved millions of people’s lives. However, Jamie Love, an AIDS activist,
denies that the pharmaceuticals even own the rights to the drugs in the first place. He points out that many of the anti-retroviral drugs used to treat HIV and AIDS today stem from the government-funded cancer drug research of the 1980s. The rights to government-created innovations were sold to pharmaceutical companies at low prices … guaranteeing companies like Bristol-Myers Squibb huge returns on investment. Given the public investment in these drugs, Love doesn’t believe drug companies have the moral authority to determine who can or can’t access them. And the fact that thousands of people in Africa continue to die because they can’t afford the drugs adds urgency to his argument.
Some of the plants patented for their medicinal purposes do not even belong to the rich countries where most of the big pharmaceutical companies are based; they come from the developing world, where they have been used for centuries, but patented without their knowledge. Economist and director of the Third World Network, Martin Khor writes,
Just as controversial [as patenting living organisms], or even more so, are patents and patent applications relating to plants that have traditionally been used for medicinal and other purposes (e.g., as an insecticide) by people in developing countries; or patents on medicines for serious ailments. Many medicines are derived from or based on biochemical compounds originating from plants and biodiversity in the tropical and sub-tropical countries. Much of the knowledge of the use of plants for medical purposes resides with indigenous peoples and local communities. Scientists and companies from developed countries have been charged with biopiracy when they appropriate the plants or their compounds from the forests as well as the traditional knowledge of the community healers, since patents are often applied for the materials and the knowledge.
Martin Khor, Intellectual Property, Biodiversity and Sustainable Development; Resolving the Difficult Issues, (United Nations Environment Program, 2002), pp.27-28
From a purely economic perspective, the idea of patents is to spur innovation, but with pharmaceuticals, it is not just about economics. Dr. Drummond Rennie, from the Journal of the American Medical Association, noted in a television documentary that
Pharmaceuticals, they are a commodity. But they are not just a commodity. There is an ethical side to this because they’re a commodity that you may be forced to take to save your life. And that gives them altogether a deeper significance. But they [big pharmaceutical companies] have to realize that they’re not just pushing pills, they’re pushing life or death. And I believe that they don’t always remember that. Indeed, I believe that they often forget it completely.
Dr. Drummond Rennie, transcribed from Dying for Drugs, Channel 4, UK, April 27, 2003
However, critics are pointing out that as well as saving lives, they are also taking lives from the poor, especially in the developing world, where, through rich country governments, they have lobbied for policies that will help ensure that their patents are recognized in most countries, thus extending those monopolies on their drugs. Writer and broadcaster, John Madeley, summarizes a number of concerns raised over the years:
[Non-governmental Organizations] allege that the corporations:
sell products in developing countries that are withdrawn in the West;
sell their products by persuasive and misleading advertising and promotion;
cause the poor to divert money away from essential items, such as foodstuffs, to paying for expensive, patented medicines, thereby adding to problems of malnutrition;
sell products such as appetite stimulants which are totally inappropriate;
promote antibiotics for relatively trivial illnesses;
charge more for products in developing countries than they do in the West;
fail to give instructions on packets in local languages;
resist measures that would help governments of developing countries to promote generic drugs at low cost;
use their influence to try to prevent national drug policies;
give donations of drugs in emergencies which benefit the company rather than the needy;
use their home government to support their operation with threats if necessary, such as withdrawing aid, if a host government does anything to threaten their interests.
… The methods used by the corporations are highly controversial. Making use of advertising that is inexpensive in comparison to what they pay in industrialized countries, the drug TNCs [Transnational Corporations] use the most persuasive, not to say unethical, methods to persuade the poor to buy their wares. Extravagant claims are made that would be outlawed in the Western countries. A survey, in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that 62 per cent of the pharmaceutical advertisements in medical journals were either grossly misleading or downright inaccurate.
John Madeley, Big Business Poor Peoples; The Impact of Transnational Corporations on the World’s Poor, (Zed Books, 1999) pp. 145-146, 147
The big pharmaceutical companies have caused enormous uproar in recent years when they have attempted to block poorer countries’ attempts to deal with various health crises. A vivid case is that of South Africa and cheaper generic drugs. The huge pharmaceutical association, PhRMA (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America), and other large companies had intensely lobbied the then US Vice President, Al Gore, in 1999, to threaten South Africa with trade sanctions for trying to develop cheaper, generic drugs to combat AIDS. They claimed that World Trade Organization (WTO) rules regarding patents and intellectual property were being violated.
