Averting an antibiotic apocalypse? Time for global restaurants chains to take action

Amanda Long, Director General at Consumers International, reacts to McDonald's recent announcement that it has finished implementing its commitments on chicken in the USA.

Consumers International and its Members are calling on KFC, McDonald’s and Subway to take meat raised on antibiotics important for human medicine off their menus globally.

At the beginning of this month McDonald’s USA announced that it had achieved its goal, of serving only chicken raised without antibiotics important to human medicine, eight months ahead of schedule.  The announcement came in the run up to a UN High Level meeting on anti-microbial resistance, taking place in New York on 21^st September.

Because of overuse, resistance to existing antibiotics is rising at alarming levels, and there is a dearth of new drugs being brought to market. Without antibiotics that work, infections, small cuts and minor surgeries could once again become killers.

Left unchecked, antimicrobial resistance (the collective term for resistance to all kinds of antimicrobial drugs, of which bacterial resistance to antibiotics is the most pressing) will kill 10 million a year by 2050 – more than cancer. It is already killing 700,000 a year. We are on the brink of what Professor Dame Sally Davies, UK Chief Medical Officer has called an antibiotic apocalypse. 

Despite these dire warnings, animals destined to end up in our burgers, sausages and nuggets are being pumped full of antibiotics.  In many cases, rather than being used to treat sick animals, antibiotics are being used to make them grow faster or to prevent the cramped unsanitary conditions they are kept in from making them sick.  The more we use antibiotics, the more bacteria develop resistance to them.

There is strong consensus that measures to limit the use of antibiotics in farming should be a first port of call for the world’s decision makers. The use of antibiotics in farm animals exceeds use in humans in many countries and globally is believed to be more than 50% of use.  In the USA, more than 70% of antibiotics use is agricultural.  Furthermore the use of antibiotics in farming is set to increase by two thirds from by 2030: from 63,200 tons in 2010, to 105,600 tons in 2030.  The rise is driven by our monumental and growing global meat consumption.

So what has McDonalds actually done and will it make any difference?  McDonald’s has ended the use of antibiotics listed as critically important for human medicine by the World Health Organization in its poultry supply in the USA and has pledged to do the same in Canada. 

In taking this action, McDonald’s has gone further than some other chains in the USA.   KFC, which has a larger number of restaurants in the USA than any other chicken chain and is the second highest in sales has not gone as far.  It has said it will stop using just a handful of highest priority critically important antibiotics from the WHO list.   KFC is under increasing pressure to go further.  Pizza Hut and Taco Bell, (also subsidiaries of the Yum! Brands) have recently committed to serving chicken to its US customers raised without any of the antibiotics from the full WHO list. On 9 August, Yum! investors filed a shareholder resolution calling for KFC to follow suit.

On the other hand, there are chains in the USA that have gone further than McDonald’s.  Whereas McDonalds has only taken this action for the chicken it serves, Subway has committed to using chicken, turkey, beef, and pork raised without any antibiotics.  In a report from a coalition of consumer and environmental groups last year Chipotle, Panera and Chick-Fil-A, were given A and B grades for their antibiotic policies whereas McDonald’s was given a C.

The fact remains however, that these global chains are failing to make the same commitments outside of the USA. Whilst it is commendable that McDonald’s has acted in the USA and Canada, where around 43% of its branches are located, it has not committed to act on pork or beef and has not made the same commitment on chicken in other parts of the world.  McDonald’s in Europe has said that it will stop the use of some important antibiotics in the chicken it serves, but fails to go as far as McDonald in the USA and McDonald in Canada.   KFC and Subway have yet to make announcements anywhere outside of North America.

Of course we welcome any progress in this area and we don’t suggest that the sole power to prevent an antibiotic apocalypse rests entirely with a few fast food chains – but these are significant players and can lead the way.  When world leaders meet at the UN in September we will need strong, concerted, action on all fronts; including reducing use of antibiotics in human health and animal health and tackling the development of new drugs.

Given the scale of the global public health crisis the world is facing now due to antibiotic resistance, making partial commitments is simply not an option.  There is no plan B.

KFC, McDonald’s and Subway can and must go further. As awareness of the threat we are facing grows among consumers and politicians, they will be left with little choice. Far better to commit now, to work to set the standard for their industry globally, than be forced to catch up later.

Join us now in the call to take Antibiotics off the Menu. 

CI work on mobile banking standard ISO 12812

Robin Simpson and Sadie Homer, Senior Policy Advisors at Consumers International report on their work preparing the new international standard on mobile banking.

