|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 41
4
What Next?
C
onducting workshops such as this one, as well as those mentioned
in Chapter 1, is a good first step to building public–private partner-
ships in food and nutrition. This particular meeting created a safe
space for representatives from different sectors not only to become more
familiar with each other’s deeply held beliefs and goals for public–private
partnership and explore the possibility of collaboration, but also to develop
an understanding of processes and actions necessary for moving forward.
This chapter summarizes the presentations and discussions that led to this
understanding.
Specifically, workshop participants spent a great deal of time discuss-
ing and testing a draft assessment tool to use when making decisions about
whether to enter a new partnership. The second breakout session was
aimed at identifying which features of the tool would likely be most helpful.
During the third breakout session, participants used the tool to guide their
exploration of possibilities for public–private partnership in specific areas
of food and nutrition (i.e., obesity, food labeling and messaging, calorie
reduction). There was also a brief discussion on the importance of having
a mechanism in place for opting out of an existing partnership.
Additionally, Jonathan Marks offered suggestions for how to navigate
the ethics of private sector engagement. He referred workshop participants
to the criteria and mechanisms developed by the United Nations System
Standing Committee on Nutrition and the WHO Partnership for Maternal,
Newborn, and Child Health (PMNCH). Marks’s suggestions prompted
debate about how to cultivate public trust in public–private collaboration
41
OCR for page 42
42 PUBLIC–PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS IN FOOD AND NUTRITION
in food and nutrition and whether there were any mechanisms that could
be helpful in generating that trust.
Finally, Michael McGinnis offered some closing remarks on general
areas in food and nutrition that he considers ripe for future collaboration,
based on mutual interest among all sectors. These include research (e.g.,
developing a common research agenda aimed at understanding variation
in basic caloric requirements) and assessment (e.g., pooling data on eating
habits and the impact of eating habits on weight and health status). Indeed,
that the mutual desire for more data and knowledge makes research and
assessment especially conducive areas for public–private collaboration was
an overarching theme of the workshop.
TOOLS FOR BUILDING PUBLIC–PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS IN
FOOD AND NUTRITION
One outcome of the Building Trust Initiative was a one-page list of
questions to consider when assessing whether to engage in a partnership,
that is, the types of things that potential partners should think about as they
enter into a dialogue on multisectoral collaboration (Table 4-1). Finegood
offered the one-page list of questions as a draft assessment tool for use
during the workshop. Participants used the questions as guidance during
the second breakout session, when exploring “metrics of acceptability,”
or factors to consider in deciding whether to engage in a partnership. The
questions were used again during the third breakout session, when partici-
pants explored possibilities for partnerships on specific topics.
The draft assessment tool has three general categories, or domains, of
questions:
1. Initiation. The first set of questions revolves around what potential
partners should be thinking about at the beginning of a partnership.
The benefit-risk decision-making pathway displayed in Figure 3-1
from Kraak and colleagues (2011) would fall within this domain.
Based on work done during the Building Trust workshops, Finegood
listed several questions, or issues, to consider during the initiation
phase of a partnership: level of authentic trust; commonality of inter-
ests; brand complementarity; appropriate authority and mandate to
negotiate; appropriate expertise, capacity, and resources; feasibility
of achieving common goals; legal accountability throughout; and
risk mitigation.1
1 Most of these issues were addressed during this workshop and are summarized elsewhere in
this report. The only one that was not discussed in extensive detail was brand complementarity.
According to Finegood, clashing of a private brand and a nonprofit brand and the impact of
OCR for page 43
43
WHAT NEXT?
TABLE 4-1 Draft Tool for Assessing Partnerships
Value of Item
Low Medium High
Initiation: Shall I engage in this partnership?
Level of authentic trust
Commonality of interests
Brand complementarity
Appropriate authority and
mandate to negotiate
Appropriate expertise, capacity, and resources
Feasibility of achieving common goals
Legal accountability throughout
Risk mitigation (for media attention, public scrutiny)
Development: If yes, how do we maintain our relationship?
