Commentary: Stewart Forsyth's article--Non-compliance with the International Code of Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes is not confined to the infant formula industry.

摘要

In this paper the author implies that there is no hard evidence demonstrating consistent violations of the International Code by the baby food industry, despite the regular monitoring reports published by the International Code Documentation Centre (ICDC) (http://ibfan.org/ icdc/). And it must be pointed out that there is more than 'an assumption' that the baby food industry plays a part in decreasing breastfeeding rates. Studies have found that when frequency of adverts for artificial feeding increased, percentage change in breastfeeding rates decreased, while a 2006 review by the US Congressional Accountability Office found a majority of studies that examine giving free formula samples to mothers at hospital discharge found lower breastfeeding rates among mothers receiving samples. No one denies that the Code includes recommendations for stakeholders other than the baby food industry. There is also no argument that some of these stakeholders have failed as duty bearers to protect the best interest of the child. But when it comes to unethical marketing and the ensuing harm to infant and young child health, the fault must lie solely with industry. What the author describes as a 'systematic deficiency' in a 'multi-stakeholder', 'multi-layered process' is no excuse for the baby food industry to not comply with the minimum standard set by the International Code. Forward looking companies recognise that compliance is the price of doing business and are developing governance, risks and compliance initiatives to ensure greater corporate accountability. The baby food industry should not be looking for excuses or soft alternatives where Code commitments are concerned.