|
President
and Members of the European Parliament,
I am very pleased
to have been invited to present to you information about how
transnational corporations based in and exporting from the European
Union are affecting the health and survival of infants in Pakistan
and around the world.
I represent a public
interest group called The Network for Consumer Protection in
Pakistan. We are a member of the International Baby Food Action
Network (IBFAN), a global network
of over 150 groups in more than 90 countries. IBFAN has been
working for more than 20 years for implementation of and compliance
with internationally agreed marketing standards for the baby
food industry.
I come here today
with three requests of the European Parliament:
-
That the Council
Resolution and Export Directive on the marketing of breastmilk
substitutes are reviewed so that they become effective tools
to stop malpractice by European companies, wherever they
operate outside the European Union.
-
That the European
Union does all that it can to support full implementation
of the International
Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent,
relevant Resolutions adopted by the World Health Assembly
by every country as minimum requirements and works to incorporate
these measures in international frameworks, such as Codex
Alimentarius and the World Trade Organisation agreements.
-
That a framework
is set up, as proposed in the Code of Conduct paper, with
an appropriate legal basis, so that governments, public-interest
groups and individuals in third countries have a clearly
defined set of procedures to follow to report violations.
Although we are discussing
infant feeding in the context of dry regulations, the issue
is actually about ensuring that mothers everywhere, including
in Europe, are protected from commercial exploitation and enabled
to make informed decisions about infant feeding.
WHO and UNICEF estimate
that reversing the decline in breastfeeding could save the lives
of 1.5 million infants around the world every year. Where water
is unsafe an artificially-fed child is up to 25 times more likely
to die as a result of diarrhoea than a breastfed child. Indeed,
in a country like Pakistan, where nearly half the population
does not have access to safe drinking water, breastfeeding,
which provides protection against infections, can make the difference
between life and death.
1. The European
Union Council Resolution and Export Directive
The European Union's
adoption of a Council Resolution and Directive has great potential,
but let me share my experience of what happens when you try
to use them.
In January 2000,
The Network registered a complaint concerning labelling. The
Export Directive says that "products shall be labelled
in an appropriate language and in such a way as to avoid any
risk of confusion between infant formula and follow-on formula".
Our complaint stated that complete information in the local
language (Urdu) is not available on the labels of Nestlé's
Pre-Nan and that the colouring and design of the labels
of Pre-Nan, Nan 1 and Nan 2 are similar to the
point of being easily confused. Because only 24% of women in
Pakistan can read, there is an increased likelihood of a mother
giving this product (Nan 2) to her baby instead of this
product (Nan 1). The higher level of salt and protein
allowed in follow-on formula exacerbates the risk of dehydration
and increases the renal solute load.
Nestlé is
fully aware of the risks of such marketing and has promised
for many years to phase out such product branding. Yet these
products were introduced into Pakistan less than three years
ago -- that is, more than 5 years after the adoption of the
Export Directive.
The Netherlands Embassy
say they have taken up the matter with Nestle but we are still
awaiting a promised response from the company. I bought these
in Islamabad on Sunday. This one was manufactured as recently
as August . As you can see, the labels still violate the Directive.
I also complained
to the European Commission because the Council Resolution says
the Community will contribute to the application of appropriate
marketing practices for breastmilk substitutes in third countries
and references the International Code as the standard.
Despite several exchanges of correspondence, the Commission
has been unable to inform me who is the competent authority
for registering complaints. As the International Code
itself calls upon Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) to bring
violations to the attention of concerned manufacturers and relevant
authorities, then why does not the Commission? When the Council
Resolution was adopted in 1992, IBFAN was led to believe that
NGOs were included under the term "competent authority".
Sadly, other IBFAN
groups in many other countries have faced similar difficulties.
Reports have been made to the Commission and/or national authority
as appropriate for violations in Argentina, Hungary, Indonesia,
Kenya, Russia, Ukraine and Tanzania with no resulting action
being taken.
2. Implementation
of the International Code and Resolutions in legislation
I now come to my
second point about the need for strong national legislation
backed up by international frameworks. As the author of two
reports about Pakistan in the last two years, I would like to
explain the complex and devious ways that companies seek to
expand markets in countries like Pakistan with scant regard
for the impact on health and, when exposed, the lengths to which
they will go to suppress evidence in order to maintain their
company reputation.
