Italy Abstains From WHO Pandemic Pact: Sovereignty or Unity?
On May 20, 2025, member states of the World Health Organization (WHO) adopted the world's first Pandemic Agreement with 124 votes in favour and 11 abstentions.
The landmark decision by the 78th World Health Assembly culminates in more than 3 years of intensive negotiations launched by governments in response to the devastating impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and driven by the goal of making the world safer from and more equitable in response to future pandemics.
During the vote in Geneva, Italy abstained along with 10 other countries, including Iran, Singapore, Russia, Israel, Poland, and Slovakia.
The Italian government justified its choice by emphasising the need to protect national sovereignty, despite Italy being one of the main advocates of the initiative after the COVID-19 pandemic.
According to the countries that voted in favour, the final version of the agreement already included explicit clauses to safeguard national autonomy: The WHO cannot impose decisions on governments regarding lockdowns or other health measures.
A Partial Surprise
This news was not entirely unexpected. During the first plenary discussion on the draft of the Pandemic Agreement in 2024, the Italian Minister of Health Orazio Schillaci, stated that there were too many critical points.
'We expect the redefinition of a clear roadmap, allowing adequate time to reach a consensus that Italy considers ratifiable, including the necessary improvements to guarantee health for all,' Schillaci had noted at that time.
After another year of negotiations, Italy kept its stance:
'With today's abstention, Italy intends to reiterate its position regarding the need to reaffirm the States sovereignty in addressing public health matters,' read a statement from the Health Ministry.
'We appreciate,' the statement reads, 'that this principle has been included in the text of the Pandemic Agreement. We also welcome that, in announcing the conclusion of the negotiations, the WHO specified that the Pandemic Agreement does not entitle the WHO to direct, order, alter, or prescribe national laws or policies or mandate States to take specific actions, such as ban or accept travellers impose vaccinations or therapeutic or diagnostic measures, or implement lockdowns. We also believe that the agreement shall be implemented in full respect of the principles of proportionality and protection of fundamental rights, including the protection of personal data and individual freedom. Keeping in mind these principles, Italy looks forward to continuing working together with other WHO member States to define the remaining pending issues, which, in our view deserve further investigation.'
However, the conclusion is negative: 'Holding these principles, Italy hopes to continue to collaborate with other WHO member states to define the outstanding issues that, in our opinion, deserve further investigation.'
When explicitly asked by the press about outstanding issues, the minister did not give an answer.
The choice was entirely political is confirmed by the statements of Marco Lisei, senator of Fratelli d'Italia and president of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry into the management of the COVID emergency, who stated that.
'Italy, even on the front of health prophylaxis strategies, has finally returned to play a role no longer as a gregarious but as a protagonist in the international forum, and this episode proves it.'
He acknowledged that the text has now improved thanks to Italy's interventions, but still not enough. It was right to abstain, also in view of upcoming appointments and negotiations.
On the other side, there is the voice of the opposition: 'The choice to abstain on the global pandemic plan promoted by the WHO is very serious. The Meloni government decides to isolate the country to follow the denialist and anti-scientific sirens. No lesson from COVID, rather a closure in the face of the reasons of science and the need to coordinate strategies, resources, and research at a global level,' said Chiara Braga, Democratic Party leader (PD) in the Chamber of Deputies.
Beatrice Lorenzin, vice president of the PD senators and former Health Minister, called it 'an incomprehensible and anti-historical choice.'
A Success for WHO
The WHO Pandemic Agreement is a crucial step in restoring the WHO's leadership after years of uncertainty, worsened by the disengagement of the United States during the Trump Administration.
The WHO Pandemic Agreement is the second international legal agreement negotiated under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution, the first of which is the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, adopted in 2003 and came into force in 2005.
The WHO's financial situation also shows signs of improvement as member states pledged at least $170 million in additional funding to support the Fourteenth General Programme of Work, which aims to save up to 40 million lives over the next 4 years.