Leadership and champions identified
Clarity of roles, responsibilities, accountabilities,
jurisdiction, and commitment to completion
Opportunity for sharing assets (e.g., reach, resources,
influence)
Commitment to and capacity for internal and external
communications throughout
Capacity for project and issues management
Completion: And now that we have achieved our goals . . .
Planning for project closure and celebration
Evaluation of partnership is planned and resourced
SOURCE: Diane Finegood and Margaret Rudolf.
2. Development. The second set of questions to consider when assess-
ing partnerships pertains to the maintenance of the partnerships,
including whether to disengage from a partnership. Again, based
on work conducted during the Building Trust workshops, Finegood
listed several questions, or issues, to consider when evaluating this
development phase: identification of leaders and champions; clarity
of roles, responsibilities, accountabilities, jurisdiction, and commit-
ment to completion; opportunity for sharing assets; commitment to
and capacity for internal and external communications; and capacity
for project and issues management.
3. Completion. It is just as important to consider termination of the part-
nership as it is initiation and development. Many Building Trust work-
shop participants identified two key issues, or questions, to consider
when evaluating the completion phase of a partnership: (1) whether
the clash on that partnership had a great deal to do with many Building Trust workshop
participants identifying brand complementarity as an important issue.
OCR for page 44
44 PUBLIC–PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS IN FOOD AND NUTRITION
project closure and completion have been planned and (2) whether
evaluation of the partnership has been planned and resourced.
Reflecting on Workshop Participants’ Own Best Practices
During the second breakout session, workshop participants were asked
to think about past partnership experiences and to consider two questions.
First, what benefits and risks of partnership should I be considering when
determining the balance across all partners (e.g., money, in-kind resources,
other assets)? Second, how do I determine the acceptability of a specific
public–private partnership and whether I want to enter into that partner-
ship? Groups were asked to report back to the group at large any common
themes among responses to the second question only. Those report-back
BOX 4-1
Reflecting on Our Own Best Practices: Report-
Back from the Second Breakout Session
Workshop participants were asked to think about partnership experiences they
have already had and to consider how they determine the acceptability of a spe-
cific public–private partnership. Here is a summary of the “metrics of acceptability”
identified by the mixed-sector breakout groups. The numbers in parentheses
indicate the number of breakout groups (total of six) that identified that particular
metric (although not necessarily with the language used here) as being important.
• greement on a common agenda and goal, with return of investment
A
for all partners (5). One breakout group spokesperson said, “We want to
make sure that there are some common goals or common approaches
to what you want to achieve.” Another breakout group emphasized that
recognizing potential areas of disagreement and explicitly agreeing that
those areas will not be addressed is an integral part of identifying where
commonalities reside and, thus, where productive partnerships can be
nurtured.
• ontributions of partners, with each partner bringing something
C
unique and complementary to the table and with all partners engaged
and committed and not just signing on to the cause (5). With respect
to unique contributions, one breakout group spokesperson explained, “That
doesn’t necessarily mean a tremendous amount of expertise, although
obviously you want that, but it could also mean that they bring something
else to the table that’s important, be it political power or something else.”
Another breakout group identified the importance of a balanced representa-
tion between “the usual players” and new players who bring with them the
potential for innovation. Yet another group emphasized the importance of
maintaining a balanced bias.
OCR for page 45
45
WHAT NEXT?
results are summarized in Box 4-1. As previously mentioned, the groups
were mixed with respect to sector, with representatives from government,
academia, industry, and NGOs present at each table. Thus, the breakout
discussions and report-backs to the group at large represent diverse sets of
voices.
Finegood observed that the report-back results were very closely aligned
with the types of questions and issues that were included in the draft tool
(Table 4-1). However, she emphasized the need to modify the language of
the draft tool in order to make it more accessible to more potential partners.
The breakout groups reported that many representatives from the different
sectors identified the same key metrics of acceptability but that different
language was sometimes used to articulate those metrics.
• ompatibility, both individual and institutional (3) (e.g., core values of
C
the partners). With respect to individual compatibility, one breakout group
spokesperson said, “We have to be able to get along. We don’t want to fight
with each other at the table. If we have any issues with that, we might want
to reconsider the relationship.”
