| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| pengindustrian [2024/12/28 07:31] – [THE NESTLE TRIAL] sazli | pengindustrian [2024/12/29 23:40] (current) – [THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL HEALTH AGENCIES] sazli |
|---|
| //"In 1975, a group of Catholic nuns, the Sisters of the Precious Blood, filed a suit against Bristol Myers, an American company, charging them with 'making misstatements in its proxy statement'; in plain English, lying. When the nuns, as shareholders, had challenged the company to provide detailed information about its promotional practices abroad, they were informed that there was no promotion where chronic poverty or ignorance could lead to product misuse. Bristol Myers marketed in Latin America, in countries such as Guatemala where only 51 per cent of the population have access to drinking water. Forty per cent of Enfamil (a Bristol Myers baby milk) sales were outside the US and in 1974 advertising and promotion had cost them $296 million, almost three times as much as they spent on research and development. Other investors could see the contradictions between the evidence found by the Interfaith Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), an organisation set up to monitor church investments, and the Bristol Myers statements, but the company refused discussion. The nuns, together with the ICCR, collected evidence from eighteen different countries which proved the falseness of Bristol Myers statements. However, the judge dismissed the case because the nuns had not suffered irreparable harm from the company's statement, implying that only malnourished babies themselves could bring a suit and that companies were free to lie if it did not hurt their shareholders. The sisters gathered support from other shareholders and appealed. They also had the backing of the US Securities and Exchange Commission, the statutory body which governs shareholder transactions. Eventually Bristol Myers decided to settle out of court, and agreed to send shareholders a report of the nuns' evidence and to halt direct consumer advertising and the use of 'milk nurses'."// (Gabrielle Palmer, 1988. The Politics of Breastfeeding, m.s. 238) | //"In 1975, a group of Catholic nuns, the Sisters of the Precious Blood, filed a suit against Bristol Myers, an American company, charging them with 'making misstatements in its proxy statement'; in plain English, lying. When the nuns, as shareholders, had challenged the company to provide detailed information about its promotional practices abroad, they were informed that there was no promotion where chronic poverty or ignorance could lead to product misuse. Bristol Myers marketed in Latin America, in countries such as Guatemala where only 51 per cent of the population have access to drinking water. Forty per cent of Enfamil (a Bristol Myers baby milk) sales were outside the US and in 1974 advertising and promotion had cost them $296 million, almost three times as much as they spent on research and development. Other investors could see the contradictions between the evidence found by the Interfaith Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), an organisation set up to monitor church investments, and the Bristol Myers statements, but the company refused discussion. The nuns, together with the ICCR, collected evidence from eighteen different countries which proved the falseness of Bristol Myers statements. However, the judge dismissed the case because the nuns had not suffered irreparable harm from the company's statement, implying that only malnourished babies themselves could bring a suit and that companies were free to lie if it did not hurt their shareholders. The sisters gathered support from other shareholders and appealed. They also had the backing of the US Securities and Exchange Commission, the statutory body which governs shareholder transactions. Eventually Bristol Myers decided to settle out of court, and agreed to send shareholders a report of the nuns' evidence and to halt direct consumer advertising and the use of 'milk nurses'."// (Gabrielle Palmer, 1988. The Politics of Breastfeeding, m.s. 238) |
| |
| | ==== THE NESTLE BOYCOTT ==== |
| | |
| | //"In spite of the publicity and the lawsuits, the companies, including Nestle, continued their widespread promotion. Then the release of Peter Krieg's film 'Bottle Babies' in 1975 made a profound impact. Many people, having read descriptions of the problem, have explained that they neve really felt involved until they saw the shot of the woman scooping water up from a visibly filthy pool with which to mix her baby's milk, or the wasted baby screaming as a drip was placed through a vein in her head. This film was shown to hundreds of study groups and organisations concerned with world poverty, who felt exasperated by the companies' indifference. From the country where some of the most energetic marketing methods had evolved, the US, came the commitment and the ideas to challenge them. Whenever 'Bottle Babies' was shown, a spontaneous reaction was a declaration to boycott Nestle products. In Minneapolis, a group had formed who had called themselves the Infant Formula Action Coalition (INFACT) and in response to these avowals, they decided to co-ordinate a boycott which was launched in July 1977. It was one of the few actions they could take, for at that time only Swiss nationals could own shares (a Nestle shareholder group did in fact try to bring about changes in marketing), US citizens could not use investor influence. The mainstream support for the Nestle boycott in the US came from the churches, many of whom had direct contact with the developing countries through their missionary work and could verify the facts of the marketing abuses. INFACT's demand to Nestle was that it should halt all promotion of baby milk. This meant no milk nurses, no free samples and no direct advertising. The boycott spread to Europe, New Zealand and Canada."// |
| | |
| | (Sumber: Gabrielle Palmer, 1988. The Politics of Breastfeeding, m.s. 239-240) |
| | |
| | ==== A PUBLIC HEARING ==== |
| | |
| | //"As concern grew, Edward Kennedy, chairman of the Senate Sub-Committee on Health and Scientific Research, proposed and set up a hearing on the promotion and use of infant formula in developing countries and this brought the issue into the public spotlight. Representatives from industry, the health field and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) gave evidence. Oswaldo Ballerin, President of Nestle Brazil, was questioned by Kennedy as to whether his company should market a product in areas without clean water and where people were illiterate. Ballerin evaded the question by reciting the nostrum that all the instructions were on the tin, but Kennedy persisted and Ballerin stated, 'But... we cannot be responsible for that.' Kennedy asked if Nestle were able to investigate the use of their products in poor areas and Ballerin agreed that it was, but that they had not. Then Ballerin declared, 'The US Nestle Company has advised me that their research indicates that this [the boycott] is actually an indirect attack on the free world's economic system.' This statement provoked laughter and Kennedy explained that a boycott was 'a recognised tool in a free democratic society'."// |
