|
A new report by the
International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN)
documents, from Case Studies commissioned in seven countries,
how the industry has operated over decades to undermine breastfeeding
and to oppose regulation of its marketing activities and how
this influence has been countered by campaigners.
The report is timely.
There is increased concern about the rise of non-communicable
diseases linked to obesity. The lobby of the food industry
against controls on its marketing is all too familiar to IBFAN
(for recent media coverage,
click
here).
Recommendations to
other campaigns from the report are reproduced below (download
the report for fully referenced version).
Section
4.
Recommendations to other campaigns
How applicable is IBFAN’s strategy of pursuing the virtuous
cycle of international standards, national measures and independent
monitoring to other campaigns?
International standards
The corporate sector was greatly concerned when the International
Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes was adopted
in 1981 and efforts were put into promoting voluntary
codes
rather than
regulations. As Judith Richter comments in her 2002 Cornerhouse
briefing paper TNC
Regulation in an Era of Dialogues and Partnerships:
In the 1980s the International Pharmaceutical Manufacturers'
Association delayed international regulation of its practices
for several years by arguing that it needed time to implement
its own 1981 voluntary code. At the same time, it lobbied
for weaker public measures. What started out as an UNCTAD
[UN Conference
on Trade and Development] debate to regulate a whole
range of pharmaceutical industry practices ended in 1998
with
the World
Health Assembly adopting the relatively loose and non-committal
WHO Ethical Criteria for Medicinal Drug Promotion.
Similarly the 1985 FAO International
Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides is a voluntary
code,
but
it is something
campaigners are using to monitor company activities
against and are having some success in stopping malpractice.
The tide may be turning, however, with the Framework
Convention on Tobacco Control being adopted by the
World Health Assembly
in May 2003. The framework sets out acceptable marketing
standards for companies wherever they operate in
the world and was particularly
supported by governments of developing countries,
currently the main target of tobacco companies, which
are more
closely regulated
in industrialised countries. The Convention will
come into force in international law once ratified by
40
countries.
The global epidemics of obesity, diabetes, heart
disease and other food-related non-communicable
diseases are
fast overtaking
infectious diseases as the world’s biggest killers, even
in developing countries. The spotlight is being turned onto the
marketing of high fat, high salt, high sugar processed foods,
and NGOs are pushing for binding regulations to be adopted under
the auspices of the World Health Assembly. The industry is rolling
out the same old strategy of wanting to be included in ‘dialogue’ and
is pressing for ‘cooperation’ rather than regulation.
As CBS reports in an article: ‘Junk food reps meet with
WHO’ (9 May 2003):
Francois-Xavier
Perroud, spokesman for Nestle - the world's biggest food
and beverage company
- said
that the industry
wanted to
work together with WHO. He said that success
in the battle against obesity and ill health would
come "not through opposing
opinions and attitudes" but through cooperation
based on sound science.
According
to investment bank UBS Warburg,
46% of Nestlé’s
income comes from ‘less healthy foods’ and is at
risk if regulations are brought in (Nestlé also
has significant shares of the global pet
food and cosmetics markets). With such
massive sums at stake on one hand and the
health and well-being of millions on the
other, treading the path ahead will require
the same courage from campaigners as that
shown on the infant
feeding issue.
IBFAN
is closely involved in this new campaign, as breastfeeding
plays a key role in prevention
of these
diseases throughout
the life cycle, and many baby food companies
are also involved in marketing junk foods
to older
children.
Other campaigns in the areas of trade and
environmental protection are seeing the
value of working
at an international level.
The World Trade Organisation agreements
under negotiation on the
General Agreement on Trade in Services
(GATS) and on Technical and Intellectual Property
Rights (TRIPS)
are both a threat
and an opportunity. They could cement and
legitimise corporate power,
or they could limit and regulate it.
International agreements, when they are
binding at all, are binding on governments,
not transnationals.
There
have been
some moves
to make transnationals liable at an international
level for their activities. The European
Union export
measures
for
infant formula
and follow-on formula provide one example,
but as explained in this report, these
are not working
due
to the refusal
of authorities
to accept denunciations from NGOs.
The European Parliament has called for
a wider Monitoring Platform to monitor
proposed
EU
standards in a broad
range of areas
covering human rights and the environment.
Under the white paper EU Standards
for European-based enterprises operating
in developing countries, complaints
could be
registered with
the Monitoring Platform
for investigation and levelling of
sanctions. These proposals have
not been taken forward by the EU Commission,
which instead favours the OECD (Organisation
for Economic
Cooperation
and Development)
voluntary code of conduct and round
table discussions involving industry and NGO
sectors. Of
the White Paper’s provisions,
the Parliament has been limited to holding its own Public Hearings,
the first being into Nestlé baby
food marketing practices.