In fact, there was no violation. As problematic as the WTO rules have been in this area, there was provision in the rules allowing generic drugs to be created for emergency situations and public, non-commercial use. While public outrage managed to get such a move backed down, the underlying concerns from the big pharmaceutical companies have remained, and in various ways since, they have pressured the United States and other rich, industrialized nations to prevent other countries from doing similar things.
You can understand why the big companies are in fear. When CIPLA, one of India’s leading generics companies, offered a cocktail of anti-retroviral drugs for AIDS at $350 a year, compared to $10,000 from the multinational companies, this sent a shockwave in two ways. Poor countries realized they might have more affordable means to deal with a massive health crisis that afflicts them the most; and the large multinationals saw their monopoly prices severely threatened, and, exposed.
India’s patent laws have allowed the production of cheap generics. CIPLA, for example, offered this low-cost price for their AIDS drug at a loss for itself, because it said it made profits from other drugs, and this was something that was more than about profit and loss. However, India’s patent law has been under pressure from the rich countries for a long time now. Their patent laws were tightened up in early 2005, to come into line with WTO laws, thus making cheaper alternatives less easy to produce. This will not only impact India, but also a large majority of the world that looks to India’s generics industry.
Brazil too has found itself under pressure from the United States for producing cheaper generics. When its currency devalued in 1999, the case of Brazil also highlighted another issue: the high cost of imported drugs from the big pharmaceutical companies become even more costly as exchange rates fluctuate. Even though the dollar may be relatively weak currently, other rich countries where pharmaceuticals may be purchased from have currently got currencies that are stronger than the dollar. Currencies of course fluctuate. The point is then, that the fluctuation makes it harder for poorer countries to forecast how much the drugs may cost. They, and any other country would be dependent upon price negotiations with the pharmaceutical companies, too.
On April 27, 2003, Britain’s Channel 4 aired a documentary titled Dying for Drugs. Noting that drugs bring billions to big pharmaceutical companies, and hopes to people, they asked, how far would drugs companies go to get their drugs approved and the prices they want? As the documentary said in their introduction, the implications are alarming and if their power remains unchecked, many more people will soon will be dying for drugs.
In Africa, the documentary showed how one of the world’s biggest drug companies experimented on children without their parents’ knowledge or consent. In Canada, it was revealed how a drug company attempted to silence a leading academic who had doubts about their drug. In South Korea, it followed the attempts of desperately ill patients to make a leading drug company sell them the drugs they need to save their lives at an affordable price. And, in Honduras they showed the brutal consequences of drug companies’ pricing policies whereby to save a 12-year old child dying from AIDS, people had to smuggle drugs from across the border, in Guatemala, breaking the law in the process, just to get the drugs at affordable prices. The child died while the documentary crew filmed the desperate smuggling.
Experts interviewed in the documentary also made some important points of note:
On the controversial high pricing for drugs, the documentary noted, Big pharma generally defends high prices for new drugs … to cover costs for researching and developing new drugs. But in fact, most new drugs launched are just slight variations of existing medicines. So called Me Toos. Nathan Ford, of Médicins Sans Frontiéres said, At the moment we are getting more and more drugs of less and less use. Me Too drugs; the tenth headache pills; the 15th Viagra. There are currently eight drugs in development at the moment for erectile dysfunction. Do we need 8 more drugs for erectile dysfunction? I don’t think we do. Meanwhile diseases like Malaria, TB that kill 6 million people every a year, are neglected—no new medicines are coming out and we are left treating people with old drugs that increasingly don’t work.
Markets for pharmaceutical companies are not just about finding people to target, but people with money. Dr. Jonathan Quick of the World Health Organization (WHO) added that the majority of the market for some of the tropical diseases is in developing countries but, it’s a market in terms of numbers of people but the purchasing power is not there [and therefore] the normal dynamics of the research and development industry just don’t address those problems.
