Monitoring the marketing of infant formula feeds
BMJ 2003; 326 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7381.113 (Published 18 January 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;326:113All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Waterson and Tumwine (1) assert that “governments should accept
promotion and protection of breast feeding as a critical area for
improving child health”. They are in good company, as, in May 2002, the
World Health Assembly produced its ‘Strategy for Infant and Young Child
Feeding’ (2). The World Health Organisation ‘International Code of
Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes’ (3) and subsequent relevant WHA
Resolutions are integral to this strategy, which is intended as a model
for all governments to adapt and adopt as national policy.
Here in the United Kingdom there is no indication that government is
considering this strategy or intends to commit to a ‘comprehensive
national policy’, including the implied ‘collection and evaluation’ of
information (2). Currently only some provisions of the WHO Code and WHA
resolutions are enacted in UK legislation; there has been no formal
monitoring; legal mechanisms for enforcement have proved cumbersome.
Since the UK performs poorly in terms of breastfeeding rates in comparison
with other European countries (4) there is no room for complacency.
If the UK were to commit to a national policy on infant and young
child feeding, this would help protect child health not only within the
UK, but, if there were effective implementation of ‘full collaboration of
all concerned government agencies’, aid to low income countries could
include capacity-building so that countries such as Togo and Burkino Faso
have the means to monitor the protection of their children’s health.
Currently monitoring is all too often left to small NGO groups operating
on shoestring budgets.
Let us take heed of the warning from West Africa (5) and act now in
the UK, in order to contribute nationally to global child health.
Magda Sachs
References:
1 Waterson T, Tumwine J (2003) Monitoring the marketing of infant
formula feeds, BMJ 326:113-4
2 World Health Organsiation (2002) Infant and young child nutrition:
Global strategy on infant and young child feeding,
http://www.who.int/gb/EB_WHA/PDF/WHA55/ea5515.pdf
3 World Health Organisation (1981) International Code of Marketing of
Breast-milk Substitutes, WHO:Geneva
4 Saadev R (2002) talk at the Department of Health conference
‘Barriers to Breastfeeding’, London
5 Aguayo V et al (2003) Montioring complicane with the International
Colde of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes in west Africa: multisite
cross sectional survey in Togo and Burkina Faso
Competing interests:
I am an advisor to Baby Milk Action, the UK member of the International Baby Feeding Action Network (IBFAN)
Competing interests: No competing interests
IFM Encourages Transparent and Official Monitoring of WHO Code
The 18 January 2003 edition of the British Medical Journal (BMJ)
included an article on the WHO Code of Marketing of Breast-milk
Substitutes. This article and the study it describes are an example of why
IFM supports a better way to monitor and enforce the Code in many
countries.
IFM member companies are committed to the health and well-being of
infants and young children. They unequivocally support the aims and
principles of the WHO Code. However, for the Code to succeed, national
governments must oversee monitoring and enforcement, in keeping with their
own legislative and regulatory framework. The Code itself recommends
this, and indeed it is key to its success.
The study described in the BMJ article was led by a representative of
IBFAN, which has devised its own system of monitoring. Under the WHO Code,
monitoring groups are required to inform companies of alleged non-
compliance immediately so that they can respond and take corrective
actions, if necessary. Yet in the three years since this monitoring took
place, none of the researchers contacted the companies mentioned.
Accusations only came to light in this article.
Data collection for the study was based on inaccurate
interpretations of the WHO Code. For example, most of the alleged
violations refer to products that are complementary foods (such as baby
cereals or fruit juices), and not breast-milk substitutes. The Code
explicitly excludes complementary foods from the marketing restrictions.
As the industry association representing manufacturers of foods for
infants and young children, IFM is interested in cooperation and
partnership with WHO, other institutions dedicated to the welfare of
children, NGOs and its member companies. To protect the health and promote
nutrition of infants and young children, it is essential that governments
are encouraged to enforce the WHO Code, that monitoring be based on
research methodologies that fulfill basic reliability criteria, that it be
transparent and that it be carried out according to national legislation
and standards. Only when we are focused on this shared goal will the Code
succeed.
Best regards
Dr Andrée Bronner
IFM Secretary General
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests