Multinational
baby food companies Nestlé, Milupa, Abbott-Ross, Mead-Johnson
and Wyeth are the worst violators of the International Code
of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, says IBFAN.
Releasing
the Breaking the
Rules 2001 report to coincide with the 20th anniversary
of the Code, IBFAN says it has evidence of world-wide systematic
violations of the provisions of the International
Code, which prohibits all direct and indirect promotion
of baby foods. The World Health Assembly will be discussing
progress on the Code this week (follow developments through
IBFAN's updates from the WHA).
IBFAN
says that it has proof of infractions by 16 baby food companies:
Abbott-Ross, Danone, Dumex, Friesland, Gerber, Hipp, Heinz,
Humana, Mead Johnson, Meiji, Milupa, Morinaga, Nestlé,
Nutricia, Snow Brand and Wyeth. Among the bottles and teats
companies, the worst violators were Chicco, Gerber, Evenflo
and Playtex.
The
report is based on a survey of company compliance with the International
Code that was conducted by IBFAN groups in 14 countries
- the United States, Canada, Russia, Malaysia, Ghana, Hong Kong,
Taiwan, Italy, Côte d'Ivoire, Bolivia, Uruguay, Mexico,
Togo and the United Arab Emirates. IBFAN monitoring of the marketing
practices of baby food companies has been a regular practice
of the network.
IBFAN
also monitors Code implementation by governments. To date, 51
countries have incorporated all or most of the Code's provisions
into law, according to the State of the Code by Country 2001,
a chart IBFAN is releasing today as well.
The
Code encourages non-governmental organisations to keep a check
on the marketing practices of companies. "Without IBFAN's
regular monitoring exercises and reporting, the situation would
be far worse", says Annelies Allain, Director of IBFAN's
Code Documentation Centre. "Most violations were found
in countries where, until now, there were no IBFAN groups, such
as Taiwan, Hong Kong and the UAE. It was a 'free-for-all' situation
there. No laws and no monitoring."
Subsequent
WHA Resolutions on infant feeding and young child nutrition
have strengthened the Code and adapted it to new marketing strategies
and scientific knowledge. Among other things, these resolutions
prohibit donations of breastmilk substitutes to any part of
the health care system and recommend complementary feeding from
the age of six months. Another resolution clearly states that
financial support for professionals should not create conflicts
of interest.
In March
this year, international health experts settled the long debate
about the optimal duration of breastfeeding by recommending
that babies receive only breastmilk for the first six months.
The recommendation is to be incorporated into a draft WHA Resolution
which will be presented next week. The draft Resolution took
thirteen long hours of negotiation during WHO`s Executive Board
meeting in January to reach its present compromise status (see
IBFAN updates from the WHO EB).
It is likely that the majority of Member States will resent
any move to re-open debate on this draft Resolution whilst a
few may try to introduce amendments weakening it. A lively debate
is expected for Thursday, 17 May.
According
to the IBFAN report, all baby food companies disregard many
provisions of the International Code which are meant
to ensure optimal breastfeeding and the highest levels of nutrition
among infants and young children. In their bid to maximise profits,
the companies seek to undermine exclusive breastfeeding for
the first six months by promoting many products for use by 3
or 4 months. Suitable complementary foods should start only
after 6 months, as recommended by the Code and numerous nutrition
experts world-wide. Industry also advertises follow-up milks
which discourage continued breastfeeding and in many cases these
promote infant formula by having very similar labels.
Brazil
has recently shown that strong national laws can bring about
changes for the better. Last year, the country introduced a
new law which requires companies to remove pictures of babies,
bottles or animal toys from formula and baby food labels and
put clear warnings about the product not to be used before 6
months. Just last month IBFAN heard that Gerber and Nestlé
are the first to have complied with the new law.
The
IBFAN report identifies Nestlé, Gerber, Milupa, Wyeth,
Heinz, Mead Johnson and Abbott-Ross as companies that employ
new approaches to get around marketing curbs. They establish
"baby clubs" to contact mothers directly in order
to distribute promotional materials, free samples and enticing
gifts. Personnel of these and other companies counsel mothers
about infant feeding and recommend the company's brands, weakening
mothers' confidence in breastfeeding and winning loyal customers
who will spend a world-wide average of US$450 per baby per year.
Another new avenue to contact mothers directly and in disregard
of any national law is via the Internet.
One
tactic that has witnessed an alarming resurgence is donations
of free supplies of milks, baby foods and feeding bottles to
health care facilities. These supplies promote the use of artificial
feeding within the facility or are passed on as samples to mothers.
A majority of mothers, at least 90 per cent, remain loyal to
the brand they are introduced to in the health care system because
of the implied medical endorsement of the product.
The
network reminds governments that the Code is a minimum measure
to be translated into enforceable national legislation. It also
stresses that WHO has a clear role as guardian of the Code for
the protection of breastfeeding against vested commercial interests.
ends
For
more information, contact:
Yeong
Joo Kean at IBFAN Penang, Malaysia Tel: +60-4-8905799 Email:
Ibfanpg@tm.net.my
Annelies
Allain at IBFAN Geneva, Switzerland: Tel: +41-22-7989164 Email:
info@gifa.org
|
