Peace and Environment News* September 1991
|
Peace and Environment News * September 1991 |
by Peggy Patterson
 Courtesy BMAC (Baby Milk Action) |
Remember the Nestle boycott? It ended in 1984, and was hailed as the most important victory in the history of the international consumer movement. Nestle had finally agreed to restrict the marketing of its infant formula in compliance with the International Code of Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes. The Code was developed because of worldwide recognition that hundreds of thousands of infants were dying every year from diseases related to bottle feeding—and that unethical and aggressive marketing of infant formula played a large part in the tragedy. the Code was developed by the World Health Organization and UNICEF, in consultation with scientific experts, government representatives, health workers, and representatives of the infant formula industry. It was overwhelmingly approved by the World Health Assembly in May, 1981.
The International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) watches the way infant formula companies market their products. Research by IBFAN and Action for Corporate Accountability, an American organization, has shown that Nestle, American Home Products, and other companies continue to violate the Code.
Free samples a major problem
The most contentious violation is the practice of providing free supplies of formula to hospitals to give to mothers. Free formula samples encourage routine bottle feeding in hospitals. They convince many mothers that formula is an acceptable alternative to breast-feeding. As well, they interfere with efforts to promote and support breast-feeding. Free samples are a very effective promotional strategy because most women keep buying the brand they received in the hospital.
Formula manufacturers claim that there is a provision in the Code which allows free supplies. However, this provision allows free supplies only for babies who have to be fed on breast-milk substitutes, and on the condition that the supply last as long as the infant needs it (normally 4-6 months). There was so much controversy over the meaning of the provision that, in 1986, a panel of experts was called to decide on a definition of babies who had to be fed on breast-milk substitutes. The panel decided that there are so few such babies that all formula should be bought, and that there should be no free or subsidized supplies. A resolution to this effect was adopted by the World Health Assembly and has the same legal status as the Code.
In 1991, free supplies of formula continue to flood hospitals, and the effects of bottle feeding continue to ravage Third World infants. Diarrhea kills at least 3.5 million children each year. It is recognized the world over that bottle feeding is still a major cause of diarrhea in children. The 1988 UNICEF annual report states, "In the first six months, the risk of morbidity and death from diarrhea is respectively fifteen and twenty-five times higher for children not receiving breast milk, compared to those who have the immunological protection of an exclusively breast-milk diet."
So the boycott is back. As two of the worst violators of the Code, Nestle and American Home products (Wyeth brand formula) have been targeted by boycott organizers.
Breastfeeding socially and ecologically superior
Breast milk is produced efficiently, inexpensively, and ecologically. No cans or bottles need to be discarded and no nonrenewable energy needs to be consumed for its production and distribution. Breast-feeding conserves the financial resources of the family. In countries burdened by debt, bottle feeding puts an unacceptable strain on a family's resources and exacerbates the country's need for foreign exchange. Whereas the profit created by selling formula serves to enrich a few corporations in the West, breast milk is equitably distributed. Breast-feeding is an effective contraceptive that prevents more births worldwide than all other methods combined, with the added advantage that there are no adverse side effects. Women do not deserve to be coerced into participating in a global business venture that denies and degrades a basic human function. A respect for human life, whether it be created in a comfortable Western home or in a peasant village in Asia, demands a condemnation of the unethical promotion of infant formula.
Boycott information
A boycott information kit is available from the Infant Feeding Action Coalition Canada (INFACT) for $10. Their address is 10 Trinity Square, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1B1. INFACT is a nongovernmental, nonprofit organization which promotes, protects, and supports breast-feeding, monitors government infant feeding policies, and critiques the unethical promotion of artificial feeding.
For information about the Ottawa chapter of INFACT, please call Cathy Woodgold at 231-4311 between 5 and 9 P.M.
Some Nestle products: all Nestle label products, O Henry, Nescafe, Taster's Choice, Nestea, all Libby's products, all Carnation products, all Stouffer's products.
Some American Home products: Anacin, Advil, Today Condoms, lubricant, and sponge, Dristan, Preparation H, Woolite, Easy Off, Sani-flush, Pam cooking spray, Chef Boyardee products.
Converted September 27, 2001 - Lg
To follow up on this article, contact the author or the organizations/individuals mentioned; do not contact the Peace and Environment Resource Centre - we cannot provide follow up or contact information. This article is an archival copy of the printed one in the Peace and Environment News (PEN). Viewpoints expressed should not be taken to represent the opinions of the Peace and Environment Resource Centre, the PEN, or our supporters.
