<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
A:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</style>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font>APOYO INACEPTABLE A LA INDUSTRIA LACTEA</font></p><p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font size="4"><font>APPUI INACCEPTABLE A L'INDUSTRIE LAITIERE</font><br></font></p><p style="margin-bottom:0in">
<font size="4"><br></font></p><p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font size="4">From IBFAN, July 2012
</font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font size="4"><b>Pressure in support of
corporate greed</b>
</font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font size="4">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.
</font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in">“<font size="4">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.
</font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in">“<font size="4">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.
</font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font size="4">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. </font>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font size="4">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:
</font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"> <font size="4">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.
</font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"> <font size="4">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
</font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font size="4">therefore that there
should be no advertising for breastmilk substitutes for at least two
years.
</font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"> <font size="4">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
</font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font size="4">optimally. Given the
special vulnerability of infants and the risks involved in
</font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font size="4">inappropriate feeding
practices, all promotion of breastmilk substitutes intended for
</font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font size="4">use up to the age of 24
months should be banned, in accordance with the International
</font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font size="4">Code.”
</font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font size="4">Early, exclusive and
continued breastfeeding results in reduced illness during childhood
</font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font size="4">and in later life. The
savings from this reduction in illness are significant from a health
</font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font size="4">systems perspective. It is
estimated that optimal breastfeeding could save the </font>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font size="4">health system millions of
dollars per year. </font>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font size="4">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.
</font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font size="4">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.
</font>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in">“<font size="4">Implying, as the US
letter does, that the consumer would miss out on ‘comprehensive
</font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font size="4">information’, if
advertising were banned, is adding insult to injury”, says Allain
of IBFAN.
</font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in">“<font size="4">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”.
</font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font size="4">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. </font>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font size="4">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.”
</font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font size="4">
</font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font size="4"><b>Additional notes:</b>
</font></p>
<ul><li><p style="margin-bottom:0in">“<font size="3">No infant formula
contains the perfect combination of proteins, carbohydrates and
</font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font size="3">fats to enhance infant
growth and brain development as breastmilk does. No infant
</font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font size="3">formula contains
antibodies to protect infants against infection as breastmilk does.
No
</font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font size="3">infant formula is as safe
to administer as breastmilk is. And no infant formula is as
</font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font size="3">affordable to families as
breastmilk in providing the perfect nutrition for infants while
</font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font size="3">protecting them from
infections.”
(UNICEF and WHO China Joint Statement on
Contaminated Infant Formula, September 2008).
</font></p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom:0in">“<font size="3">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).</font></p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font size="4"><font size="3">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
<a href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/update/update44page14">http://info.babymilkaction.org/update/update44page14</a>
</font></font>
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font size="3">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."
</font></p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font size="3">The Italian consumer
association, Altroconsumo, analysed these products and published a
statement very
similar to the German one in 2009.
</font></p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font size="3">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.”
</font></p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom:0in"> <font size="3">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
</font></p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font size="4"><font size="3">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.
<a href="http://www.vzhh.de/ernaehrung/129727/kostenfalle-kindermilch.aspx">http://www.vzhh.de/ernaehrung/129727/kostenfalle-kindermilch.aspx</a>
</font></font></p>
</li></ul>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font style="font-size:11pt" size="2">Contact:
<a href="mailto:ibfanpg@tm.net.my">ibfanpg@tm.net.my</a> </font>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font size="4"><font style="font-size:11pt" size="2">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.</font>
</font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font size="4"><font style="font-size:11pt" size="2">IBFAN
works for the universal and full implementation of ‘International
Code of Marketing of Breastmilk
Substitutes’ and subsequent
relevant World Health Assembly (WHA) resolutions.</font>
</font></p>