One of our last blogs made
reference to the use and marketing of baby formulas in foreign and often
impoverished countries. We had spent a day at CWCH and had heard numerous
stories about the promotion of breast-milk substitutes in poor areas-
Bangladesh being one of them. Fortunately, as stated in our “CWCH” post, this
hospital highly values breastfeeding and does everything in its power to
promote and support it.
After only a few clicks of the
mouse, we came across numerous scathing articles, many calling for a total
boycott of all Nestle’ products.
Back as early as 1867, Nestle’
has been marketing “milk food” products that were little more than condensed
milk. In the 1920’s, they began capitalizing on the Industrial Revolution- a
time when women went to work in the factories and were unable to
breastfeed. Nestle’ has long been known
for its aggressive marketing tactics. But when these are used in destitute and
undereducated countries, it becomes a matter of ethics. Through the use of
medical professionals and the hiring of “milk nurses” to promote their
products, mothers who only want what was best for their babies, bought into the
lies. They promoted their products as “superior to breast milk” and
scientifically proven to be better for babies, and unfortunately people bought
it.
In 1973, a magazine called the Internationalist first wrote about
Nestles’ marketing strategies in a book called The Baby Killers. There was obvious retaliation and Nestle’ sued
and won. This was followed by international outcries for justice and
accountability.
In 1979, WHO and UNICEF hosted an international meeting that
called for the development of an international code of marketing, as well as
action on other fronts to improve infant and early child feeding practices. The
International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) was formed by six of the
campaigning groups at this meeting. You can read the document here. It
legislates certain marketing practices that are acceptable and others that are
unacceptable. Unfortunately, Nestle’ is
one of the worst for breaking these rules and continues to get away with it.
The
following website does an excellent job at outlining just why the promotion of
formulas is not only unethical, but dangerous to infants. Common tactics used are to provide free
samples to mothers just long enough to have their milk dry up and then
therefore are dependent on the formula.
Below
is a haunting image showing a mother holding her twin babies. She was told that
she would only have enough milk to breast feed one of them. This picture speaks
a thousand words about the inappropriate use of formula in poor countries. The
smaller girl died the day after the photo was taken.
Now all of the above isn’t claiming that formulas are bad in
and of themselves. We use formula all the time in the hospital for babies that
are jaundiced or are unable to breastfeed. My personal opinion is that we don’t
try hard enough to support breastfeeding and miss it by a long shot. I also
disagree with the “deals” made by hospitals and formula companies- these
relationships are only about money and the ethics behind it can get pretty
convoluted.
I’m not
naïve. I know that many many people choose formula for many reasons- some
totally necessary, some not so much. But here we’re not talking about the use
of formula, we’re talking about it’s marketing, promotion and use in some of
the poorest regions of the world.
It’s not
difficult to find articles speaking to the inappropriate push of formula. The
problems come in many shapes and sizes. First, poverty itself puts children at
risk. These mothers don’t have the finances to put grain on the table, let
alone a packaged and powdered formula bought from the store. This leads to the
“dilution effect” where the milk being given is watered down so much that it’s
completely ineffective in supporting the growth and nourishment of the child.
Secondly, the issue of clean and safe water becomes paramount. Mixing formula
with dirty, disease ridden water will only lead to gastrointestinal diseases-
already a chief killer of infants and children in the developing world. Who is
there to do the follow up teaching about “boiling the water first” and where
are you going to get that kind of fire wood anyway? What about the “sterilization
of bottles?” The questions without answers are endless.
The worst area that Nestle’ and other
formula companies capitalize on is the devastating HIV/ AIDS epidemic. Statistics found state that there is
approximately a 15% risk of HIV transmission from mother to baby in infants
that are exclusively breast fed. Not something to overlook. But, when these
companies are using this horrible problem as a platform on which to promote
their product, it makes me sick.
What about all the issues of cost and poverty and clean
water etc. etc. etc. ? Do the benefits of formula outweigh the risk? I highly
doubt that this analysis has been done. Even still, it is found that formula
can slightly damage infants fragile digestive tracts. When HIV positive mothers
use formula AND breastfeed, the rates of transmission are much higher than 15%
due to the damaged mucosal lining.
So there
you have it- musings on yet another aspect of life here in a poor nation. I’m going to do my best to support to
boycott. If you’d like to as well, the link below will help you know what
products Nestle’ owns- lots of them.
And finally, another interesting file regarding Nestle’s not
so proud history in Ethiopia.
We can be better than this.
- Heidi
wow, thanks for sharing
ReplyDelete