babymilkaction - Tumblr blog

babymilkaction · 2 years

Text

A Fatal Engagement - article by Arun Gupta

https://drarungupta.blogspot.com/2021/10/a-fatal-engagement.html

(Child Health, Nutrition and its Governance, Public Policy and Politics)

A Fatal Engagement

Development of India’s food policy is dominated by the food industry and makers of chemical nutrients through their front groups or advisers-thus undermining the health of Indian populations.

On 15th August, during his Independence Day speech, the Prime Minister announced the mandatory fortification of rice. Although the NITI Aayog termed it as a “game changer” it also admitted, “that every second woman is anaemic, every third child is stunted and malnourished and every fifth child is wasted. Further, over 70 per cent of the population consumes less than 50 per cent of the Recommended Dietary Allowance. Disturbingly, we have underperformed on nutrition indicators…”

Why is it that despite recognizing lack of food as the root cause of the problem the GOI is focusing on lack of micronutrients to solve it? What is it that pushes the GOI to opt for fortification with micronutrients rather than investing in increasing the availability of diverse foods?

Apart from undernutrition India is facing another challenge of a rising incidence of non-communicable diseases like obesity, diabetes and heart disease. An important cause of this new epidemic is the aggressive marketing of processed foods by the industry and their resistance to provide information about their unhealthy contents.

Lot has been said about nutrition, science and economics, but there is hardly any discussion on ethics and conflicts of interest among those entrusted with policy development. Data and evidence collected by us reveals that this policy is driven by vested interests in the food industry and that these vested interests infiltrate most of the decision-making bodies. This raises the most crucial issue of conflict of interest. We discuss below the manner in which the food industry influences food fortification and also how they circumvent labelling of content for unhealthy ingredients in processed foods.

Fortification Issues

India’s Food Safety Authority has set up a Food Fortification Resource Centre. It works with ‘Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition’ (GAIN), Nutrition International, the ‘World Food Programme’ and Tata Trusts and ‘The India Nutrition Initiative’ and ‘Food Fortification Initiative’. We examined information about partners and donors of these organisations and found distinct links of these organisations with the food or nutrients industry as donors or partners. Many multi-stakeholder initiatives act as front groups of food companies.

The BIG influencers

The Wall Street Journal published in 2002 “Gates Fights Malnutrition With Cheese, Ketchup and Other Fortified Food Items” that brought to light how, by the sides of the UN Special Session for Children in New York the Gates Foundation set up the GAIN with a grant of US $ 50 Million. In turn, GAIN signed up with big food companies for them to add nutrients like iron, folic acid, and vitamin A to their food products and offer technical assistance to the governments. GAIN will help them to get a favourable tax policy and regulatory review. The strategy included funding public campaigns for the governments to earn ‘Seal of approval’. This story line continues even today. In 2015, Bill Gates and Ratan Tata penned an opinion piece in the Times of India where they recommended fortification as one of the most cost-effective solutions among others.

Key Players

The World Food Programme (WFP) in India receives donations from ‘General Mills’ (US company that makes cereals, ice creams pastries), ‘YUM’ (a US fast food company) and ‘Cargill’ (A US company that makes food ingredients, chocolates, ultra-processed foods, corn, edible oils, floor, sweeteners and starches).

‘Nutrition International’ receives funding from Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), and lists DSM and BASF as partners. DSM is based in the Netherlands and makes food ingredients and vitamins; and BASF is a US company that makes food performance ingredients, beverage stabilizers, colorants and interest in fortification) as partners. In 2002 Roche sold its nutrients business to ‘Royal DSM’ making it a big player.

GAIN: Donors include BMGF, Unilever (a global consumer goods company with food and nutrition portfolio), Hershey (US company makes chocolates), Arla Foods (Danish company of dairy foods), Africa Improved Foods (A food producing company in Africa), MARS (it has a food business like snickers, chocolates and expanding in India), and BASF. DSM is the chair of the partnership council of GAIN.

‘Food Fortification Initiative’ has partners belonging to several food companies including Cargill, and BASF. In addition GAIN, Nutrition International are its partners.

Tata Trusts lists funding partners in MARS and BMGF. The India Nutrition Initiative’ is an offshoot of Tata Trusts. They work closely with GAIN

Business interest organizations (BINGOs)

These 3 organisations pose as civil society groups but clearly have business interests.

‘Sight and Life’

It is one such BINGO, an entity that used to work on Vitamin A, was transferred to DSM in 2005 after Roche sold off its nutrient business to DSM in 2002. DSM dominates the Management.

Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Business Network: SUN is self- styled movement, not approved by the Member States, but UN supports it. It has an arm called business network with WFP and GAIN as co- conveners. As a principle it advocates for market based solutions and partnerships with nutrition and food companies.

Impact 4 Nutrition

A partnership called ‘impact4Nutrition’ has listed partners as ‘Tata Trusts’ and ‘Sight and Life’ among others.

Food Industry Domination in Policy Development on Food Labeling

FSSAI has a scientific panel to address cut off points for contents to label a food as unhealthy but the food industry has tried every trick to influence the decisions and delay adoption of a regulation. The Stakeholders meeting held on 25th may 2021, to discuss this policy included 22 out of 28 participants from the food industry e.g. Coca Cola, Dabur, Haldiram, Kellogg’s, Mondelez, General Mills, Nestle, DANONE, PepsiCo, Marico and HUL.

We are here to offer a critique on how policies are made and in whose interest. The country is facing a rise in obesity through aggressive marketing of unhealthy processed foods. Growing evidence suggests that consumption of ultra-processed foods is associated with increased non-communicable diseases like diabetes, cancers, heart disease and all-cause mortality. Evidence suggests that businesses influence policy on nutrition through narratives like ‘body needs nutrients’ and ‘manipulation of nutrition science’ through funding of experts.

Experts have indicated that the solution to undernutrition lies in consuming diverse foods in sufficient quantities rather than fortification, which may not be of any use, is wasteful and may be harmful. Facts speak about inadequacy. According to the 2020 data from National Family Health Survey -5 of 22 States and UTs, only one out of 2 babies begin to breastfeed within an hour in the hospitals, 3 out of 5 are adequately breastfed during first six months, and 1 out of 6 children between 6-23 months receive adequate and diverse food. Growth falters around 3 months and between 6-12 months the most.

The government of India while confessing “we have underperformed on nutrition indicators…” should do much more than just offering lip service to the problem. What we need is adequate funding, strengthening human resources in health facilities and making available diverse food for all people, especially the vulnerable – women and children.

Only a strong public health action and active government support can make India free from malnutrition.

At this moment, we urgently ask to cut the influences of vested interests, and keep the policy development process free from conflicts of interests. This can make headway in solving both the problems of persistent undernutrition and now obesity.

Dr Arun Gupta, MD FIAP, Convener Nutrition Advocacy in Public Interest (NAPi)

Dr Navdeep Khaira MD DM (Nephrologist, Fortis Ludhiana, Member Alliance against Conflicts of Interest (AACI)

A Fatal Engagement – article by Arun Gupta was originally published on Baby Milk Action

#breastfeeding #infant formula #Nestle

1 note · View note

babymilkaction · 2 years

Text

M8 Alliance Declaration: From Words to Action World Health Summit 2021

M8_Alliance_Declaration

M8 Alliance Declaration: From Words to Action World Health Summit 2021 | October 26, 2021 The COVID–19 pandemic is far from over and we have to explore and implement innovative and effective measures to defeat this virus and to prepare for future threats. The World Health Summit joins the voices that call for a new multilateralism and a new social contract.