In another example of how power was used, the documentary noted what happened in Thailand in 1990: the Thai government was making a number of generic drugs. They also wanted to make a generic AIDS drug. However, the U.S. Trade Representative threatened them with export tariffs on wood and jewelry exports, which made up some 30% of Thailand’s total exports. The Thai trade representative was very frightened and they stopped making the generic drugs. The U.S Secretary of Commerce threatened the South Korean Minister of Health in a similar way, but despite those threats, he continued campaigning for cheaper drug prices. He was later sacked. How do companies have such power over entire countries? Jamie Love, also interviewed in this documentary, suggested an answer:
Its because they not only can threaten not to make medicines available, but they can credibly threaten that the U.S. and Europe will impose trade sanctions on those countries and the financial markets will punish them for overriding the patent protection and hurt the rest of the economy. They can actually make the credible threat that if they don’t pay their price for their medicine you won’t be able to sell your products. You won’t be able to have jobs in the manufacturing sector. Your whole economy will suffer.
These, and other examples presented in the documentary were not isolated cases. Hard-fought changes to WTO rules that would have allowed poorer nations easier access to generic drugs was agreed to by virtually every member country in the world, but was resisted by the U.S.—their veto killed the agreement. Side NoteFor more information on this aspect, see the Dying for Drugs link above. See also: Pharmaceutical Corporations and Medical Research from this web site; Larry Elliott and Charlotte Denny, US wrecks cheap drugs deal, The Guardian, December 21, 2002
These complex issues are alive today, as the latest Avian flu concerns confirm. The Third World Network raises the issue again of the role of patents in restricting access to badly needed medicines, in this case, Tamiflu, recommended by health officials to reduce the severity of this feared flu.
But as J.W. Smith from the Institute for Economic Democracy noted a long time ago, it is of course, a cruel world:
Few have challenged or even recognized the unfair tax upon the unfortunate created by vastly overpriced products and services. There is a consistent pattern; the greater the need, the greater the overcharge. Though the need of those with physical disabilities is great, they have limited power to defend themselves. The first efforts to develop mechanical aids for people with physical problems were undoubtedly undertaken with noble intentions. Typically no profit was involved and much labor and time was donated as generous people tried to help the unfortunate. However, those who knew the value of these aids when monopolized claimed patent rights, and those with disabilities now must pay those monopolists. Witness the hearing aids… Each is only a tiny amplifier, yet costs ten to twenty times as much as a radio, which is hundreds of times larger and much more complicated.
WTO—Patents, Intellectual Property, Emergency Drugs and Developing Countries
Due to what many believe is reasons of bad publicity, many large pharmaceutical companies have given away AIDS and other drugs at cheaper prices and even donated large sums of money to global initiatives. However, less discussed are the many fundamental issues that affect poor countries: access to essential drugs, allowing cheaper alternatives to be more easily made available, patent issues, the rights for poorer countries to pursue these alternatives, and so on.
Many of these issues go to the heart of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the global rules made at this organization to accommodate world trade. However, critics for many years have said that the WTO is overly influenced by the rich countries, who are far more able to wield their economic and political influences to get what is best for them, often at the expense of the developing world. Side NoteSee a collection of articles from this web site’s free trade-related issues section for more information.
TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property) is one of the main areas of the WTO agreements. Created in 1994, medicines were included in its patent rules. Some of its rules had come under severe criticism from activists and developing countries. Concerns included that TRIPS allowed monopolization of life-saving drugs for 20 years, risking price increases, and even stifling innovation. Poor countries cannot afford to wait 20 years to enjoy the benefits of important drugs.
Developing countries had to enforce the TRIPS rules by 2005, but the Least Developed Countries (LDCs)—32 of them in the WTO—had until 2006. (In the 2005 WTO meetings in Hong Kong, LDCs requested a 15-year extension for administrative, economic, and financial reasons. This was reduced to a 7½–year extension with conditions attached (for example, any changes in the meanwhile must not be less consistent with the provisions of the TRIPS agreement.)
During the WTO meeting in Doha, Qatar, 2001, the overall outcome was not seen as favorable for the poor. However, one area where there was some success was in health issues. Slightly strengthened WTO TRIPS rules meant governments that could not afford branded drugs would be able to take measures to protect health a bit more easily by creating cheaper generics themselves, through compulsory licensing.
WTO patent rules still allow 20 years of exclusive rights to make the drugs. Hence, the price is set by the company, leaving governments and patients little room to negotiate—unless a government threatens to overturn the patent with a compulsory license. Such a mechanism authorizes a producer other than the patent holder to produce the product though the patent-holder does get some royalty to recognize their contribution.
