Don't listen to what the rich world's leaders say - look at what they do


Take the thousands of Filipino children who die every year courtesy of the formula milk corporates, backed by US lobbying

George Monbiot
Tuesday June 5, 2007
The Guardian


It is time once again for that touching annual ritual, in which the world's most powerful people move themselves to tears. At Heiligendamm they will emote with the wretched of the earth. They will beat their breasts and say many worthy and necessary things - about climate change, Africa, poverty, trade - but one word will not leave their lips. Power. Amid the patrician goodwill, there will be no acknowledgement that the power they wield over other nations destroys everything they claim to stand for.

The leaders of the G8 nations present themselves as a force for unmitigated good. Sometimes they fail, but they seek only to make the world a kinder place. Bob Geldof and Bono give oxygen to this deception, speaking of the good works the leaders might perform, or of the good works they have failed to perform - but not mentioning the active harm. They refuse to acknowledge that what the rich nations give with one finger they take with both hands.

Look at what is happening, right now, in the Philippines. This country has many problems, but one stands out: just 16% of children between four and five months old are exclusively breastfed. This is one of the lowest documented rates on earth, and it has fallen by a third since 1998. As 70% of Filipinos have inadequate access to clean water, the result is a public health disaster. Every year, according to the World Health Organisation, some 16,000 Filipino children die as a result of "inappropriate feeding practices".

These are the deaths caused only by acute results of feeding children with substitutes for breastmilk. A summary of peer-reviewed studies compiled by the campaigning groups Infact and Ibfan suggests that breastfeeding also reduces the incidence of asthma, allergies, childhood cancers, diabetes, coeliac disease, Crohn's, colitis, poor cognitive development, obesity, cardiovascular disease, ear infections and poor dentition. Switching from bottle to breast could prevent 13% of all childhood deaths - a greater impact than any other measure. Panaceas are rare in medicine, but the mammary gland is one.

Both the government of the Philippines and the UN blame the manufacturers of baby formula for much of the decline in breastfeeding. These companies spend over $100m a year on advertising breastmilk substitutes in the Philippines, which equates to more than half the department of health's annual budget. Those who appear most susceptible to this advertising are the poor, who are also the most likely to be using contaminated water to make up the feed. Some spend as much as one third of their household income on formula. Powdered milk now accounts for more sales than any other consumer product in the Philippines. Almost all of it is produced by companies based in the rich nations.

Since Ferdinand Marcos was deposed in 1986, the government of the Philippines has been trying to stand between these corporations and vulnerable mothers. It has failed. It plugs one loophole; the formula companies find another. Baby Milk Action, one of the world's most impressive public health campaigns, has compiled a dossier of breaches of the marketing code drawn up by the World Health Organisation. Formula companies have been dispensing gifts to both health workers and mothers, running promotional classes and meetings and advertising their wares on television and in magazines and papers. These practices, though mostly legal in the Philippines, are all discouraged by the code.

In February this year, the Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Association of the Philippines (Phap), which represents multinational companies, ran a series of advertisements expressing concern for women unable to breastfeed their children. The campaign was described by Jean Ziegler, the UN's special rapporteur on the right to food, as "misleading, deceptive, and malicious in intent". He claimed the adverts "manipulate data emanating from UN specialised agencies such as WHO and Unicef ... with the sole purpose to protect the milk companies' huge profits, regardless of the best interest of Filipino mothers and children".

Last year, in the hope of arresting this public health disaster, the Philippines' department of health drew up a new set of rules. It prohibited all advertising and promotion of infant formula for children up to two years old. It forbade the formula companies from giving away gifts or samples, and from providing assistance to health workers or classes to mothers. The new rules seem stiff, but they all come straight from the WHO's code. Phap, whose members include most of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies, went to the supreme court to try to obtain a restraining order. When it failed the big guns arrived.

The US embassy and the US regional trade representative started lobbying the Philippines government. Then the chief executive of the US Chamber of Commerce in Washington - which represents 3m businesses - wrote a letter to the president of the Philippines, Gloria Arroyo. The new rules, he claimed, would have "unintended negative consequences for investors' confidence". The country's reputation "as a stable and viable destination for investment is at risk". Four days later, the supreme court reversed its decision and imposed the restraining order Phap had requested. It remains in force today. The government is currently unable to prevent companies from breaking the international code.

