Clarification on report

This is about your report titled "SC affirms lifting of ad ban on milk substitutes" last Jan. 15.

I was surprised to see the same headline (October 2007) run again.

More importantly, your story was inaccurate and incomplete.

Allow me to set the record straight.

There was no "lifting of ad ban because there was no ad ban in effect before the release of the Supreme Court ruling in Oct. 9, 2007.

In May 2006, the stricter implementing regulations for the 1986 Milk Code were introduced by the DOH after several years of consultation with industry and community groups, UNICEF and the WHO. The new rules included a ban on the advertising and promotion of milk substitutes for children up to two years old, with an absolute ban on false health and nutritional claims.

However, represented by the Pharmaceutical and Health Association of the Philippines, the baby formula companies, including Mead Johnson, Wyeth and Abbot Laboratories, appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that new rules of the Milk Code constituted a restraint of trade. The filing of a motion to reconsider by the PHAP later followed and the Supreme Court granted a temporary restraining order. As such, the ad ban was never implemented.

After several hearings, the Supreme Court released its decision on the revised Implementing Rules and Regulation (IRR) of the Milk Code. While we hoped for a total ban on the marketing of breast milk substitutes, the Supreme Court nevertheless reaffirmed the Department of Health’s power to regulate, screen, and decide on the advertising and promotional materials of these products alongside an inter agency committee. They also insisted that the milk industry will not be part of this policy and regulating body.

Also in the decision was the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the PHAP is mistaken in its claim that the Milk Code’s coverage is limited only to children 0-12 months old. Since breast milk substitutes may also be intended for young children more than 12 months of age, the Supreme Court asserted that the Milk Code should also protect and promote the nourishment of children more than 12 months old.

The judgment also supported the DOH’s recommendation for new labeling requirements where milk packaging should visibly state that the infant formulate may contain pathogenic microorganisms, as well as other health warnings and risks.

As such, it is the Department of Health and breastfeeding advocacies that scored a victory in this case.

The Supreme Court saw the merits of the DOH’s case in regulating the marketing of milk products to help improve the country’s low breastfeeding rates and help save children’s lives. This move by the Supreme Court reaffirms the key direction of the National Infant and Young Child Feeding Policy inspired after the Global Strategy developed by UNICEF and WHO. Breastfeeding and appropriate and safe complementary feeding alone can save the lives of 15,000 Philippine children every year. It is the single most effective protection against diarrhea, pneumonia, and infections. Breastfeeding also can improve the health of children in a country where over 25 percent of youngsters under five years old are undernourished.

We remain confident that this development will pave the way for the end of the misleading statements and false claims of milk companies that for many years have undermined breastfeeding efforts in the country.

However, we will also remain vigilant against the marketing tactics of milk companies who continue to defy the revised IRR. In fact, even with the finality of the Supreme Court’s ruling, PHAP still filed a motion for extending the deadline to file a motion for reconsideration. – INES FERNANDEZ, Save the Babies Coalition, UP Diliman, Quezon City