Parallel importing is another potentially powerful mechanism available to poor countries. Effectively, it allows a nation to shop around for the best price for the same drug, which may be sold in many countries at different prices.
Compulsory licensing and parallel importing (in particular, parallel importing of generic drugs) are very effective tools to get prices down for developing countries. For example, the above-mentioned documentary noted that a drug in question had been offered in Brazil at dramatically reduced cost by Novartis themselves because of the threat that generic versions would have posed. (In the Europe Union (EU), parallel importing has been practiced for a while, though it is only on brand drugs and only amongst EU member states, so the benefits to patients of reduced prices appear more questionable. Side NoteFor more information on this, see for example: EU pharmaceutical parallel trade—benefits to patients? from the London School of Economics, January 27, 2004; European Union should liberalize drug market, EU judge says, from Bloomberg, April 18, 2005.)
However, compulsory licensing laws in TRIPS imply that generics are only to be used for domestic purposes, not for export, and so parallel importing—which has been strongly resisted by the US and the pharmaceutical multinationals—was not part of the 2001 agreement. In reality, this means that given most poor countries do not have a sophisticated domestic pharmaceutical industry and thus would not have the ability to make their own generics, they would likely have to purchase the more expensive branded drugs.
At the next major WTO meeting, in Cancun, Mexico in September 2003, the developing countries managed to get another small win. But parallel importing may still prove difficult:
Developing countries successfully stopped the US and the pharmaceutical lobby from excluding many important diseases of the third world from the deal, which is an important achievement. However no matter how desperate the health need, a poor country without the capacity to produce a needed drug—which is virtually all of them—will have to ask another government to suspend the relevant patent and license a local company to produce and export it.
Few countries, if any, will be prepared to help other countries in this way, as it would provoke retaliation by the US, which fiercely defends the commercial interests of the drug companies. What is more the agreement is wrapped in so much red tape and uncertainty that in practice it will be very difficult to use.
The bottom line is that many poor countries will still have to pay the high price for patented medicines or most probably, doing without. The World Trade Organization has failed to live up to the Doha pledge to put people’s health before profits.
In addition, as noted further above however, the US has sought to undermine the agreement made at Doha. Oxfam, a prominent NGO, has been highly critical of the practices of big pharmaceutical companies, arguing that, The U.S. Trade Representative is pursuing standards of patent protection which go far beyond WTO patent rules, and it is doing so regardless of the devastating impact that this could have on … developing countries. Oxfam also believes the US is pursuing this pro-patent agenda on behalf of its powerful pharmaceutical lobby, PhRMA. The industry has an interest in strong patent protections, which limit generic competition and therefore protect its market share and profits. Furthermore,
The cheapest generic versions of new patented drugs are being blocked from developing-country markets by U.S. trade policies on intellectual property, at the urging of the drug companies that benefit from the monopoly position that patents confer.
During the two years since Doha, the U.S. has contravened the goal of the Declaration—‘access to medicines for all’—by pressuring developing countries to implement ‘TRIPS-plus measures’: patent laws which go beyond TRIPS obligations and do not take advantage of its public-health safeguards. The USA does this in a number of ways. It provides biased technical assistance in countries such as Uganda and Nigeria, which benefits its own industry by increasing drug prices and limiting the availability of generics, but reducing access. It uses bilateral and regional free trade agreements to ratchet up patent protection in developing countries. It has recently concluded free trade agreements with Chile and Singapore and is using the high intellectual property standards in the latter as a model for negotiations on the FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas … and with Central American, Southern African, and other countries. And lastly, the U.S. bullies countries into increasing patent protection by threatening them with trade sanctions under section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974; nearly all those targeted are developing countries, including countries in compliance with their WTO obligations. The Costa Rican Pharmaceutical Industry estimates that the implementation of such TRIPS-plus patent rules would mean an increase in the cost of medicines of up to 800 per cent, because these rules would seriously restrict competition from generics.
Martin Khor reported for the Third World Network on a global AIDS conference in Bangkok, July, 2004 and also commented on the negative impacts of the growing number of bilateral agreements signed with the US that Oxfam alluded to. These agreements, Khor wrote, are creating new barriers to access to medicines, as they forbid the developing countries from policies (which the WTO allows) that promote generic medicines. To add to the sour French-US political relations, There was a diplomatic uproar when the French President Jacques Chirac accused the US of blackmailing developing countries to give up measures to obtain life-saving drugs through these bilateral trade deals.