In addition, member states approved a 20% increase in fixed quotas, setting the budget for 2026-2027 at $4.2 billion. This follows a similar planned increase for 2024-2025.
Agreement
The agreement aims to strengthen the world's ability to prevent and respond to pandemics, based on the principles of 'equity, solidarity, transparency, and respect for human rights.' It is designed to be operational during and between pandemics, ensuring ongoing and structured preparedness.
Equity is central to this agreement. It acknowledges that unequal access to vaccines, diagnostics, and treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in serious and lasting consequences.
The new agreement requires signatory countries to ensure equitable access to pandemic health products, to facilitate 'local and regional production' in developing countries, to promote the transfer of technology and know-how, and, finally, to ensure 'transparent benefit sharing' arising from research on pathogens.
It also launches a process to draft and negotiate a Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing system (PABS) through an Intergovernmental Working Group.
According to the agreement, pharmaceutical manufacturers participating in the PABS will play a key role in ensuring equitable and timely access to pandemic-related health products. At least 20% of the real-time production of safe, quality, and effective vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics must be allocated to the system, including 10% as a donation and the rest at affordable prices.
The agreement also established a Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network coordinated by the WHO to ensure rapid, safe, and equitable access to health products in emergency settings. Mechanisms will be put in place to identify logistical barriers, estimate supply and demand, manage international stocks, and facilitate supplies, with particular attention paid to the most vulnerable countries.
Health Systems and Funding
The text includes measures to improve the 'resilience of national health systems,' strengthen local healthcare and primary care, invest in healthcare personnel, and improve regulatory and surveillance abilities. It also promotes the one-health approach, which integrates human, animal, and environmental health to prevent pandemics.
Additionally, a financial coordination mechanism will be established to ensure predictable and sustainable resources, particularly for low- and middle-income countries.
The mechanism also aligns with the requirements outlined in the International Health Regulations (2005).
The agreement provides for the establishment of a Conference of the Parties, which will oversee implementation, update guidelines, coordinate financial mechanisms, and assess the effectiveness of the agreement every 5 years. Each partner state is required to submit periodic reports on progress made.
Implications for Italy
Italy's absence from the list of signatory countries does not automatically mean complete disengagement. However, it could exclude Italy from participating in the multilateral governance of the new system. This may limit priority access to international stockpiles during emergencies and reduce opportunities for structured scientific and financial cooperation with other member states.
The medical and scientific communities have reacted promptly. Walter Ricciardi, MD, MPH, MSc, a former scientific advisor to the Italian Minister of Health and an advocate of the agreement, said, 'A choice that has no scientific or public health explanation. Just look at the bad company we voted with.'
'There is no denying that this pandemic agreement is a significant step forward. I do not know what really underlies the decision to opt out. But as a doctor and a public health representative, it is a decision that leaves me very perplexed,' noted Franco Locatelli, MD, Head of the Department of Paediatric Haematology at Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital in Rome, Italy, and former president of the Higher Council of Health.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Are Pesticides in Your Food Harmful?