• cope and extent of the project (3), including its feasibility and
S
achievability.
• ast partnership history and performance (2) (e.g., proven track record
P
of success, history of credibility).
• aving clear procedural steps in place (2), including an operation plan
H
or research design in place, metrics for measurement and evaluation, and
procedural steps for opting out. With respect to evaluation, one breakout
group emphasized the importance of a “built-in evaluation throughout the
partnership” because a partnership is a “living entity that develops over
time.”
• ense of authentic trust among the sectors that allows for adaptation
S
and (anticipated) progress (2). Also, the manager of the partnership, if
there is one, must be trusted by all parties.
• ublic trust (1) (i.e., whether the public is going to react negatively to the
P
partnership).
• pparent importance of solving the problem (1).
A
• he absence of “nonstarters” (1). One breakout group spokesperson
T
explained, “If there is a subject matter or something that just doesn’t align
with the agenda of your organization, you might not want to get into that
relationship” (e.g., tobacco and public health).
• enefits of participation considered against the risks and benefits of
B
nonparticipation (1).
OCR for page 46
46 PUBLIC–PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS IN FOOD AND NUTRITION
Opting Out
Importantly, decisions about cross-sector partnerships extend beyond
whether to enter into a new partnership. As Castle pointed out, sometimes
partners need to disengage from collaborations to which they have already
committed. Castle remarked that an important feature of the Kraak and
colleagues (2011) benefit-risk decision-making tree is that it includes deci-
sions for disengagement alongside decisions for engagement. In voluntary
partnerships, Castle said, “opting out as smoothly as you opt in should be
a guiding light.” Marks noted that sometimes there are irresolvable ethi-
cal issues. He said, “Some kinds of partnership may not be appropriate in
certain circumstances. It’s important to keep that in mind.”
Navigating the Ethics of Engagement2
Marks emphasized that from the perspective of the public sector and
the academy, it is important to safeguard both integrity—including insti-
tutional integrity, individual integrity, and scientific integrity—and public
trust. He stressed, “public trust extends beyond the legitimate but nar-
rower concerns about conflicts of interest.” In navigating the ethics of
public–private partnerships, Marks said it is important to keep in mind two
elements: substantive criteria and procedural mechanisms, including some
form of initial review, monitoring and evaluation, and ex post analysis. A
discussion of ethics requires recognition that there are some cases where one
should not engage in a public–private partnership and other cases where
one should disengage, as raised in the previous section. Elaborating on
this, Marks observed that some private institutions may not be appropri-
ate partners, that some initiatives may not be suitable for public–private
partnerships, and that some kinds of partnership may be inappropriate.
Marks suggested that workshop participants look to the substantive
criteria and procedural mechanisms developed by the UNSCN and the
WHO Partnership for Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health as models
for navigating the ethics of public–private partnership engagement. Both
entities have wrestled with conflicts of interest and the institutional and
scientific integrity and public trust challenges created by private sector
engagement in public sector efforts. Marks noted that he offered these
examples as starting points for discussion.
The UNSCN produced a private-sector engagement policy in 2006
and a follow-up proposal in 2007 (UNSCN, 2006, 2007). Both documents
contain a series of “principles of engagement”:
2 This section summarizes Jonathan Marks’s presentation.
OCR for page 47
47
WHAT NEXT?
• relevance to UNSCN’s vision and mandate;
• effectiveness and efficiency of the partnership as it relates to UNSCN
goals (i.e., the outcomes of the partnership should be aligned with
achieving UNSCN goals, and the use of UNSCN’s resources should
be appropriate when compared to alternative actions);
• management of conflicts of interest, including identifying the inter-
ests of partners, assessing potential conflicts of interest, and recog-
nizing in some cases that exclusion is the appropriate response;
• independence from vested interests based on credibility concerns;
• transparency;
• diversity, such that no one type of private sector organization re-
ceives preferential treatment;
• differential safeguards, meaning the safeguarding of activities related
to public policy making from corporate influence; and
• the promotion of and respect for human rights principles.