The United Nations’ route for TNC monitoring and regulation
struck the rocks when the UN Centre on Transnational Corporations
was wound up at the beginning of the 1990s after trying to include
recommendations at the Rio Earth Summit in Agenda 21 (the UN’s
global plan of action) for the environmental
regulation of TNCs and attempting to draft
a binding Code of Conduct for TNCs.
In
the legal field, there is scope for bringing action against
a company
in
its host nation
rather than
the country where
violations of human rights have taken
place. A ground-breaking case in
the UK saw the company Thor successfully
prosecuted in UK courts over the
ill health of workers
in South Africa
after
the highest
court in the UK (the House of Lords)
ruled that a case should be heard
in the home
country of
a company
if ‘substantial
justice’ would not be obtained
overseas. There is perhaps the opportunity
to bring
cases before the International Court
of Justice at some future date.
On the whole, however, enforcement
of standards has to take place
at a national
level.
National implementation of international
standards
An international standard is
an excellent tool for prompting
regulations
at
a national level.
In some
cases, such
as with EU Directives and international
Treaties and Conventions,
this is a legal requirement,
generally respected by governments.
Other
measures may have only
moral force,
which, however,
is
no small
thing. This was the case with
the International Code
of Marketing of Breastmilk
Substitutes until
the time of the Convention
on the
Rights
of the
Child.
National measures are best
achieved by national campaigning organisations.
IBFAN’s strength has been to bring together campaigners
who were already concerned about their national situation – it
does not set up groups.
This is surely a model
that can
be followed by other campaigns,
not only because it is
effective, but because
it is respectful of indigenous
knowledge and skills. Where
northern
groups can help is with
training, communication
and resources
for their partner organisations
and by supporting national
campaigns
by mobilising their own
advocates and members.
Northern groups
should also be open to
learn, not only to improve
understanding
of the situation in developing
countries,
but also of that in their
own.
IBFAN’s experience has shown the need to form strong alliances
with as many different sectors as possible, particularly at the
national level. At the same time, in an era where corporations
are pushing themselves forward as good ‘corporate citizens’,
there is a need for health campaigners to be wary of false friends.
Resolutions passed at the WHA on infant feeding are unusual in
that they highlight the need for governments and health workers
to protect against conflicts of interests when planning health
strategies - warning of the risks of passing responsibility for
monitoring and health education to industry. Networks which bring
citizens groups together provide opportunities for sharing experiences
and learning how to counter harmful industry pressure – both
outside and inside organisations.
The importance of this
sharing cannot be underestimated:
it is essential for building
the broad
coalitions which governments
need if they are to make
big policy shifts.
Monitoring
Monitoring is essential
to ascertain whether
companies are abiding
by international
standards and, perhaps
as importantly,
to evaluate
the effectiveness
of government
measures. It could
be argued that monitoring
in some
form
should take
place
even when
effective, regulatory
frameworks
have
been introduced to
provide independent verification
that
these continue
to work.
Monitoring will inevitably
be attacked by
those it catches out. If
it has been conducted
well
and is
evidence based,
campaigners will
be able
to combat
such attacks. Seeking
peer
review and publication
of results in
a professional
journal and/or endorsement
by official
bodies can help
in arguments
over credibility.
The results of
monitoring should
be used imaginatively
to bolster
national
and
international
measures and to expose companies
that argue they
should
be trusted to
self-regulate or be included
as ‘partners’ in
government and other systems.
Perseverance
Key to the success
of IBFAN’s strategy are:
- its evidence-based approach
- its insistence on pursuing necessary measures as opposed to settling
for what is readily acceptable to industry
and politicians
- building of alliances with appropriate stakeholders
- persistence
- vigilance
This report opened by tracing back the baby food industry’s long-term
assault on breastfeeding cultures. Today, companies are using aggressive
marketing strategies and attempting to undermine regulation
even in those countries where sales are
as yet minimal, in the expectation that
future markets will justify the effort. If business works to a time-scale of
decades,
campaigners
have to be prepared
to do the same.
Too often
campaigners
and their
supporters
and funders
want
quick
answers and a clear
sign
that a problem
has been
solved.
Looking for a quick
fix can
divert resources
into
solutions
that
are readily
accepted
by industry
and
politicians,
but in
fact solve
little.
Even
when
there
is
a genuine
breakthrough,
such
as
the adoption
of
the
International Code
of
Marketing of Breastmilk
Substitutes,
this
may
open up a
new
set
of
challenges.
It
would
have
been
welcome
if
the Code
by
itself had stopped
company
malpractice,
but
it did
not.
What
it
did provide
was
an
invaluable international
tool
which
is
being vigorously
utilised
by
dedicated campaigners
to
stop corporate
malpractice,
so saving lives and preventing avoidable suffering.
This report was launched at the World
Health Organisation Executive Board meeting where food industry
opposition to Resolutions on infant and young child feeding
and a global strategy addressing obesity and non-communicable
diseases was very much in evidence. See press
release 21 January 2004.
|
