Talk:International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes/Archives/2015

Malnutrition because family can't really afford to buy enough? (and malnourished baby more vulnerable to diarrhea from questionable water?)
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/51668/1/IDHL_1985_36_n4_p877-908_en.pdf

THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF MARKETING OF BREAST-MILK SUBSTITUTES by SAMI SHUBBER

International Digest of Health Legislation, 1985, 36 (4)

" .  .  .  A leading expert on paediatric nutrition, Derrick Jelliffe, estimates that there occur some 10 million cases per year of infectious disease and infant malnutrition directly attributable to improper bottle feeding.[6] During the discussions on the draft text of the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes (hereinafter referred to as the Code) in Committee A of the World Health Assembly in 1980, the Turkish delegate pointed out that where the infant mortality rate was still 100-150 per 1000, about half the infants died because of malnutrition and in most cases artificial feeding was responsible.[7]  .  .  "


 * So, in cases where the infant died primarily because of malnutrition, most of the time the infant formula was responsible. Why?  Cool Nerd (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"Prohibition of the giving of samples. .  .  .  The provision is directed against the practice, prevalent in many parts of the world at the time of the adoption of the Code, of giving samples of breast-milk substitutes to pregnant women or mothers as an inducement to use such products, with the probable result that their ability to breastfeed was impaired.[68] Article 5.2 is wide enough to cover giving samples not only to a mother or pregnant woman, but also to any member of their families.  .  .  "

"Prohibition of gifts and other inducements. .  .  .  Furthermore, one feature of the practice under consideration is the donation or low-price sales of such products to institutions or organizations. These could promote the use of the products, and constitute an indirect inducement to mothers to resort to them and so discourage breast-feeding. However, the Code allows such donations and sales, but prescribes restrictive conditions under which they may be made.  .  .  "

"Information and education. .  .  .  In addition, Article 4.2 provides that "informational and educational materials, whether written, audio, or visual, dealing with the feeding of infants and intended to reach pregnant women and mothers of infants and young children, should include clear information on all the following points: (a) the benefits and superiority of breast-feeding; (b) maternal nutrition, and the preparation for and maintenance of breast-feeding; (c) the negative effect on breast-feeding of introducing partial bottle-feeding; (d) the difficulty of reversing the decision not to breast-feed". .  .  "


 * posted by Cool Nerd (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

looking for 2014 and 2015 news articles
China’s ‘white gold’ infant formula rush comes at a public health cost, China Spectator, Karleen Gribble & Julie Smith, 21 Nov 2014.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/11/21/china/chinas-white-gold-infant-formula-rush-comes-public-health-cost

"Commentators point to relaxation of China’s one-child policy, the melamine poisoning scandal in 2008 and the rising affluence of a growing middle class. But the often hidden truth is that escalating formula sales are driven by a lack of access to maternity leave and the unethical – even corrupt – marketing of infant formula through the maternity care system."


 * posted by Cool Nerd (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

China considers ban on marketing (April 2015)
China Proposes Ban on Infant Milk Formula Ads to Encourage Breastfeeding, NDTV (Reuters), Modified: April 21, 2015 17:16 IST. http://food.ndtv.com/food-drinks/china-proposes-ban-on-infant-milk-formula-ads-to-encourage-breast-feeding-756935


 * posted by Cool Nerd (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Contradiction
This article starts “The International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes was established in 1981”, but then confusingly says that “The largest baby food manufacturer in the world, the Swiss giant Nestlé, has been the subject of an international boycott campaign since 1977 for its alleged widespread violation of the Code”.

How can Nestle violate a code that wasn’t established until 1981? Can someone change this or add a reference as to how this could occur? Sleepysod 16:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The code was created in 1981 in response to allegations, starting in the 1970s, that Nestle was committing widespread unethical practices. AnonMoos (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)