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:
Liz Brooks <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Lactation Information and Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 4 Mar 2008 17:24:31 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (27 lines)
Karleen reminds us of the important work done by the International Code Documentation Center, established by IBFAN, to collect reports of Internatoinal Code violations.  The National Alliance for Breastfeeding Advocacy (NABA) has that role here in the USA.
 
The report they assemble and periodically publish are fabulous compilations of reports of violations.  One problem I have (looking at it through the lawyer's lens) is that they are compilations of reports.  What about the companies that no one filed a report about?  What about the companies that have Seen The Light since the last report was published, two or three years ago (they were bad guys then, but are good guys now, though they are still listed in the old report)?  What about companies that were erroneously reported [although, looking at this through the IBCLC's lens, I've yet to find an erroneous reporting ever].
 
And -- while these are indeed recognized world experts on the Code, its history, its implementation and its enforcement (in those countries where the Code is the law), I maintain my original position that opinions generated by these organizations do not carry the force of law.
 
Unless I *do* have it wrong, since Code implementation is (cough, cough) voluntary in the USA, and what we see everyday is a gross violation.  Karleen -- putting you on the hot seat -- would an opinion letter from the Head of ICDC carry the same weight as a judicial opinion, in a country where the Code is enforced?  
 
And -- back to hair-pulling now -- how do we account for cases like Guatemala?  There, Gerber suggested it would attempt to file a World Trade Organization complaint against the Guatemalan [WHO Code] law designed to restrict labeling on infant formula -- which would have meant they couldn't use their world-famous baby face on their labels.  The Guatemalan government granted Gerber an exception.  Read more about that at http://www.infactcanada.ca/gerbbaby.htm (which is the Code monitor for Canada).
 
Presumably ICDC would have said -- may be even did -- that Gerber was a Code violator, and their labels could not be on jars on the shelves in Guatemala.  But the Guatemald Supreme Court trumped them. 
 
Liz Brooks, JD, IBCLCWyndmoor, PA, USA
_________________________________________________________________
Helping your favorite cause is as easy as instant messaging. You IM, we give.
http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=text_hotmail_join
             ***********************************************

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