|
Gina’s
newborn girl has just contracted pneumonia. A few years
ago, the young mother from Quezon City lost twins to premature birth. And her new baby does not look good
either, being obviously malnourished and small for her
age.
Despite
her family’s poverty, Gina stopped breast-feeding and
opted to feed her baby with infant formula after getting
convinced by television ads. Hours of TV exposure led
her to believe that her baby would grow healthy and
intelligent if she is fed with breastmilk substitute. By
failing to breast-feed, which is also a natural way to
limit pregnancy, Gina is again on the way.
In a
hospital also in
Quezon City,
Lisa has given birth to a baby boy. The baby was
delivered with a problem in his stomach that
breast-feeding him is not possible until the deficiency
is operated on. But what she could not do for her
newborn, Lisa was able to do for other infants in the
hospital.
Just
across Lisa’s bed, a mother died after delivering
triplets. Without a baby to feed her breastmilk, the
young mother offered to nurture the triplets. Soon
enough, Lisa’s milk was feeding countless babies in the
hospital whose mothers could not immediately initiate
breast-feeding. Her relatives donated dozens of baby
bottles where she could express her milk,
round-the-clock, while the nurses brought these to
babies who needed them.
These
stories serve as a picture of how mothers actually
understand the value of breast-feeding. Despite
financial constraints, poor women are likely to use
infant formula than those who are more economically
well-off, according to studies.
Corporate lobby
The
United Nations Children’s Fund (Unicef) and the World
Health Organization (WHO) blame the “aggressive” and
“false” marketing of infant formula for the low
breast-feeding rate in the Philippines, especially among
poor mothers.
The two
international agencies found an ally in the Department
of Health (DOH), which is now caught in a court battle
against multinational milk companies represented by the
Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Association of the
Philippines (PHAP). But while the Supreme Court has yet
to decide on the case, lobbyists are not wasting time
waging another tactic to win the fight.
A year
ago,as the DOH approved the revised implementing rules
and regulations (RIRR) of the Milk Code, the Unicef
regional office in Bangkok received an unexpected letter
from the International Formula Council (IFC), an
organization of milk companies composed of multinational
firms such as Nestlé USA, Abbot Laboratories, Wyeth Inc.
and Mead Johnson.
The
letter contained a strongly worded complaint against
Nicholas Alipui, Unicef country representative to the
Philippines, who is very vocal against the marketing of
infant formula in the country.
The IFC
complained of Alipui’s attacks on breastmilk
substitutes, saying he dishes out “unscientific” remarks
to the media and that he is “not competent” for the job
of looking after the welfare of Filipino children.
“I was
surprised. I didn’t know that we would instantly become
the subject of international scrutiny of the sort. I
think that was when I first realized the enormity of the
challenge that we’re facing and how big the opposition
from the milk companies was going to be,” Alipui told
the BusinessMirror.
The
attack did not stop at the Unicef office. The IFC also
complained about Jean Marc Olivé, the former WHO country
representative to the Philippines.
Allegedly, there have been efforts to quiet Olivé
through threats that he will have a hard time getting
clearances from WHO higher-ups to continue his programs
in the country. Interviewed by the BusinessMirror before
he was moved to another mission, Olivé neither confirmed
nor denied that he had been on the receiving end of
harassment from milk producers.
“The
nerve of milk companies comes from the fact that they do
have lobbyists around the world who have an exaggerated
impression about themselves and what they can actually
achieve in terms of influence within various
organizations and child-rights groups. I think the fact
that they are able to penetrate organizations to the
point of trying to undermine representatives is an
indication that they feel that they have enough
influence within these organizations to challenge
individuals who represent [them] in their respective
countries,” explained Alipui.
On the
local front, the US Chamber of Commerce also wrote
President Arroyo expressing concern about the
implementation of the RIRR, saying it will limit the
advertising of infant formula. It added that this will
put “at risk” the country’s “reputation as a stable and
viable destination for investment.”
“We know
you would want to avoid such a situation occurring,”
Thomas Donohue, president and chief executive of the US
Chamber of Commerce, wrote Arroyo in a letter dated
August 11 last year. He asked that the government
“reexamine” the regulation and even offered the help of
chamber members in coming up with a new one.
During
the same period, Health Undersecretary Alexander Padilla
had a surprise visit from David Katz,
US
trade representative, who flew all the way from his
country to
Manila
to air his “concern” on the issue.
The
BusinessMirror tried to reach the PHAP for a reaction,
but it declined to be interviewed.
In an
e-mailed letter to this reporter on July 27, the
Atlanta-based IFC denied that infant formula is
responsible for the 16,000 annual deaths of Filipino
babies and ailments attributed to milk products.