Determination, cooperation and good leadership are required. Leaders need to act with determination to fight the pandemic nationally and globally. Societies and their representatives must also engage with foresight, in order to put into place a coherent ecosystem that will significantly improve pandemic preparedness and response. Jointly they must address flaws in the local and international governance mechanisms that proved to be inadequate during the crises.

There must be an end to the cycles of panic and neglect. A new approach is needed, not only for pandemic threats but also for other risks such as climate change, chronic diseases and food security – any preparedness and response strategies must move beyond silos and beyond a predominantly national focus. Risks are global and political priorities must reflect this. No one is safe until everyone is safe.

The World Health Summit and its partners together with the M8 Alliance call for determined action to:

 achieve vaccine equity by overcoming vaccine nationalism and vaccine hesitancy by sharing vaccines, increasing production in the global south, and supporting a TRIPS waiver;  strengthening the efforts of partners from the Global South with the aim of developing more contextualized and effective approaches to global health challenges;  strengthen global health architecture in the face of a fragmentation and decoupling of global health decision making; and  support all countries to invest in Primary Health Care as the foundation of health systems and pandemic preparedness and end the underinvestment in public health, and recognize the contribution of women. But that is not enough.

Political leaders must confront the underlying geopolitical tensions, social vulnerabilities and structural inequalities in their societies and between countries – it is the most vulnerable that are paying the price with their health and lives in this pandemic.

The World Health Summit stresses the fact that health is a human right and health security will only be achieved together with social and human security. Mechanisms driving and perpetuating inequity must be addressed. The World Health Summit proposes 7 priority areas for action by political leaders to give global health structural and operational strength which corresponds to its impact on quality of life of people worldwide :

1. To ensure a global health governance approach that is backed and supported by all countries, and that values equity in health for all. 2. To move from an ad hoc, charity–based model of development assistance to a sustainable and predictable financing model that allows reliable pandemic preparedness and response mechanisms – the G20 proposals must lay the basis for such an approach in 2021 and beyond. 3. To strengthen the constitutional mandate of the World Health Organisation politically and financially, through a significant increase in the assessed contributions by member states. 4. To increase cooperation between health and other sectors, such as finance and education, to achieve a common understanding of the domestic and global investments required to achieve better health, and to build a new economics of health for all that supports Primary Health Care and invests in a stronger health workforce. 5. To establish a multilateral health architecture built on trust, mutual accountability, information sharing and transparency, including data solidarity. 6. To increase the support of integrated preparedness approaches such as ONEHEALTH, planetary health and integration of key global health issues like women’s health, mental health and NCDs in health systems. 7. To provide a strong binding political agreement and overarching umbrella on pandemic preparedness and response through negotiating a global Pandemic Treaty. We call on the French and Czech Presidencies of the European Union to maintain strong support for multilateralism, and to lead the way for a new global social contract for pandemic preparedness. We call on the G7/G20 Presidencies 2022 of Germany and Indonesia to drive forward the vaccine equity agenda, and support the urgent governance and financing measures required to make it happen.

M8 Alliance Declaration: From Words to Action World Health Summit 2021 was originally published on Baby Milk Action

#breastfeeding #infant formula #Nestle

3 notes · View notes

babymilkaction · 2 years

Text

Baby Milk Action Year Report and AGM papers

Baby Milk Action’s members are essential for the continued operation of the organisation and for its democratic accountability. Click here to join.

The members’ AGM will take place via ZOOM on Friday, 29th October 2021.

The papers for the meeting can be downloaded as pdfs:

Webinar invitation 2021

Official Notice 2021

UD49

To register for the event CLICK HERE You can appoint a proxy if you cannot attend.

See the Official Notice 2021 for details of the Board of Directors and the declaration you are required to sign if you are a member and would like to stand as a Director yourself.

Baby Milk Action Year Report and AGM papers was originally published on Baby Milk Action

#breastfeeding #infant formula #Nestle

0 notes

babymilkaction · 3 years

Text

GLOBAL TRADE: Safer labelling on baby foods and drinks urgently needed

IBFAN FUF comment

IBFAN RUTF comment

IBFAN COMMENT FOPN

IBFAN ENCA CRD 46th CCFL 3

Governments must take the lead on public health policies: Safer labelling for baby drinks and foods urgently needed.

46th Codex Committee on Food Labelling

IBFAN will be attending the Codex meeting on labelling – Monday 27th September- 7th October (and the webinar on Front of Pack Labelling 21-22 September).

Agenda Item 4 includes two important labelling decisions carried over from the Nutrition meeting (CCNFSDU) Proposed Draft revised standard for Follow-up Formula (see FUF comments) and the Guidelines on Ready to Use Therapeutic Foods (see RUTF comments)

IBFAN PROPOSAL

Follow-up formulas and Drinks for Young Children are used and regulated as breastmilk substitutes in many countries so the standard should be aligned as far as possible with the WHO policy, including the ban on cross promotion, a deceptive tactic that misleads parents and carers. The term ‘refer to’ is not enough to stop products appearing similar.

9.6.5 The labelling of the product as defined in Section 2.1 shall not refer to OR RESEMBLE infant formula, follow-up formula for older infants, or formula for special medical purposes intended for infants, including numbers, text, statements, or images of these products.

Alternatively:

The labelling of the product as defined in Section 2.1 shall not CROSS PROMOTE infant formula, follow-up formula for older infants, or formula for special medical purposes intended for infants, including numbers, text, statements, or images of these products.

__________________________________________________________________

PROPOSED DRAFT GUIDELINES FOR READY TO USE THERAPEUTIC FOODS (RUTF)

The current draft guidelines refer only to the weak labelling safeguards for Foods for Special Medical Purposes (FSMPs) – products that are on general sale. Claims are MARKETING TOOLS that are not appropriate for therapeutic foods. WHA Resolution 63.23 forbids health or nutrition claims on foods for infants and young children.

IBFAN PROPOSAL for RUTF label:

Section 12 must include the following text:

It is recommended that the labelling of RUTF for children from 6 to 59 months with SAM be in accordance with the Standard for the Labelling of and Claims for Foods for Special Medical Purposes (CXS 180-1991), the General Standard for the Labelling of and Claims for Pre-packaged Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CXS 146-1985), and Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling (CXG 2-1985)..and the Guidelines for Use of Nutrition and Health Claims (CXG 23-1997) that include a prohibition on the use of nutrition and health claims for foods for infants and young children.

There should be the following prominent WARNINGS:

This product must only be used for the therapeutic treatment of Severe Acute Malnutrition, strictly under medical supervision

Potable drinking water must be available for children receiving RUTF treatment.

Not for general sale

Useful links:

Exporting countries put trade before the health of the planet and children. IBFAN Press release, Nov 2019

WHO/UNICEF INFORMATION NOTE – Cross–promotion of infant formula and toddler milks, WHO, 2018).

Worldwide Baby Food Drink Market In-depth Research Report 2021, Forecast to 2026, expects 7.7% growth from $68bn in 2020 to 91bn by 2026 – more than 30% in 5 years!