Both documents also differentiate among three types of engagement: (1)
direct funding; (2) contributions in kind, including access to resources; and
(3) dialogue.3 Marks noted that the policy effectively takes financial and in-
kind contributions “off the table.” He quoted Rule 20 of the UNSCN 2007
document: “In order to protect against institutional conflict of interest,
the Steering Committee will ensure that the SCN does not accept financial
or in-kind contributions from food-related PSOs (private-sector organiza-
tions) for any of its activities, whether they are developed through Working
Groups or through the Steering Committee/Secretariat based work plans.”
With respect to other, non–food-related PSOs, the policy states in Rule
22 that direct funds and in-kind contributions can only come from PSOs
with “satisfactory assessment ratings with regard to their performance on
human rights, labour rights, environment and good governance criteria”
(UNSCN, 2007).
The WHO PMNCH has made two attempts to develop a set of prin-
ciples for private-sector engagement. The first attempt resulted in a set of
five principles (based on the WHO Policy Framework for Engaging and
Working with the Commercial Private Sector):
1. The interaction must demonstrate a clear added value for public
health.
2. WHO must maintain its independence, in keeping with WHO policy
on conflicts of interest. (Marks noted this requires more broadly
3 Although not of relevance to the UNSCN, these documents also identify joint delivery
projects as a fourth potential type of engagement.
OCR for page 48
48 PUBLIC–PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS IN FOOD AND NUTRITION
maintaining objectivity and the three “I’s”: integrity, independence,
and impartiality.)
3. The interaction should not be seen as an endorsement of a par-
ticular product or activity, nor should any private-sector entities be
excluded at the benefit of others.
4. Cooperation with the private sector should be transparent.
5. WHO should not collaborate with companies who produce a prod-
uct or engage in practices that will be detrimental to health or harm
its reputation (WHO PMNCH, 2010).
More recently, Marks said, the PMNCH appears to have expanded
and subtly modified this set of principles, such that there are now seven
principles of private-sector engagement:
1. strategic alignment;
2. clear added value;
3. independence and impartiality;
4. no exclusivity;
5. transparency;
6. no conflicts of interest; and
7. process, with an emphasis on due diligence.
With respect to the seventh principle, the PMNCH calls for both risk as-
sessment and risk management. Criteria for partner selection include a
corporate track record of social responsibility and leadership, a history of
commitment to development and health goals, a responsible environmental
and labor practice, and a positive public image. Addressing the implications
of these approaches for public–private partnerships related to food and nu-
trition, Marks said, “I do think that some kind of due diligence on the pri-
vate sector partners will be vital when it comes to addressing public trust.”
Marks also stressed the importance of conducting what he called a
“3-P impact assessment,” that is, an examination of the partnership before,
during, and after the partnership has ended. Like an environmental impact
assessment or a regulatory impact assessment, he said, “it’s really impor-
tant to have that kind of assessment process.” Such assessments can help
to identify gaps in the mission of the public partner left by even legitimate
public–private partnerships, that is, ones that fulfill all substantive criteria
and have all of the necessary procedural safeguards in place. Sometimes
partnerships are so narrowly focused that they ignore other key objectives
to which a public-sector entity is committed by statute or by virtue of its
mission statement. Where there are legitimate concerns about failure to
satisfy its mission, Marks suggested a necessary precondition for a public-
sector actor entering into a public–private partnership on one initiative
OCR for page 49
49
WHAT NEXT?
might be that it would, at the same time, make a commitment to address
another initiative that would otherwise be neglected.
Finally, Marks encouraged cultivation of what he called a “moral
imagination.” Very rarely do ethical dilemmas have only two possibilities.
Usually, there are at least half a dozen solutions to any problem, with one or
two being terrible and the challenge being to identify the optimal solution
among the others. He said, “As we face really complex social problems in
relation to food and nutrition, it’s important to exercise and cultivate that
moral imagination.” As an example of the type of problem requiring what
Marks called “moral imagination,” he pointed to the pre-workshop sur-
vey data indicating concern among industry representatives that industry-
funded research is not widely respected. He suggested reconsidering options
that have been proposed in the past but set aside, such as capitation fees
on industry-sponsored research or other mechanisms to generate funds for
research that might not be in the direct interest of industry but would serve
to create a rich body of food and nutrition research.