Since around 2000, a number of global initiatives have been set up to deal with various global health crises. To their credit, the big pharmaceutical companies have been actively involved in them, too.
Mega-rich individuals, such as Bill Gates, have also shown incredible charity by donating hundreds of millions of dollars to these initiatives. Some of the donations from people like Bill Gates are not without their criticisms for other motives, however. Side NoteSee for example, Gates gives $100m to fight HIV, $421m to fight Linux, by Thomas C. Greene, The Register (UK), November 11, 2002; Bill Gates: Killing Africans for Profit and PR, by Greg Palast July 14, 2003. But more fundamentally, as the magazine Himal South Asia notes,
Private charity is an act of privilege, it can never be a viable alternative to State obligations, said Dr James Obrinski, of the organization Médicins Sans Frontiéres, in Dhaka recently at the People’s Health Assembly…. In a nutshell, industry and private donations are feel-good, short-term interventions and no substitute for the vastly larger, and essentially political, task of bringing health care to more than a billion poor people.
The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria was created at the urging of UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, in 2001. It was supposed to be the largest fund set up to tackle these global health issues. However, it has suffered from poor funding, slow distribution, and other political obstacles from some of the richest countries such as the US that would prefer to have their own initiatives so they have more control over where the money goes (the Global Fund is supposed to be a fund where countries donate without any strings attached. The US, as the international HIV and AIDS charity AVERT criticizes, prefers to go via its own PEPFAR (the President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief). This allows the US to avoid supporting countries perceived to be hostile, or those who may support programs it currently does not like—such as abortion and condom use, or use of generic drugs. For a good overview about the challenges and obstacles for the Global Fund, see The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria by AVERT, September, 2005).
As Oxfam and other organizations have charged, the large pharmaceutical companies are using corporate philanthropy to push their products at prices that would still be higher than generics, which poorer countries would be able to afford:
Several major pharmaceutical corporations are supporting international initiatives either by donating drugs or by subsidizing drugs provision, often receiving generous tax benefits in return. There are longstanding initiatives in place for controlling malaria, tuberculosis, and river blindness.
Pharmaceutical companies cite such agreements as evidence that strict patent protection under the WTO is compatible with socially responsible marketing. Reality is more prosaic. The main problem with these initiatives is that drugs are often made available in limited quantities, and at prices which compare unfavorably with those for generic-equivalent products.
During 2000, these initiatives were supplemented by an agreement between UNAIDS and five pharmaceutical companies … to improve access to treatment for HIV-positive people in developing countries [and] provide anti-retroviral products at significant discounts as part of a national AIDS plan.
Nevertheless, it has been slow to implement … and many African governments continue to argue that the waiving of patent rights on life-saving drugs would be a far more effective way of bringing down prices.
In effect … Commercial self-interest and corporate philanthropy are pulling in different directions. [Emphasis is original]
Physical activity is strongly influenced by the design of cities through the density of residences, the mix of land uses, the degree to which streets are connected and the ability to walk from place to place, and the provision of and access to local public facilities and spaces for recreation and play. Each of these plus the increasing reliance on cars is an important influence on shifts towards physical inactivity in high- and middle-income countries
In crowded places, environmental factors such as pollution also become a factor and interact with issues such as physical inactivity (e.g. increasing use of cars contributes to more air pollution, greenhouse gases and less physical activity.
The WHO also notes that with increasing urbanization comes increasing violence and crime. In addition, the effects of depression and social exclusion can become more profound. About 14% of the global burden of disease has been attributed to neuropsychiatric disorders, mostly due to depression and other common mental disorders, alcohol- and substance-use disorders, and psychoses. The burden of major depression is expected to rise to be the second leading cause of loss of disability-adjusted life years in 2030 and will pose a major urban health challenge. (pp.62-63)
Even the demands of increasing globalization has a health impact. For example, more people are working in informal sectors or part time. Increasingly influential transnational corporations are pushing for more labor flexibility to stay competitive. Reduced real income as people work longer hours and under more stress also means more health issues. Furthermore, some 487 million people (out of the 3 billion labor force) do not earn enough to lift themselves and their families out of poverty (p.73).
Further, globally, it is estimated that there are about 28 million victims of slavery, and 5.7 million children are in bonded labor (p.74). And more than 200 million children globally aged 5-17 years are economically active.
