Tobacco Documents Online

Appendix A WHO/IOCU/UICC: Stra egies and Tactics Situation Analysis o WHO's impact and influence is indisputable, however its influence varies tremendously from region to region. In Latin America, for example, the Pan American Health Organisation (PAHO) is considerably more influenced by the U.S. Surgeon General's prognostications than by WHO. o The anti-smoking movement is now so intertwined and interrelated that chopping off one arm, or the head, should not be viewed as a quick fix to containment. Indeed, in many markets (e.g., Australia) the indigenous anti-smoking groups are ahead of and feeding ideas into the WHO and related agencies. o WHO targeted initiatives almost require a parallel superstructure. INFOTAB provides an existing base which could, with a clear mandate, form the basis of networking outwards and regionally as a parallel force. Any initiatives with respect to the WHO depend to some degree on whether or not there is an'INFOTAB, whether PM and BAT are both at the table and whether INFOTAB's mandate would include some very specific activities with respect to the WHO and its related network. o Countermeasures designed to contain/neutralize/ re-orient the WHO require three elements: 1. STRUCTURAL - direct and indirect initiatives towards the organisation itself, its management, its resource allocation, its priorities. 2. REGIONAL - integrated but separate plans targeted to wHO's six regional bodies. 3. ISSUES FOCUS - specific strategies and plans to blunt their programme initiatives. The Role of the Food Companies The specific task with respect to discussions at Boca Raton related to the possible role that the food companies might play. While this requires and merits serious exploration, some general observations should be made. 25a1a45143

o Both GF and Kraft are smaller than we are in most markets. o In the case of both food companies, their largest international operations are in Canada and have largely insignificant operations in Asia, Latin America or Africa. o In the case of GF, and on a very preliminary/cautious "from a distance" assessment on Kraft, neither company appears to be well organised internationally with respect to managing the public policy issues that affect them. o GF certainly has some very serious business issues which are and will continue to preoccupy their management. o With the acquisition of Kraft, it is likely to be a year to eighteen months of some uncertainty/turbulence, which may make it difficult to get focus and attention on these matters. o Both companies are highly exposed/vulnerable with respect to their own product lines--caffeine, cholesterol, fats, tropical oils, etc. The new Secretary General is publicly.on the record with respect to "junk food," nutrition and the big food companies flogging junk on the unsuspecting masses. Any food company/WHO initiative would have to be very carefully managed so as not to make them a target. o Careful thought to the specific nature of their involvement/cooperation requires a judgment call as to whether, in seeking to enhance our own image, we don't endanger theirs. None of this is to,suggest we abandon this route, rather that it not be pursued to the exclusion of other avenues. The following represents some concrete avenues which can and should be explored with respect to the food companies. 1. Utilize the Issues Management Committee to facilitate an "audit of synergies" between ourselves and the food companies i.e. technology, memberships, issues, intelligence/information and contacts. 2. The GF World Food Prize does not appear to have been utilized to its full potential. The opportunity exists to bring in the FAO and/or a number of institutions concerned about world hunger. This could present a means of reinforcing our links/interests and forging alliances. The Food Prize programme affords the opportunity to broaden the base and possibly receive NGO status with the FAO.

3. General Foods, although it recently cut back its participation, have in the past been very involved in a Food Safety Programme in the Dominican Republic. This pilot programme was undertaken by the International Chamber of Commerce, the International Advertisers Association, the Industry Council for Development and the Grocery Manufacturers of America in collaboration with the WHO. The venture was undertaken to show the WHO that business groups have a contribution to make but also clearly with a view to gaining NGO status. PMI has a long-standing relationship with the ICC which, coupled with GF's involvement in the project and that of our local partner in the Dominican Republic, offers an excellent opportunity by deepening our involvement in the project. Independent of the food company link and this particular project, the ICC is an organization in which we should pursue active involvement on the part of PM personnel. 4. While the issues of hunger and nutrition seem overloaded with participants and money seems to have made little dent in the world's food problems, it would be nonetheless worthwhile if the food companies could explore a basic nutrition education programme. General Foods apparently had a successful one in the United States but which has been allowed to lapse. It would be worth investigating whether similar programmes, perhaps in conjunction with safe food preparation and storage educational programmes, could provide an access to health groups not normally predisposed to tobacco interests and to some of the WHO NGOs concerned about this issue. In short the food companies, subject to all the preliminary observations, offer the possibility of neutral ground from which one can network around the periphery of the WHO. Beyond what may or may not be possible/productive, the eggs should not be in one basket and the preliminary sense is that movement through the food companies may be sensitive and protracted. The following is a "shopping list" of other ideas that merit some thought. 1. We have a mixed record of lobbying WHA and ILO delegates. We have presented our concerns directly to the US delegation and have used third party business groups (ICC) but this activity needs to be coordinated systematically so that more delegations can be reached.

2. There is currently a vacancy in the WHO Food Safety Bureau; they are looking for an industry expert to be "donated" to the WHO to act as a liaison with business. If there is someone at Kraft/GF who possesses the skills, we should consider offering his or her services for a one to two year period. 3. We should explore the feasibility of developing relationships with.the regional offices of the WHO which act relatively autonomously and are always looking for additional funding. Through one of our corporate contributions to a programme for the handicapped in the PRC, an initial good contact was established within the regional WHO office. 4. WHO's smoking initiative is receiving some significant "outside" funding. The Japanese Shipbuilders Association, for example, has handed over $600,000. There are a variety of avenues which should be explored with respect to containing funding from private sources. 5. Some new "characters" on the WHO scene may open some opportunities. There are new Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries of State and HHS (US). The WHO message needs to be delivered there. Also, there is a new WHO Deputy Director General from Algeria and a new Chairman of the Executive Board from Mexico. We need to see what access routes we might have or be able to develop. 6. The Merrill Dow Strategy is an idea which is too lengthy to detail here but would be worth some discussion. 7. Direct or indirect, simple or complicated, food programmes or no food programmes, we will not be successful unless our strategy also attacks the issues/programmes. We know what the WHO's hit list of issues are but on many of them we have no real position and certainly no plan. We need to identify the three countries in each region that the WHO will be targeting for special funding and muscle and, where it makes sense from a market standpoint, allocate the resources necessary to stop them in their tracks. We need clear positions (and in some cases a re-thinking of our positions) and a well-developed strategy for a number of issues to which the WHO has given priority status. Examples include: - women and smoking - juvenile smoking - tobacco tax earmarking/sponsorship buy-outs - developing countries/marketing practices

Recommendation The preceding is not a strategy nor is it a plan, but rather a discussion paper from which priorities can be isolated, clear strategies articulated and a concrete plan developed. In conjunction with the regions, a proposed strategy and plan of action should be developed and submitted for approvals by March 15, 1989.