“We are
hopeful that those concerned with infant health will
take an objective and factual perspective in addressing
this issue. Continued publication of inaccurate claims
and conclusions regarding infant health in the
Philippines will prevent Filipino mothers from making
informed feeding decisions based on facts. Further,
misrepresentation of research can lead to exaggerated
and unethical claims, potentially negatively impacting
public health policy. Science and medicine have made
impressive progress in addressing the needs of infants
who do not receive breast milk. Mothers who cannot or
choose not to breast-feed have the right to know their
options and must be aware that iron-fortified infant
formula is appropriate when it is ‘available, affordable
and can be safely used’—a fact that is clearly supported
by the World Health Organization,” said the letter
signed by IFC vice president Mardi Mountford.
Judicial
burden
Observers say the Supreme Court’s decision would be
crucial not only in the Philippines but also in the rest
of Southeast Asia because it could represent a precedent
for other litigations of similar nature. Foreign milk
companies see the region as a big market following stiff
regulations in more developed economies. Infant formula
is among the top consumer products in the country.
In July
2006 the Supreme Court justices had junked the PHAP’s
petition for a temporary restraining order on the
implementation of the RIRR.
The
decision pleased the health department which approved
the regulation, both the Unicef and the WHO, and
nongovernment organizations advocating breast-feeding.
The law would ban the use of texts and images of babies
and adults in the promotion of infant formula, and also
impose sanctions on health professionals receiving perks
from milk companies.
While
the move was seen as the start of a strong campaign for
breast-feeding that seeks to reduce the annual infant
mortality rate attributed to milk substitutes, as well
as the various infections and diseases attributed to
formula, the implementation of the RIRR seemed to be a
death sentence for milk companies.
Poor
Filipino mothers spend an estimated P21 billion a year
on infant formula. Milk companies, on the other hand,
spend P4 billion a year in advertising alone minus the
travel, sponsorship and other perks given to health
professionals who promote their products.
Under
Philippine laws and the WHO’s International Code of
Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, infant formula
should not to be promoted by health-service providers.
In 2003
only 16 percent of about 2 million babies being born in
the country annually were exclusively breast-fed at four
to five months. The Philippines also had the lowest
“ever-breast-fed” rate among 56 countries that conducted
demographic health surveys for the past 10 years.
Since
last year breast-feeding advocates have been scoring
points against the PHAP as they launched campaigns,
starting with a record-beating project in the Guinness
Book of World Records of the most number of mothers
breast-feeding simultaneously. The project was followed
by another one this year that is expected to reap a
Guinness record again.
But the
jubilation among child-rights advocates was interrupted
when the Supreme Court ruled to approve the temporary
restraining order sought by the PHAP four days after the
US Chamber of Commerce wrote the President and a month
after the justices sided with the DOH. Sources said the
justices took into consideration threats from the milk
companies that they stand to lose P10 billion if the
RIRR is implemented and this will force them to reduce
their work force.
Advocates somehow saw this coming when a few days before
the court decision and after the
US chamber’s letter, President Arroyo refused to give her
regular speech in support of last year’s observance of
World Breastfeeding Day that was celebrated in
Malacañang and attended by UN representatives and the
health department.
The
President’s sudden change of tune in her support for
breast-feeding has borne fruit in business, apparently:
Australia and New Zealand gave commitments during her
state visit early this year that they are setting up
milk-manufacturing plants in the
Philippines.
Despite
the obvious lobbying being exerted by milk companies,
international agencies and local breast-feeding
advocates are tireless in attacking and exposing their
influence on the government and the health system.
Days
before the scheduled oral arguments in the Supreme Court
between the PHAP and the health department over the RIRR,
the Unicef released a 30-minute documentary showing how
poor mothers are enticed by milk advertisements and how
companies influence hospitals and barangay clinics to
promote their products.
The milk
companies’ image was dented even more by some
coincidence: on the day of the oral arguments, the
Bureau of Food and Drugs revealed that about 2 million
cans of Wyeth products have been recalled because they
contained mold and rusts due to a strong typhoon that
struck the country late last year.
There
seems to be a brewing disagreement among milk companies
as to their marketing strategies. On May 25 Nestlé
Philippines Inc., a sister company of Nestlé USA, which
is a member of the IFC, wrote Alipui and protested the
Unicef documentary which it alleged was “inadvertently
slanted in a manner that shows our company in a bad
light.”
But the
letter—a copy of which was obtained by this paper,
signed by D. Nandkishore, the company’s chairman and
CEO—also lambasted the product advertisements of some
infant formula, calling them “exaggerated,” especially
“those that promise to give children increased
intelligence or even become gifted, for which there is
no scientific basis.”
Nestlé
stresses that it is not a member of the PHAP and should
not be attacked by breast-feeding advocates because it
strictly adheres to international and local marketing
codes. It even offered to work with the Unicef, the WHO
and the health department to “implement strictly” the
code through an “open and transparent dialogue” that
includes the milk industry.
In a
three-day meeting between the Unicef and the WHO held in
Manila recently, they agreed that the Supreme Court’s
decision on the Milk Code will set a precedent as to how
companies promote their products in other countries.
On the
other hand, the government is carefully weighing the
matter since milk companies that belong to the PHAP are
also pharmaceutical firms that directly work with the
health department. |