The purpose here is to illustrate that commerce is responsible for a great proportion of suffering on Earth. Another section of this site, Monsters, deals with the subject of dictators, and focuses on the damage they continue to do to the human race, expressed inadequately in the body counts attributed to these individuals.
They and their organisations are universally reviled, mainly for the inhuman suffering they inflicted upon certain segments of the race. But consider commercial outfits, trading profitably today, whose products are probably in every food store in the western world, household names promoted by leading stars, who contribute knowingly, and in the face of strong opposition from the World Health Organisation and UNICEF, to the deaths of around 1.5 million lives every year. They are not the only company involved in this particular market, but the ethics which they find convenient are common within commerce.
...On the right, a woman holding twins. The baby on the left was breastfed from birth and is thriving. His sister, on the right, was bottle fed: she died the next day. The mother was told, allegedly by representatives of a baby formula company, that she wouldn't have enough milk for both children, and so should bottle feed the girl.
But she would almost certainly have been able to feed both babies, since the more a baby suckles, the more milk is produced. The woman said, "Use my picture if it will help."
But, in developing countries, the situation does not take the form of a polite debate before desert is served. Because local water is often polluted, and the chance of keeping equipment sterile is next to impossible, babies fed on bottle milk formula are up to 25 times more likely to die as a result of diarrhoea (the biggest infant killer worldwide) than a breastfed baby. Can it really be possible that human beings would take advantage of ignorance to exploit a market worth over US$ 7 billion a year (3), leaving others to mourn the death of their children? Of course: all that is required is a lack of morals, and enough money to be at stake.
UNICEF say 1,500,000 lives could be saved every year by reversing the decline in breastfeeding. Millions of babies become ill from "bottle baby disease" (a deadly combination of diarrhoea, dehydration and malnutrition resulting from unsafe bottle feeding) and the cost of baby milk impoverishes people who are already poor, thus affecting whole families. Because baby milk is also expensive, it often costs more than half the entire family income, so it contributes to family malnutrition. Breastmilk, on the other hand, is free! And nature has taken great pains to ensure that under almostt any conditions, breastmilk is a healthy contribution to the child's wellbeing. Breastfed babies need no other food for the first 6 months of life and are protected against diabetes, pneumonia, ear infections, polio and other conditions (4).
Because of all this, bottle formula companies are not allowed:
- to give free supplies of baby milk to hospitals
- to promote their products to the public or health workers
- give gifts to mothers or health workers
- use baby pictures on their baby milk labels
- give free samples to mothers
- promote baby foods or drinks for babies under 6 months old.
Labels must be in a language understood by the mother and must include a prominent health warning. (5)
To increase profits, baby milk companies have to persuade health workers and mothers to bottle feed. Their tactics range from advertising and misinformation to sending sales reps into hospitals to promote their milks. They know that "even one or two bottles in the first days of life reduces the likelihood of successful breastfeeding by one third". (6)
Nestle's direct marketing of infant foods to mothers in the Phillipines, masterminded by PR Firm OgilvyOne, received a business award for effectiveness in September 1999.
Breastfeeding is also a form of contraception, preventing more births worldwide than all other methods put together.
Nestle market Junior snacks for babies from 12 months as "good and nutritious". But, they are over 50% sugar (more even than in Kit Kat). Dr Martin Stern, speaking on BBC's You & Yours on 22 October 1999, described Nestle's failure to acknowledge the risks of its marketing as:
"..an abuse of scientific knowledge. I think that this is a marketing campaign that is laying a trap for unwary mothers and it should not be done."
Nestle is promoting the foods widely including through samples at Tumble Tots - young children's playclubs.
Nestle Philippines website refers to Nestle's "health education on nutrition for village mothers". However, Nestle also claim "..a direct contact of [Nestle employees] with pregnant women or mothers is explicitly forbidden". Fancy that! Nestle know that direct or indirect contact of any kind with pregant women or with mothers of infants and young children is forbidden by the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, Article 5.5. But in September 1999, their direct marketing scheme (for products for use from pregnancy until the child is about four) in the Philippines won three awards!
"Even under conditions of extreme malnutrition, a lactating mother will continue to produce adequate milk for the baby...extra food for the mother can cost as little as one tenth of the cost of artificial food for the baby." (The Lancet).
2. Views expressed by 24-year old English mother to be, August 1999
3. Dr Idrian Resnick, Action for Corporate Accountability
4. Baby Milk Action, 1999
5. Baby Milk Action, 1999
6. Dr Richard Jolly, Deputy Director of UNICEF.
7. Baby Milk Action, 1999