_________________________________________

IBFAN ENCA CRD CCFL

IBFAN Brief in spanish

_________________________________________________________________________________

CODEX COMMITTEE ON FOOD LABELLING (CCFL)

PROPOSED DRAFT GUIDELINES ON FRONT–OF–PACK NUTRITION LABELLING (CX/FL 21/46/6 June 21)

(Prepared by the Electronic Working Group Chaired by Costa Rica and Co–chaired by New Zealand

IBFAN is advocating that FOPNL should NOT appear on products 0-36 months. WHO guiding principles and framework manual for front-of- pack labelling for promoting healthy diets recommend excluding baby foods on the basis that since FOPL schemes – unless restricted to warnings – are promotional and this would be against WHO policy that forbids promotion and any health and nutrition claims for such products. Concerns about high levels of problematic ingredients (sugar, salt fat etc) are better handled through limits set by Codex or national legislation. FOPL is designed for the general population , not for specific categories of foods.

The proposals should be government-led with adequate COI and transparency safeguards. There should be no reference to ‘collaboration with the Private sector’ since this could imply inappropriiate influence of the policy setting process.

It is not MANDATORY for any country to adopt a Codex text – countries are, however, expected to use them as a basis for legislation and not be more trade restrictive than necessary. If a Codex standard does not allow a country to achieve its public health objective effectively the government can go further.

IBFAN COMMENT FOPN

Posición-IBFAN Spanish

46th Codex Committee on Food Labelling cl21_19e. CLICK HERE for report CX/FL 21/46/627 September–1 October and 7 October 2021

Please share IBFAN’s comments on both these items your government delegations in the hopes that they can take our concerns into account.

WHO guiding principles and framework manual for front-of- pack labelling for promoting healthy diets

_______________________________________________________

CODEX COMMITTEE ON NUTRITION (CCNFSDU)

PROPOSED DRAFT GUIDELINES FOR READY TO USE THERAPEUTIC FOODS (RUTF)

IBFAN comment RUTF

_________________________________________________________________-

DRAFT REVISED STANDARD FOR FOLLOW-UP FORMULA (CXS 156-1987) SECTION B: DRINK/PRODUCT FOR YOUNG CHILDREN WITH ADDED NUTRIENTS OR DRINK FOR YOUNG CHILDREN

IBFAN Step 7 FUF

ENCA- Codex FUM section B

Here in Spanish: Posición IBFAN en Codex 2021

____________________________________________________________________

IBFAN COMMENT PROPOSED DRAFT GUIDELINES ON FRONT-OF-PACK NUTRITION LABELLING at Step 3 – submitted 1st September 2021

General Comments

Front of Pack Nutrition Labeling (FOPNL) can be a means to provide additional information to those who purchase pre-packaged foods and provide a system for making decisions about food products available in the market-place. Moreover it has the potential of reducing consumption of food ingredients and products that contribute to unhealthy diets.

A number of underlying principles are essential for the effective implementation of FOPNL policies.

For FOPNL to be effective IBFAN considers a mandatory system of WARNINGS to be much preferred. Research of countries where FOPNL has been voluntary shows limited uptake by the food products industries and hence the ability for product comparisons is compromised and the expected health benefits are under realized.

Processed complementary food products and formulas for infants and young children should not have FOPNL as this will be promotional of certain products over other products and contrary to the provisions of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent WHA resolutions. To effectively safeguard infant and young child health, it is preferable to have warnings on these products.

Codex must address the environmental impact of the global trade in unnecessary food products. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that 21–37% of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are attributable to the food system and that climate change will have important negative impacts on food security. Green lighting the ultra-processed, excessively packaged with plastic/styrofoam products may reduce the consumption of a few harmful food ingredients yet will continue contributing to increasingly alarming levels of environmental degradation.

In view of the need to safeguard policy setting from commercial influence, IBFAN believes that the business term ‘stakeholder’ is removed from all Codex texts. Advocating for public health goals/objectives is very different from seeking commercial/profit ones. It is misleading to group all constituents under this term.

Specific Comments

It is critical that the implementation and policy setting for FOPNL be led by national governments who are accountable and responsible for the overall health and nutrition of their citizens. To fulfill their obligations governments must ensure that policy development is free of commercial influence while ensuring adequate participation from civil society, independent academics, health associations, and other relevant constituencies.’

We see no need for a Codex text to list collaboration or consultation with specific interested parties since this is likely to open the door to abuse and legitimise corporate lobbying – placing the businesses on the same level as all other actors. Governments have a duty to protect citizens and ensure appropriate consultations.

Principle 4.3.1 The text should. read:

FOPNL should be government led and developed in collaboration with all interested parties including government, consumers, academia, public health associations, private sector among others, by ensuring robust safeguards against conflict of interest.

Section 2.2 Exclusion for foods and products intended for infants and / or young children

Commercial foods and products intended for infants and young children should not be included in the guidelines for FOPNL. The International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent resolutions of the World Health Assembly govern the labeling and marketing of a number of these products. These include infant formulas, formulas for special medical purposes, follow-up formulas and drinks for young children. A number of Code provisions also cover complementary foods for older infants and young children. Claims are not permitted by Codex Guidelines on Nutrition and Health Claims or WHA Resolution 63.23 that urges Member States “To end inappropriate promotion of foods for infants and young children and to ensure that claims not be permitted for foods for infants and young children”

The FOPNL would be contrary to provisions in the International Code as they are promotional in essence by preferring one product to another. This may lead parents and care givers to perceive these products as being endorsed by government authorities and thus have a negative impact on breastfeeding decision-making. In effect FOPNL on formulas for infants and children will have a negative impact on infant and young child health.

Similarly complementary food products should not be included. These products are highly processed and their consumption should be discouraged. Older infants and young children fed processed complementary foods risk dental caries, obesity and develop preferences for bland “white” foods. Ultra-processed products invariably contain chemical additives to stabilize, emulsify, thicken, regulate acidity, and act as anti-oxidants etc. Many ingredients are “permitted” by Codex Alimentarius standards, some at regulated levels and others according to “good manufacturing practices”, with their safety declared not by independent and convincing science but on the basis of political consensus and claims of “history of safe use”.

Public health nutrition policy promotes the consumption of healthy nutritious foods for optimal health and development as well as the development of life long preferences for healthy foods. FOPNL in these situations can act as a marketing tool for the consumption of inappropriate ultra-processed food products at a vulnerable stage of growth and development.

IBFAN COMMENT ON FOPL IN SPANISH

POSICIÓN DE IBFAN

BORRADOR DE PROPUESTA SOBRE ETIQUETADO DE NUTRICIÓN EN EL FRENTE DEL ENVASE (ETIQUETADO FRONTAL)

Paso 3

Observaciones generales

(1 de set. 2021 – Equipo de trabajo IBFAN sobre Codex Alimentarius, Adaptada al español por la Coordinación IBFAN LAC)

El etiquetado frontal (FOPNL por sus siglas en inglés) puede ser un medio para proporcionar información adicional a quienes compran alimentos pre-envasados ofreciendo así, un sistema para tomar decisiones sobre los productos alimenticios disponibles en el mercado. Además, este etiquetado tiene el potencial de reducir el consumo de ingredientes alimenticios y productos que contribuyen a dietas poco saludables.