Cultivating Public Trust in the Food Industry
Marks’s comments triggered a lively discussion on the broader issue
of public mistrust and the food industry, including whether mistrust of the
food industry is the same as or greater than mistrust of the pharmaceutical
industry. One participant viewed the two industries as equally problematic
in the public eye and argued that because the pharmaceutical industry is
able to engage in successful public–private partnership, the food industry
should be able to do the same. The barriers should not be perceived as
insurmountable. Yet, not everyone agreed. Another workshop participant
said that on the contrary, people trust the food industry less than they trust
the pharmaceutical industry. The question is, Why? Are there mechanisms
used by the pharmaceutical industry that could be applied to help build
public trust in the food industry?
It was suggested that perhaps the problem is with the public under-
standing, or misunderstanding, of risk and how the public thinks about risk
in the context of food. In other words, pharmaceutical products come with
risk, and the public is aware of that risk and accepts it because the potential
benefits are so great. Public perception of food products, on the other hand,
is that such products carry no risk at all and that the food industry is to be
blamed for problems that arise. Castle identified two critical differences be-
tween the two industries, both of which make the pharmaceutical industry
more predictable as an industry partner and, therefore, more trustworthy.
First, the pharmaceutical industry tends to be more vertically integrated
than the food industry, with the entire value chain controllable. Second,
intellectual property management in the pharmaceutical industry is struc-
OCR for page 50
50 PUBLIC–PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS IN FOOD AND NUTRITION
tured primarily around patents, whereas in the food industry it is structured
primarily around trade secrets. Neither structure is “better,” Castle said,
but there is predictability with the timeliness of public disclosure of patent-
ing that does not exist with trade secrets. The greater predictability helps
with managing uncertainties. Marks suggested that an important difference
between the two industries is the higher quality of evidence of benefit ver-
sus risk required for pharmaceuticals. He referred workshop participants
to a recent IOM (2010a) report Evaluation of Biomarkers and Surrogate
Endpoints in Chronic Disease and its call for “the same level of scientific
evidence of benefit and risk” for food as for drugs.
MOVING THE CONVERSATION FORWARD:
THREE POSSIBLE PARTNERSHIP PROJECTS
During the third breakout session, workshop participants chose three
topics in food and nutrition that could serve as good subjects for public–
private collaboration: (1) obesity, specifically why the challenge of develop-
ing a public–private collaboration focused on obesity is different from other
food and nutrition–related public health challenges; (2) food labeling and
messaging; and (3) calorie reduction. Three breakout groups were formed,
with workshop participants joining whichever group they wanted to join.
The groups were asked to articulate a goal for a partnership on their topic
and, using the draft assessment tool as a guide, to identify questions they
should be asking about a potential partnership at this very early stage of
the conversation. As with the second session, each breakout group included
representatives from all sectors (i.e., government, academia, private in-
dustry, NGOs), and thus each report-back to the group at large reflects a
collection of diverse voices.
Obesity
Obesity was mentioned several times during the course of the workshop
as an example of the type of complex public health challenge requiring an
“all-sails-up” approach. For example, Dietz commented on how the chal-
lenge of obesity is different from other public health challenges, such as
increasing fruit and vegetable intake, because obesity itself is such a broad
target. Its broad scope makes it difficult for partners to agree on a common
agenda and achievable goal. Narrowing the target could alleviate some of
that difficulty. As Finegood pointed out, narrowing the target sometimes
also increases public acceptability of a partnership. Thus, the breakout
group spent most of its time trying to narrow the target and identifying spe-
cific obesity-related issues that could be addressed through public–private
collaboration.
OCR for page 51
51
WHAT NEXT?
