In May 2023, UNICEF highlighted the growing cost of infant formula and the profit jacking of producers.
‘Families are under growing pressure to afford infant formula and other essentials to support their babies’ early years. Infant formula prices have risen above inflation over the past two years – bringing the cost of feeding a 10-week-old baby on first stage infant formula to between £44 to £89 per month.
In late 2023 the Government’s independent Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) revealed that some infant formula companies boosted profits by raising prices 25% over two years, and further highlighted strong consumer brand loyalty to increasingly expensive infant formulas, despite the nutritional equivalence of all infant formulas in the UK.
Responding to this issue, Shereen Fisher, UNICEF UK Baby Friendly Initiative Programme Director, said:
It is unacceptable that a small number of powerful infant formula brands are exerting control over the market and putting profits ahead of the welfare of babies by increasing prices significantly higher than their costs – leaving the Government and taxpayers to pick up the bill. With the Healthy Start scheme failing to cover the cost of a tin of formula, it is not right that companies continue to profit off struggling families.’
https://www.unicef.org.uk/babyfriendly/infant-formula-price-rises/
From the July 1991 issue of the Socialist Standard
"Over one million babies will die this year from diarrhoea because their mothers have been sold unnecessary bottle feeds".
There seems to be little, if any, dispute amongst nutritional experts that breast milk is best for babies, and for the poor it has the additional advantage of being free. In addition, a baby receives antibodies in the mother’s colostrum which gives some immunity from a number of infectious diseases.
There
are a few mothers who are unable to breast feed and have to resort to
artificial feeds as a substitute, but the vast majority of mothers
are able to feed their babies satisfactorily. But capitalism is not
concerned with the best interests of developing babies—profits are
the overriding priority and, therefore, business strategies have been
devised to persuade mothers to use milk substitutes instead.
In
the industrialised countries many mothers from working-class homes
have to return to work within a few weeks of giving birth to earn
wages to help support their families. This forces many of them to
abandon breast feeding in favour of bottle feeds which can be given
by other members of the family or child-minders.
Infants
from poorer families have substantially higher mortality rates than
the wealthy, in which artificial feeding, by depriving the babies
from receiving some of their natural immunity, plays a part. There is
also a risk of over-feeding and obesity if the feed is mixed too
richly. Obese children tend to develop habits of over-eating and grow
up into obese adults.
In
underdeveloped countries artificial feeding can be a matter of life
or death. Dr Peter Poore, chief medical officer for Save The Children
states:
For a sub-Saharan African baby the early termination of breast feeding can be tantamount to a death sentence. (Guardian, 8 March).
Food and drug firms in industrialised countries spend millions of pounds trying to persuade doctors, nurses and mothers in underdeveloped countries to abandon breast feeding and use artificial feeds. In 1981 the World Health Organisation and UNICEF’s code was adopted by most industrialised nations which prohibited advertising and stopped free artificial feeds being supplied to hospitals.
This
has not prevented tinned milk from being donated to hospitals,
allegedly for mothers unable to breast feed. But the supply of milk
substitutes far outweighs the number of mothers who need it and is
clearly intended to persuade other mothers to abandon breast feeding.
Far from being charitable, hard-headed commercial considerations are
behind the “donation” of milk substitutes.
In
underdeveloped countries it is rare to find a mother who is unable to
breast feed. The supply of free artificial feeds is designed to
create a dependence on the product. Once the mother has stopped
breast feeding for a while the milk supply dries up and the mother
has no choice but to continue using bottle feeds.
The
European Commission, after secret consultations with food and drugs
manufacturers, has decided to remove most of the regulations
governing the advertising and supply of milk substitutes. This
directive will come into force in 1992 and, in the future, aggressive
advertising will be used to promote artificial feeds to provide
profits at the expense of babies’ lives.
Aggressive
advertising
In urban Brazil, studies have shown that bottle-fed babies are 14 times more likely to die from diarrhoeal infections and three times more likely to die from respiratory infections. Many mothers in underdeveloped countries dilute artificial feeds too much because they are too poor to pay for sufficient tinned milk once they have become dependent on it. In some countries the water supply is contaminated or fuel to sterilise the bottles and teats is in short supply.
The
continuation of breast feeding also reduces the chance of becoming
pregnant. And while it is only partly effective it does help women in
poorer countries to space their children in the absence of more
effective contraceptive methods. The encouragement of mothers to
abandon breast feeding removes this natural contraceptive effect and
leads to unwanted pregnancies.
In
addition to the supply of milk substitutes for small babies there has
been the development of “follow-up” milks designed for babies
over six months of age. These are blatantly advertised in
underdeveloped countries and are starting to increase the mortality
rates of slightly older babies. And the European Commission's
deregulation of milk marketing practices next year could soon lead to
these milk substitutes being advertised in Britain.
Each
year underdeveloped countries spend $1.5 billion on milk substitutes
which are, for the most part, unnecessary. But capitalism is not
concerned with what is necessary or desirable for health. Any
product, no matter how dangerous, will be produced if there is a
market for it. And the same capitalist logic will prevent much needed
food being produced if people are unable to pay. The death toll these
result in will continue as long as this vicious system lasts.
Carl Pinel
https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2020/07/in-name-of-profit-1991.html
No comments:
Post a Comment