Una serie de principios subyacentes son esenciales para la implementación efectiva de las políticas de FOPNL. Para que el FOPNL sea efectivo, IBFAN propone un sistema OBLIGATORIO de ADVERTENCIAS. La investigación muestra que en los países donde el FOPNL ha sido voluntario, las industrias de productos alimenticios han aceptado el etiquetado de manera limitada, y por lo tanto, la capacidad de comparación entre productos se ha visto comprometida y no se dan los beneficios esperados para la salud.

Los productos infantiles complementarios procesados y las fórmulas para lactantes y niños de corta edad no deben tener FOPNL, ya que esto sería promocionar ciertos productos sobre otros, y sería contrario a las disposiciones del Código Internacional de Comercialización de los Sucedáneos de la Leche Materna y las Resoluciones posteriores de la AMS. Para salvaguardar eficazmente la salud de lactantes y niños pequeños, es preferible tener ADVERTENCIAS sobre estos productos.

Por otro lado, el Codex debe abordar el impacto ambiental del comercio mundial de los productos alimenticios innecesarios. El Grupo Intergubernamental de Expertos sobre el Cambio Climático (IPCC) de las Naciones Unidas estima que entre el 21% y el 37% de las emisiones totales de gases de efecto invernadero (GEI) son atribuibles al sistema alimentario y que el cambio climático tendrá importantes impactos negativos sobre la seguridad alimentaria. Iluminar con color verde los productos ultraprocesados – de todas maneras, envasados excesivamente con plástico / espumas de poliestireno, etc – podrá reducir el consumo de algunos ingredientes alimentarios dañinos, pero no hará que estos productos dejen de ser contribuyentes a los niveles cada vez más alarmantes de degradación ambiental.

En vista de la necesidad que tenemos de proteger que las políticas se definan sin influencia comercial, IBFAN cree que el término “partes interesadas o asociadas” es de corte comercial y por lo tanto, debe eliminarse de todos los textos del Codex. Abogar por metas/objetivos de salud pública es muy diferente a buscar metas comerciales o lucrativas. Es entonces engañoso agrupar a todos los constituyentes bajo el mismo término de “partes interesadas o asociadas

Comentarios específicos

Es fundamental que la implementación y el establecimiento de políticas de FOPNL sea un proceso liderado por los gobiernos nacionales ya que éstos son los responsables de la salud y de la nutrición general de su ciudadanía. Para cumplir con sus obligaciones, los gobiernos deben garantizar que el desarrollo de las políticas públicas esté libre de influencia comercial, al tiempo que deben garantizar la participación adecuada de la sociedad civil, la academia independiente, las asociaciones de salud y otros grupos relevantes.

Por lo anterior, no vemos la necesidad de un texto del Codex que enumere la colaboración o la consulta con partes interesadas específicas, ya que esto muy probablemente abriría un portillo al abuso y legitimación del cabildeo que realizan las corporaciones y colocaría a las empresas al mismo nivel que los demás actores que velan por la salud pública. Los gobiernos tienen el DEBER de proteger a su ciudadanía y de garantizar las consultas apropiadas.

Principio 4. 3. 1 Por lo anterior, el texto debe decir:

El FOPNL debe ser dirigido y desarrollado por el gobierno en colaboración con todas las partes interesadas, incluidos el gobierno, los consumidores, la academia, las asociaciones de salud pública, el sector privado, entre otros, asegurando salvaguardias sólidas contra los conflictos de interés.

Sección 2.2 Exclusión de los alimentos y productos destinados a lactantes y/o niños de corta edad

Los alimentos y productos comerciales destinados a bebés y niños pequeños no deben incluirse en las directrices de FOPNL.

El Código Internacional de Comercialización de Sucedáneos de la Leche Materna y las Resoluciones posteriores de la Asamblea Mundial de la Salud rigen el etiquetado y la comercialización de muchos de estos productos. Están incluidas las fórmulas infantiles, fórmulas con fines médicos especiales, fórmulas de seguimiento y bebidas para niños pequeños. Varias disposiciones del Código también abarcan los alimentos complementarios para lactantes mayores y niños de corta edad.

Las declaraciones de propiedades saludables y nutricionales no están permitidas por las Directrices del Codex sobre Nutrición y Salud y por la Resolución 63.23 de la Asamblea Mundial de la Salud, que insta a los Estados Miembros a poner fin a la promoción inadecuada de alimentos para lactantes y niños de corta edad y a garantizar que no se permitan las declaraciones de propiedades saludables en los alimentos para lactantes y niños de corta edad. Por lo anterior, el FOPNL sería contrario a las disposiciones del Código Internacional, ya que en esencial, es un etiquetado promocional que preferiría un producto sobre otro producto. Esto puede llevar a las madres, padres y cuidadores a la percepción de que estos productos están respaldados por las autoridades gubernamentales y, por lo tanto, tendrían un impacto negativo en la toma de decisiones sobre la lactancia materna. En efecto, el FOPNL en las fórmulas infantiles tendría un impacto negativo en la salud de los bebé y niños pequeños.

Del mismo modo, el FOPNL no debe incluirse en los productos infantiles alimenticios complementarios. Estos productos son altamente procesados, innecesarios y su consumo debe ser desalentado. Bebés mayores y niños pequeños alimentados con alimentos complementarios procesados corren el riesgo de caries dental, obesidad y desarrollan preferencias por alimentos “blancos” suaves. Los productos ultraprocesados invariablemente contienen aditivos químicos para estabilizar, emulsionar, espesar, regular la acidez y actuar como antioxidantes, etc. Muchos de estos ingredientes están “permitidos” por las normas del Codex Alimentarius, algunos están en algún nivel regulados y otros dejados a en las manos de las “buenas prácticas de fabricación”, con una declaración de seguridad – no basada en la ciencia independiente y basada en evidencia- sino en un consenso político y de “historia de uso seguro”.

La política de nutrición de salud pública promueve el consumo de alimentos nutritivos saludables para la salud y desarrollo óptimo, así como el desarrollo de preferencias de alimentos saludables, de por vida. Dadas las circunstancias, el FOPNL podría convertirse en una herramienta de marketing que incentiva el consumo de productos infantiles ultraprocedados e inapropiados, en una etapa vulnerable de crecimiento y desarrollo infantil.

____________________________________________________________________-

GLOBAL TRADE: Safer labelling on baby foods and drinks urgently needed was originally published on Baby Milk Action

#breastfeeding #infant formula #Nestle

2 notes · View notes

babymilkaction · 3 years

Text

Comments on UK DRAFT DHSC Guidance Notes

FINAL GUIDELINES

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/infant-and-follow-on-formula-and-food-for-special-medical-purposes

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/infant-and-follow-on-formula-and-food-for-special-medical-purposes/commission-delegated-regulation-eu-2016127-supplementing-regulation-eu-no-6092013-guidance

DRAFT DHSC Guidance Notes on Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/127 (supplementing Regulation (EU) No 609/2013)

16th August 2021

The UK has held a consultation on draft guidance on Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/127 for infant formula and follow-on formula which we are sharing with stakeholders in advance of publication on GOV.UK.

