Baby Formula, Nutrition, and…Communism?

At a congressional hearing in 1978, Nestle representative Dr. Oswaldo Ballerin accused American activists of engineering an “indirect attack on the free world’s economic system.”  By his account, the numerous church groups, women’s groups, unions, and student’s groups were communists because they were boycotting Nestle products in order to protest its marketing of breast-milk substitutes in developing nations.

Dr. Ballerin could not understand  ”the boycott which is made against one company which does not manufacture these products in the United States.”  Although at the time Nestle sold no baby formula in the US, it held 49% of the international market, almost all of which was in developing countries.  The boycott mainly protested two things: 1) Nestle’s representation of its formula as superior to breast milk and 2) the devastating consequences of inappropriate usage of the formula by the poor, uneducated peoples the ads targeted.

1) Nestle ran ads that subtly and not so subtly hinted that breast milk did not supply all the nutrients a baby needed in its early stages of life.  For example, one ad said,  ”Breast-feed your baby, but when your baby needs a supplement, use our brand of powdered milk.”  Another put it more blatantly saying, “Lactogen is the very best milk for your baby.”  Indeed, how could breast milk be the best if Lactogen is the best?

2)  An excerpt from a chapter in Marion Nestle’s (not related to the company) Food Politics, which was the reference material for most of this post, succinctly explains why poverty-stricken women using milk substitutes can lead to an increase in infant mortality rates:

Formulas reproduce most of the characteristics of breast milk, but not all; most critically, they lack immune substances that confer protection against microbial diseases.  Appropriate use of formula requires adequate income (to pay for it and for the feeding bottles), education (to understand how to dilute it correctly), a clean water supply for the dilution (to avoid contamination with infectious bacteria), and refrigeration (to prevent bacteria from growing in stored formula).  Otherwise, contamination of bottles, nipples, and products can cause diarrhea that, in turn, leads to the nutrient deficiencies and overall malnutrition that constitute the leading causes of death and stunted growth among children in developing countries.

Food Politics

Women who cannot afford enough formula have also been known to improperly dilute formula in order to extend their supply of it.  Plus, “the negative effect on breast-feeding of introducing partial bottle-feeding, and the difficulty of reversing the decision not to breast-feed” makes the women who tried it members of a captive, exploited market (link).

And yet, according to Dr. Ballerin during the congressional hearing on the matter, it was the activists who were evil.  They were colluding to “undermine” the free market economy.  He gives as evidence for this attack “the film which has been distributed, under the title of ‘Bottle Babies,’ to many local churches and schools…and this film has hurt, really, those who fight in a world of free enterprise.”  The activists boycotting were deftly fighting business tactics with consumer tactics, but Nestle chose to paint them red in order to demonize their cause.  Fortunately, this thin argument only enflamed the matter, and with the new attention arose new boycotters.

You can just imagine the senators pulling off Dr. Ballerin’s mask to reveal a crooked old man yelling, “Grr…Those democrats are always putting health and safety above profit.  Nestle would have gotten away it too, if it weren’t for those pesky activist kids!”

The negative publicity of the boycott forced Nestle to seek out contrasting PR work.  They requested that the World Health Organization and United Nation’s Children Fund establish guidelines that Nestle could use.  They created the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes, which was ratified by UN members minus one in 1981.  Thanks to the patron saint of the Republican Party, Ronald Reagan, the Code was not ratified by the United States.  The administration said the Code may violate the Constitution and would also set a bad precedent about overseeing drug producers.  Their reasoning is false and daft, respectively.

It wasn’t until a Democrat took office that the Code was finally signed (in 1994 by Bill Clinton).  It was too late.  Baby formula companies were already used to the US turning a blind eye when it came to respecting the WHO’s guidelines prohibiting free samples, coupons, and advertisements that portray substitutes as superior to milk.  Pregnant women in the US are still deluged with free samples and coupons in the mail and/or from their pediatricians (link).

Granted, the US is not a developing nation.  The coupons and samples still create another layer of unrelenting pressure during the time when a woman is analyzing the minutia of every choice.  Activists boycotting Nestle recognized that poor women in developing countries are even more susceptible to these tactics and should be protected against them.  For the sake of the mother’s and the baby’s health, they ask that formula companies discontinue their aggressive marketing campaigns in these regions.  It’s not communism, it’s compassion.

February 10, 2009  Tags: , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Politics

Leave a Reply