This is to inform you that IBFAN's new report Checks
and Balances in the Global Economy: Using International Tools to Stop
Corporate Malpractice - Does it Work? is now available on the internet to
download or buy.
The report was launched at the World Health Organisation Executive Board
meeting in Geneva last week where the food industry was very much in
evidence, not only attempting to obstruct measures on infant feeding, but
also opposing action to regulate the marketing of junk food. IBFAN's
experience over 20 years holding some of the world's most powerful companies
to account is valuable for all campaigners. The final section of the report
gives recommendations to other campaigns.
For news from the launch day go to
http://www.ibfan.org/english/news/press/press21jan04.html
You will find links to download or purchase the printed report on
this page.
Included below is an article based on the executive summary of the report.
If you have received this email from
mikebrady@tutopia.com.br and
would prefer not to receive future alerts, please reply with 'delete' as the
subject.
Best wishes,
Mike Brady
---
Mike Brady
Campaigns and Networking Coordinator
Baby Milk Action
Visit our website
http://www.babymilkaction.org
Baby Milk Action is the UK member of the International Baby Food Action
Network - IBFAN - http://www.ibfan.org
****YOU CAN NOW ORDER PUBLICATIONS AND MERCHANDISE ON-LINE****
Baby Milk Action, 23 St. Andrew's Street, Cambridge, CB2 3AX, UK.
UK contact numbers. Tel: 01223 464420 Fax: 01223 464417
International contact numbers. Tel: +44 1223 464420 Fax: +44 1223 464417
----
The following article first appeared on the One World site at
http://www.oneworld.net/article/view/77476
It may be reproduced in whole or part with credit to Mike Brady, Baby Milk
Action and our website address on the condition a complimentary copy of the
publication is sent to Baby Milk Action at the above address (or in the case
of publication on a website, the URL should be emailed to
mikebrady@babymilkaction.org
Can International Standards Prevent Corporate Malpractice? The Case of
Baby Food
Mike Brady
23 January 2004
Globalization is sometimes portrayed as a recent phenomenon. Yet over 100
years ago the baby food industry was already an international business, with
Nestlé exporting cereal milk food to Latin America and the Dutch East
Indies, and soon afterwards opening factories in target markets.
Over 60 years ago health campaigners began to notice the impact on health of
the aggressive promotion of breastmilk substitutes. More than 20 years ago
the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) was formed, bringing
together campaigners working to control the marketing of breastmilk
substitutes.
Two years later, in 1981, their tool, the International Code of Marketing of
Breastmilk Substitutes, was adopted by the World Health Assembly (WHA). This
was the first attempt to regulate an entire industry sector at global
level..
Industry undermines the Code¹s provisions
The Code bans all promotion of breastmilk substitutes, feeding bottles and
teats, and sets out requirements for labelling and information on infant
feeding. Any activity which undermines breastfeeding violates the aim and
spirit of the Code. The Code and subsequent WHA Resolutions are intended as
a minimum requirement in all countries.
Advertising to the public is banned. Free samples cannot be given to members
of the public or free supplies to health facilities. Companies are limited
to providing scientific and factual information to health workers and must
provide important information and warnings on product labels in the
appropriate language.
Despite the WHA¹s adoption of the Code, however, the industry has continued
to attempt to use its economic and political influence to undermine the
provisions. In response, IBFAN has effectively counterbalanced the power of
some of the world's largest companies as they have lobbied at the WHA and
country by country.
Sometimes the industry has been victorious, and the regulatory route has
been set aside in favour of ³voluntary codes². Sometimes the health
advocates have won, bringing in strong regulations, even criminal law with
powers of imprisonment.
The IBFAN report
The baby food issue has long been a case study for those working to achieve
international standards and corporate accountability. Now IBFAN has
published its report, Using International Tools to Stop Corporate
Malpractice: Does it Work?, on how effective the Code and subsequnet,
relevant Resolutions have been.
IBFAN asked campaigning groups in Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, India, Kenya,
Mexico and the UK to look back over the history of infant feeding, ask what
went right and what went wrong, and make recommendations.
