Strategies used by industry to undermine controls on marketing practices exposed in new IBFAN report

Recommendations to other campaigns

(click here to download pdf version)

(click here to order a printed version)

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.