Overview 2/2

The role of regulations in protecting infant health

• The International Code
• The industry pushes for weak controls
• The role of IBFAN
• The corporate response to IBFAN

A mother in the Philippines breastfeeds her twins. Photo: UNICEF/S. Yaboo

The International Code

The adoption of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes as a minimum public health requirement for all countries was a breakthrough in consumer protection.

Many health and development agencies such as the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), OXFAM, War on Want, La Leche League, and UNICEF, along with the baby food industry, were consulted during the formation of the International Code.

The industry view of the resulting Code was given in 1981 by Ernest Saunders, then Vice President of Nestlé. He wrote to WHO's Executive Board as the President of the industry body with the following complaint: "The World Industry has found this present draft code unacceptable ... highly restrictive ..irrelevant and unworkable."

However, the 1981 World Health Assembly (WHA) adopted the International Code as a "minimum requirement" to be implemented "in its entirety". Companies are required to abide by it independently of other measures and every two years governments are required to report to WHO on their progress in International Code implementation.

By 1998 over 116 countries had taken some action to implement the International Code and over half the world's population now live in countries where laws are in place which broadly incorporate its main provisions.

Since 1981, additional WHA Resolutions have been passed which clarify and amplify the International Code's provisions and a series of UN meetings and international conferences have put breastfeeding firmly on the agenda for policy formation.

The industry pushes for weak controls

The baby feeding industry now claims to support the International Code. Despite such assurances, companies continue to violate it in a systematic manner and attempt to undermine its implementation.

The industry campaigns for voluntary codes or weak controls in national measures. It also attempts to have influence over bodies setting international standards, such as the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission and the European Union's Scientific Committee for Food. The establishment of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) has given the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission a new status and there are fears that governments may be forced to use Codex standards as a basis for legislation.

At the same time pressure from the World Bank and Structural Adjustment Programmes to liberalise trade rules and encourage private investment has increased dependency on commercial sponsorship in all sectors. For the baby feeding industry this has created important marketing opportunities.

WHO itself has come under constant pressure from the baby feeding industry to drop breastfeeding from its agenda.

In recent years the industry has exploited fears about the transmission of HIV through breastfeeding. The validity of the International Code and WHO Resolutions as a basis for legislation has been attacked. In South Africa, for example, companies formed an agency, the Freedom of Commercial Speech Trust, which lobbies to stop the International Code being adopted as law on the basis that commercial advertising of bottle feeding has an important role to play in the education of parents. Yet the International Code and Resolutions have the aim of ensuring the proper use of breastmilk substitutes "when these are necessary" as well as protecting and promoting breastfeeding.

The role of IBFAN

Since 1979 IBFAN has aimed to ensure that it is equipped and ready to deal with the challenge of seeking controls on a multi-billion dollar industry.

IBFAN works to ensure that the International Code and the subsequent World Health Assembly Resolutions keep pace with marketing trends, that they are enacted as law or equivalent in all countries and that they are independently monitored and enforced.

IBFAN's work includes:

• networking with partners around the world in a spirit of solidarity for mutual support and empowerment,
• advocacy for the International Code and Resolutions in national and international measures,
• capacity building and Code training courses for NGOs, consumers and policy makers in all parts of the world,
• monitoring the state of implementation of and compliance with the International Code and Resolutions,
• awareness raising through publications, the media and grassroots outreach,
• coordinating company campaigns such as the Nestlé Boycott,
• policy development on food standards, maternity legislation, emergency relief and HIV.

IBFAN works to ensure that there is transparency in policy setting bodies, that the concerns of mothers and infants are heard and that the economic and social impact of inappropriate feeding is addressed.

The corporate response to IBFAN

The baby food issue has contributed to a new awareness of the damaging role that transnational corporations (TNCs) can have on public health and the environment.

In response to the criticism, and in an effort to maintain a favourable business climate, TNCs have used a variety of techniques to encourage the view that they are to be trusted as responsible corporate citizens.

TNCs have even suggested that in the UN system "business...should not be lumped with the many single-issue NGOs, but be accepted as an interlocutor of a different stature, as the engineers of wealth" (Peter Brabeck Nestlé CEO, at the UN Conference on Trade and Development, October 1996)"

They have increased their efforts to form partnerships with mainstream NGOs, suggesting that "confrontational" methods such as boycotts are outdated and ineffective.

Instead, TNCs attempt to divert criticism by encouraging their critics to enter into "dialogue" and to "collaborate" with them to develop voluntary codes of practice. TNCs argue against transparent, independent and effective controls.

When regulations are to be introduced TNCs seek to influence the process, calling for matters affecting infant health and mothers' rights to be decided by negotiation.

The industry puts forward fine-sounding arguments in its attempts to avoid criticism and controls. Often these arguments are contradictory. For example:

[Argument 1] The industry should regulate itself, but...[Argument 2] Anti-trust laws stop companies working together to end malpractice.

[Argument 1] It is for a government to decide how to implement the International Code as appropriate to its country, but...[Argument 2] Regulations must not be stronger than weaker international standards.

[Argument 1] Governments should set out their requirements, but...[Argument 2] Government requirements may be refuted or ignored.

[Argument 1] The public are welcome to report violations, but...[Argument 2] It is not IBFAN's role to monitor. It is the responsibility of governments in consultation with the industry and consumers.

[Argument 1] When IBFAN calls for an end to malpractice it is being confrontational, but... [Argument 2] When companies change they should be congratulated for co-operating.

It is important to appreciate that to call for controls on the industry is not revolutionary. In many areas of our lives regulations knit together the fabric of society for the benefit of all.

Society does not rely on trust to prevent murder and theft, cheating and coercion. Society is dependent on rules, rules which are enforced.

TNCs benefit from many regulations which protect their interests. Yet, for too long, the most vulnerable members of our society have been unprotected from companies which do not deserve our trust.

This is why IBFAN exists.