World Health Organisation

From WikiPolitiks
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The WHO is a specialised agency of the United Nations that is concerned with international public health. WHO's core function is to direct and coordinate international health work through collaboration.
WHO was established in Apr.1948, and is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland. The WHO is a member of the United Nations Development Group.

To achieve its goals via collaboration, WHO partners with countries, the United Nations system, international organisations, civil society, foundations, academia, and research institutions.


The World Health Assembly is the WHO's decision-making body. Governance takes place through the World Health Assembly and the Executive Board, which gives effect to the decisions and policies of the Health Assembly. The World Health Assembly is attended by delegations from all Member States, and determines WHO's policies.ref


IAEA Gag on Nuclear

Why we can’t trust the World Health Organization’s statements on nuclear accident health impacts. A widely-cited source for health impact figures after a nuclear accident is the World Health Organization. But the WHO is bound by a 1959 agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, which can veto any actions by the WHO that relate to nuclear power.[1] Since the IAEA’s mandate is to promote nuclear energy, any WHO estimates of current or future health effects from nuclear accidents have to pass muster with the IAEA - who promote nuclear. Most WHO statements on nuclear accident health impacts should therefore be treated with considerable skepticism Conflicting Mandates, Co-Opted Studies: The International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Health Organization, ref, p.14, ref


  • Dec.25.2018: Bacon-cancer link: head of UN agency at heart of furore defends its work. IARC’s outgoing director attacks vested interests of critics but admits it could have communicated better. Christopher Wild, head of the UN agency that provoked a massive outcry and some ridicule when it declared that bacon, red meat and glyphosate weedkiller caused cancer has defended its work, denying the announcements were mishandled and insisting on its independence. The glyphosate monograph caused a different kind of storm. In Jan, Wild issued a rare statement attacking his critics. Since the evaluation in Mar.2015, it said, “the agency has been subject to unprecedented, coordinated efforts to undermine the evaluation, the programme and the organisation. These efforts have deliberately and repeatedly misrepresented the agency’s work. The attacks have largely originated from the Agrochemical Industry and associated media outlets.” Major financial interests were in play, said the statement: the relicensing of glyphosate by the European Commission, hundreds of lawsuits against Monsanto in the US over cancers allegedly caused by glyphosate, and the decision by the Californian Environmental Protection Agency to label the herbicide as a carcinogen. The Guardian, Sarah Boseley.
  • Jun.01.2018: Sugary drinks: panel advising WHO stops short of recommending tax. The WHO made a non-binding recommendation in Oct.2016 that govts should impose a 20% tax. In an evidence review it published in 2014 the WHO had also specifically endorsed a tax on sugary drinks. WHO’s director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, established the WHO Independent High-Level Commission on Noncommunicable Diseases last year to provide advice on how to reduce premature deaths from non-communicable diseases (NCDs) by a third by 2030. The commission made six recommendations in its report, including for government heads to take responsibility for disease reduction and to increase regulation. It did not mention taxes specifically. The panel said its 21 members represented “rich and diverse views”, but that some views were “conflicting”. As a result, it said recommendations around sugar taxes and the accountability of the private sector could not be reflected in the report, despite broad support from many commissioners. The view of the commission, set up to advise the WHO on how to tackle some of the world’s most preventable killer diseases, is at odds with the WHO’s previously strong support for sugar taxes. But the commission’s report, released on Friday in Geneva and called Time to Deliver, explains that it does not include a sugar tax among its recommendations to reduce NCDs – aimed at govts and heads of state worldwide – because its members disagreed about it. In a message from its five co-chairs they admit: “There was broad agreement in most areas, but some views were conflicting and could not be resolved. As such, some recommendations, such as reducing sugar consumption through effective taxation on sugar-sweetened beverages and the accountability of the private sector, could not be reflected in this report, despite broad support from many [of the 21] commissioners.” Graham MacGregor, the chair of Action on Sugar. The Children’s Food Campaign. The commission’s five co-chairs were the presidents of Finland, Sri Lanka and Uruguay, a Russian health minister and former minister in Pakistan’s government. The 21 commissioners included presidents, ex-presidents, current and former government ministers, academics, doctors and health experts from across the globe. They included Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire former mayor of New York in 2001-13, who is now the WHO’s global ambassador for NCDs and injuries. The Guardian, Denis Campbell.


  1. ^ Toxic link: the WHO and the IAEA. A 50-year-old agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency effectively gags the WHO from telling the truth about the health risks of radiation. Fifty years ago, WHO's voted into force an important agreement with the IAEA. The effect has been to give the IAEA a veto on any actions by the WHO that relate in any way to nuclear power – and so prevent the WHO from playing its proper role in investigating and warning of the dangers of nuclear radiation on human health. The Guardian, Oliver Tickell. May.28.2009