PHM-Exch> Unacceptable pressure in support of the baby milk industry

[Claudio Schuftan]

APOYO INACEPTABLE A LA INDUSTRIA LACTEA

APPUI INACCEPTABLE A L'INDUSTRIE LAITIERE


>From IBFAN, July 2012


 *Pressure in support of corporate greed*


 The US government has been putting pressure on an Asian country to put
commercial profit before health. In an official letter, the US Embassy in
that country urged against a ban on advertising formula milk products for
babies above the age of 12 months. The letter, which was obtained by IBFAN,
was addressed to the Chairman of the Legislative Assembly and copied to
seven others, including three Ministers. The Assembly was set to vote on a
proposal extending the ban on advertising from 12 to 24 months. To its
credit, the Assembly adopted the proposal despite the threatening letter.
IBFAN applauds the government for putting child health above corporate
greed.

“Several US companies have contacted the US Embassy regarding their serious
concerns” over the proposed ban, as it “could have a significant negative
impact on their business in the country. We share their concerns.” The
letter thus clearly pinpoints the sellers of formula milks as the
originators behind this extraordinary and unconscionable threat by a major
donor country.

“We know who the sellers are”, says Annelies Allain of IBFAN’s Code
Documentation Centre in Malaysia, “Abbott, Mead Johnson and Wyeth (owned by
Pfizer) are all three big American players in this burgeoning market and
want to make sure their profits are not curtailed”. She is angry that the
letter equates advertising with “comprehensive information for consumers”.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The real aim of advertising
anywhere is to sell more. Companies use misleading claims and promotional
messages to glorify their products - encouraging parents to believe that
they are essential, that they have a health advantage, will improve vision,
reduce allergies, make children more intelligent and gain weight.

In recent years, formula companies have introduced an array of
powdered-milk products for older babies and toddlers. The main reason for
the invention of these milks is to by-pass the restrictions of the
Advertising Law, so the products and the companies can be advertised freely
and, in the process, idealise formulas for younger babies with the same or
very similar brands. Those formulas were not allowed to be advertised in
order to protect breastfeeding.

The US letter says: “We have not seen a compelling scientific, legal or
economic argument for changing the current regulatory regime...” Well,
there are plenty scientific, legal and economic arguments warranting the
extension of the ban on advertising to 24 months. Here are some:

 Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the promotion of
breastfeeding is a legal obligation of the State. The Committee on the
Rights of the Child has been urging countries to strengthen its
regulations.

 WHO recommends exclusive breastfeeding for six months and continued
breastfeeding for up to two years of age or beyond. These recommendations,
based on scientific evidence, were endorsed by all Member States, including
the US. It follows

therefore that there should be no advertising for breastmilk substitutes
for at least two years.

 According to UNICEF's Legal Nutrition Advisor, David Clark: “Improper
marketing and promotion of food products that compete with breastfeeding
are important factors that often negatively affect the choice and ability
of a mother to breastfeed her infant

optimally. Given the special vulnerability of infants and the risks
involved in

inappropriate feeding practices, all promotion of breastmilk substitutes
intended for

use up to the age of 24 months should be banned, in accordance with the
International

Code.”

Early, exclusive and continued breastfeeding results in reduced illness
during childhood

and in later life. The savings from this reduction in illness are
significant from a health

systems perspective. It is estimated that optimal breastfeeding could save
the

health system millions of dollars per year.

WHO and UNICEF have long encouraged countires to strengthen their
regulations in accordance with the International Code of Marketing of
Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent Resolutions.

Companies selling products for infants and young children, spend more than
30% of their overall costs on advertising and marketing. Of course the
consumer ends up paying for that.

“Implying, as the US letter does, that the consumer would miss out on
‘comprehensive

information’, if advertising were banned, is adding insult to injury”, says
Allain of IBFAN.

“Companies use advertising routinely to suggest that children will be
smarter and stronger if they drink formula, but such claims are widely
rejected by independent health professionals”.

It is unacceptable for a US Embassy to protect corporations who are
responsible for so much unnecessary infant morbidity and mortality and to
ignore the International Code which seeks to protect infant health.