  

Back in January 2012, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) asked for experts to join the working group preparing a new international standard on Mobile Banking/Payments, in particular asking CI if we could represent the consumer stakeholder group, providing expertise, particularly in the field of consumer protection.

Four years later our efforts have borne fruit in the form of  ISO 12812 Core banking – mobile financial services. It takes the form of an international standard on the general framework for these services (Part 1) and is supported by four technical specifications on specific sectors of the business (parts 2-5 see below).

Achieving an ISO standard was not a smooth passage, two rounds of voting by national standards bodies were needed to gain approval. The second only succeeding on the basis that papers 2-5 do not have full international standard status. Nevertheless, CI felt able to support the final standard but it was not an easy process. Consumer experts encountered resistance to some basic consumer protection issues being included at times, even when they were optional (and bearing in mind that international standards are voluntary).

Ably assisted by experts from our members we fought for limits on how much consumers would be liable for, in the case of unauthorised or fraudulent use of their payment systems. We secured greater transparency in remittances sent between countries and we gained important safeguards on logging transactions and receipts, with electronic logs being kept available. One specific issue that was not considered until our intervention was the treatment of dormant assets, in particular in the event of the death of an account holder.  This is a major issue where consumers do not have an individualised mobile phone contracts, such as in much of Africa.

How worth-while are such exercises? After all, standards are not legally binding, they are voluntarily adopted by companies and cannot be enforced in court. CI expended scarce resources travelling to Paris, Chicago, Boston, also taking part in many teleconferences, and drafting in great detail.  These factors are important considerations. But without our participation the consumer voice would not have been heard at all. The alternative, legislation and binding regulation, can only be applied at national level one country at a time, and legislation may be even slower to develop than standards, if at all. 

Even if it will require another review for our conditions to be fully met, the applicability of this standards is potentially global. And in many countries, the standards adopted today can form the basis of regulation tomorrow. Standards can also be used by consumer organisations as a sound basis to compare businesses and to support those that offer best practice terms to consumers. They can also be used to hold transnational companies to account to provide an equal level of service to all consumers, in all countries they are doing business.

Papers 2-5 will be reviewed in two years’ time and CI would also support a review of ISO 12812, given the speed of development in this sector. At that point we hope to be able to strengthen the standard further and make the case for all parts to be given full International Standard status. The mobile payment and banking sector is fast evolving, and so the standards that keep consumers safe must also move with it. 

You can read more about the Standards here. 

Is it possible to set a standard for innovation?

CI’s Luke Upchurch attended ISO COPOLCO to see how its participants are setting new standards in consumer protection.

 

As always, I was mightily impressed with the organisation and efficiency of the international standards community as it met for its annual gathering on consumer issues – ISO COPOLCO. Compared to some of the grander global forums I’ve participated in, these guys are always fully briefed, committed and focused on the job of advancing the protection of consumers through standards for products and services – quietly conducting this crucial work in the interests of consumers worldwide.

Consumers International has long been involved in COPOLCO (it stands for COsumer POLicy COmmittee), advocating for new global standards on social responsibility, customer satisfaction, second-hand goods, and the safety of household products. We’re currently leading the development of a new standard for improving energy service provision for consumers. Standards is a vital area of our work and a constant priority for our Members and Supporters.

This year’s gathering in Malta in late May looked at the impact of innovation on consumer protection and the role standards should play. Almost 20 CI Member groups joined over 60 national standard body representatives to consider issues from social media to nanotechnology.  

It could almost be considered an oxymoron: Standard innovation. As Norma McCormick, chair of ISO COPOLCO pointed out; by their nature “innovations are fast, and standards are slow”. Finding consensus on a standard can take years, by which time the innovation it set out to tackle is several generations down the line.

From the outside this could appear to be a major hindrance, but speak to those with knowledge of the standards process and many see the slow pace as an advantage. The lengthy deliberations mean all stakeholders – regardless of resources or time constraints – have a chance to comment. It means unworkable suggestions are ironed out, and mistakes and longer-term trends in the new innovations can be dealt with. Invariably it means that standards work; they enjoy strong backing from stakeholders, and stand the test of time.

The role of standards (or lack of them) within the digital age came up time and again at the meeting. For instance, as our recent research shows two thirds of countries have no mechanisms in place to resolve e-commerce disputes out of court; meaning victims of online shopping malpractice may be forced to seek redress through expensive court settlements.