The report give a strong sense of the realities faced by campaigners on the
ground, confronted on the one hand with the needless illness or death of
their neighbours¹ children and on the other with powerful companies for whom
profit often appears to count more than human welfare.
As the report shows, it has taken concerted marketing activity over decades
to create bottle-feeding cultures. Now in mature markets, such as Belgium
and the UK, bottle-feeding is seen almost as a lifestyle - rather than a
health - choice.
Even in countries where breastfeeding predominates, such as Bolivia and
Kenya, baby food marketing messages cause mothers to doubt their ability to
breastfeed. A surprising number use feeding bottles, often with unsuitable
substances inside them.
The case study countries represent a variety of types of implementation.
India has a strong law, with non-governmental organizations sanctioned to
file cases in the courts. Brazil¹s strong law is enforced by a health
inspectorate and consumer protection bodies.
Belgium and the UK have followed policies adopted by the European Union,
which has introduced only some aspects of the Code and Resolutions in
regulations.
Bolivia, Kenya and Mexico have all principally followed the route of
voluntary codes of conduct agreed with the industry.
In all countries the industry has lobbied for narrow implementation of the
Code and Resolutions, preferably as a voluntary code, rather than as binding
legislation. It has tried to influence government policy-setting with
tactics such as sponsoring the research on which policy is based and the
health worker bodies represented on government committees.
Where industry has failed, this is in large part due to the work of NGOs in
monitoring and exposing company marketing activities and raising awareness
of the need for strong measures, taking the Code and Resolutions as minimum
requirements.
In India and Brazil legislation has been progressively strengthened to give
broad protection.
Within the EU calls from the health lobby and the European Parliament have
brought about some changes to the policies of the unelected European
Commission but not full implementation of the Code and Resolutions.
In Belgium and the UK industry arguments for deregulation won out over
health concerns. In Mexico, Bolivia and Kenya governments have also followed
the industry line.
Violations
As might be anticipated, the IBFAN report shows the nature and spread of
violations of the Code and Resolutions differ substantially, depending on
the national regulations and efforts taken to expose violations.
India's strong laws have stopped much of the promotion of breastmilk
substitutes. But companies are aggressively promoting complementary foods,
something now banned by the latest legislation introduced in 2003.
Brazil has less violations than most countries, though inappropriate
promotion of whole-milks and sponsoring of health worker bodies are
particular concerns.
The authorities in Belgium and the UK take what action they can but are
constrained by narrow legislation and lack of resources.
Bolivia¹s voluntary code is being made to work to some extent by the IBFAN
group1s monitoring and exposure of malpractice.
Mexico, with its voluntary code and strong industry lobby, is awash with
violations such as free supplies of breastmilk substitutes in hospitals.
In Kenya companies use problems such as HIV and national emergencies to push
breastmilk substitutes and promote to mothers through the health care
system.
Where advertising and promotion of breastmilk substitutes, feeding bottles
and teats are prohibited, and breastfeeding is actively promoted,
year-on-year increases in breastfeeding rates are being achieved. This leads
to reduced infant mortality and morbidity.
In Brazil, for example, rates of exclusive breastfeeding at 4 months of age
have been increasing at 4% per year. In Kenya, where the industry has little
market but aggressively promotes all the same, breastfeeding rates are
declining.
Achieving checks and balances
Overall, the IBFAN report shows that the development and implementation of
codes of conduct may divert energy into measures that will ultimately prove
ineffective. In many cases, from the viewpoint of ordinary citizens, this
has been a bitter experience.
Legislative routes to consumer protection are potentially more effective, if
they are independently monitored and enforced.
As the report concludes - whether it comes to protecting the health and
lives of infants, or in any other field where the public need protection
from corporate malpractice our strategy should include campaigning for and
achieving science-based international standards; working for their
implementation at national level; then resolutely monitoring them to ensure
that they are followed; and ensuring that loopholes and weaknesses in the
standards are effectively addressed.
Achieving checks and balances on some of the world¹s most powerful
corporations does not come about by accident. It takes dedicated
campaigning. Sometimes over decades.