DHSC Guidance Notes on CDR 2016_127 22072021 – DRAFT

The guidance has been developed by the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) and specifically refers to England, although the principles are similar throughout GB (Scotland and Wales). The Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland (NIP) means that EU legislation relating to nutrition, as detailed in Annex 2 of the NIP, continues to be directly applicable in Northern Ireland (NI). The guidance document is DHSC’s interpretation of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/127 (made under Regulation (EU) No 609/2013). This legislation provides specific compositional and information requirements for infant formula and follow-on formula and as regards requirements on information relating to infant and young child feeding.

Comments submitted by the Baby Feeding Law Group

Final feedback on draft DHSC guidance notes from BFLG UK

Comments submitted by Baby Milk Action

BMA on DRAFT DHSC Guidance.

Comments on UK DRAFT DHSC Guidance Notes was originally published on Baby Milk Action

#breastfeeding #infant formula #Nestle

0 notes

babymilkaction · 3 years

Text

Nestlé cancels its ‘Free Stokvel Mom and Child Forum’ following protests

FOOD JUSTICE

Nutrition activists urge Nestlé to cancel ‘Free Stokvel Mom and Child Forum’ saying it violates SA regulations

By Mark Heywood and Michelle Banda• 12 August 2021

Note: At 8.50 am on Friday, August 13, this article was updated following confirmation that the event has been cancelled. See below.

Nestle advertisement on ‘Free Stokvel Mom and Child Forum’ violates the South African Regulation R991 on foodstuffs for infants and young children. (Photo: Wikipedia)

A group of nutrition and child health experts together with health and children’s rights activists have condemned a marketing event planned for this Saturday, 14 August 2021 that has been sponsored by Nestlé. They argue that it is unlawful because it promotes food products that are dangerous for children’s health.

Health activists complain that this is not a once-off, but part of a series of “mum and child” stokvel events targeting readers of You, Drum and TrueLove magazines.

The particular event is being publicised on a News24 platform in an advert that prominently features Nestlé, as well as three of Nestlé’s infant feeding products (Cerelac, Nestum and Nido3+). It is being billed as an online “Free Stokvel Mom and Child Forum” where health professionals and Nestlé brand ambassadors will share information about infant feeding.

It claims it will benefit “all moms, grandmas, aunties and guardians of little ones”.

The products that ‘Nestlé ambassadors’ will promote are a range of ‘baby cereals’ marketed for children from six months up and a ‘fortified milk powder’ marketed for children over three.

Activists also take issue with the marketing strategies that have been used in the advert for ‘the Stokvel Mom and Child Forum’. (Photo: News24/Wikipedia)

According to Catherine Pereira-Kotze, a dietician and PhD candidate in public health at the University of the Western Cape, child health experts are up in arms because “the nutritional status of children in South Africa has been a cause for concern for many years and is set to worsen due to the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic.”

They point out that in 2016 chronic malnutrition, manifesting as stunting, affected more than a quarter (27%) of children under the age of five in South Africa and in 2018, 11% of children (2.1 million) lived in households that reported child hunger and that survive below the income poverty line.

According to Lori Lake of the Children’s Institute at UCT “even pre-Covid-19, 59% of children (close to 2 in 3) lived below the poverty line, 30% were without water on site, and 21% without adequate sanitation. Since the Covid-19 pandemic, child hunger has increased with 1 in 7 households reporting a child went hungry in April 2021 — and anecdotal reports suggest a rise in cases of severe acute malnutrition.

Lake and others argue that “In the context of widespread and rising food insecurity, there is a real risk that caregivers will water down these expensive and ultra-processed foods to make them stretch further in ways that threaten children’s health, survival and development. So it is important that South Africa upholds the regulations currently in place to protect and promote Infant and Young Child Feeding practices that are healthy, affordable and sustainable.”

But, say activists, another concern is the fact that even whilst undernutrition is a growing problem, rates of overweight and obesity in children are also increasing with 13% of children under five being overweight for their height. A recent report by the World Obesity Federation anticipates that SA is likely to have the 10th highest level of childhood (ages five to 19) obesity in the world by 2030.

Covid-19 pandemic, child hunger has increased with 1 in 7 households reporting a child went hungry in April 2021. (Photo: EPA/JON HRUSA)

Public health experts say that these rising rates of obesity are directly connected to increased ultra-processed food consumption. Yet all three products being advertised by Nestlé are ultra-processed, contain added sugars and are unaffordable for most households. They claim there is also evidence that these products often interfere with optimal infant and young child feeding practices, breastfeeding in particular.

Exclusive breastfeeding

It is for these reasons and to bolster infant nutrition, that the World Health Organization (WHO) and Unicef, together with the National Department of Health (NDoH) recommend exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life and continued breastfeeding up until two years and beyond together with the addition of safe, affordable and nutritious complementary foods from six months.

But for many women living in poverty this is a challenge, as explained by Chantell Witten, a registered dietitian and Nutrition Lead for the South African Civil Society for Women’s, Adolescents’ and Children’s Health (SACSoWACH) (see a recent article in Maverick Citizen here). In South Africa, for example, exclusive breastfeeding under the age of six months remains low at 32%, well below the WHO target of 50%. South Africa also has high rates of the early introduction of complementary foods.

COVID-19 pandemic, child hunger has increased with 1 in 7 households reporting a child went hungry in April 2021 – and anecdotal reports suggest a rise in cases of severe acute malnutrition. (Photo by Paula Bronstein/Getty Images)

Activists also take issue with the marketing strategies that have been used in the advert for the “Stokvel Mom and Child Forum”.

They argue that use of the word ‘stokvel’ is problematic as a ‘stokvel’ refers to a community-based savings scheme that has traditionally been used in South Africa for essential items. Research shows that in South Africa, “stokvels form part of many vulnerable people’s social protection net, allowing households to build resilience, particularly at a time when Covid has intensified poverty and hunger.” A stokvel would not traditionally be used to purchase or access the types of products being advertised by these events.

However, says Rina Swart, Professor in the Department of Dietetics and Nutrition, and DSI/NRF Centre of Excellence in Food Security at University of the Western Cape, Nestlé is using this as an opportunity to promote their products, products that may be harmful to health due to their ultra-processed ingredients.

In addition in a manner often seen in the marketing strategies used by the fast-food industry worldwide they also deploy emotive words in the advert to persuade mothers that their products are necessary. “Get ready to be empowered”; “you’ll learn valuable information”; “It’s all about learning together and building a community of like-minded caregivers who want to grow with their little ones”, they promise.

Activists also complain that the inclusion of a health professional (a nurse with a PhD) on the panel is another marketing strategy “intended to convince mothers or caregivers that these products are endorsed by health professionals.”

Butho is 19 years-old but is considerably short for his age, a malnutrition-related condition known as stunting. The stunting rate in South Africa is roughly 27 percent. (Photo: Black Star/Spotlight)

This morning, the Healthy Living Alliance (Heala), a civil society coalition working to advance food justice in South Africa, also issued a statement demanding that the event be cancelled immediately and for the National Department of Health to sanction Nestlé.

According to Angelika Peczak, Nutrition Programme Manager, at Heala:

“This event provides a perfect example of how the industry plays on the vulnerabilities of mothers to market their products and generate profits at the expense of South Africa’s children’s health. Nestlé is openly flouting the law. Further, by timing it after World Breastfeeding Week, Nestlé is making a mockery of the real and serious nutrition issues South African children face. Hunger and malnutrition are a public health crisis.”