When employment is coercive, exploitative, or accompanied by harsh/unfair conditions, established health and safety standards are less likely to be applied. If populations are becoming increasingly flexible while real incomes are reducing, these can all have a knock-on effect on health issues.
Poverty exacerbates health issues. Under conditions of poverty, entities such as large pharmaceutical companies can wield even more power and influence over poorer countries. Some major reasons for unnecessary deaths around the world are therefore due to human decisions and politics, not just natural outcomes. Well-intentioned companies, organizations and global action show that humanity and compassion still exists, but tackling systemic problems is paramount for effective, universal health care that all are entitled to.
Addressing health problems goes beyond just medical treatments and policies; it goes to the heart of social, economic and political policies that not only provide for healthier lives, but a more productive and meaningful one that can benefit other areas of society.
A dietitian’s review of Daily Harvest- a food delivery that has smoothies, grain bowls, soups, flatbreads and more!
I’ve been a huge fan of Daily Harvest for years! If you haven’t heard, Daily Harvest is a food subscription service that is delivered right to your home. The meals are plant-based and mostly based completely on fruits and vegetables- an awesome way to make healthy eating easier! They have tons of smoothies (my favorite!), grains, soups, flatbreads and more. Today, I’m going to give you my Daily Harvest review as a registered dietitian.
**Save up to $75 on your first Daily Harvest order! Use code MInutritionist to save.
Overall, I love Daily Harvest. The smoothies are by far my favorite because not only are they delicious but they also save me a lot of time during a busy morning and have flavors that I wouldn’t think of on my own. Some of the meals are lacking in protein so I just add my own protein which is not a big deal. I love that Daily Harvest makes healthy eating easy. Having tons of fiber-rich fruit, veggies, grains, beans, flax, etc. at your fingertips ready to heat up makes life so much easier as a busy person. I would definitely recommend trying Daily Harvest if your budget allows.
Daily Harvest Smoothies
My favorite part about Daily Harvest is the smoothies! They have incredible combinations that are so delicious and save you time from chopping everything up yourself and having to buy all of the ingredients. My favorite smoothie flavors are the Mint + Cacao Smoothie (tastes just like mint chocolate chip ice cream and my kids love it too), Passion Fruit + Greens, and the Mango + Greens smoothie. Honestly though, I do love all of the Daily Harvest smoothies. I will note that they are lower in protein so I love adding 2% milk and scoop of protein powder to my smoothie to make it a complete meal.
Daily Harvest Grains
I love some of the Daily Harvest grains which is a bag of grains, beans, veggies and seasonings in lots of different flavors. In the bag comes 4 servings so we often have it as our side dish for a dinner. The lemon quinoa and butternut squash is my favorite and my husband likes the cilantro brown rice and black beans. I enjoy them topped with a protein like chicken, steak or beans. They save a lot of time for quick lunches for my husband for work as well.
Daily Harvest Forager Bowls
Daily Harvest forager bowls are another favorite. They have a variety of oat bowls like pineapple and passion fruit and oat bowl or mulberry and dragon fruit oat bowl that make an awesome breakfast. I add 2% milk or water to mine to soak overnight, heat them in the morning and then add a scoop of peanut butter for protein and healthy fats.
Is Daily Harvest healthy?
Daily Harvest is an awesome healthy meal and snack option! With meals being packed with fruits, vegetables, whole grains, beans and more, I would say that Daily Harvest is a very healthy option.
How to Order Daily Harvest
First, you need to signup for a Daily Harvest account. Then, choose the items you want to order. Choose a plan and date to deliver your goodies. When the box arrives, pop the food into your freezer for whenever you’re ready to eat it.
Sen. Imee R. Marcos –Senate Public Relations and Information Bureau
MANILA, Philippines — It’s official: Senator Imee Marcos said she was withdrawing from the administration’s Senate slate.
In a press conference on Monday, she said the decision was meant to protect her younger brother President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. from being placed at risk and to shield her friends from getting hurt.
Article continues after this advertisement
“Para hindi na malagay sa alanganin ang kapatid ko, kasi kinakabahan na nga siya baka ano raw – eh, ‘yung aking ading e baka malagay pa sa alanganin at ‘yung mga kaibigan [ay] masaktan, maigi na ‘yung tumayo akong mag isa kahit napakahirap tumayong mag isa,” Sen. Marcos told reporters.
