IBFAN reiterates its call for Rethinking the Sunsetting of Code Reporting and Note Support by Richard Jolly, Kul Gautam and Peter Greaves : Janet Nelson

I suggest that this message be sent out to XUNICEF staff. I don’t know how many have any contacts with government officials, but some might also have contacts with groups that would be willing to join the counter call. I see that IBFAN very much appreciate the fact that Kul, Richard, and Peter Greaves joined their call! There’s no mention as to how they’re using the messages besides posting them on their website.
Janet

IBFAN and partners call for continued reporting of harmful baby food marketing A  Decision 'noted' at the 73rd World Health Assembly to end reporting on the International Code to the World Health Assembly after 2030 is causing alarm amongst the public health community. IBFAN's statement outlining 10 reasons why the Decision should be recalled or amended is  HERE . If you agree with our analysis please share with your government representatives and request that the decision is recalled or amended. Member States are invited to submit comments to WHO by  2nd December.  IBFAN made a statement during the WHA and later met WHO senior staff to explain our concerns. While we understand the need for WHO to streamline and 'sunset' redundant topics, this decision has legal implications and long term harmful consequences for maternal and child health. WHO assured us of its strong commitment to the Code and the protection of breastfeeding and its wish to work together with IBFAN for the protection of child health.  Also that if the unintended consequence of a broader governance issue is implied as a lack of WHO’s support for the Code, that needs to be corrected.   Short summary of the 10 reasons why there should be a rethink: On technical grounds due to the meeting being online. (see Point 1) The Code should be considered an exception as an important work in progress. (See Point 2) On legal grounds. The Code is in a 'class of its own' in terms of international human rights law and places obligations on Member States and the WHO to implement and enforce it and commercial companies to comply with it. (Point 3) The Code is not a time-defined goal like the MDGs or SDGs. WHO has a responsibility to alert its Member States to any threat to global health. This must include harmful commercial promotion on baby foods, tobacco, ultra-processed products etc. (Point 4) Reporting to the WHA on the Code should not end until there is convincing evidence that it is no longer needed (point 5) Governments and WHO have legal obligations under the WHO Constitution and the Code itself. Their removal will have serious consequences for maternal and child Health. (Point 6) 'Sunsetting' the Code will undermine the adoption of new Resolutions that keep pace with evolving marketing and help governments improve legislation. (Point 7) There is evidence that exploitation and misleading marketing of baby foods increases with pandemics such as the  COVID-19. There is no evidence that companies will abide by voluntary codes (Points 9 and 10)  Former UNICEF Deputy Exec. Directors Kul Gautam and Sir Richard Jolly and Peter Greaves join IBFAN’s Counter Call The sunsetting decision is closely linked to an initiative launched in June entitled, Breastmilk Substitutes Call to Action(CTA). The CTA called on companies to make voluntary commitments (by September 2020) explaining how they would abide by the International Code and Resolutions by 2030.  We are told that none of the companies approached met even the minimum CTA requirements.  In our meeting with WHO, we reiterated our call that WHO should distance itself from the CTA and its voluntary approach. The CTA  sends confusing messages to Member States and implies that it is wise to trust that companies will comply with the Code. We believe WHO should focus its attention of helping build strong legislation.