3 October 2006: Interference by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce denounced at the “What Next Forum” in Sweden

Babies before Business - Stop bullying in the Philippines –
The following letter was supported by participants at the ´What Next Forum" in Sweden on
21 September 2006

Direct pressure is being exerted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on the President of the Philippines to withdraw newly introduced regulations that protect breastfeeding and child health.
In a leaked letter dated 11 August, the President of the US Chamber of Commerce, Mr Thomas Donohue, warned President Arroyo of “the risk to the reputation of the Philippines as a stable and viable destination for investment” if she did not “re-examine this regulatory decision”. He was referring to marketing restrictions on pharmaceutical and formula companies.
In July 2006, new Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) to restrict marketing practices used to boost formula sales were to come into force. These regulations, issued by the Philippines Department of Health must be seen in the light of the 1986 Executive Order 51 also known as the “Milk Code”, a law restricting promotion of infant foods, based on the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes. The “Milk Code” had become somewhat outdated in view of changing marketing practices and the IRR were a way to bridge the
gap. They also reflected relevant World Health Assembly (WHA) resolutions, endorsed by all countries including Philippines and the USA.

In protest over the IRR, the Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines (PHAP) representing three main US formula companies (Abbott Ross, Mead Johnson and Wyeth), Gerber (now owned by Swiss NOVARTIS) and other international pharmaceutical giants, took the Filipino government to court. In July, the Supreme Court declined PHAP’s application for a temporary restraining order to stop the IRR from coming into effect. Both initiation and duration of breastfeeding had dangerously declined and it was very necessary
to halt commercial promotion for bottle feeding. Babies must come before business.

Within a month, however, on August 15, just 4 days after the letter by the American Chamber of Commerce,
the Supreme Court, overturned its own decision by granting a temporary restraining order in favour of PHAP. While a court case is pending, no one should comment on its merits. The letter by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce can therefore be seen as a direct threat to the independence of the judiciary. This should not happen anywhere, not in the Philippines or in any other country.
We, the undersigned, participants at the “WHAT NEXT FORUM”, meeting in Sweden from 19 to 21 September, wish to publicise and denounce the interference by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and express our support
for the Implementing Rules and Regulations issued by the Department of Health. We also reaffirm that use of infant formula is indeed a potential hazard to infant health, and that promotion of such foods undermines breastfeeding, putting health at risk. WHO and UNICEF both agree that the risks of artificial feeding should be highlighted. [Innocenti Declaration 2005 on Infant and Young Child Feeding, 22 November 2005, Florence, Italy.]
We therefore call upon the business sector in the US and in Manila to exercise restraint and also call upon various arms of the Government of the Philippines – Judiciary, Executive and Legislature – to carry out their duties independently and without fear or favour so as to fullfil the right of the children of Philippines to the
best attainable standard of health.

This “Babies before Business” statement was signed by eighty participants at the WHAT NEXT FORUM on 21 September 2006.
Signatories included many eminent academics, doctors, well-known writers, journalists and development specialists such as: Ignacy Sachs, Louis Emmerij, Krisantha Weerasuriya, Pascale Brudon, Renato Salazar, Gilbert Rist, Michael Hansen, Goran Sterky, Premash Chandran,Charles Medawar, Manfred Max-Neef,
Mira Shiva, Sunil Kaur, Michael Zammit Cutajar, Mike Rowson, Lawrence Surendra, Michael Dorsey, etc.
Twenty more people signed at subsequent meetings with Swedish breastfeeding support groups.

NB: The case has given a special insight into the highly lucrative profits of formula companies. In its submission to the Supreme Court, PHAP gave an estimate of the potential cost of complying with the Rules and Regulations as approximately US$128 million. Probably exaggerated, but it still shows both the cost and the effectiveness of promotion.
PHAP calculated as follows: withdrawal and destruction of non-compliant promotional materials and samples (prohibited anyway) would cost about US$2 million. Removing the stock and change in packaging: approximately US$6.9 million. Loss of sales during the 3 to 4 months it would take to shift to compliance was estimated at nearly US$120 million.
Much of this money could be saved if breastfeeding were protected and promoted.