US versus global breast milk trend - what about the substitute business?

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

It was expected that the adoption of a resolution in support of breastfeeding by delegates to the 71st World Health Assembly would be quick and easy, as the benefits of breast milk have been confirmed by decades of scientific research. However, the delegates of the United States of America tried to amend the text of the document - in the part that called for limiting "incorrect or misleading promotion of breast milk substitutes on the market."

Presumably, the US delegation thus hoped to protect the interests of manufacturers of formula for artificial feeding. Also, American representatives proposed to remove from the text of the document calls to "protect, promote and support breastfeeding" and "limit the promotion of food, which, according to experts, can have a detrimental effect on young children."

When the attempt to amend the document failed, the American delegates turned to threats. Since the resolution on breastfeeding was put forward by Ecuador, US representatives began to put pressure on this particular state. Either Ecuador withdraws the document, or Washington imposes economic sanctions and withdraws military aid that is critical for Ecuador. The resolution was soon withdrawn.

Many delegates disagreed with this decision, but chose to remain silent for fear of US retaliation.

Advocates for breastfeeding have tried to find another delegation willing to put forward a resolution, but faced predictable problems. Delegates from poor countries in Africa and Latin America refused to submit the document for fear of US retaliation.

Ultimately, however, the efforts of the American delegation to withdraw the resolution were in vain. The document was presented by the delegation of the Russian Federation - and this time there were no threats from the United States.

The US State Department declined to comment, citing the inability to discuss "private diplomatic negotiations." The Department of Health and Human Services, which played a key role in the amendment process, explained its decision, but stressed that it was not involved in the intimidation of Ecuador.

"The resolution in its original form created unnecessary obstacles for mothers who want to provide their children with food," a spokesman for the Department of Health told The New York Times on condition of anonymity. - We understand that not all women - for completely different reasons - can breastfeed. And these women should have a choice and access to other options, for the sake of the health of their children. In addition, they should not be blamed for the way in which they solve this problem."

Although lobbyists from the baby food industry attended the Geneva meeting, breastfeeding advocates argue that they have no direct evidence of lobbyists' influence on Washington's intimidation strategy. In developed countries, sales of baby food have declined slightly in recent years as women increasingly choose to breastfeed. However, it is believed that in 2018 the baby food market will grow by 4%, mainly due to developing countries.

The situation with the adoption of the resolution became so acute that some American delegates even suggested that the United States could withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO), of which the World Health Assembly is the governing body. The confrontation provoked by US representatives at the assembly is a new example of the strategy of the administration of US President Donald Trump, which puts corporate interests above those of health and the environment.

During the same meeting that discussed a resolution in support of breastfeeding, the US delegation successfully removed from another document the part supporting the introduction of a "soda tax" as a response to the growing obesity epidemic. In addition, US officials have attempted (albeit unsuccessfully) to thwart WHO's efforts to provide the poorest countries with essential medicines.

The representative of Russia admitted that the introduction of the resolution for consideration was "a matter of principle."

"We are not trying to be heroes, but we feel that it is wrong when a big country tries to push around small states, especially on an issue that is really important to the whole world," says a delegate who asked not to give his name, as he is not authorized communicate with the media.

As a result, the resolution on breastfeeding was adopted practically in the form in which it was originally prepared. US officials were only able to remove from the document a passage urging WHO to provide technical support to member countries that want to stop the "unacceptable promotion of infant and young child products."

A spokeswoman for the Ecuadorian government, who chose not to disclose her name for fear of losing her job, commented on the situation as follows: "We were shocked because we did not understand how a small question like breastfeeding could provoke such a radical response."

Read also: