The IBFAN Counter-call on UNICEF / WHO on Violators of the Code : Exchanges between Kul Gautam and Charlotte Petri Gornitzka

From Kul Gautam

Dear Charlotte,

Thank you for your kind response to the concerns I expressed - also reflecting the views of many UNICEF retirees, including Sir Richard Jolly, and several former senior WHO colleagues - who were actively involved over several decades in the evolution of the WHO/UNICEF policy and difficult negotiations with BMS manufacturers to ensure their full compliance with the historic 1981 International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (the Code).

It is not at all our intention to question the sincere motives and commitment of WHO, UNICEF and several reputable civil society organizations (CSOs) with a longstanding record on this matter, when they issued "The Call to Action to BMS producers" encouraging them to end the inappropriate marketing of BMS, and that the BMS companies must comply with the Code in its entirety as per WHA resolutions.

I also greatly appreciate your assurance saying, "We will therefore continue to be actively engaged with partners, including IBFAN, in supporting governments with legislation, monitoring, calling out violations, training health workers, about their responsibilities and advocating to investors". I sincerely hope that WHO and UNICEF will indeed reach out to IBFAN and engage with it to address its many genuine concerns as outlined in its "Counter Call to UNICEF and WHO".

It has been FOUR DECADEs since the Code was adopted. Knowing the very skillful negotiating tactics of the BMS companies, and occasional loss of institutional memory in UNICEF and WHO, it worries us that the BMS companies continue to manage to persuade the new generation of WHO/UNICEF leaders to change the goalposts and deadlines for their full compliance with the Code.

Yes, certain social and economic rights of children are to be addressed progressively. But the formulation of long-term development goals by the UN - like the World Summit for Children goals to be achieved by the year 2000; the Millennium Development Goals by 2015, and the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030 - should not be a convenient excuse for Member-States or, in this case, BMS companies, to continuously postpone their goalposts, when the goals and targets are clearly achievable and affordable with reasonable effort.

40 years should have been more than enough for BMS companies to fully comply with the spirit of the Code. I am not aware of the extenuating circumstances compelling the companies to ask for 10 more years to do what they could and should have done a decade or more ago. After the SDGs, there will probably be another set of global development goals to be achieved by 2050. And I would not be surprised if the BMS companies, again, try to negotiate yet another new deadline for their full compliance with the Code with a new generation of UNICEF/WHO leaders.

Perhaps the time has come for WHO and UNICEF to work with Member-States to introduce more rigorous provisions for the implementation of this Code with lessons learned from the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which seems to be more effective.

As you know better than many of us retirees do, with more updated information, the lives and health of millions of children are being needlessly endangered even as profits of BMS companies continue to soar to new heights.

We continue to count on WHO/UNICEF to monitor the implementation of the Call to Action, and more importantly the Code itself, with renewed vigor and vigilance.

In this era of renewed public-private partnerships and the UN Global Compact, amidst the raging COVID-19 pandemic, we also hope that you find the recommendations in the 2018 report by the UN Secretary-General's Independent Accountability Panel for Women's, Children's and Adolescent Health (IAP-EWEC) helpful as UNICEF and WHO seek to further enhance their partnership with the private sector while fully safeguarding the best of interests of children and public health.

With best wishes -

Kul Chandra Gautam


From Charlotte Petri Gornitzka

Dear Kul,

Thank you for your message and summary of previous attempts by producers of breastmilk substitutes (BMS) to enter into partnerships with UNICEF. Like you, we take at heart the well-being of all children and mothers, particularly the most vulnerable.

The Call to Action to BMS producers was issued in such spirit by WHO, UNICEF and five reputable civil society organizations (CSOs) with a longstanding record on this matter. Its signatories believe that inappropriate marketing of BMS must come to an end and BMS companies must comply with the Code in its entirety as per WHA resolutions.