Breaking the law?

According to Safura Abdool Karim, a senior researcher at SAMRC/Wits Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science (know as Priceless SA) “Nestlé are violating South Africa’s Regulations relating to foodstuffs for infants and young children (known as R991).”

Abdool Karim told Maverick Citizen that government had implemented R991 in 2012 in recognition of the importance of exclusive breastfeeding and to counteract “predatory practices” by formula producers to undermine exclusive breastfeeding among women with HIV in particular. R991 therefore “applies to manufacturers and distributors” and aims to limit the promotion and marketing of an array of commercial products including infant formula, complementary foods and powdered milks for infants and young children under the age of three years old.

Section 2 (14) of R991 says that: “no incentives, enticements or invitations of any nature, which might encourage consumers to make contact with the manufacturer or distributor of a designated product which might result in the sale or promotion of a designated product for infants or young children shall be used on the label or in the marketing of a designated product(s) for infants and young children”.

However, Abdool Karim says in this case Nestlé are incentivising potential consumers to “make contact” through a free event. They are also offering cash-strapped mums the opportunity to win R500 Shoprite vouchers and for those who attend to receive information about the use of their products in childhood and infant feeding.

In addition section 7(5) of R991 states: “No manufacturer, distributor, retailer, importer or person on behalf of the aforementioned shall produce, distribute and present education information relating to infant and young child nutrition”.

However, the webinar invitation indicates that Nestlé, a “manufacturer” of infant formula, will be involved in providing infant and young child feeding advice. It states:

“Feeding your littles one can be challenging, but it doesn’t need to be. We’ve got you covered! Join the FREE Stokvel Mom and Child Forum event on 14 August 2021 – brought to you by Nestlé CERELAC, Nestlé NESTUM and Nestlé NIDO +3 – to learn everything you need to know about feeding your little one.”

Overall, the event is billed as educational with three of the speakers described as Nestlé brand ambassadors “well-trained” in infant nutrition.

All this, says Abdool Karim, is clearly in violation of the R991 regulations.

Nestlé’s response

In response to a request for comment on activists’ accusations Saint-Francis Tohlang, Corporate Communications & Public Affairs Director for the East & Southern Africa Region (ESAR) of Nestlé, today reaffirmed the company’s belief “that breastfeeding is best for babies” adding that “all our infant formula products bear the following important notice: “Breastmilk is best for babies. Before you decide to use an infant formula consult your health professional for advice.”

Tohlang denied that the company was violating the regulation saying that the Regulations “do not prohibit communication on complementary foods to the general public.”

Nestlé added that whilst it agreed that “Regulation 7 (5) of R991 prohibits education on infant and young child nutrition. We do not educate on infant and young child nutrition below 36 months.

“Nestlé NIDO 3+ is not a breastmilk substitute and it is formulated for children aged 3 to 5 years old. This product, therefore, falls out of scope of R991, thus nutrition and feeding education can be done for this specific age range.”

Tohlang concluded that because they considered the event to be compliant with R991 “we are proceeding” but that they had “reached out to the National Department of Health to engage on this concern raised.”

By contrast, Popo Maja, head of Communications and Stakeholder Management at the National Department of Health, stated categorically:

“The planned event indeed violates Sub-Regulation 7(3)” and added that “we are currently engaging with Nestlé regarding this. I can assure you that we will do everything from our side to ensure that this event does not take place. If Nestlé fails to comply, legal processes shall follow.” DM/MC

Update on Friday, 13 August, 2021, at 8.50am:

On Thursday evening, Maverick Citizen received the following statement from Saint-Francis Tohlang at Nestle: “Having considered the allegations and following our correspondence with the National Department of Health, we have decided to cancel the event. It is important to emphasise that we still maintain that the event is fully compliant with the R991 regulations.

“We are cancelling the event because of the unfortunate perception by various stakeholders that the event is not supportive of exclusive breastfeeding and that in any way seeks to undermine the public health messages that promote exclusive breastfeeding of infants below the age of 6months. We continue supporting exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life, followed by the introduction of adequate nutritious complementary foods along with sustained breastfeeding, up to two years of age and beyond.”

Activists have welcomed Nestle’s decision and vowed to continue to work with the government and food industry to ensure that the R991 regulations on infant feeding are respected and enforced.

Department of Health spokesperson Popo Maja noted “with gratitude” Nestle’s decision to cancel the event. “We strongly maintain that it violates the R991 regulations. Volumes of evidence does show that Exclusive breastfeeding is important for the child healthy development,” it said in a statement.

MAVERICK INSIDERS CAN COMMENT. BECOME AN INSIDER

All Comments 2

annelie.dewet

12 August 2021 at 16:37

In the finest print possible, to people in their second or third language, namely English: “…Before you decide to use an infant formula consult your health professional for advice.”

Who do they think read this???

That is if they CAN read.

I am so sick of the advertising vultures preying on the Emerging Market.

Advertising should be banned. It is a factory of lies.

The list of ingredients must be in large letters on the front of the product, not in illegible .002 font on the back.

Finish en klaar. No more “information”.

Colette Hinton

12 August 2021 at 18:42

This is an absolute disgrace. Children are starving, going hungry and there is a serious problem with stunted growth. The only people that will benefit from this are the various Nestle brands. The doctor taking part in this should be ashamed of herself!

Nestlé cancels its ‘Free Stokvel Mom and Child Forum’ following protests was originally published on Baby Milk Action

#breastfeeding #infant formula #Nestle

0 notes

babymilkaction · 3 years

Text

US authorities remove breastfeeding newborn and prompt outrage

Authorities take 2nd child from ‘American Idol’ contestant, prompting outrage

Syesha Mercado, who is fighting to get her toddler back, recorded deputies taking her newborn from her in an Instagram Live video.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1276796

______________________________________________________________- Lancet: 40 years of the Code for breastmilk substitutes marketing

PIIS2352464221002406

_____________________________________________________________

This Is The Environmental Cost Of Formula Milk

Taking action to support breastfeeding mothers would equate to taking 77,500 cars off the road, argue experts.

By Mike Rampton

02/10/2019 11:30pm BST | Updated October 4, 2019

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/environmental-cost-of-formula-milk_uk_5d94bc82e4b0019647b1faa0

https://iapindia.org/pdf/FtlmZrbVefBU5Wz_IAP%20Resolution%20on%20IMS%20ACT.pdf IAP commits

US authorities remove breastfeeding newborn and prompt outrage was originally published on Baby Milk Action

#breastfeeding #infant formula #Nestle

0 notes

babymilkaction · 3 years

Text

Closure of the EU Platform for Action on Diet

Closure of the EU Platform for Action on Diet_signed

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please be informed that in order to meet our obligations and objectives stemming from the new EU strategies related to public health (e.g. Farm to Fork Strategy, Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan), the European Commission has made a decision regarding the EU Platform for Action on Diet, Physical Activity and Health stakeholder group, of which you are a member.

Further information can be found in the attached letter.