But the digital issue that drew the most attention was the role standards need to play in online feedback and user reviews. As the UK’s Consumer Futures puts it:

“the growth in feedback and review services is one of the most empowering developments for consumers in the past decade.”

Their work, which is featured in the CI Resource Zone, has also shown that 88% of UK consumers check user-reviews before making a purchase.

How do we make sure that online feedback is trusted, fair and balanced? How can we retain consumer confidence? Well, internationally agreed standards for submission, verification, and authenticity would be a major step in that direction – something the French standards body, AFNOR, is pioneering with its work on second-party verification (pdf).

Standards may be slow, and they may live a life outside the spotlight, but ISO COPLOCO once again demonstrate why they are vital to long-term, sustainable consumer protection; and why standards bodies and consumer groups must continue to work closely together.

 

ISO 26000... the bite behind the bark

CI's Ruth Golding attended the seventh ISO working group meeting on corporate social responsibility held in Quebec, Canada at the end of May 2009. She writes:

'Arriving in Quebec City for a week of negotiations on social responsibility, I was acutely aware that I was coming into a dialogue more than half way through the discussion. ISO 26000 has been evolving for five years and this was the seventh round of negotiations.

CI has been involved in ISO 26000 right from the beginning. In fact we even sat on the working group in ISO COPOLCO that started the process rolling by suggesting that ISO develop a standard on social responsibility. It was fascinating and motivating to see how something that had started as an aspiration had taken on a life of its own and is now set to become a detailed guiding document that will be synonymous with social responsibility.

But I was also arriving with a healthy dose of scepticism as to the merits of this voluntary guidance standard which seemed at first all bark and no bite. But I soon began to see how valuable it can be.

Without the weight of certification hanging over discussion, sensible consensus seemed easier to reach. Of course everyone comes with their own agendas, but discussion seemed less deeply politicised than it would be in the context of a binding international instrument, making genuine engagement possible. Representatives from all key sectors were able, in the context of relatively open discussion, to compare notes and to put their minds to the practical challenges that SR raises; How does social responsibility apply to small businesses? What can you do in practice to ensure your social responsibility as you head further down the supply chain?

Consumer groups, unionists and industry, governments and NGOs worked together in surprising harmony (apparently it wasn’t quite the same story five years ago!) and once again moved towards consensus on a final Standard. In the ISO 26000 context, all of these voices are given equal weighting which makes engagement more attractive from the off, especially for underrepresented groups.

In fact a large number of the people involved in ISO 26000’s development have been working together on the document for years. Meeting every six to nine months to negotiate in plenaries, smaller meetings, and informally over coffee, and dinner. They have come from different perspectives and interests but have gradually built up trust and got to better understand each others’ positions.

This multi-stakeholder process is unique to ISO 26000, meaning that fresh procedures have had to be developed to reflect the equal status of all experts. Within a working group on any given issue, each stakeholder group is represented and in contrast to traditional processes, where negotiations are by country, there is greater transparency around exactly whose interests are being represented when a point is made.

CI has been instrumental in developing the process and to ensuring it is adhered to and understood. Having secured the multi-stakeholder aspect of the process, CI has strived to make sure it works. Even at the seventh round of negotiations, challenges were still apparent. The processes that have been established seemed for the most part to work well but what is critical is that they are followed. Speakers didn’t always make it clear when they spoke to represent the agreed position of their country or stakeholder group and when they spoke as individuals. Other times a failure to reach consensus within stakeholder groups was clouded over when presenting back in plenary. Overall though and where process was followed, the value of multiple viewpoints for creating a rounded and well-informed Standard was striking.

But it isn’t just the process side that gives ISO 26000 added value. The Standard, once complete, will have potential ‘bottom-up’ uses that regulation cannot yet offer. Stakeholders within business and consumer organisations will be able to make assessments using a transparent harmonised approach, whether business is national or trans-national. Businesses who want to become socially responsible will have a footprint to follow when operationalising their strategies and future plans, and will be able to benchmark their progress by comparing reports with other institutions. Of course regulation at both national and international levels is critical for the substantial culture shift that we need to see in social responsibility, but ISO 26000’s bite is in its potential to reach places regulation can’t.

The Standard has the potential to be a powerful document. It has meaningful content with practical solutions which will allow it to be used for a wide range of purposes, alongside legislation, in the road to substantial improvements in social responsibility to meet consumer concerns. It was clear that international consensus was building. But the process side will still be key to assuring a credible and acceptable final Standard. CI will be watching to make sure that that is exactly what we get.'