As global leaders for children’s rights, it is our responsibility to pursue all possible strategies to ensure that producers of BMS comply with the Code. The Call to Action is synergistic with WHO and UNICEF continuing efforts to support the adoption of strong country-level legislation to end inappropriate marketing of BMS and protect, promote and support optimal breastfeeding. This is what we have done for years and we will continue to do.

The Call to Action asks producers of BMS to commit to full compliance with the Code − in policy and practice − regarding products for infants under 12 months in 2020. Further, it asks them to commit to a roadmap for full compliance with the Code by 2030 at the latest, in line with the SDG targets for breastfeeding and child survival, nutrition and development.

We believe that a multi-pronged effort is required to ensure full compliance with the Code globally. We will therefore continue to be actively engaged with partners, including IBFAN, in supporting governments with legislation, monitoring, calling out violations, training health workers, about their responsibilities and advocating to investors.

I would be happy to have a call with you to discuss this matter further if you wish.

Warmest regards,

Charlotte


From Kul Gautam

Dear Charlotte,

It has come to my attention and that of many UNICEF retirees, that in June 2020, UNICEF and WHO along with several reputable organizations like Save the Children, BRAC, etc. co-signed a Breastmilk Substitutes (BMS) Call to Action, addressed to all manufacturers of BMS, that they should voluntarily commit to fully abide by the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (the Code) by 2030.

The International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) that has been a close partner of both UNICEF and WHO for many decades has criticized the BMS Call to Action and issued a strong “Counter-Call to WHO and UNICEF to stop 10-year-license to harm children”. (See attachment).

Some of us former senior UNICEF and WHO officials who were directly involved in or are very familiar with the history of the prolonged debates, negotiations, and decision-making about the Code and its implementation, were very surprised to learn about the BMS Call to Action and the IBFAN’s Counter Call to WHO and UNICEF.

We are painfully aware that many infant formulae and baby food companies have a long history of being extremely deceptive and manipulative about their compliance with the Code. Whenever there is a change of leadership at UNICEF and WHO, they try to convince and win over the new leadership with very clever and deceptive arguments, and “evidence” of their compliance.

Sometimes, lacking or ignoring institutional memory, the new leadership becomes gullible to such manipulation. I recall at UNICEF we had two such instances in which Nestlé deployed very high-level and seemingly reputable lobbyists to influence our decision-making.

One was in the late 1990s/early 2000s when former US Vice Presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro tried to persuade Carol Bellamy to enter into a “win-win” partnership agreement with Nestlé. Following a thorough review with her senior staff and experts, Ms. Bellamy wisely rejected this "win-win formula". The other was in the late 2000s when very senior officials of Nestlé directly approached Ann Veneman. While no agreement was reached with UNICEF, we were all stunned and chagrined that Ms. Veneman joined the Nestlé Board soon after leaving UNICEF!

In the case of the recent BMS Call to Action, at first, it looks pretty innocent, well-meaning, and pragmatic. We note that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, that has made such a positive contribution to global health which we all admire is also a prime mover of the BMS Call, lending it extra credibility.

However, we note that IBFAN’s careful analysis raises huge and legitimate questions which merit serious consideration by UNICEF and WHO.

The IBFAN’s Counter Call refers to the 2018 report by the UN Secretary-General's Independent Accountability Panel for Women's, Children's and Adolescent Health (IAP-EWEC) which made a number of recommendations to hold the private sector more strictly accountable. I was Co-Chair of IAP at that time, and our report was indeed quite strong in calling for holding the private sector to a much stronger and tighter framework of accountability. We also pointed out that the UN Secretary-General's Global Compact was being used by some private companies, including the infant formula and baby food industry, to "blue-wash" themselves and avoid accountability.

In light of this history, I sincerely hope that UNICEF (and WHO as well) will take the IBFAN’s Counter Call very seriously and revisit its endorsement of the BMS Call to Action.

Thank you.





https://iapewec.org/reports/annual-reports/2018report/