European Parliament invitation. Breastfeeding promotion and public-private partnership for infant nutrition – are they compatible?
6 September 2022, 14:30 to 16:0o. European Parliament.
Prof Berthold Koletzko and Dr. Peter Liese, Member of the European Parliament, in cooperation with the European Academy of Paediatrics (EAP), organised an event entitled, Breastfeeding promotion and public-private partnership for infant nutrition – are they compatible? They claimed that the event would feature experts on infant nutrition and stakeholders from the political world and that the aim was to: ” invite (s) all stakeholders to provide their views on the matter, with the aim of reaching a broad consensus on the exact modalities that should govern infant nutrition and public-private collaboration.”
On the request of an invited NGO, Patti Rundall received an invitation and before deciding whether to accept she asked several questions of the organisers:
- Given the important, complex and sensitive subject will the meeting be conducted in a fully transparent, independent and unbiased way?
- how would the ‘consensus’ be used and what does the word ‘govern’ mean?
- will the Parliamentary venue – presumably not in a room designed for voting – be used to give the meeting a legal/formal status or suggest that it is linked in some way to a piece of legislation or policy document
- How many people would be going and would representatives of the baby feeding industry would be present?
Patti decided not to go but a person unknown person to Baby Milk Action was listed as representing us was included on a LIST OF PARTICIPANTS.
Baby Milk Action comments:
The focus on the ‘Promotion’ rather than ‘Protection’ of breastfeeding is inappropriate, especially so in the European context where promotion is likely to backfire with parents feeling they are being pressured.The ‘breast is bes’t mantra is everywhere, but the risks of artificial feeding are rarely mentioned. Companies like to talk about breastfeeding promotion because it confuses everyone – why would they do such a thing? – while diverting attention from their unethical marketing. It helps build ’trust. Sponsoring promotion is also financially beneficial to them. Parents who want to breastfeed, but fail to do so for as long as they intended feel bad/guilty and will go on using expensive formula for much longer. Formula marketing targets these mothers with the notion that their products are as close as possible to the gold standard – breastmilk. Women tend to blame themselves when things go wrong, not realizing that the system, the environment and the advertising all undermine/fail the breastfeeding experience.
Prof Koletzko has represented ESPGHAN for many years in the EU and at Codex – the global food standards setting body. He was preceded by French Paediatrician, Prof Jean Rey. In 2000, our expose of Prof Rey’s industry influenced advice to the EU’s Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) prompted the European Commission to bring in rules on transparency and Conflict of Interest. Rather than declare his many interests Prof Rey stepped down in 2000. The SCF was closed down and replaced by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) At the same time responsibility for the baby food laws was moved from DG Industry to DG Sante (Health and Consumer Protection).
While sometimes Prof Koletzko’s interventions on have been useful and health protecting, all too often, on the controversial aspects of composition, marketing and labelling, he and his ESPGHAN colleagues have sided with industry to the detriment of child health. . Click here for our briefing for MEPs.about the DHA claim in 2011. More recently his promotion of follow-up formulas and baby drinks during the Codex discussions has undermined the position of WHO, UNICEF, IBFAN, the EU and many Member States. Baby drinks/formulas targeting infants and young children are unnecessary, sweet-tasting, highly processed products that contain additives and non-food ingredients. Flavours and promotion, especially when cross-promoted with infant formula, greatly increase the chance that they will be fed to young babies inappropriately and will replace healthier, bio-diverse family foods and plain fresh milk!. Companies love to baffle parents with ‘science’ and trigger fears that family foods lack essential nutrients – extending the formula feeding period. Thanks to Prof Koletzko’s intervention on behalf of ESPGHAN at Codex, flavours will be permitted for the baby drinks (12-36 months). It is not possible to measure the sweetness of these products, so even though the sugar levels can be reduced – the products will taste sweet – influencing the child’s taste palate. ( Click here for our latest appeal to Member States to work for the strongest possible Codex standards.)
Environmental burden. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) attributes 21–37% of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to the food system. For decades Codex has been green-lighting the global trade of unnecessary, plastic wrapped, denatured, ultra-processed products that will stay on shelves for two years. According to a study by Dr Julie Smith, of the Australian National University, “The most alarming finding in our latest research is a very large proportion of greenhouse gas emission impact is associated with the so-called growing up milks or toddler formula … In China, nearly half of the sales of milk formula is toddler formula.”
ILCA Lhotska Richter