More breasts and nursing. Corporate Rights vs. Human need
It's hard work convincing poor people that just because something comes from North America doesn't mean it's good.
Nestle has huge campaigns down here pushing their baby formula to mostly unschooled mothers who can't read Spanish, or even speak it because they want their language, not the colonizer's (there are 55 living languages in Guatemala, 26 of those account for the majority). So Nestle and Gerber do their campaigns for profit on poor women who have $1-$2 a day to live on. Because of shipping costs, they mostly sell the dry powdered formula here.
If you can't read, you can't see the fine print that says warning, use only clean water (a scarcity for poor women) and washy all utensils carefully. So they mix it with dirty water expecting their babies to grow up healthy and strong like the chubby White baby on the box of formula.
I think I just read that thanks to many women-run NGOs down here, they were able to undo some of the damage and breastfeeding has been going up despite the Nestles and Gerbers and near 50% exclusively breastfeeding now with most of the others doing a mix.
I wasn't aware of the following. I'm really pissed off after reading it.
I thought of posting it in Latin America since it's not a traditional topic for Feminist discussion but if all women are our sisters, shouldn't we discuss these things as Feminist issues?
...
In 1983, Guatemala passed a law and regulations incorporating the WHO code. The goal of the Guatemalan government was to encourage new mothers (1) to breast-feed their infants and (2) to fully understand the threats to their babies of using infant formula as a substitute for breast milk. The Guatemalan law prohibited the use of labels that associated infant formula with a healthy, chubby baby; specifically, the law prohibited pictures of idealized babies on packages of baby food intended for children younger than 2 years. Furthermore, the Guatemalan law required labels to carry a statement that breast-feeding is nutritionally superior. The law also prohibited baby food manufacturers from providing free samples of their products (if a baby starts taking free samples the mother stops lactating, thus converting mother and infant into full-time, paying customers). And finally the law prohibited baby food manufacturers from directly marketing their products to young mothers in the hospital.The regulations went into effect in 1988 and all domestic and foreign manufacturers of baby foods -- with one notable exception -- came into compliance. Infant deaths attributable to bottle feeding declined, and UNICEF began highlighting Guatemala as a model for what works.
However, the U.S. baby food manufacturer, Gerber (motto: "Babies Are Our Business"
, objected to Guatemala's new law. Although the Guatemalan Ministry of Health made numerous attempts to negotiate with Gerber, the company reportedly continued to market its infant formula directly to mothers in the hospital, and continued to give free samples to doctors and day care centers. Most importantly Gerber refused to remove its trademark picture of a chubby, smiling baby from its product labels, and it refused to add a phrase saying breast milk was superior. In sum, Gerber thumbed its nose at Guatemalan health authorities, who were trying to protect their most vulnerable citizens, infants, against harm.
In November, 1993 -- ten years after Guatemala passed its law, and five years after its regulations went into effect -- Gerber lost its final appeal. A Guatemalan Administrative Tribunal ruled in favor of the Ministry of Health and it looked as though even Gerber would have to comply with the Guatemalan law. But Gerber opened a new line of attack on Guatemala, arguing that the Guatemalan law was illegal under international statutes because the law was really an "expropriation of Gerber's trademark." This tactic bought Gerber some time while the World Trade Organization was being created. Then in 1995, when the WTO came into being, Gerber dropped its claim about illegal expropriation of its trademark and began threatening to challenge Guatemala before a WTO tribunal.
Within a short time, Guatemala realized it was now up against immense power and the Guatemalan government changed its law to allow Gerber to have its way. Gerber won without ever having to formally request that the U.S. take its case to the WTO. Just a few letters containing the WTO threat were sufficient.
http://www.southerncrossreview.org/3/racheleng.html
= new reply since forum marked as read