Credit - iStockphoto—Getty Images Various chemicals, from those in plastics to food additives, have made headlines lately for their potential roles in triggering diseases. Pesticides are unique among chemicals, though, says Melissa Perry, an environmental epidemiologist and dean of George Mason's College of Public Health. 'They're deliberately manufactured to kill things.' By poisoning weeds, pesticides clear the way for farmers' crops to thrive. But their deadly design may undermine human health, too. A recent report by a new federal advisory board, the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission chaired by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., calls for further investigation of pesticides' effects to determine if their use should be limited. Some evidence does suggest that long-term exposure could lead to cancer and several other serious health problems. More research is needed to better understand these risks, but in the meantime, experts recommend simple, practical steps to reduce intake. Here's what we know about the risks of pesticides and how to lower your exposure. The MAHA report assesses 'root causes' of poor health in U.S. children. It describes pesticides as one of eight types of chemicals giving rise to chronic diseases. The report specifically takes issue with two weed killers, glyphosate and atrazine. They're the most commonly used pesticides by American farmers, and research has focused on them in lab experiments on animals, with several concerning findings. Other studies have drawn links between glyphosate exposure—mainly by consuming trace amounts in food—and health problems, including earlier death. In 2019, a large research review identified a 'compelling link' between glyphosate intake and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in humans, though in 2024 a federal judge criticized this study's design and approach. Additional research points to a range of diseases potentially related to glyphosate, but a recent review by Italian researchers on glyphosate was inconclusive and called for further research. Read More: Seed Oils Don't Deserve Their Bad Reputation Based on the evidence, the World Health Organization (WHO) has described glyphosate as 'probably carcinogenic to humans,' whereas the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found 'no evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in humans,' citing a dataset the agency considered more thorough than WHO's. The second widespread pesticide highlighted by the MAHA report is atrazine. Like glyphosate, it's been used by farmers since the 1960s, but research on animals in the 1990s began to show it could disrupt reproductive health and hormone regulation. Tyrone B. Hayes, a biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, found that atrazine interfered with the sexual development of frogs. Subsequent studies showed similar effects, as well as weight gain, in mice. Researchers have also observed that women in certain agricultural communities experience higher rates of abnormal menstrual cycles, compared to places with fewer farms. Other human studies show increases in several kinds of birth defects. Still more research links atrazine to breast cancer, but researchers at the National Institutes of Health have concluded 'no evidence of an association' with cancer. The EPA estimated that atrazine adversely affects 54% of all species and 50% of all critical habitats. 'I don't know how an Environmental Protection Agency can make a statement like that and then re-register the chemical,' Hayes says. In 2023, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) data showed that 99% of food samples tested below the EPA's safety limit for pesticides. However, U.S. limits are considerably higher than what's allowed in the European Union, where atrazine has been effectively banned. Read More: The Best Longevity Habit You're Not Thinking About Pesticides called organophosphates have been studied by the EPA and others for links to neurological disorders such as ADHD. 'Research clearly shows that children exposed to higher levels did have more neurobehavioral problems,' says Jason Richardson, professor of physiology and pharmacology at the University of Georgia's Isakson Center for Neurological Disease Research. Overall, uncertainty and debate about pesticides continues partly due to research challenges. People are typically exposed to multiple types of chemicals, so it's 'hard to attribute disease to one pesticide or pinpoint the definitive dose or exposure time' that makes people sick, Perry says. 'Just because a chemical is present doesn't mean it's doing anything bad, but in combination with other chemicals, it may be,' Richardson says. 'Efforts are underway to measure these combinations.' 'The country's agricultural policy follows science, not fear, speculation, and fringe narratives,' says Becky Langer-Curry, director of innovation at the National Corn Growers Association. The Corn Growers were 'perplexed' by the MAHA report, she adds. 