Best regards,

SANTE HPP Team

European Commission DG Health and Food Safety Unit C2 – Health information and integration in all policies EU Health Policy Platform

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY

Public health The Director

27/07/2021

Luxembourg SANTE.DDG1.C/JR(2021)5390781

Closure of the EU Platform for Action on Diet, Physical Activity and Health

Dear Sir or Madam,

This is to inform you that the activities of the European stakeholder platform – the EU Platform for Action on Diet, Physical Activity and Health – have been discontinued, both physically and virtually. The last meeting of the group was organised in the latter part of 2018, and therefore this note focuses on the follow-up.

In light of the new key political priorities, the Commission has decided that the activities on nutrition and physical activity would, in the future, focus on the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, through the identification and rollout of best practices facilitated by the Steering Group on Health Promotion, Disease Prevention and Management of Non-Communicable Diseases (SGPP)(1).

In this respect, discussions between the Commission, Member State authorities, stakeholder groups and health professionals on issues related to public health, nutrition and obesity will be held on the EU Health Policy Platform (2), where all stakeholders are invited to share information regarding their activities.

In addition, stakeholder groups and health professionals are welcome to join the new Beating Cancer Stakeholder Contact Group established on the EU Health Policy Platform, provided that they comply with the specific membership criteria stated under the above mentioned network.

Please note that an equivalent decision has been made regarding the High Level Group on Nutrition and Physical activity bringing together EU and EFTA government representatives.

The Commission remains committed to helping Member States and civil society organisations to reach the Sustainable Development Goals including our common objectives on obesity and non-communicable diseases including cancer.

I look forward to future exchanges between the Commission and key health stakeholders.

Yours faithfully,

John-F RYAN

1 https://ec.europa.eu/health/non_communicable_diseases/steeringgroup_promotionprevention_en 2 https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/hpf/

Electronically signed on 27/07/2021 14:36 (UTC+02) in accordance with article 11 of Commission Decision C(2020) 4482

Commission européenne, 2920 Luxembourg, LUXEMBOURG – Tel. +352 43011 Office: HTC 03/078 – Tel. direct line +352 4301-32719 [email protected]

Closure of the EU Platform for Action on Diet was originally published on Baby Milk Action

#breastfeeding #infant formula #Nestle

0 notes

babymilkaction · 3 years

Text

Will the Food Systems Summit protect human rights and breastfeeding - part of the first food system?

Will the Food Systems Summit protect human rights and breastfeeding – part of the first food system?

Program

With every day yet more news of climate and food crises, loss of biodiversity, mass extinction of species, rising social inequalities, conflicts and hunger, governments and the UN should surely by now be listening to and working with Civil society and Indigenous Peoples’ organizations to bring about real sustainable changes in food systems that put the health of the planet and the rights of human beings centre stage. Instead, the UN Food Systems Summit (FSS), Nutrition for Growth, the Voluntary Guidelines of Food Systems and Nutrition (VSFSyN) is taking us all in the opposite direction – legitimizing a technologically-driven, crisis-ridden food system. Instead of being held to account for the harm they have knowingly caused over decades, the handful of global corporations and private philanthropies that have driven deforestation, land-grabbing, mono-cropping and export-oriented trade of ultra-processed foods, are being heralded as essential ‘partners’ in solving the world’s problems and the shaping of public policy setting at every level.

The Memorandum of Understanding signed by the UN Secretary General and the World Economic Forum (WEF) in January 2020, made things worse by granting transnational corporations preferential and deferential access to the UN System at the expense of states and public interest actors. For many years IBFAN has been raising concerns about multi-stakeholderism, especially the way it has been promoted by the Scaling up Initiative (SUN)and Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) and other industry inspired initiatives. SUN-GAIN-2014 SUN IBFAN 28.11.12 When the SUN Casts a Shadow.

IBFAN is urging policymakers to see through the clever packaging of the Summit, and call for a fundamental change in the direction of travel before the New York Summit in September. IBFAN will meanwhile be joining the global counter-mobilization organised by the Civil society and Indigenous Peoples’ organizations, running parallel to the Pre-Summit from 25 to 28 July in Rome. We urge all who have a voice to speak out now – there is no time to waste on meaningless and deceptive words.

What the Summit could mean for breastfeeding child health

Breastfeeding and the marketing of foods for infants and young children is addressed in several of the FSS initiatives:

The Nutrition for Growth (N4G) global pledging initiative, massages the image of the food industry and allows commercial infiltration of policy setting and implementation spaces. N4G is another industry inspired initiative that claims to have humanitarian motives while promoting increased involvement and influence of food and agri-business in national health policy setting. Its supporters claim it has accountability measures, however these are weak and industry-influenced. Although N4G mentions breastfeeding and the Code, beware, the devil is in the detail – so often overlooked. Click here and Here for more.

Voluntary Guidelines on Food Systems and Nutrition (VSFSyN) that undermine Code implementation These Guidelines cover an impossibly large range of issues, and while they include some good recommendations, for example on breastfeeding and maternity protection, most have been neutered to preserve the status quo. Click here for a CSM analysis of the main issues. Most importantly for us, key wording in a paragraph about the need for governments to strengthen regulations on marketing was stripped out by the USA in the final stage of the negotiations, despite the support for stronger text by Norway, Canada, Russia and WHO. Click here for more details of how this happened.

Do the claims of strong conflicts of interest safeguards stand up?

The UN Deputy Secretary General and others supporting the FSS approach, claim that measures to address corporate accountability and conflict of interest have already been taken. This is because corporations are not being invited as individual companies but via trade associations and ‘not for for profit’ business front groups (BINGOS – Business Interest NGOs) who promote industry interests whenever public policies are set.

Scientists Boycott the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit

Meanwhile, WHO and UNICEF is rightly urging Member States to recognise and highlight the need for the protection of breastfeeding – the first food system – and to ensure full implementation of the International Code and Resolutions. During the 40th Anniversary of the Code Celebration – both agencies stressed the need for policy-setting and implementation processes to be kept free from commercial interest. Not easy – when the baby food industry insists on getting its feet under every table. WHO and UNICEF have prepared briefings to guide Member States of the key issues to include in legislation. __________________________________________________

Other News

Global Trade: help ensure an end to misleading promotion of risky, ultra-processed baby drinks. We are reaching the final stages of the revision of the Codex standard on Follow-on Formulas and drinks for babies 6-36 months. Sales of these totally unnecessary, ultra processed products are booming. If they are to be allowed on the market (better they are not) it Is essential that the Codex standard states that they are covered by the marketing restrictions of the Code and Resolution – which state that ALL formulas 0-36months should not be promoted in any way.

Baby Food industry refuses to follow the Code – Call to Action is concluded Following the failure of the Breastmilk Substitutes Call to Action (CTA) WHO has informed us that: the CTA process has concluded and there are no plans to revisit or extend it. We hope WHO will publicly disassociate itself from this initiative as we asked in IBFAN’s Counter Call in June 2020. Our Counter Call was endorsed and supported by senior UN officials and over 11,000 people on a petition launched by La Leche League International).

In its response to the CTA, Nestle – the worlds leading producer of unhealthy ultra-processed products, and consistently responsible for the most violations and the under-mining of the International Code, arrogantly offered its ” technical expertise on request to any BMS company who would like to learn from our many years of experience in creating a robust, WHO Code-aligned policy and governance system”.

New IBFAN Monitoring reports from around the world free to download _________________________________________________________

Missed the 40th anniversary of the Code? watch the recording HERE along with other IBFAN films and materials.

