The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

U.S. threats nearly killed resolution on breastfeed­ing

- Andrew Jacobs ©2018 The New York Times

A resolution to encourage breast-feeding was expected to be approved quickly and easily by the hundreds of government delegates who gathered this spring in Geneva for the United Nations-affiliated World Health Assembly.

Based on decades of research, the resolution says that mother’s milk is healthiest for children and countries should strive to limit the inaccurate or misleading marketing of breast milk substitute­s.

Then the U.S. delegation, embracing the interests of infant formula manufactur­ers, upended the deliberati­ons.

American officials sought to water down the resolution by removing language that called on government­s to “protect, promote and support breast-feeding” and another passage that called on policymake­rs to restrict the promotion of food products that many experts say can have deleteriou­s effects on young children.

When that failed, they turned to threats, according to diplomats and government officials who took part in the discussion­s. Ecuador, which had planned to introduce the measure, was the first to find itself in the cross hairs.

The Americans were blunt: If Ecuador refused to drop the resolution, Washington would unleash punishing trade measures and withdraw crucial military aid. The Ecuadorean government quickly acquiesced.

The showdown over the issue was recounted by more than a dozen participan­ts from several countries, many of whom requested anonymity because they feared retaliatio­n from the United States.

Health advocates scrambled to find another sponsor for the resolution, but at least a dozen countries, most of them poor nations in Africa and Latin America, backed off, citing fears of retaliatio­n, according to officials from Uruguay, Mexico and the United States.

“We were astonished, appalled and also saddened,” said Patti Rundall, policy director of the British advocacy group Baby Milk Action, who has attended meetings of the assembly, the decision-making body of the World Health Organizati­on, since the late 1980s.

In the end, the Americans’ efforts were mostly unsuccessf­ul. It was the Russians who ultimately stepped in to introduce the measure — and the Americans did not threaten them.

The State Department declined to respond to questions, saying it could not discuss private diplomatic conversati­ons. The Department of Health and Human Services, the lead agency in the effort to modify the resolution, explained the decision to contest the resolution’s wording but said HHS was not involved in threatenin­g Ecuador.

“The resolution as originally drafted placed unnecessar­y hurdles for mothers seeking to provide nutrition to their children,” an HHS spokesman said in an email. “We recognize not all women are able to breastfeed for a variety of reasons. These women should have the choice and access to alternativ­es for the health of their babies, and not be stigmatize­d for the ways in which they are able to do so.” The spokesman asked to remain anonymous in order to speak more freely.

Although lobbyists from the baby food industry attended the meetings in Geneva, health advocates said they saw no direct evidence that they played a role in Washington’s strong-arm tactics. The $70 billion industry, which is dominated by a handful of U.S. and European companies, has seen sales flatten in wealthy countries in recent years, as more women embrace breast-feeding. Overall, global sales are expected to rise by 4 percent in 2018, according to Euromonito­r, with most of that growth occurring in developing nations.

During the deliberati­ons, some American delegates even suggested the United States might cut its contributi­on to the WHO, several negotiator­s said. Washington is the single largest contributo­r to the health organizati­on, providing $845 million, or roughly 15 percent of its budget, last year.

A Russian delegate said the decision to introduce the breast-feeding resolution was a matter of principle.

“We’re not trying to be a hero here, but we feel that it is wrong when a big country tries to push around some very small countries, especially on an issue that is really important for the rest of the world,” said the delegate, who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

He said the United States did not directly pressure Moscow to back away from the measure.

Neverthele­ss, the U.S. delegation sought to wear down the other participan­ts through procedural maneuvers in a series of meetings that stretched on for two days, an unexpected­ly long period.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States