Failed Ambitions: The WHO’s NCD Dogmatic Handcuffs
Why the World Health Organization Won’t Meet any of its Noncommunicable Disease Targets
The WHO’s fourth High-Level Meeting on Noncommunicable Diseases (HLM4) will be held tomorrow on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, and even the WHO is not expecting to achieve much. Budget cuts and political shifts had forced the UN to water down the ambitions of its draft report in May, bring mental health care into their remit and downgrade its commitments to become nearly non-committal.
In May, 2025, the WHO published its zero draft policy document laying out its initial objectives in preparing for the High-Level Meeting five months later.
“We therefore commit with utmost urgency to:
(25.) Fast-track progress on noncommunicable diseases and mental health over the next five years, focusing on tobacco control, preventing and scaling up effective treatment of hypertension and improving mental health care, with the aim to achieve the following global targets: by 2030, 150 million less people are using tobacco, 150 million more people have hypertension under control, and 150 million more people have access to mental health care;”
These are ambitious targets. But the harsh reality is that the WHO is absolutely powerless to achieve anything in addressing the rise in noncommunicable diseases so long as they continue their irrational discrimination and ostracizing of industry.
This is the fourth high-level meeting the WHO holds periodically to set objectives and measure achievements on fighting noncommunicable diseases (with the fifth being scheduled for 2031). Since the third high-level meeting in 2018, the world went through a pandemic, and while the draft zero report makes very little mention of this event (viruses are communicable), it is clear that this global health organization has very little influence on global policies on noncommunicable diseases like cancer, diabetes and cardiovascular or respiratory diseases.
Who are the partners that the WHO is engaging with to reach these objectives?
“Ahead of HLM4, WHO urges countries, nongovernmental organizations, UN agencies, citizens and people living with a health condition to join forces, take action and support local and global efforts to accelerate an inclusive, equitable and quality NCD and mental health response.” Source
The WHO is going to fight noncommunicable diseases by mobilizing “countries, nongovernmental organizations, UN agencies, citizens and people living with a health condition to join forces”. Did they just forget to include industries – the large organizations with research budgets and innovative technologies – in their consultations and health strategies?
In 2024, the WHO claimed that there was a problem working with private sector enterprises:
“Recognizing that public sector efforts alone are insufficient to address the prevention and control of NCDs, the Global NCD Action Plan emphasizes the need for coordinated multisectoral and multistakeholder engagement, acknowledging the role of nongovernmental organizations – including civil society groups, individuals with lived experience, academic institutions and private sector entities. In many countries, however, there are only limited capacity to establish or manage the implementation of engagement with private sector entities for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases.” Source
The WHO believes that you cannot engage with the private sector because all they care about is profit. (I suppose WHO officials work for free.) This document followed a WHO-Europe strategy report demanding that its members denormalize all health-harming industries, meaning they should be excluded from health policy discussions and negotiations in the same way the tobacco industry has been removed from public health debates.
The WHO’s argument, laid out in a Firebreak analysis, made clear that certain industries were responsible for all noncommunicable diseases and, as profit-oriented enterprises, could not be trusted in any human health decisions. These so-called “health-harming industries” included tobacco, food and drink, alcohol, plastics, chemicals, fossil fuels, infant formulas, automotive and pharmaceuticals. The WHO has been unofficially banning its officials from any interactions with industry actors, but their 2024 report on the Commercial Determinants of NCDs proposed that all WHO members implement the same denormalizing restrictions against all industries that they have managed to achieve in ostracizing the tobacco industry.
Will the WHO achieve anything in advancing global health conditions by blacklisting all industries and only consulting NGOs who, by design, gripe and attack industry?
Industry, Hold My Beer
The WHO anti-industry dogma is foolish, foolhardy and tragic. By refusing to work directly with vaccine makers, innovative chemical companies, food and agricultural industries, nutrition formula researchers and global trade and logistics organizations, they are not only limiting their capacity for health solutions, they are leaving those, particularly in developing countries, with backward alternatives. Some examples:
Many noncommunicable diseases in developing countries are accentuated by poverty, hunger and malnutrition. UN organizations should work more closely with industries providing advanced agrotechnological solutions instead of imposing backward agroecology techniques on peasant farmers.
If the WHO intends to achieve their strategy of “150 million less people ... using tobacco” by 2030, then they should be embracing industry-led tobacco harm reduction solutions (like vaping and nicotine pouches). Instead, tragically, clause 27(b) of the WHO zero draft document states: “restrict and regulate electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) and electronic non-nicotine delivery systems (ENNDS)”. The result of this ignorant approach will likely result in more people smoking tobacco products by 2030.
To get “150 million more people have hypertension under control” by 2030, then the WHO must work with pharmaceutical companies and medical organizations to improve the identification and treatment options for hypertension. Clause 38 of the WHO’s zero draft proposes “strengthening pricing policies and financial protection mechanisms” but how will they achieve this without allowing its member states to interact with the pharma industry?
Obesity is an important contributor to many noncommunicable diseases but the WHO’s zero draft seems to only recommend imposing taxes, labels and stopping unhealthy food marketing (techniques frequently attempted but rarely successful). Consultation and cooperation with food innovators and wellness advocates to provide health promoting products and lifestyle changes would generate better outcomes. Instead these UN health fundamentalists have demonized the food industry, helping no one except their NGO partners.
Mental health has been added to the WHO’s NCD strategy but it seems the organization still does not have a handle on this field (as demonstrated by Clause 27(g) from their zero draft that proposes to “take steps to decriminalize suicide through limiting access to highly hazardous pesticides”). Worse, the WHO’s NCD unit seems to think mental health issues arise from other health illnesses (like depression from being diagnosed with diabetes). Outside of what some functionaries in Geneva might think, it can be argued that mental health crisis has increased due to isolation caused by the widespread use of online social media tools. Shouldn’t the WHO be interacting with these technology companies to try to develop some initiatives to reduce these factors? It might do more to alleviate the mental health crisis than “limiting access to highly hazardous pesticides”.
The WHO, defined by dogma, has ensured that it won’t meet any reasonable health objectives in its fourth high-level meeting on NCDs. Given that their zero draft is an wish-list of tried and failed recommendations, it is clear this UN body will please none of its stakeholders.
What would happen if the WHO were to work directly with industry to provide health-promoting solutions? Health is pragmatic; we do what we can with the resources we have to improve human well-being. Clause 56 of the WHO’s zero draft calls “upon the private sector to strengthen its commitment ... by contributing to the implementation of the present political declaration”. Why not work together to find solutions with the innovators and investors?
It’s time for the WHO to ditch the dogma and do whatever needs to be done to improve health and save lives.