The photograph here shows part of the packet of Chocapic®. This is a Nestlé sugary ‘breakfast cereal’ aggressively marketed using the theme of greed, to young children in Chile – and no doubt many other countries. It comes in normal and also double super-size 900 gram packs. Its slogan (not shown in the photograph) is ‘the fantastic experience of chocolate’, and the package also advertises ‘free’ ‘intergalactic’ toys. Dr Guido Girardi, the Chilean senator who heads his country’s senate health committee, was invited to the Porto congress by Association founder member and former IUNS president Ricardo Uauy. In a session on shifting science to policy to action, Dr Girardi flourished a packet of Chocapic®. In effect, he said: ‘If you want to stamp out such outrageous exploitative marketing, legislators and public health professionals must work together, and right now’. But how? Infuriated Porto participants, and colleagues all over the world not at the congress, discovered an internet media statement by Nestlé, released by Reuters during the congress, now also on the Nestle website at www.nestle.com. Its headline was ‘Nestlé focuses on nutrition at the World Public Health Congress in Portugal’. Its story advertised an out-of-session lunchtime symposium paid for by Nestlé. The release gave some readers the impression that Nestlé was setting the global public health nutrition agenda. Congress president Maria Daniel Vaz de Almeida reacted emphatically, stating officially that the Porto congress ‘Does not endorse any statement made by sponsoring companies in connection with the Congress. Any statement and/or dissemination of information by any means is the sole responsibility of the respective author(s) and does not reflect the agreement of the Organization’. Science programme co-president Lluis Serra-Majem also confirmed that the media release contained errors. But it was of course the Nestlé claims and impressions that got worldwide media attention. It’s likely that their story was picked up by thousands of media outlets. Hanky-panky ‘Industry whose profits depend on products that consumed in typical quantities are harmful to health, increasingly go in for such effective hanky-panky’ said Carlos Monteiro, Association founder member. ‘As a profession we have only ourselves to blame. If we sell space on our conference programmes and within the conferences itself, to such transnational companies, of course they will take maximum advantage of this. They have products to sell, positioning to maintain, and finance houses watching their bottom lines Of course they will give the impression that they are “moving towards healthy and sustainable nutrition for all”, in partnership with the profession. Of course if we let them, their public affairs people will deeply penetrate conferences, and will charm, confuse or co-opt nutrition professionals. This is their job’. ‘It would be an error to suppose this issue was just about Nestlé’ added Fabio Gomes. His column in the October issue (this issue) of the Association’s website, points to the case of Danone, sponsor or supporter of a whole series of Porto official scientific sessions on ‘hydration’. ‘These symposiums were all about moving away from drinking sugared soft drinks and towards drinking bottled water’ he said. All the water at the Porto congress was supplied by the Danone water division, so that all participants became walking and drinking advertisements for Nestlé and Danone. ‘Is this a problem?’ asked Fabio. ‘Of course it is. How come there was just one session at Porto on the topic of breastfeeding? How come there was no reference in the Danone-supported sessions to the public good of fresh water like that comes out of our taps?’ Who is responsible? ‘A key problem’ added Association publication secretary Geoffrey Cannon ‘is that very few of the distinguished scientists listed as members of programme committees, who give conferences special status, have any actual responsibility. Instead, decisions are made by a few extremely busy colleagues. These essentially work as volunteers, with expense accounts. Their job is to make their conference a success, which includes breaking even or making a surplus. They are put under pressure by the professional – commercial – conference organisers, who tell them that if for example they want to jet in ten more colleagues to add more lustre to the scientific programme, they will have to accept flogging off sessions to conflicted industry, and giving such industry a free hand’. He added ‘But what makes this much worse, is that such sessions seem to be official, and are promoted as the best science, within the programme, and then in as in the case of Nestlé, by media releases whose messages drown out any squawks of protest we may make. The profession is being treated as a stooge. The first step to a solution is to become aware of what is happening, and why’. ‘The current penetration of our conferences by conflicted industry must not continue’ said Association president Barrie Margetts. ‘With our partners Abrasco, we are now planning Rio 2012, the next world public health nutrition conference. Rio 2012 will flourish with funds from registration fees, and from sources of public money, full stop. Will we ask individual executives who work for industry to participate in Rio 2012, so that we can reason with them? We are consulting colleagues about this but yes, I think we will – with clear labelling, and on our terms. Rio 2012 is not for sale’. Editor’s note. The issue of professional ethics concerning public health nutrition conferences is the topic of last month’s and also this month’s World Nutrition editorials.   October News Are we for sale? Respond here please