Our evidence comes
from extensive independent monitoring of company compliance
with the International Code and Resolutions. Our nationwide
survey covered 33 cities and towns, visiting 217 health facilities,
562 medical stores and interviewing 662 mothers and numerous
health workers. A conservative estimate of one-to-one encounters
is more than 2,500. We collected 400 specimens of promotional
and informational materials and other objects. We also analysed
product packaging.
The findings, published
as the report "Feeding
Fiasco", showed that not a single company was abiding
by the International Code and Resolutions. It is necessary
to keep in mind when discussing violations of the International
Code, some of which appear insignificant to the uninformed,
that each violation can result in a mother making decisions
that will put her child's life at risk.
We found products
that were not labelled in the correct language. Specialised
formulas, such as Al-110 for lactose intolerant babies,
being promoted to doctors as "A nutrition that helps
prevent diarrhoea" when diarrhoea is more likely due
to infection and mothers are best advised to breastfeed. We
found gifts being given to doctors as inducements to promote
products. One of the five company representatives we interviewed
spoke of "Jackpots" - doctors or hospitals
which will recommend a company's products for 6 months or a
year in exchange for a cash payment. One hospital was even known
as a "Lactogen hub" as promotion there had
been so securely sewn up by Nestlé.
The company representatives
we interviewed during the survey all wished to remain anonymous.
Shortly before Feeding Fiasco was released, however,
a former employee of Nestlé, Syed Aamar Raza, came forward
with internal company documents that further substantiated the
evidence published in Feeding Fiasco and again demonstrated
the institutionalised nature of the malpractice. Executives'
signatures appear on cheques used to bribe doctors and on the
sales targets set for marketing staff, among many other things.
Examples were subsequently published as the report "Milking
Profits".
Nestle has gone to
great lengths to keep this evidence out of the media. They have
attempted to intimidate Syed Aamar Raza and have attacked his
character in an attempt to distract from the substance of the
evidence.
These two reports
are not unique. Monitoring in other countries by IBFAN and others
have exposed routine and systematic violations of the International
Code and Resolutions around the world. If any of you have
any doubt that there is a need for enforceable instruments implementing
the International Code and Resolutions please read these
reports. Companies have a moral obligation to abide by these
measures, but are not legally bound until governments enact
legislation to that effect. With legislation comes the power
of enforcement and questions of interpretation can be resolved
in the courts.
The Government of
Pakistan has been preparing legislation to regulate baby food
industry marketing since 1992. The delay in enactment has been
caused at least in part by the interventions of the baby food
industry, especially by Nestle. These companies have complained
about the proposed law's "draconian clauses"
and that the proposed law was being "shoved down the
throat" of the industry. Their lobbying against the
law has seen key sections weakened and the independence of monitoring
bodies challenged. Industry representatives continue to meet
with the Minister for Health and even the highest office of
the land, the Chief Executive General Pervaiz Musharaf.
I am appalled that
Nestle shows such disregard to the democratic process and this
Committee that it has refused the invitation to appear on the
panel here today, especially when Nestlé's Chairman,
Helmut Maucher, told shareholders last year that the company
welcomed these hearings. Instead we have a gentleman who can
only speak about his very narrow experience with the company
as a consultant for a short period earlier this year.
I would like to comment
on the audit he prepared into the marketing practices of its
Pakistan subsidiary. I have with me a detailed analysis of the
audit report, the study's methodology and its findings, which
is being publicly launched today. In short, the audit is a whitewash.
For example, it uses Nestle's widely criticised interpretation
of the International Code and subsequent Resolutions
rather than the interpretation used by World Health Assembly
and UNICEF. Its methodology is biased. Its conclusions are not
supported by its findings. Too much evidence has been ignored.
The company should answer these charges and address the real
issues. Why are they not prepared to do so?
3. "Code
of Conduct" provisions
As my third request,
I would like to ask all MEPs to support the Committee in fully
implementing the provisions in its Code of Conduct paper. The
framework proposed could go a long way to implementing the
International Code and Resolutions globally and protecting
infant health . The European Union has a special role to play
to ensure that the economic interests of companies in the world's
richest countries do not take precedence over the health and
well-being of the citizens of the rest of the world.
Thank you.
|
