The Nestle Group has prepared written instructions (dated February, 1982) for its employees on the implementation of the W.H.O. International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes. . . . The instructions appear in parallel with the relevant sections of the code, and the comparisons thus offered raise some doubts about the purity of Nestle's intentions. Article 2 of the international code, for instance, states that it covers all breast-milk substitutes, including complementary foods. Nestle has limited its applicability to infant formula alone, exempting its weaning cereals and canned milks, which are often marketed as early supplements to breast milk. Concerning the circulation of informational and educational material to pregnant women and mothers of young children, Nestle says: "Information intended for mothers. . . may bear corporate and product brand (packshot permitted)." Is this really within the terms of the code? Another requirement of the code disregarded by Nestle, is the inclusion in any such material of a warning of the health hazards of the improper use of infant formula. Article 5 of the W.H.O. code states that "There should be no advertising or other forms of promotion to the general public of products within the scope of this Code." Nestle has written: "Information relating to specific brands of infant formula must not be communicated directly to mothers or to the general public." Conceivably, such a statement could permit generic infant formula advertising in the mass media. Analysis of Nestle's guidelines discloses ways in which they might be used to circumvent various parts of the international code, such as the code's stipulations on free samples to health workers and free supplies to institutions.
Deficyty obowiązującej w prawie polskim regulacji w zakresie reklamy i innych technik marketingowych dotyczących produktów relewantnych dla ochrony karmienia piersią, ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem preparatów do początkowego żywienia niemowląt. Zarys problematyki