'We need faith in the EPA's regulatory system to review the science. They're ensuring our food is safe, well below human risk.' In an email to EPA spokesperson Mike Bastasch said the EPA'typically regulates pesticides at least 100 times lower than where no adverse effects are seen in safety studies.' The agency is 'confident that the fruits and vegetables our children are eating are safer than ever,' Bastasch wrote. However, he added that the EPA is updating its evaluation of glyphosate's cancer-causing potential, and it's currently working on an Updated Mitigation Proposal for atrazine. In the meantime, researchers including Perry, Richardson, and Hayes think pesticides are dangerous enough that people should take precautions—but especially young kids, people who are pregnant, those who live close to farms, agricultural workers, and seniors. The first step is to become aware of pesticides in your environment. They're more common than people think, Perry says. 'Exposures happen routinely for most members of the American public.' Experts recommend contacting the environmental office of your county or city to learn whether you're close to a food production facility that uses pesticides. In 2017, kids and teachers at a Hawaii middle school reported unusual throat irritation and dizziness. They suspected the symptoms were caused by pesticides applied in nearby fields, and researchers found residues in the school's indoor and outdoor air samples. Read More: What to Do If Fluoride Is Removed From Your Water The detected levels were deemed below concerning thresholds. Bastasch says that, for communities near farms, the EPA studies potential exposure through the air and other pathways to make sure safety levels are based on sound science. Still, Hayes worries about the long-term effects of pesticide contact and absorption. 'For someone living in a farming community that's constantly exposed to estrogen mimics like atrazine, you're more likely to develop adverse effects,' he says. People take in atrazine mainly through their drinking water, after farm runoff carries the pesticide into local water systems. But some utilities are more effective than others at removing pesticide residues. The Environmental Working Group rates local water utilities. For people on well water, the federal government provides guidelines for testing it. Pesticide use is widespread enough—and disperses at such distances—that everyone should probably use a high-quality water filter, experts say. Atrazine can travel as far as 600 miles, Hayes says. As far back as 1999, USGS noticed that pesticides, including atrazine, were detected in places where farmers hadn't applied them. Even for residents of areas where a water treatment plant removes the chemicals, buying a filter certified to the NSF/ANSI Standards 42 and 53 provides some additional assurance of water safety. Look for filters in refrigerators and water pitchers that meet this certification. Eating organic foods can also help to reduce intake of pesticides, especially glyphosate. About 90% of pregnant women have detectable amounts of glyphosate in their bodies, according to one study. 'But when you put people on organic diets, you start to see that they no longer have pesticides in their urine,' Perry says. Research in 2020 found that eating an organic diet dropped glyphosate levels by 70% in children and their parents. In 2023, researchers put pregnant women on an organic diet for one week. Those who went all-organic decreased glyphosate in their urine by 43%. A 2019 study found a 95% reduction in organophosphates. Richardson calls these studies on organic foods 'intriguing' while noting that natural compounds used in organic farming may also be toxic beyond certain thresholds. Even when eating organic, 'make sure you wash your fruits and vegetables very well,' he says. Read More: Dermatologists Have a Dirty Little Secret One study found that soaking apples in baking soda mixed with water for 12-15 minutes eliminated more residue than water alone. However, according to another study, washing produce with running water is superior to baking soda, sitting water, and vinegar. Other research shows a gentle rubbing action during washing is effective. Aim for 20-30 seconds or longer if you have time. Peeling the skin and outer pulp will get rid of additional residue that penetrates into some produce. There's a major downside, though: you lose a portion of the beneficial nutrients and compounds, like fiber and vitamins, that help protect against pesticide toxicity. Some research suggests that replacing processed foods with diverse whole foods can reduce how many pesticides you ingest (but some research suggests there may be fewer benefits if they're not organic). Aside from nutrition, other lifestyle behaviors such as exercise, stress management, and good sleep may build a baseline of health that helps thwart the cumulative effects of pesticides and other pollutants. Overall, they influence how someone's body responds to their 'exposome,' Richardson explains—your total environmental exposures and how they interact with lifestyle behaviors and risk factors like age and genetics. Bastasch says the EPA assesses the combined risks of groups of pesticides that affect the body in similar ways, adding that the agency is continuing to advance research in this area. The exposome probably matters more than any one chemical type, but 'we're really just breaking the surface of understanding these interactions,' Richardson says. Until more definitive science emerges, maintain smart practices like scrubbing produce and striving for a healthy lifestyle. Contact us at letters@
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Cuomo attacked during debate by fellow Dems for allegedly lying to Congress about COVID nursing home scandal