(To keep my brother from getting into a difficult situation, since he’s already nervous about what might happen – and to avoid putting my little brother at risk or causing my friends to get hurt, it’s better for me to stand alone, even though standing alone is really hard.)
According to Marcos, she was well aware of the hardships that she would face with her decision. She, however, emphasized that she needs to be “free and strong” to “cross the line, talk to all parties and get things done.”
Article continues after this advertisement
“Maraming nagsasabi noon na ako’y namamangka sa dalawang ilog. Ang ninanais ko ay ako ang daan kung saan magtatagpo ang lahat ng ilog. Tangway, ika nga sa atin. It’s a tremendous sacrifice to stand alone,” said the senator.
Article continues after this advertisement
(Many people are saying that I am sailing in two rivers, but what I intend to do is to be the path where all rivers meet. A peninsula, as we would say.)
Article continues after this advertisement
“Uniteam was a dream that I shared in 2022. And I hold fast to that dream of unity for all Filipinos,” she added.
Marcos was later asked if this meant that she was withdrawing from her brother’s official Senate slate, to which she answered: “Yes, obvious ba (Isn’t it obvious)?”
The senator then admitted that she had not discussed the matter yet with President Marcos, but she did tell her mother about it.
“Yung nanay ko nalulungkot eh. Sabi niya, bakit naman gano’n? Sabi ko, mas maganda naman para sa pamilya, para sa kabutihan ng lahat. Para nakakausap natin lahat ng sektor, meron tayong daan na makisuyo sa iba’t ibang panig. At yun naman ang turo ng aking ama, isang bansa, isang diwa. Huwag tayo magkawatak-watak,” she said.
(My mother got sad. She asked me why it became like that. I said it would be better for the family, for the good of everyone. So we can engage with all sectors and have a way to reach out to different sides. That’s what my father taught us: one nation, one spirit. Let’s not be divided.)
Pressed to elaborate on whether or not she intends to resolve the supposed rift between her brother and Vice President Sara Duterte, the senator said it was only “secondary,” next to her desire to stand free and alone.
Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.
Last September 26, President Marcos announced the 12 senatorial candidates he is endorsing for the 2025 elections. The Marcos administration’s senatorial slate are members of the newly-formed political coalition “Alyansa para sa Bagong Pilipinas.”
The long-running case threatens to scupper any bid by Le Pen for the presidency in 2027.
Far-right French leader Marine Le Pen – a presidential candidate in the last three elections – and members of her National Rally (RN) party face trial on allegations that they misused European Union funds.
The nine-week trial, due to open on Monday morning, will be closely watched by Le Pen’s political rivals as a conviction could scupper her chances of making another bid for the presidency in 2027.
The allegations are directed against 26 defendants from RN, including the leader’s father and party founder Jean-Marie Le Pen.
Party officials and employees, former lawmakers and parliamentary assistants are accused of using money allocated to cover the costs of European Parliament roles to pay staff who were working for RN.
Prosecutors claim that RN said the funds were used to pay “parliamentary assistants” of members of the European Parliament (MEPs) between 2004 and 2016, but that, in reality, the employees were working exclusively in other roles for the party.
Many assistants were unable to describe their day-to-day work and some never met their supposed MEP boss or set foot in the parliament building, the prosecution said.
A bodyguard, secretary, Le Pen’s chief of staff and a graphic designer were all allegedly hired under false pretences.
Le Pen has always denied the allegations, which were first flagged in 2015, and claims the case is politically driven.
The case reportedly involves a sum of close to $7.8m. Le Pen paid back 330,000 euros ($368,400) to the European Parliament last year, but her party stressed that this was not an admission of misconduct.
If found guilty, Le Pen and her co-defendants could face up to 10 years in prison and fines of up to 1 million euros ($1.1m) each.
Other penalties, including the loss of civil rights or ineligibility to run for office, could also be imposed, a scenario that could block Le Pen from a fourth run for the French presidency in 2027.
Corruption is both a major cause and a result of poverty around the world. It occurs at all levels of society, from local and national governments, civil society, judiciary functions, large and small businesses, military and other services and so on.
This article looks at some global aspects of health issues, such as the impact of poverty and inequality, the nature of patent rules at the WTO, pharmaceutical company interests, as well as some global health initiatives and the changing nature of the global health problems being faced.
