A strange new union between health and beer is now set to help Africa to fight HIV, tuberculosis and malaria. The public-private partnership between the World’s second largest brewer Heineken and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria has stirred up a hornet's nest.
Explaining the partnership, the Global Fund’s Director of External Relations, Christoph Benn wrote in a blog that “Heineken will support efforts in countries in Africa where the company is present to improve the effectiveness of the ‘last mile’ distribution, which focuses on ensuring the right goods can reach health care facilities and patients in remote areas” (1). This suggests that the Global Fund is going to benefit from Heineken’s experience in distributing beer to remote areas in African countries.
Within a week, a joint open letter of IOGT International, the Global Alcohol Policy Alliance, and the NCD Alliance was published, criticising the partnership between the Global Fund and the Heineken. The open letter calls upon the Global Fund to “end the partnership with Heineken and that you take our concerns into consideration when [...] exploring future partnerships”. It further states that “partnerships with the alcohol industry are laden with inherent conflicts of interest. Transnational corporations producing and aggressively marketing alcohol rely on the harmful use of alcohol for their sales and profits“(2). The Global Fund themselves state on their website that such partnerships bring “visibility, recognition and opportunities to further develop businesses” (3), arguing for the involvement of industry with the Global Fund. Heineken argues in their press release that they engage “to end these [AIDS] epidemics in Africa” and frame it on humanitarian grounds, even though they ambiguously end their press release that “the new partnership will expand the geographical scope of activities” (4).
Dr Senait Fisseha, an adviser to the World Health Organization, nailed it exactly when she tweeted: “It’s scandalous to create market entry under the auspices of aid and development.” (5)
So considering all this, should the Global Fund not ask the question whether distributing beer efficiently is a positive or negative health factor? If it could contribute to an unhealthy behaviour will it not undermine the good efforts of the Fund? As already raised by many the question is: Does harmful use of alcohol increase the risk factors of both HIV and tuberculosis or not? Should the Global Fund not have considered the wider political impact such a partnership has?
The health benefits of the Global Fund’s new partnership with alcohol cannot be gaged in either monetary terms or expertise received. But it has an ethical dimension in a world where the line between public good and private profit is getting blurred. This means it is all the more important for public health advocates to be vigilant as to partnerships that are created.
This is where the Global Fund has failed. It has set a bad example of yet another unhealthy pragmatic alliance with a huge alcohol company which produces nearly 17 billion litres of beer annually. At first instance this does not bode well for global health. Yet, the partnership has also put a spotlight on important gaps in global health policy that need to be addressed.
Written by Sunanda Deshapriya, Journalist, Human Rights Defender and Photographer