Former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo was blasted by fellow Democrats running against him to be the next mayor of New York City for lying to Congress, an allegation pushed by Republicans that the Trump administration is currently investigating. Cuomo repeatedly dismissed questions throughout Wednesday night's debate on whether he lied to Congress about his role in drafting a New York State Department of Health report that officials determined had undercounted the number of nursing home deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic. Instead, Cuomo blasted the current investigation as a symptom of partisan politics and insisted the report in question "did not undercount the deaths." "The people died and he still won't answer your questions," Cuomo's opponent, Michael Blake, a former state assemblyman from the Bronx, said after Cuomo failed to provide a straight answer. Blake's retort resulted in one of the debate moderators asking Cuomo once again to respond to the allegations that he lied to Congress about his role in drafting the report that undercounted the number of COVID-19 nursing home deaths. This time, he engaged. "No, I told Congress the truth," Cuomo relented. "No, we did not undercount any deaths," he added. "When they are all counted, we're number 38 out of 50, which I think, shows that compared to what other states went through, we had it first and worst, and that only 12 states had a lower rate of death – we should really be thanking the women and men who worked on those things." "It's just a yes or no question," the moderator shot back at Cuomo. "Were you involved in the producing of that report?" However, Cuomo still did not address the question directly, leading to laughter from his opponents. "It's not only that Andrew Cuomo lied to Congress – which is perjury – he also lied to the grieving families whose loved ones he sent in to those nursing homes to protect his $5 million book deal," said Brad Lander, New York City's comptroller. "That's corruption." Last month, the Trump administration's Department of Justice opened a criminal investigation to get to the bottom of whether Cuomo lied to Congress about the decisions he made during the COVID-19 pandemic while serving as governor. In March 2020, Cuomo issued a directive that initially barred nursing homes from refusing to accept patients who had tested positive for COVID-19. The directive was meant to free up beds for overwhelmed hospitals, but more than 9,000 recovering coronavirus patients were ultimately released from hospitals into nursing homes under the directive, which was later rescinded amid speculation that it had accelerated outbreaks. Subsequently, a report released in March 2022 by the New York state comptroller found Cuomo's Health Department "was not transparent in its reporting of COVID-19 deaths in nursing homes" and it "understated the number of deaths at nursing homes by as much as 50%" during some points of the pandemic. New York Attorney General Letitia James similarly released a report amid the pandemic showing New York state nursing home deaths had been undercounted.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Morten Harket, lead singer of a-ha, has Parkinson's disease
Morten Harket has revealed he has Parkinson's disease. The singer of a-ha, the band behind the 1985 hit and innovatively animated music video 'Take On Me,' shared the news during an interview with the group's biographer. 'I've got no problem accepting the diagnosis,' Harket said. 'With time, I've taken to heart my 94-year-old father's attitude to the way the organism gradually surrenders: 'I use whatever works'.' Harket, 65, explained why he wanted to share his diagnosis publicly. 'Acknowledging the diagnosis wasn't a problem for me; it's my need for peace and quiet to work that has been stopping me. I'm trying the best I can to prevent my entire system from going into decline,' he said. 'It's a difficult balancing act between taking the medication and managing its side effects. There's so much to weigh up when you're emulating the masterful way the body handles every complex movement, or social matters and invitations, or day-to-day life in general.' According to Mayo Clinic, 'Parkinson's disease is a movement disorder of the nervous system that worsens over time.' Harket had 'advanced brain surgery' at the Mayo Clinic, which along with medication, 'have softened the impact of his symptoms,' the a-ha biographer, Jan Omdahl, wrote. 'In June 2024, Morten underwent a neurosurgical procedure in which electrodes were implanted deep inside the left side of his brain. These are connected to a small pacemaker-like device placed under the skin of the upper chest that sends electrical impulses through the electrodes into the brain,' Omdahl wrote. 'The method is called deep brain stimulation (DBS) and is among the most advanced treatments in neurology. The procedure had the desired effect: with the right electrical impulses now reaching Morten's brain, many of his physical symptoms practically vanished. In December 2024 he underwent a similar procedure on the right side of his brain, which was also successful.' Harket's voice, however, has been affected, he said. 'The problems with my voice are one of many grounds for uncertainty about my creative future,' Harket said.