Joint statement of WHO DG Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and UNICEF Executive Director, Henrietta Fore

WHO WHO moves ‘almost far enough‘ on sun-setting of the Code – 10,000 support IBFAN’s call148th WHO Executive Board Meeting (EB148) (18 – 26th January 2021)

74th World Health Assembly – stifling the voice of Civil Society

Alarm over WHO Foundation ‘Thank you’ to Nestle _____________________________________________

World Breastfeeding Week 1-7 August,2021 has the theme, Protect Breastfeeding – a shared responsibility. WBW is organised by the World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action (WABA) – IBFAN and partners will be holding events in many countries Here is a picture from the Breastival Festival in Northern Ireland. WBW is celebrated in October in Europe.

Journal of Human Lactation Interviews

Help ensure the term ECOCIDE is added to the list of International Crimes against humanity. https://www.stopecocide.earth/

BBC Radio 4 The Great Food Reset? The Food Programme

Dan Saladino finds out why a UN summit to transform the global food system has become so controversial. It has generated 2500 ideas for change but also a boycott by protesters.

Here is why we are boycotting the UN Food Systems Summit

Al Jazeera Social movements and scientists are staying out of the UN summit because it represents big agribusiness interests.

Mexican CS Position on FSS (EN)

LAC Postura de organizaciones de sociedad civil frente a la Cumbre sobre Sistemas Alimentarios_20072021

Will the Food Systems Summit protect human rights and breastfeeding – part of the first food system? was originally published on Baby Milk Action

#breastfeeding #infant formula #Nestle

0 notes

babymilkaction · 3 years

Text

World Breastfeeding Week 1-7th August

World Breastfeeding Week 1-7 August,2021

Protecting breastfeeding – where lies the responsibility?

World Breastfeeding week (WBW) is organised by the World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action (WABA) in 1-7th August. (WBW is celebrated in October in Europe.) IBFAN and partners will be holding events in many countries.

Here are pictures from the Breastival Festival in Northern Ireland – where the film Tigers will be shown on Friday 6th August.

Belfast –Breastival is a unique, award-winning festival which aims to support, normalise and celebrate breastfeeding as part of everyday life in Northern Ireland and across Ireland.

______________________________________

INDIA

https://www.bpni.org/world-breastfeeding-week-2021/

___________________________________

SCOTLAND

Belgium:

Hospitals and health workers will be engaged in raising awareness on the WBW theme.

Brazil

Materials available in Portuguese. Opening ceremony July 30th in Sao Paulo, together with local MoH , and also in Brasilia on the 1th, with Webinars. IBFAN will launch the video on 40 years of the Code ith WBW celebrations in many different states of the country Portug and this is disseminated.

World Breastfeeding Week 1-7th August was originally published on Baby Milk Action

#breastfeeding #infant formula #Nestle

0 notes

babymilkaction · 3 years

Text

Join the civil society opposition the UN Food Systems Summit

Hundreds of grassroots organizations to oppose the UN Food Systems Summit

Civil society and Indigenous Peoples’ organizations launch a global counter-mobilization against the UN Food Systems Pre-Summit from 25 to 28 July 2021 in Rome and online.

Rome, Italy. 19 July 2021. Over 300 global civil society organizations of small-scale food producers, researchers and Indigenous Peoples’ will gather online (25-28 July) to protest against the UN Food Systems Pre-Summit. The People’s Counter-Mobilization to Transform Corporate Food Systems is the latest in a series of rejections of the UN Food Systems Summit (UNFSS), including a coalition of scientists who petitioned to boycott it.

The People’s Autonomous Response to the UNFSS argues that the Summit distracts from the real problems the planet faces at this critical juncture. Resulting from a partnership between the UN and the World Economic Forum (formed by the world’s top 1000 corporations), the Summit is disproportionately influenced by corporate actors, and lacks transparency and accountability mechanisms. It diverts energy, critical mass and financial resources away from the real solutions needed to tackle the multiple hunger, climate and health crises.

Globalized, industrialized food systems fail most people, and the Covid-19 pandemic has worsened the situation. According to the 2021 UN Report on the State of Food Security and Nutrition, the number of chronically undernourished people has risen to 811 million, while almost a third of the world’s population has no access to adequate food. The Global South still reels from Covid-19, unveiling the entrenched structural power asymmetries, fragility and injustice that underpin the predominant food system.

Over 380 million people make up the transnational movements of peasants and farmers, women, youth, Indigenous Peoples, pastoralists, landless, migrants, fisherfolk, food and agricultural workers, consumers, and urban food insecure joining the protest. They demand a radical transformation of corporate food systems towards a just, inclusive and truly sustainable food system. They equally demand strengthening existing democratic food governance models such as the UN Committee for World Food Security (CFS) and respecting its High-Level Panel of Experts (HLPE). The UNFSS threatens to undermine CFS, which is the foremost inclusive intergovernmental international policy-making arena. By exceptionally prioritizing a human rights-based approach, the CFS provides a space for the most affected to have their voices heard. Yet the multilateral UN system is being hijacked by corporate interests to legitimize an even more detrimental, technologically-driven and crisis-ridden food system.

This counter-mobilization reflects concerns about the Summit’s direction. Despite claims of being a ‘People’s Summit’ and a ‘Solutions’ Summit, UNFSS facilitates greater corporate concentration, fosters unsustainable globalized value chains, and promotes the influence of agribusiness on public institutions.

False solutions touted by UNFSS include failed models of voluntary corporate sustainability schemes, ‘nature-positive’ solutions which include risky technologies such as Genetically Modified Organisms and biotechnology, and sustainable intensification of agriculture. They are neither sustainable, nor affordable for small-scale food producers, and do not address structural injustices such as land and resource grabbing, corporate abuse of power, and economic inequality.

The parallel counter-mobilization will share small-scale food producers and workers’ realities, and their visions for a human rights-based and agroecological transformation of food systems, highlighting the importance of food sovereignty, small-scale sustainable agriculture, traditional knowledge, rights to natural resources, and the rights of workers, Indigenous Peoples, women and future generations.

Discussions will center on real solutions: binding rules for corporate abuses, ending pesticide use, and agroecology as a science, practice and movement. The program will include the following activities:

25 July 2021: A Global virtual Rally with small-scale food producers and people’s voices.

26 July 2021: A political declaration followed by three public roundtable discussions on the Covid-19 context, the hunger and climate crises and the Summit’s push for corporate capture of governance and science.

27 July 2021: 15 virtual sessions on people’s alternatives and visions on food systems.

28 July 2021: A closing Panel will present preliminary conclusions and discuss ways to challenge the UNFSS in September.

Further information will be provided during a media briefing on 22 July 2021 from 13:30 to 14:15 CEST, followed by a Q&A session. Please register here to participate.

Media contact

Marion Girard, Media officer at the Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples’ Mechanism (CSM) for relations with the UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS) [email protected]

Resources

Program and web streaming of the Counter-Mobilization: foodsystems4people.org

Call to action launched in May 2021 to coordinate the peoples’ response to the UNFSS

More information about the concerns of the Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples’ Mechanism vis-a-vis the UNFSS

Join the civil society opposition the UN Food Systems Summit was originally published on Baby Milk Action

#breastfeeding #infant formula #Nestle

0 notes