| | |
| | (Sumber: Gabrielle Palmer, 1988. The Politics of Breastfeeding, m.s. 247-248) |
| | |
| | ==== THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL HEALTH AGENCIES ==== |
| | |
| | //"The aftermath of the Kennedy hearing was the involvement of the World Health Organisation and the United Nations Children's Fund, and the convening of the WHO/UNICEF Meeting on Infant and Young Child Feeding in October 1979. This was welcomed by everyone involved in the controversy. \\ |
| | ..... \\ |
| | The baby food industries were put out that some of the participants at the WHO/UNICEF meeting besides themselves were from the very groups (the Berne Third World Group, ICCR, INFACT, IOCU (International Organisation of Consumer Unions) OXFAM and War on Want) who criticised them. ... The outcome of the meeting was the decision to form an International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes. Though accepting the idea in principle, industry expressed doubts about an international code, as opposed to local codes, because it might lead to a loss of national sovereignty... Another outcome of the meeting, though it happened outside it, was the evolution of the International Babyfood Action Network (IBFAN) which enabled the various groups struggling to halt the aggressive marketing of baby foods to maintain the links they had forged during this period of hard work. \\ |
| | \\ |
| | A set of recommendations came out of the WHO/UNICEF meeting which led to the drafting of a code. At this stage WHO, whose task is to improve world health, and UNICEF, which is concerned with the welfare of children, fell into the role of mediators between the pressure groups and the industry rather than defenders of infant health in their own right. This diversion of their skills gives an insight into the vulnerability of these international agencies. They have to be cautious about taking strong stands on sensitive issues because they are beholden to the world's most powerful groups for their survival. This is not a direct relationship, ... but it is significant that the United States pays 25 per cent of WHO's budget and that the other major industrialised countries make up 70 percent altogether. ... As the United States government represents the interests and principles of transnational enterprise it is unlikely that it would support moves that restricted the activities of these companies. Nestle may have been Swiss, it may have been the market leader in baby foods in the Third World, but it was only doing what the US-based companies wanted to do, namely, dominate the market. \\ |
| | \\ |
| | After a year of revision and consultation between governments, infant feeding experts, the baby food industry and the non-governmental organisations, the WHO/UNICEF International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (the WHO/UNICEF Code) was produced. At the World Health Assembly in May 1981 it was overwhelmingly approved by 118 countries. There were three abstentions and one vote against it. The US delegate, Dr John Bryant, under orders from the US State department, reluctantly voted against the Code. This was where the corporate/political fusion of US politics was brought to light. ... The US government's decision shocked and embarrassed many US citizens. There was extensive newspaper coverage, two leading USAID (United States Agency for International Development) officials resigned in protest, public demonstrations were held and 10,000 letters and telegrams were received by the White House and the State Department. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate approved resolutions expressing dismay at the vote. \\ |
| | \\ |
| | The pretext for the US vote was that the Code's provisions would 'cause serious and constitutional problems for the US itself'. The WHO/UNICEF Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes is a recommendation which means that each country is free to implement it according to their customary methods. Neither WHO nor UNICEF are law-enforcing bodies, no coercion would be brought to bear on any country to implement the Code, so that there were no possible constitutional problems. The Code does not restrict the sale of baby milk and it allows industry sponsorship of conferences on condition no promotion is done. It forbids all advertising but permits the provision of scientific and factual information for health professionals. \\ |
| | ..... \\ |
| | History has shown repeatedly that the baby food industry has never controlled itself voluntarily and that the medical profession, in spite of its supposed authority, lacked the solidarity, the will or the skill to deal with the marketing practices alone. It took the energy and dedication of a mixed band of people, brought together through their common sense of responsibility... and to do something."// |
| | |
| | (Sumber: Gabrielle Palmer, 1988. The Politics of Breastfeeding, m.s. 250-253) |
| | |
| | ==== WHAT IS THE CODE? A SUMMARY OF TEN KEY POINTS ==== |
| | |
| | //"The Code's aim is: \\ |
| | \\ |
| | 'To contribute to the provision of safe and adequate nutrition for infants, by the protection and promotion of breastfeeding and by the proper use of breastmilk substitutes, when these are necessary, on the basis of adequate information and through appropriate marketing and distribution.' \\ |
| | .....\\ |
| | The WHO/UNICEF Code is a minimum requirement: individual governments may make the provisions stronger. As a 'recommendation' each government may bring the Code into effect according to each country's usual way of implementing health measures, so it can be a law or a voluntary Code. The Code includes the following ten main provisions: \\ |
| | \\ |
| | (1) No advertising of breastmilk substitutes. \\ |
| | (2) No free samples or supplies. \\ |
| | (3) No promotion of products through health care facilities. \\ |
| | (4) No contact between company marketing personnel and mothers. \\ |
| | (5) No gifts or personal samples to health workers. \\ |
| | (6) No words or pictures idealising artificial feeding, including pictures of infants, on the labels of the product. \\ |
| | (7) Information to health workers should be scientific and factual only. \\ |
| | (8) All information on artificial feeding, including labels, should explain the benefits of breastfeeding and the costs and hazards associated with artificial feeding. \\ |
| | (9) Unsuitable products should not be promoted for babies. \\ |
| | (10) All products should be of a high quality and take account of the climatic and storage conditions of the country where they are used."// |
| | |
| | (Sumber: Gabrielle Palmer, 1988. The Politics of Breastfeeding, m.s. 254-255) |
| |
| ===== 1978-1979: Amalan Penyusuan Masyarakat Moden ===== | ===== 1978-1979: Amalan Penyusuan Masyarakat Moden ===== |