Topics considered by the group included promotion of the desirability
of healthy choices; better collection of data on marketing to children; and
the promotion of fruits, vegetables, and grains. The one topic that received
more attention than the others was the development of food technologies
that promote healthy weight, for example, products with fewer calories
per weight or volume. Several group members observed that focusing more
narrowly on pro–healthy weight technologies would be less contentious
than focusing more broadly on reducing overall calorie consumption. Many
group members also raised the promotion of physical activity as another
possible target for a public–private collaboration aimed at reducing obe-
sity. As with pro–healthy weight technologies, focusing more narrowly on
physical activity would be less contentious than focusing more broadly on
reducing overall calorie consumption. As they said, “Nobody has to give
up profit in order to promote physical activity.” A few participants in the
group, however, cautioned that some public-interest NGOs and academics
view this as a diversion of attention by the food industry from the prod-
ucts they manufacture and market to physical activity solutions, leading
to stakeholder mistrust in the industry’s motives unless complementary ac-
tivities (e.g., product reformulation, pledges and commitments to improve
marketing practices) are also undertaken.
While the group did not explicitly pull from the draft assessment tool
any metrics of acceptability, much of the discussion was centered on risk
mitigation, with pro–healthy weight food technologies and the promotion
of physical activity considered less threatening than other goals. The dis-
cussion of physical activity as a target led to some dialogue about whether
there were any partners that would not be welcome at the table because of
the risk of public mistrust. For example, would such a partnership exclude
sugar-sweetened beverage companies? Some participants in the group ex-
pressed concern that excluding potential partners would actually increase
the risk of mistrust. Finegood said that one of her take-home lessons from
that particular breakout discussion was the notion of “safety in numbers,”
that is, the more partners at the table the more likely is the partnership to
be acceptable to the public.
Food Labeling and Messaging
The food labeling and messaging breakout group spent a great deal of
time searching for common ground, that is, an area where all sectors could
contribute and would benefit. One participant said, “We spent more than
half our time just trying to get to what we were going to address.” The
conversation progressed only to the point of identifying a common goal
to develop a process for the qualification of biomarkers that can be useful
in promoting healthy foods (e.g., biomarkers that clinicians could use as
OCR for page 52
52 PUBLIC–PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS IN FOOD AND NUTRITION
predictors of health outcomes). To encourage wide participation, the focus
of the initiative would be on the qualification process itself, not on any
particular type of biomarker.
While the breakout group did not explicitly identify “risk mitigation”
from the draft assessment tool as a key factor to consider when evaluating
whether to enter into a public–private partnership aimed at developing a
biomarker qualification process, it did address risk. Specifically, the group
discussed the risk associated with not considering the legal issues that
would have to be taken into account to ensure that this type of initiative,
and the qualified biomarkers resulting from it, would actually be applicable
in the market (i.e., that there would be no postmarket issues around how
claims substantiated by the qualification process are being communicated).
Likewise, while the group did not explicitly pick “commonality of inter-
ests” from the draft assessment tool as a key metric of acceptability, clearly
it was an important focus of the conversation.
Calorie Reduction
The calorie reduction breakout group progressed the furthest in terms
of identifying a goal for a public–private partnership around a specific issue
and identifying key metrics of acceptability from the assessment tool. Many
group members supported a focus of their hypothetical partnership on a
behavioral research project on calorie reduction. These members identified
two specific goals: (1) gauge people’s awareness of “know your number,”
possibly using EPODE as a model, and (2) conduct a natural experiment
on the impact of front-of-package calorie labeling, using the introduc-
tion of front-of-package labeling as a baseline and conducting multicenter
clinical trials to evaluate the impact of reduced-calorie products in different
communities.
From the draft assessment tool, many group members identified “level
of authentic trust,” “commonality of interests,” and “risk mitigation” as
key factors to consider when thinking about whether to engage in a behav-
ioral research partnership; “clarity of roles, responsibilities, and account-
abilities” as an important factor to consider when evaluating development
of the partnership; and “evaluation,” not just of the research but also of
the partnership itself, as a key factor to consider when assessing whether
the partnership has reached its goal(s).
