Infant formula can be a lifesaving product, if used correctly, but corporate resistance to strong regulation causes the unnecessary deaths of 800,000 infants every year
The World Health Organization’s International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (also known as the WHO Code) is a non-binding (this is important, dear readers) health policy framework to regulate the marketing of infant formula. It was developed after a libel suit was filed in the Swiss courts by Nestlé against the publisher of a 1974 report, Nestlé Kills Babies, documenting the alleged deaths of infants in the third world resulting from the use of infant formula. While the Swiss court found that the report was indeed libellous, the judge cautioned the corporation on its grossly unethical behaviour. The evidence presented to the court and the ensuing media uproar highlighted severe abuses by Nestlé, who, it seemed, was knowingly causing thousands of infant deaths. This prompted an international boycott against the corporation. In 1978, the Health and Scientific Research Subcommittee of the US Senate, chaired by Senator Edward Kennedy, held investigatory hearings on the marketing of infant formula, which determined that the marketing practices of the corporation had encouraged the use of the product and caused the undermining of breastfeeding in situations where it should not be used, such as where there was no clean water. This led to the drafting of the WHO Code in 1981, providing a framework for legislation over the marketing of breastmilk substitutes. In discussions at the World Health Assembly in 1981, regarding whether the WHO Code should be a ‘regulation’ or a ‘recommendation’, the softer language of a non-binding ‘recommendation’ was encouraged by those with corporate interests at heart, who promised that they would, of course, be mindful of the needs of innocent babies when marketing their products.
As Gabrielle Palmer pointed out in The Politics of Breastfeeding, we seem to have high rates of parents in industrialised countries who want to breastfeed but cannot, compared with parents in remote tribes, nearly 100% of whom breastfeed with no issues at all. 81% of British mothers report that they want to breastfeed for at least 6 months. They try to do so, but most fail, citing difficulties such as ‘not enough milk’. The UK, at the time of writing, has one of the lowest breastfeeding rates in the world despite information about breastfeeding being readily available. Families spend between £60 and £110 per month on infant formula in the UK - It’s one of the items frequently shoplifted by struggling families. In the USA, infant formula costs between $100 and $150 per month. These costs can double for special or hypoallergenic labels. And this is being spent, remember, by parents who chose to breastfeed but ‘could not’. Why are we, mammals who are designed for breasteeding, unable to do this thing? Marketing convinces us that we might have problems. We should ‘try’. We are given advice on breastfeeding, infant sleeping and self-care by the very corporations who need us to fail. When we are ‘ready to move on’, infant formula to the rescue. I have seen the impacts of this marketing and lobbying myself, working with parents and babies in developing countries.
An estimated 823,000 infants and 20,000 mothers die annually worldwide as a result of inadequate breastfeeding rates. It has been reported that reducing unnecessary formula use would prevent more infant deaths than any other health policy. Yet the evidence suggests that Nestlé and other infant formula manufacturers regularly break the WHO Code, continuing to use marketing and ‘information’ practices to make breastfeeding difficult and encourage infant formula use where they should not. Nestlé also uses other tactics to undermine any policies which they see as threatening to profits. This includes political lobbying, industry funded studies which cast doubt on science, and gifts to state officials and medical professionals along with policy advice designed to undermine breastfeeding. Publishing misleading information on issues related to infant feeding are well documented practices, especially on social media where accountability is lacking. Marketing claims for infant formula are not evidence based. Even in the UK, corporate interference undermines breastfeeding and this costs the National Health Service £40 million per year, according to conservative estimates.
.jpg)
This is not just about infant formula manufacturers. I’m sure we can all agree that our politicians, businesses and the media are currently short on honesty and accountability. We’ve all developed a cynical attitude, because for decades, we’ve been lied to. Corporations use many public relations strategies, political lobbying and media marketing techniques to ensure profits, and this is natural in a competitive market. Formula manufacturers use aggressive tactics similar to those historically seen in the tobacco, processed foods and sugar industries, and now in the vaping industry, agriculture, medicine and even national security. The rights of infants and children for a good start in life are are universally agreed, but threat of corporate litigation may undermine state resolutions to improve social wellbeing. Lawfare by industry groups continues to place infant and maternal health at risk, while heavy investment in public relations strategies diverts criticism whenever civil society questions corporate actions. This isn’t Big Business’ fault. They are just doing what they are meant to do, raking in the profits for their shareholders. But Big Business could admit this. They could send their representatives to the COP meetings and say, “we need to level the playing field with far stricter regulations and accountability processes, so that none of us ever need to harm our customers again”.
Infant formula can be a lifesaving product, and can give parents greater choice in how they nourish their children, but corporate resistance to regulation continues to cause distress, hardship and the unnecessary deaths of infants and mothers. In other industries, harm to humans and the environment are accepted as necessary business, to be glossed over with ads and the silencing of journalists and the media. Expecting corporations to follow non-binding frameworks is not reasonable, no matter how the corporations themselves may advocate for them. Businesses are meant to make profits and compete with one another. International law is meant to provide a framework for this to take place safely. The non-binding WHO Code has not been strong enough to reduce infant mortality sufficiently or affect real corporate behaviour.
The need for stronger, binding obligations on corporations resulted in the UN Commission on Human Rights drafting the Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights in 2004, with the intention to impose binding social responsibility obligations on states and corporations. Business was, naturally, ‘vehemently opposed’ to the Draft Norms. For over 20 years, the UN has been discussing ways of ensuring that corporations do not undermine human rights, with the Sustainable Development Goals, COP meetings, and more. And that 20 years, dear readers, is another story.
(Adapted from a previously published article: Original article and additional sources and references)
If you found this article valuable, please consider a paid subscription or a one-off donation. While these articles will never be paywalled, my generous readers gift me the time to write them, and access for those who aren’t able to pay today. Thank you!
⚖️🌍🕊️
Comments