So the department of health asked a senior government lawyer, Nestor Ballocillo, to contest the order. In December Ballocillo and his son were shot dead while walking from their home. The case remains unsolved; Ballocillo was working on several contentious cases at the time. Last month the US regional trade representative paid another visit to the Philippines government. The department of health appears to be wavering. In two weeks the campaigners promoting breastfeeding will present their arguments to the supreme court to try to get the order lifted, and the formula companies will try to stop them. If the companies win, thousands of children will continue to die of preventable diseases.

The pressure to which the US government and the US Chamber of Commerce has subjected the government of the Philippines is at odds with almost everything the G8 now claims to stand for: the millennium health and education goals, the eradication of poverty, fair terms of trade. But the G8 nations will pursue their stated objectives only to the point at which they collide with their own interests. Away from their sentimental summits, they pull down everything they claim to be building.

The G8 demands action on climate change; the World Bank, controlled by the G8 nations, funds coal burning power stations and deforestation projects. The G8 requests better terms of trade for Africa; Europe and the United States use the world trade talks to make sure this doesn't happen. The G8 leaders call for the debt to be reduced; the IMF demands that poor nations remove barriers to the capital flows that leave them in hock. The G8 leaders simultaneously wring their hands and wash their hands: we have done what we can; if we have failed, it is only because of the corruption of third world elites.

The question is no longer whether the undemocratic power the G8 nations exert over the rest of the world can be used for good or ill. The question is whether it will cease to be used.

The G8 dont do anything, its a pretty pointless meating allong with the G22 and all the other G's. third world debt has to do with the paris club, other then that multinational companies are under their host countries legstration,

in the end of the day the G8 is a club of windbags bigging them slefs up and feeling righest and doing nothing at all, they dont hatch evil plans or do great deeds, they certainly dont decided the trading rules which mulinational commpnises trade by, how could they? britian has no say in germanys inteternal regulations or visa versa, and even if they did deside to set rules for multinations they mulinations are only obliged to obey these laws in those 2 countires as they are MULINATIONAL.

bono should be shot out of hand.

the person who wrote the article dosnt know his bum hole for his ear hole and this sort of simplistic self righest paternlistic veiw on third world poverty is a sickning combination of ignorence and arrogence.

Not replying to defend Monbiot or Bono, or to say the G8 meetings are not pointless... But wouldn't you say that the G8 countries , even if outside of the framework of the G8 'club' are responsible for setting international trade laws, and are they not also part of the Paris Club (actually, this last one is really a question because even if i know they are the main creditors, i don't have the list of the Paris Club 'members')? And I think the article, at least, pointed out that foreign governments can influence laws in third world countries.

That's the first thing that came to my mind -How an old rich man living in Washington can force the government of a Third World country such as the Philippines to OK the consumption of infant milk (contaminated water, contaminated powder, allergies, deaths of children, all don't matter as long as they are not his children, and as long as the economy is OK). It is definitely an indicator of the hypocrisy embodied in these international financial and corporate structures. Philippines is one of many cases. Nestle has been involved in this since the late 70s in Africa. Yes, use formula, don't breast feed, it's better to give your children the formula. In Africa, where water is contaminated, it is better to give formula milk than to breastfeed. And not only contaminated water. Nestle's been accused of child slave labour in Africa. Nestle aside, look at Latin America and the huge debt owed to the IMF and the fatal consequences this has on its different peoples and communities. They go to Mexico, give them a conditioned loan which forces herding and grazing at the expense of growing crops, which by the way can feed far more communities than herding ever could, and then expect "development." The result is the dismantling of communities and cultures, and more poverty and disease and misery.

