Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- pengindustrian [2024/12/28 15:24] – [A PUBLIC HEARING] sazli
+++ pengindustrian [2024/12/29 23:40] (current) – [THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL HEALTH AGENCIES] sazli
@@ Line 83: / Line 83: @@
 //"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 lcoal 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. \\
+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 Deparment. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate approved resolutions expressing dismay at the vote. \\
+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 reponsibility... and to do something."//
+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 =====