<div dir="ltr"><br><a href="https://worldnutritionjournal.org/index.php/wn/article/view/155/112">https://worldnutritionjournal.org/index.php/wn/article/view/155/112</a><br><br><div style="font-size:30px;font-family:serif">Abstract</div><div style="font-size:20px;font-family:serif">Despite countries’ commitments</div><div style="font-size:20px;font-family:serif"> to improve nutrition, starting with the protection </div><div style="font-size:20px;font-family:serif">of breastfeeding, aggressive marketing of breastmilk substitutes continues to</div><div style="font-size:20px;font-family:serif">promote their indiscriminate use. The baby food industry appears to use similar </div><div style="font-size:20px;font-family:serif">interference tactics as the tobacco industry to influence public health, promote </div><div style="font-size:20px;font-family:serif">their products and expand their markets. </div><div style="font-size:20px;font-family:serif">Learning from the tobacco experience, this paper assesses whether the baby food </div><div style="font-size:20px;font-family:serif">industry uses any of the six tobacco industry interference tactics recognized by the </div><div style="font-size:20px;font-family:serif">World Health Organization (WHO) and summarizes examples of documented </div><div style="font-size:20px;font-family:serif">evidence. </div><div style="font-size:20px;font-family:serif">We conclude that the baby food industry uses all six tactics: (1) manoeuvring to </div><div style="font-size:20px;font-family:serif">hijack the political and legislative process; (2) exaggerating economic importance </div><div style="font-size:20px;font-family:serif">of the industry; (3) manipulating public opinion to gain appearance of </div><div style="font-size:20px;font-family:serif">respectability; (4) fabricating support through front groups; (5) discrediting </div><div style="font-size:20px;font-family:serif">proven science; and (6) intimidating governments with litigation. There is </div><div style="font-size:20px;font-family:serif">abundant anecdotal evidence. Published evidence is limited and varies by tactic. </div><div style="font-size:20px;font-family:serif">Examples of interference are provided for the Philippines, Vietnam, Laos, Turkey, </div><div style="font-size:20px;font-family:serif">Ecuador, Hong Kong, Mexico and the United Kingdom, and most for tactic 3.  </div><div style="font-size:20px;font-family:serif">Interference in public health policies shows commonalities between the two </div><div style="font-size:20px;font-family:serif">industries. The tobacco control movement offers a useful framework for </div><div style="font-size:20px;font-family:serif">classifying and addressing interference with public policy by the baby food industry. <br></div><div style="font-size:20px;font-family:serif">Revealing the depth and extent of interference used by the baby food </div><div style="font-size:20px;font-family:serif">industry is critical if countriesare to counter interference and implement </div><div style="font-size:20px;font-family:serif">commitments to improve nutrition.</div><br>World <div style="font-size:13.3333px;font-family:sans-serif">Nutrition </div><div style="font-size:13.3333px;font-family:sans-serif">2017; 8(2)</div><div style="font-size:13.3333px;font-family:sans-serif"><br></div></div>