I Hardly find Monbiot's stance paternalistic or arrogant or ignorant. Anyone with the least knowledge of how the economy functions today would know that what George Monbiot is saying is so bluntly obvious. It shouldn't even stir controversy, really. I am not sure how the state can be removed from the economy. Even if we are speaking about multinationals, they are still making use of spaces within the boundaries of nations. Not only using space, these multinationals are embedded within different governments in the West, directly or indirectly. Think of political campaigns and who funds them. Think about CEO's political involvements. And the G8 is connected with WTO, with the World Bank and with the IMF. All of which DECIDE how we play in the market today. Those who don't play by these rules are involved in a different kind of market I suppose (the black market/shadow powers/organized crime).

Think about what this guy is saying for a second, one countrie has no jurstriction over anothers internal laws the uk cant say to a mulination in the phillpinees or anywhere eles what it can or cannot sell and at what price i mean think about it it would be like france suddely telling the uk we have to have a 40 hour week, and how owuld these laws layed down by the great and good g8 funtion if a countrie desided to incoore them should we put in milltary action or what?

"Anyone with the least knowledge of how the economy functions today would know that what George Monbiot is saying is so bluntly obvious."

with all due resepct but eccnomics is my life i wrote a book on therical anlaises of inequalty, what he is saying is a arm chair simplitic veiw when you deal with the compleictes of inequalty both interecconmy (which is what i speclises in) and international these simplics staments become very shallow indeed.

"Think of political campaigns and who funds them." that applie really only the us you cant do that in most of europe becuase their is campine finace limited and china ofcourse the worlds biggest ecconmy dosnt have elections.



"They go to Mexico, give them a conditioned loan which forces herding and grazing at the expense of growing crops, which by the way can feed far more communities than herding ever could, and then expect "development." "

i have heared a lot of pepole state the meat crop argument before but they dont relise what their acctually saying what you are propsing weather you relises this or not is a version of the common arciultral policy which has been the single biggest waste of money resorces and ofcourse not to mension food in the worlds history.

also dont treat the world bank esspecily has having of veiw point or having this veiw point since the 70's, its changed radiculy form keynisun to neo classical and back again, its been the hot bead of ecconmic debate over the last 30 years.

i dont know if you read the guadian regulay but its desinged towards middle class center left wingers and dewsinged to make them feel good, it jounlism is crap which may have somthing to do with the fact its losing money and hopefully will one day go bust.

a rich old american deciding whats best for the world, are we talking about bono or bush.

fred

Fred, are you saying that multinationals have no influence with governments at all ? Of course, they can influence government policies and laws. You say that the UK cannot tell a company in the Philippines or another country how much to sell a product, but should we ignore the fact that there is distinct and aggressive corporate lobbying of governments to further the interests and policies of multinationals, and that governments do cave in to this type of lobbying in varying degrees ? In that respect, when governments let multinationals tell them how to amend laws, of course, they are responsible. Why would the G8 countries try to tell these firms what to do in any given country, when these firms, in case of a successful lobbying, already have those countrys’ approval. In the Philippines example, it was the US that was involved, and the US, a G8 country, did get the US embassy and the US regional trade representative involved for the sake of its multinationals. Even if Monbiot, in your view, has armchair views, I think he did not make up these facts.

I’ve found two articles which talk about the way multinationals influence government policies, I will insert the links after this paragraph. By giving these links, I am not trying to say that they say everything that can be said on the subject, nor that they can be quoted as the best authority on the subject (for example, I’ve read somewhere else that ‘51 of the world's top 100 economies are corporations’ from the Friends of the Earth FAQ can be technically refuted). I am sure you will not necessarily agree with these people’s analysis or political bias, but it’s just the link (facts) between multinationals and government lobbying in general that I want to point out. I mean some of these people appear to belong to a university, and you may again dismiss their views as armchair views, but when you say that Monbiot’s view is shallow and simplistic, your claim is that you can judge his view because you have written a book on theoretical analysis of inequality, so it’s not just them having opinions based on their own research. I’ll agree that ‘lefties’, and I use the term loosely, are prone to get indignant quickly about who’s responsible and why. Of course, we know that for any policy regarding the third world or poverty in general, it is not straightforward, and there are lots of issues involved. The World Bank and the IMF may have changed over the years, but even if from Keynesian to neo classical and back again as you say (and i am taking your word for it, not sarcatically, but seriously), was it not always influenced by the rich nations and their interests ? At any rate, getting all economic facts academically correct still does not make it ok to ignore exploitation.