Untangling Corporate Social Responsibility

A recent study by the Spanish consumer organisation CECU found that 70% of consumers don’t know what Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) means. While some within the consumer movement may also argue that most corporations don’t know what CSR means either, the lack of understanding among Spanish consumers is a real challenge to those trying to put corporate accountability on the public agenda.

However, a far more encouraging statistic from the same survey found that, despite being baffled by the language, 75% of Spanish consumers would consume more responsibly if they had better access to information about what companies are doing in terms of social and environmental commitments. This is a trend we have seen from similar surveys conducted by CI member organisations across Europe.

So all is not lost! In fact, this kind of result arguably demonstrates consumers are ahead of the trend when it comes to ethical consumption and production. Whilst the experts and activists clamour over the semantics of CSR, ETI, FLO or FTSE4Good, the vast majority of consumers just want to be better informed.

That’s why CI is working to establish ISO 26000. Yes, it’s another bit of geek-speak, and yes, this one does sound like defunct model of home computer from the 1980’s; but it is in fact an unprecedented attempt to establish an international standard for CSR. So consumers everywhere can, at a glance, be sure a company is meeting globally agreed criteria for social and environmental behaviour.

The International Organization of Standardization, ISO, is a multi-stakeholder system that sets quality and safety standards for a whole range of consumer goods. National standards bodies use the ISO system to guarantee safety standards on everything from plugs to power drills.

ISO 26000, or ISO-SR as the parlance has it, has had governments, industry and NGOs huddled round negotiating tables in dark rooms for several years now. But recent developments have signalled significant progress, with the consumer movement leading the charge.

Pushed by CI, the process is now reaching favourable consensus on key criteria: the ‘precautionary principle’ to ensure biotechnology and nanotechnolgy cannot be unleashed without vigorous consumer protection guarantees; conditions on the ‘sphere of influence’ so companies cannot claim to be socially responsible if their suppliers are not; and greater availability of information on sustainable consumption alternatives.

All this means that, eventually, consumers the world over could be able to judge a company’s ethical criteria to an internationally recognised, independent standard. Much like we do with electrical goods today.

So Spain's consumers may untangle the meaning of CSR yet!

Find out more about CSR and consumers at www.consumersinternational.org/csr

Developing an international standard: guidance on social responsibility for all organisations OR let's speak ISO!

Sadie Homer, CI expert, writes from the sixth ISO SR (social responsibility) Working Group meeting held in Santiago, Chile:

"Socially responsible… what is it? How do you become it? And then how do you tell people how you are getting on with it?

Now get six different stakeholder groups from over 80 different countries and an additional 40 international organisations to develop and agree upon an easily understood, concise document… simple!

The world of standards may seem to most a mystery consisting of many acronyms, such as WD, CD, IDTF, TC, DIS, SC, COPOLCO and long meetings in far-flung corners of the world.

To some consumer representatives, new to the world of International standards and attending the 6th meeting of the working group, it meant a fast learning curve in both procedures and negotiating.

Knowledge of consumer issues in social responsibility such as precautionary principle, sphere of influence, consumer rights, sustainable consumption and issues in IP and privacy issues were thankfully in good supply.

It amazes me at each meeting, regardless of language difficulties, jet lag and a desire to see the outside world, that every morning at 8am all 25 consumer representatives turned up without fail to discuss strategies for making sure what we want in, is in and debate exactly how we are going to go about doing this.

Consumers may be the smallest stakeholder group – alongside labour – but in this multi-stakeholder group we are respected as the most cohesive and focused. Of course inside the consumer group, there are always a range of positions on any topic. Different countries, regions, economic situations and cultures bring to our attention very different consumer issues.

Consumer groups have different priorities, from the possible impact of trade implications, animal welfare, how to report to the inclusion of help boxes on ISO 10 000 - but so far we have always managed to incorporate these into a consensus consumer position to present to the working group.

The working group is a huge talking shop and it always seems amazing that somehow at the end of the week the document, which will eventually give practical guidance on how organisations can actually integrate social responsibility into their everyday ways of working, advances a step closer to reality.

At the first meeting it would have been seen as impossible that six very different stakeholders – industry, labour, government, consumers, NGOs and SSRO (no one can even remember what that acronym means) would all be in one room cheering and clapping that this international standard had progressed from WD to CD or that all 394 people in the room would actually understand what that meant.

You are welcome to join if you want to learn to speak ISO!!!"