The letter is also totally inconsistent with the 'new' Obama thinking,
whose representative, Nils Daulaire, told the WHO Executive Board earlier
this year that "... the [International] Code continues to be a central
pillar of improved child nutrition and needs to be vigorously and
universally supported, applied and enforced.”

 *Additional notes:*

   -

   “No infant formula contains the perfect combination of proteins,
   carbohydrates and

   fats to enhance infant growth and brain development as breastmilk does.
   No infant

   formula contains antibodies to protect infants against infection as
   breastmilk does. No

   infant formula is as safe to administer as breastmilk is. And no infant
   formula is as

   affordable to families as breastmilk in providing the perfect nutrition
   for infants while

   protecting them from infections.” (UNICEF and WHO China Joint Statement
   on Contaminated Infant Formula, September 2008).
   -

   “What we need is to support and encourage mothers to breastfeed their
   children in the best way possible, that is: start breastfeeding within the
   first hour of birth, give nothing else but breastmilk from the first hour
   of birth up to the first six months of life and continue to breastfeed up
   to 24 months or longer. Investing in the health of our children in the
   first 1000 days of their lives, is the best investment we can make for the
   future human resources of a country”. (Ms. Nemat Hajeebhoy, Director of
   Alive & Thrive).
   -

   Parents should feed young children ‘real’ foods alongside continued
   breastfeeding. Family foods can be easily adapted to suit the needs of
   young children. They do not miss essential nutrients as claimed by
   advertising. Indeed, there is no evidence that fortified formulas for older
   babies are needed at all and there is much concern about their role in
   encouraging childhood obesity. The formulas are expensive and often have
   high levels of sugar. They invariably share brands and logos with infant
   formulas, so promote the whole range. (Patti Rundall, Baby Milk Action
   U.K.) Also see http://info.babymilkaction.org/update/update44page14
   -

   A report by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR)
   (16.08.2011) found that ‘toddler’ milk does not offer any advantage
   compared to reduced fat cow milk. “From a nutritional and physiological
   point of view these special toddler milks are not necessary”. (BfR
   President, Professor Dr. Andreas Hensel). "The manufacturers of toddler
   milk drinks often refer to high consumption amounts on the packaging of
   their products. According to these recommended consumptions children would
   consume through children's milk alone high amounts of macronutrients and
   micronutrients. Within the framework of the overall diet this would favour
   in the long-term an oversupply with all nutrients. From a nutritional
   physiological and health point of view this is problematic."
   -

   The Italian consumer association, Altroconsumo, analysed these products
   and published a statement very similar to the German one in 2009.
   -

   A survey in 2010 by the Hong Kong Department of Health (HKSAR) found
   that “children who drank more milk (mainly formula milk) than the
   recommended volume generally consumed smaller amounts of grains, vegetables
   and fruits. Use of the bottle and parents’ misconceptions about the
   nutritional benefits of formula milk might have contributed to the high
   milk intake and the choice of milk.”
   -

   Gooze et al, Prolonged Bottle Use and Obesity at 5.5 Years of Age in US
   Children J Pediatrics 2011, Sept; 159 (3):431-6
   -

   A survey by the German Consumer centres on the products being sold as
   “Kindermilch” (“milk for children”) targeting the age from 12 months, found
   that Kindermilch was up to four times more expensive than normal milk,
   costing parents up to 245 Euros more each year.
   http://www.vzhh.de/ernaehrung/129727/kostenfalle-kindermilch.aspx


 Contact: ibfanpg at tm.net.my

The International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) is the 1998 Right
Livelihood Award Recipient. It consists of more than 200 public interest
groups working around the world to save lives of infants and young children
by working together to bring lasting changes in infant feeding practices at
all levels. IBFAN aims to promote the health and well-being of infants and
young children and their mothers through protection, promotion and support
of optimal breastfeeding and infant and young child feeding practices.

IBFAN works for the universal and full implementation of ‘International
Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes’ and subsequent relevant World
Health Assembly (WHA) resolutions.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phm.phmovement.org/pipermail/phm-exchange-phmovement.org/attachments/20120723/4f9c89bd/attachment.html>