THE Supreme Court yesterday denied the petition of the Department of Health to lift the restraining order on the implementation of Executive Order 51 that calls for an absolute ban on the promotion and advertisement of breast milk substitutes.

"The Court resolved to... deny for lack of merit the above-mentioned motion to lift TRO... and defer action on the aforesaid motion to set the case for oral argument," the SC ruled.

Last Aug. 16, the SC granted the suit filed by the Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines (PHAP) to restrain government from enforcing the revised mplementing rules and regulation (IRR) of EO 51 or the Milk Code.

PHAP is a broad-based organization of health care companies which produce and/or distribute pharmaceutical, medical and nutritional products. Members include Abbott Laboratories, Wyeth Philippines, Mead Johnson, Astra-Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, Bayer Philippines, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, and Mercury Drug.

The SC ordered PHAP to post a bond of P500,000 within five days or the TRO would be lifted.

Respondents were DOH Secretary Francisco Duque, Health undersecretaries Dr. Ethelyn Nieto, Dr. Margarita Galon, Atty. Alexander Padilla and Dr. Jade del Mundon, and assistant secretaries Dr. Mario Villaverde, Dr. David Lozada and Dr. Nemesio Gako.

In its petition, PHAP asked the SC to declare as unconstitutional the revised IRR of the DOH’s Administrative Order no. 2006-0012 issued last May 16.

The assailed Order revised EO 51 or the Milk Code, which had been passed in 1986 in cooperation with the milk industry to regulate the use of breast milk substitutes.

Petitioners said the new regulation endangers the lives of infants by inadvertently misinforming mothers on their children’s health.

At present, a large percentage of mothers resort to inappropriate traditional milk substitutes such as evaporated milk, condensed milk, sugar water or "am,’ which do not address the nutritional needs of infants inasmuch as they are not really formulated for the purpose, the group said.

"The impetus of the Milk Code was precisely to regulate the proper use of breast milk substitutes, in recognition of the fact that in certain instances breastfeeding is not appropriate or possible," the group said.

The Milk Code limits its coverage only to infants or persons falling within the age bracket of 0-12 months and recognizes that infant formula may be a proper and possible substitute for breast milk in certain instances, they said.

They added that EO 51 only regulates advertising and promotion activities and materials, and furthermore limits such regulation to breast milk substitutes intended for infants or babies 0-12 months old and not imposes an absolute ban on advertising. – Evangeline de Vera