LACTNET Archives

Lactation Information and Discussion

LACTNET@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Elizabeth Brooks <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Lactation Information and Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:08:13 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (104 lines)
As most of you know, I am a sitting member of the ILCA Board.  Thus, my
interest was piqued by some recent posts, made in the course of the
discussion of WHO Code:

"ILCA [has] chosen to accept sponsorship and advertising income from Pigeon
(via their wholly owned subsidiary, Lansinoh).  Is financial gain more
important than a total commitment to the WHO Code, a global initiative to
protect infant health?"

"My perception of ILCA is that they are taking the easy road when accepting
the financial income, instead of  leading globally for protecting
breastfeeding and setting an example in removing a potential conflict of
interest for professionals - the perception may be that they are finding a
rationale to support the ongoing sponsorship/money rather than considering a
stronger stand in support of the Code, as a priority."

I hope I can give some perspective.  No guantlets are being tossed here --
just the Liz Brooks version of some history on the fiscal operation of ILCA.

(1)  ILCA has, I believe from its very inception 24 years ago, had by-laws
-- the document that governs its very existence and operation -- that
require it to support the WHO Code:  "[Fundamental Principle] 1.  As an
organization, ILCA and its affiliates will not endorse any literature or
products, or accept direct funding from industries producing or marketing
products that do not comply with the *International Code of Marketing of
Breast-milk Substitutes* and subsequent WHA resolutions."

I'd be hard-pressed to come up with a better way to demonstrate "total
commitment to" or a "stronger stand in support of" the WHO Code." Many
organizations have given loud and clear public demonstration of
their support of the WHO Code.   How many of them have *also* enshrined that
requirement in the organization's very governance documents?

(2)  I understand, perfectly: some will find ILCA's determination to accept
Lansinoh as a booth exhibitor/JHL advertiser unpalatable.  It doesn't pass
your own personal Smell Test. This is OK.  But I'd argue that you dislike it
for political/philosophical reasons -- not because ILCA's reasoning
vis-a-vis the WHO Code is unsound.

What ILCA had to do, as an organization, was devise a non-conflicting means
for determining who is Code-compliant, thus permitting ILCA to accept money
(in the form of advertising fees/booth space) from those companies.  With
Lansinoh, ILCA decided that -- since they do *not* produce the four
product-types covered by the WHO Code, and since the WHO Code does *not*
require an evaluation beyond the actual company doing the marketing -- we
could accept funds from them, and still meet our fiduciary responsibilities
as the governing Board, to our membership.  This was a perfectly sound
decision, made by the governing board -- even if you do not personally like
it.

I repeat:  I understand, perfectly: some will find ILCA's determination to
accept Lansinoh as a booth exhibitor/JHL advertiser unpalatable.  It doesn't
pass your own personal Smell Test. This is OK.

(3)  I am not quite sure where this "sponsorship" notion comes from, but
ILCA isn't in a sponsorship relationship with anyone.  At last year's
conference (or was it the year before?), we had one "sponsor" for the five
days of the conference itself.  The sponsor was IBLCE -- our certifying
entity.  They provided badge holders to everyone, with their logo on it.

At ILCA's 20th anniversary conference in 2005, there were a few companies
that gave bigger fees, in exchange for enhanced advertising in the Exhibit
Hall/in the syllabus.  All of them were Code-compliant companies.  And the
relationship ended after that five day conference.

Every other year, our conference has been paid for, primarily, by the fees
of the attendees.  This is offset by additional funds ILCA receives from
those who rent booth space.

To put this into some perspective:  ILCA currently operates on a $1.6
million annual budget.  The budget has been in the black, and our fiscal
management has received the highest marks the independent auditor can give
it, for three years running.
The rates for a booth in our Exhibit Hall run from (approx) $200 (for
non-profits like ILCA affiliates/USLCA chapters) to maybe $2000, for large,
for-profit companies (like book publishers and pump companies).

So -- for argument's sake, let's say one of these Doesn't-Pass-My-Smell-Test
vendors gets a booth at ILCA.  Let's say they paid $5000 -- more than twice
the highest rate.  I don't know what JHL's ad rates are, so let's just put a
huge pretend number on it:  $10000.  That $15000, ploppedinto ILCA's coffers
by one company, represents a mere 0.009% of ILCA's annual budget of $1.6
million.

I can assure you:  this level of financial "gain" is not powerful enough
to influence Board decision-making, and it hasn't induced the ILCA Board of
Directors to abandon its by-laws driven requirement to support the
International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes and all
subsequent relevant WHA Resolutions.

Liz Brooks JD IBCLC FILCA (ILCA Secy 2005-2011)
Wyndmoor, PA, USA

             ***********************************************

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome

ATOM RSS1 RSS2