Maybe that is why all Guardian commentators get so criticised regularly by people who think their opinion, supported just like those commentators’ by their own studies and reading, is better.

http://www.foei.org/en/campaigns/corporates/faq.html

http://www.eubios.info/EJ131/ej131h.htm

I don't want to repeat any arguments already put forward quite compellingly by Rain. I just wanted to clarify somethings. First of all, I didn't assume that the World Bank did not change its rhetoric. I am aware of the economic shifts. In saying that, just because the World Bank has adopted an inclusive neoliberal discourse, as opposed to the more row earlier "sink or swim" type of neoliberalism, it does not mean that this approach is not without its problems. To me, it seems to be trying to draw more and more people into the market, but are we actually witnessing a real improvement in the lives of people in developing countries? No. This is not to mention the IMF and the imperial core states, which have their own exploitative interests. This is what article is trying to point out. I think it made a very good case. I don't think it's written to make people feel better. It paints a very grim picture. I am not sure who can read this and feel good about themselves.

If I am understanding you correctly, you're suggesting he's presented a simplistic view of the economy. I largely disagree. I think because his focus was poverty, he did not need to focus on the "knitty and gritty" of economics. A general simple, NOT simplistic or reductionist or essentialist, but a general big picture painted sufficed. None of what he said is actually factually wrong. He just has a different focus. Again, this is a newspaper article. It is academic journalism, it's not an academic paper meant for academia. This should not take away from its credibility.

As for corporations funding political campaigns. OK, only in the US. So, one of the biggest producers in the world, and THE current Superpower has its politics so very embedded with corporate and financial structures. So it would be fair to argue that yes, corporations have a say in what goes on. By the way, it's also very similar in Latin American countries. The Elite ruling class is made up largely of businessmen and financiers. And I guess if you're Marxist, then the capitalist state is nothing but a bunch of thugs protecting private property.

I know the Guardian is largely liberal, but this should not suggest that the article is making things up.

Bono or Bush? I hope you are joking. I am not Bono's biggest fan, but it's absurd to try and suggest they are both of equal power. One is a celebrity and the other one is the president of the world's superpower. Bono has no control over entering a war or not. He couldn't decide what's best for the world. He could hope and try promote his vision. But who really decides what goes and what does not is not going to be some rocker who wants to make poverty history. The rulers of the world are not people like Bono.

I have no interest in pursuing this any further. Unless someone can actually prove the article wrong or that the article has been making things up, then there is not much else to be said really. Well, for me anyway.

this shows a complete simplic veiw of current international ecconmics the jounlists clearly hasnt conducted the most basic of reserach by then again why would they its a nice balck and white story that sell papers the truth would only compltcate matters.

their are two types of anti poverty campainers one is the high profile campiner they they pepole like the G8 leaders and ironically the G8 protesters pepole who go on ralies demanding unworkable polices or more often then not not offering any alterntive at all just protesting. that is ofcorse before they get in their very nice cars and drive home.

And pepole around the world actually working hard to improve the lives of real pepole and that means talking hard problems and comming up with ansers.



how can you spout such a simplistic statement. in the devloping world you have a massive range of develpment, in short and hugly simpleyfied their are four groups of nations.

the uber wealthy

lunuburg 55,000 pp us
norway 43,000
usa 41,500
ireland 40,500

this small group is growing at a average of around 4% which is not bad with the exspetion of the usa they have all played the samll countrie card well the usa ofcoruse was really the only develped nation to come out of ww2 still standing

the medcs
for exsample

japan 31,000
denmark 34,000
italy29,000
uk 31,000

these growing slowly around 3%

then you have the devlpoing tigers

nations such as

argentina 15,000
china 10,000
india 7,200

these nations are heavly in the world market and are the futer supper powers growing at rates for up to 11.2% for china,

then you have the real problem

countries such as
chad 600
nigeria

these nations are outside of the world market and contry to popular belive dont get exspolited by many mulinations becuase their is no much to gain in these lands

fred