Baby
food companies exposed as IBFAN presents evidence
at UK Parliament
Click
here for reports presented to the meeting
A study
in today's
Lancet showing
the increased risk of heart disease for bottle-fed babies
reinforces
the
list
of
health
risks of artificial feeding (click
here for Guardian report).
This news comes as the International Baby Food Action Network
(IBFAN) launches its latest monitoring
report documenting how baby food companies idealise their
products, ignoring the negative health impact of artificial
feeding. Evidence gathered through monitoring of baby food
companies in 69 countries was presented at the House of Commons
on 13 May.
The
meeting was hosted by UK Member of Parliament, Lynne
Jones MP (right), who has tabled an Early
Day Motion (a petition
for MPs) calling for the UK Government to support action
to end baby food marketing malpractice in the UK and
in other countries. This is already receiving significant
support across political parties.
The
IBFAN experts are on their way to Geneva, where the World
Health Assembly is meeting from 17 May to discuss current
concerns in infant and young child nutrition, such as
bacterial contamination of powdered formula and the increased
use of bogus health claims to promote artificial feeding. |
The meeting
was hosted by Lynne Jones MP
|
The
Breaking the Rules, Stretching
the Rules 2004 monitoring
report analyses the promotional
practices of 16 transnational baby food companies and 14
bottle and teat companies between
January 2002 and April 2004. The benchmark standards used
for measuring marketing practices
are the International
Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent,
relevant World Health Assembly (WHA) Resolutions. The marketing
requirements aim to defend breastfeeding and to ensure that breastmilk
substitutes are used safely, if necessary, on the basis of adequate
information and appropriate marketing.
Some
3,000 complaints were received from monitors in 69 countries
around the world. After legal checking about 2,000 violations
were reported in Breaking the Rules and many of
these came with photos.
Yeong
Joo Kean, IBFAN's Legal Advisor said:
"We
have 712 pictures of actual violations in the report. There
is no way that the companies can deny that they were found
in flagrant violation of the Code and Resolutions."
Click
here for an overview of the report, which highlights the
following trends in violations:
- 'Functional' claims. Companies try to differentiate their
formulas by adding a string of additives and then claiming
performance benefits for these.
- Free and low-cost
supplies continue.
- Exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months continues to be undermined
by most companies.
- Information to health professionals. Companies violate
the requirement that this is restrict to scientific and factual
matters.
- Health facilities and health workers continue to be targeted.
- Sponsorship of medical seminars, conferences and associations
of medical professionals is becoming more widespread.
Click
here to download the full 94-page report containing profiles of the big 16 baby
food companies: Abbott-Ross, Danone, Dumex, Friesland, Gerber,
Heinz, Hipp, Humana, Mead Johnson, Meiji, Milupa, Morinaga,
Nestlé, Nutricia, Snow and Wyeth. The major bottle and teat
companies are also evaluated.
Country
summary reports with the title Look What They're Doing have been
prepared for the following countries:
Typical
company
responses to reports of violations are available
on the Baby
Milk Action website.
For
further information contact: Mike Brady, Baby Milk Action,
23 St. Andrew's Street, Cambridge,
CB2 3AX, UK.
International Tel: +44 1223 464420 - Mobile: +44 7986 736179
UK Tel: 01223 464420 - Mobile: 07986 736179
E-mail: mikebrady@babymilkaction.org
Notes
for editors
-
Contact
details for companies implicated in the monitoring
are available from Baby Milk Action. Baby Milk Action
and Nestlé have
taken part in head-to-head interviews in
the past (Nestlé’s Senior Policy Advisor
on its infant nutrition business, Beverley Mirando, can
be contacted on
+44 208 6675317). Examples of past inadequate responses
to reports of violations can be found in the ‘codewatch’ section
of the Baby Milk Action website: www.babymilkaction.org
-
The
International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes was
adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1981 as a ‘minimum requirement’ to be implemented in
its ‘entirety’ by all countries. Under Article
11.3 manufacturers
and distributors of products within the scope of the
Code are required to ensure their activities at every
level
comply, independently of government measures. Subsequent
Resolutions address questions of interpretation and
changes in scientific knowledge and marketing practices.
Company
policies are very different from the Code and
Resolutions, for example, referring only to infant
formula. Monitoring demonstrates systematic and
institutionalised violations of the Code and Resolutions
as well as the companies’ narrower policies.
-
The
World Health Assembly is to discuss infant and young
child nutrition at its meeting during the week of 17
May. At the preliminary World Health Organisation
(WHO) Executive
Board meeting in January 2004, the
normal practice of preparing a draft Resolution to
address current concerns was sidelined. Enterobacter
Sakazakii contamination of powdered formula and the
long-term health disadvantages of artificial feeding
are
key issues the industry does not wish to be addressed.
Surveys, following the death of an infant in Belgium
from meningitis attributed to contaminated Nestlé formula,
have found a high proportion of tins of formula are
contaminated during the manufacturing process after pasteurisation.
At its recent AGM, Nestlé refused to
unilaterally provide warnings on its labels (see Baby
Milk Action press release 22 April).
-
According
to UNICEF: “Improved breastfeeding practices
and reduction of artificial feeding could save
an estimated 1.5 million children a year“ (State
of the World’s Children 2001). This is equivalent
to one needless death every 30 seconds.
|
