Thanks to everyone for their input in addressing marketing, the Code and importantly for those of us who are members, reviewing ILCA's advertising policy. I am learning from the discussions and links provided.

I feel very uncomfortable with the recent reference to 'stretching a document in a silly putty fashion'; this feels condescending and somewhat intimidating. 

Thanks to Cathy for providing the links to the business reports and objectives for growth of Pigeon available to read for anyone interested; these are also about marketing. It appeared as early as April 2006 from their website, that it was a real 'coup' for them to acquire lansinoh and break into the US markets. We were forewarned then and should not be surprised of how they are now using Lansinoh to help grow their business.

The Code in 1981, particularly Articles 4 and 7, which refer to the roles and responsibilities of health workers, continue to be strengthened with the WHA Resolutions. 

We need to pay particular attention to the 1996 Resolution WHA 49.15:
"to ensure that the financial support for professionals working in infant and young child health does not create conflicts of interest" 
Protecting Infant Health, 10th Ed, page 29: 
"The 1996 Resolution goes beyond the Code as it recognizes that sponsorship may interfere with full support of breastfeeding and BFHI" 
"The International Code is only a policy guide. It will not do anything to improve infant health unless it is put into practice. Everyone concerned with better infant health has a role to play in making the Code work."

The situation of the international professional association for IBCLCs accepting sponsorship via advertising funds (conflict of interest) indirectly from an international company, Pigeon is inappropriate. As for the US subsiduary, Lansinoh - the firewall argument does not fit as it seems to be part of the acceptance and marketing from the 'local reps' who appear to some as innocent, the 'good guys', as 'we have known them all along' and nothing has really changed. REALLY. A recent positive analogy would be Ameda, purchased by Evenflo and then substantial work done by many to get Evenflo to be Code compliant. The same pressures could be exerted by Lansinoh on Pigeon. However, I believe as long as Lansinoh remains status quo in the US and through ILCA, tragically, not much will change. A missed opportunity.

Other organizations are actively working to remove lansinoh from exhibit and advertising venues. LLLCanada never endorsed lansinoh - in fact they have a disclosure statement printed and inserted into LLL resources printed in the US and distributed in Canada. Many IBCLCs here are not providing samples of any creams. 

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. (also a sponsored exhibit hall is not the place to obtain education and/or to communicate with manufacturers/designers of products - the reps there are primarily in sales and marketing)  

ILCA needs to lead the way rather than waiting for public pressures to change practices. INFACT Canada and NABA led the way with encouraging the removal of some of the pump/bottle companies from the ILCA exhibit hall over the past 8 years; decisions may also have been influenced by discussions on lactnet. 

The umbrella company, Pigeon, violates the Code by marketing bottles and nipples, which are products in the Code; this company and their subsidiaries should not sponsor any of our professional resources. Period. Companies who comply with the Code in certain countries are not Code compliant if other branches of the same company violate the Code in other parts of the world - we are a global community and need to work together to protect breastfeeding by adhering to the principles of the Code and resolutions everywhere. This is an international issue for ILCA.

The 'good IBCLCs', who are working inside hospitals with formula company contracts, (this in itself does not violate the Code) need to be supported by all of us to enable them to  work internally to make changes by implementing BFI. We also need to stay as ILCA members, to both financially support this important global network and to enable change and new directions in the future. There is strength in numbers and change does eventually happen. If ILCA membership increases appropriately each year the association would become less dependent on commercial sponsorships - we all have an extremely important role here. Each One, Reach One.

Maureen
Calgary, AB
"we allowed the companies to touch the lives of our babies, not because we did not care, but because we did not realize the consequences of granting such a privilege." Dr. N Clavano, The Philippines, from the very first BFHI hospital in the world.

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

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