Reflections on Applying the Draft Assessment
Tool to Possible Partnership Projects
Most participants reflected that discussing cross-sectoral collabora-
tion in the context of concrete issues, such as those addressed during the
OCR for page 53
53
WHAT NEXT?
third breakout session (i.e., obesity, labeling and messaging, calorie reduc-
tion), is much more challenging than discussing collaboration in general
terms. Finegood received a mixed response when she asked workshop
participants how helpful the third breakout session had been compared
to the first two. The mixed response led to some discussion about what, if
anything, could have been done differently to push the breakout sessions
further along in their conversations and what could be done next to push
the next conversation(s) further along. For example, did the calorie reduc-
tion breakout group progress the furthest because, by chance, the “right
group” of people had assembled? Would the other two breakout groups
have progressed further if the groups had been assembled more selectively?
Did NCI-USDA take the better approach in their meeting, by assembling
the “right group” of people (i.e., research scientists) to identify topics for
partnership—in that case, scientific research gaps—before discussing how
those gaps could be filled through public–private collaboration? A partici-
pant who attended the NCI-USDA meeting said, “I think you can do it
either way, but the bottom line is, as you move forward, you will always
be going back and forth.” That is, even as a conversation moves forward
into the specifics of a particular public–private partnership, at various
times participants will have to revisit the basic premises of the partnership.
It was suggested that having facilitators present in each group might have
helped keep the groups on task. However, some people expressed concern
that a facilitator might have been too restrictive at such an early point in
the conversation and that one of the goals of the workshop was to “openly
explore” opportunities for partnership.
MOVING BEYOND DISCUSSION TO ACTION
While there are many successful public–private partnerships to cel-
ebrate and many benefits to be gained by entering into such partnerships,
risk and risk mitigation are clearly front and center in many people’s minds
when thinking about public–private collaboration. McGinnis observed that
all of the suggested topics, or projects, articulated during the third breakout
session report-backs were ones that could be engaged without a great deal
of threat to individual participants.
In his closing remarks, McGinnis identified three types, or “three buck-
ets,” of reduced-risk activities. First are those that focus on what he called
the “antecedents” to regulatory activities and product development. Most
partners are unlikely to get involved in the regulatory process itself or in
the actual development of products that are going to be marketed, but the
antecedents to those events, he said, “can be ripe for collaborative work.”
His comments echoed earlier remarks by Woteki, who pointed out the po-
tentially very important role of collaborative work in the pre-competitive
OCR for page 54
54 PUBLIC–PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS IN FOOD AND NUTRITION
research arena. The second bucket of potential collaborative activity is filled
with activities that work “in parallel” to the marketing of products. Again,
it is unlikely that individual companies are going to collaborate in market-
ing their products, but a number of parallel activities, such as social market-
ing or the sharing of information about the relationship between marketing
and behavior, could be undertaken collaboratively. The third bucket is filled
with “results,” or evaluation, of previous activities. For example, what is it
about particular regulatory, research, or marketing processes that leads to
certain results? He said, “All three of those areas have many opportunities
for unthreatening, if you will, collaborative work.”
Additionally, as mentioned earlier, McGinnis identified four common
interests among the different sectors that not only are appropriate for, but
necessitate, collaborative action: (1) assessment (e.g., pooling data on eat-
ing habits and the impact of eating habits on weight and health status); (2)
research (e.g., developing a common research agenda aimed at understand-
ing variation in basic caloric requirements); (3) marketing (e.g., synergizing
social marketing strategies aimed at improving healthy eating); and (4)
vision (e.g., working together to develop a vision of what is possible). In
McGinnis’s opinion, it is our “our obligation” to start with the assump-
tion that action in any of these four areas “has to be collaborative” and to
undertake these activities at the individual level only if collaborative efforts
fail. He urged, “Our starting point should be that any activity in these
arenas ought to be a collaborative effort.” With respect to tangible next
steps, he suggested that Food Forum members consider establishing work-
ing groups to propose and assess possible collaborative projects, including
possible participants, and the appropriate neutral venue or body to convene
and coordinate them.
