I have posted these tweets:

• Why is the EU so keen on voluntary CSR and ‘multi-stakeholder’ approaches – when there is no evidence they work?
• WHO must protect its policy and standard setting from commercial influence – the private sector should provide hard data not opinions
• Inequalities are a political challenge – not an opportunity to push formula into food banks: http://www.firsts.nestle-baby.ca/selfie.html
• WHO should call for no food and drink sponsorship in schools – in line with Action 3 of the EU Obesity Action Plan.
• See http://cspinet.org/canada/pdf/conflict-of-interest-safeguards_health-trump-trade.july2014.pdf   for the 175 groups/experts supporting the 2014 Conflict of Interest statement:

Washington: 29 September-3 October, 

• IBFAN Comment  on Agenda Item 5G –  Framework of engagement with non-State actors: report by the Secretariat to the regional Committees    IBFAN recommends that the Framework  stops blurring the distinctions
  between actors who share the primary interest with WHO and those whose primary interest is market-led. We call for a thorough analysis of what worked and what did not in implementation of existing relevant policies and procedures
• IBFAN comment  on Agenda item 5 (d)  EU Food and Nutrition Action Plan      With the  pressure to  break down barriers to trade, to use a ‘light touch’ in health policies that affect trade, and to work in partnerships with the food and drink industries to ‘persuade’ rather than ‘regulate’ them, we stress the risks of voluntary Corporate Social Responsibility and ‘multi-stakeholder’ approaches – promoted as the smart ‘win win’ option  We question the role of corporations in consumer behaviour change – and recommend that  WHO explicitly call for no food and drink sponsorship in schools – in line with Action 3 of the EU Action Plan of Childhood Obesity 2014-2020 and with the requirements of the WHA Resolutions on infant and young child feeding.

If you follow the debate its possible to tweet.