US government puts pressure on Vietnam to weaken advertising laws
IBFAN is now able to reveal how the US Government tried to interfere with the Vietnamese Government's legislative process as Parliament debated new moves to protect babies.
An official letter, dated June 13, from the US Embassy in Hanoi urged against a ban on advertising formula milk products for babies above the age of 12 months. The letter, which was addressed to the Chairman of the National Assembly and copied to seven others, including three Ministers. The Assembly was set to vote on a proposal extending the ban on advertising from 12 to 24 months. To its credit, the Assembly adopted the proposal despite the threatening letter. IBFAN applauds the government of Vietnam for putting child health above corporate greed.
“Several US companies have contacted the US Embassy regarding their serious concerns” over the proposed ban, as it “could have a significant negative impact on their business in Vietnam. We share their concerns.” The letter thus clearly pinpoints the sellers of formula milks as the originators behind this extraordinary and unconscionable threat by a major donor country.
“We know who the sellers are”, says Annelies Allain of IBFAN’s Code Documentation Centre in Malaysia, “Abbott, Mead Johnson and Wyeth (owned by Pfizer) are all three big American players in this burgeoning market and want to make sure their profits are not curtailed”. She is angry that the letter equates advertising with “comprehensive information for consumers”. Nothing could be further from the truth. The real aim of advertising anywhere is to sell more. Companies use misleading claims and promotional messages to glorify their products - encouraging parents to believe that they are essential, that they have a health advantage, will improve vision, reduce allergies, make children more intelligent and gain weight.
In recent years, formula companies have introduced an array of powdered-milk products for older babies and toddlers. The main reason for the invention of these milks is to by-pass the restrictions of the Advertising Law, so the products and the companies can be advertised freely and, in the process, idealise formulas for younger babies with the same or very similar brands. Those formulas were not allowed to be advertised in order to protect breastfeeding. By extending the ban to 2 years, the Assembly closed a legal loophole.
The US letter says: “We have not seen a compelling scientific, legal or economic argument for changing the current regulatory regime…” Well, there are plenty scientific, legal and economic arguments warranting the extension of the ban on advertising to 24 months.
Here are some:
WHO and UNICEF have long encouraged Vietnam to strengthen its regulations in accordance with the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent Resolutions. On June 25th, the UN Representative in Vietnam congratulated the Government and the National Assembly for amending the Law on Advertising and for extending maternity leave.
Companies selling products for infants and young children, spend more than 30% of their overall costs on advertising and marketing, according to the Vietnam Ministry of Finance in 2010, in a survey following a price-hike of about 10%. Of course the consumer ends up paying for that.
“Implying as the US letter does, that the consumer would miss out on ‘comprehensive information’, if advertising were banned, is adding insult to injury”, says Allain of IBFAN. “Companies use advertising routinely to suggest that children will be smarter and stronger if they drink formula, but such claims are widely rejected by independent health professionals”.
“The Viet Nam government is absolutely justified in extending the ban on advertising”, says Yeong Joo Kean, Legal Advisor of IBFAN. “It is unacceptable for the US Embassy in Hanoi to protect greedy corporations who are responsible for so much unnecessary infant morbidity and mortality and to ignore the International Code which seeks to protect infant health. ”
The letter is also totally inconsistent with the 'new' Obama thinking, whose representative, Nils Daulaire, told the WHO Executive Board earlier this year that "... the [International] Code continues to be a central pillar of improved child nutrition and needs to be vigorously and universally supported, applied and enforced.”
This Press Release is issued by IBFAN-ICDC, Penang, Malaysia on 18 July 2012 Contacts: email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org
Additional notes for editors:
“No infant formula contains the perfect combination of proteins, carbohydrates and fats to enhance infant growth and brain development as breastmilk does. No infant formula contains antibodies to protect infants against infection as breastmilk does. No infant formula is as safe to administer as breastmilk is. And no infant formula is as affordable to families as breastmilk in providing the perfect nutrition for infants while protecting them from infections.” UNICEF and WHO China Joint Statement on Contaminated Infant Formula, September 2008.
“In Viet Nam, what we need is to support and encourage mothers to breastfeed their children in the best way possible, that is: start breastfeeding within the first hour of birth, give nothing else but breastmilk from the first hour of birth up to the first six months of life and continue to breastfeed up to 24 months or longer. Investing in the health of our children in the first 1000 days of their lives, is the best investment we can make for the future human resource of Viet Nam”, Ms. Nemat Hajeebhoy, Director of Alive & Thrive in Viet Nam.
Is there a need for formulas for older babies?
"Parents should feed young children ‘real’ foods alongside continued breastfeeding. Family foods can be easily adapted to suit the needs of young children. They do not miss essential nutrients as claimed by advertising. Indeed, there is no evidence that fortified formulas for older babies are needed at all and there is much concern about their role in encouraging childhood obesity. The formulas are expensive and often have high levels of sugar. They invariably share brands and logos with infant formulas, so promote the whole range." Patti Rundall, Baby Milk Action U.K.
● A report by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) (16.08.2011) found that ‘toddler’ milk does not offer any advantage compared to reduced fat cow milk. “From a nutritional and physiological point of view these special toddler milks are not necessary”, says BfR President, Professor Dr. Andreas Hensel. "The manufacturers of toddler milk drinks often refer to high consumption amounts on the packaging of their products. According to these recommended consumptions children would consume through children's milk alone high amounts of macronutrients and micronutrients. Within the framework of the overall diet this would favour in the long-term an oversupply with all nutrients. From a nutritional physiological and health point of view this is problematic."
● The Italian consumer association, Altroconsumo, analysed these products and published a statement very similar to the German one in 2009.
● A survey in 2010 by the Hong Kong Department of Health (HKSAR) found that “children who drank more milk (mainly formula milk) than the recommended volume generally consumed smaller amounts of grains, vegetables and fruits. Use of the bottle and parents’ misconceptions about the nutritional benefits of formula milk might have contributed to the high milk intake and the choice of milk.”
● Gooze et al, Prolonged Bottle Use and Obesity at 5.5 Years of Age in US Children J Pediatrics 2011, Sept; 159 (3):431-6
● A survey by the German Consumer centres on the products being sold as “Kindermilch” (“milk for children”) targeting the age from 12 months, found that Kindermilch was up to four times more expensive than normal milk, costing parents up to 245 Euros more each year. http://www.vzhh.de/ernaehrung/129727/kostenfalle-kindermilch.aspx
This Press Release is issued by IBFAN-ICDC, Penang, Malaysia on 18 July 2012 Contacts: email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org The International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) is the 1998 Right Livelihood Award Recipient. It consists of more than 200 public interest groups working around the world to save lives of infants and young children by working together to bring lasting changes in infant feeding practices at all levels. IBFAN aims to promote the health and well-being of infants and young children and their mothers through protection, promotion and support of optimal breastfeeding and infant and young child feeding practices.IBFAN works for the universal and full implementation of ‘International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes’ and subsequent relevant World Health Assembly (WHA) resolutions.