Should the Government Partner with Baby Food Companies? Irma Hidayana Published at The Jakarta Post, Dec 26th, 2013 Two years ago (on December 22nd, to be exact), the government of Indonesia

officially joined the global movement Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN). The initiative

aims to eliminate stunting in babies and infants, which is running at a high rate of

36% among children under five years of age in Indonesia. By joining SUN, the

government committed to addressing chronic and acute malnutrition, anemia, low-

birth weight and obesity problems affecting the first 1,000 days of a child’s life. A

feature of the SUN initiative is its focus on government partnership with the private

sector. Although a set of principles to engage with the private sector is in place, we

need to ask; what are the main considerations when talking private partnership –

especially with the baby food company- in matters of child nutrition?

I have isolated four key considerations, the overall conclusion being that extreme

caution should be taken:

First, potential risks. Private sector contributions can be both beneficial and

harmful to health. What wee need to remember is that the private sector’s goal is to

gain profit, not to improve public health. There is a huge potential risk if the

government partners with baby food companies, mainly because they gain access and

influence in terms of policy making. The decision to continue to breastfeed or to

‘switch’ to manufactured product is of particular concern. Partnering with baby food

companies will enable the company to work closely with maternal and child health

workers and to influence policy making, including on matters relating to mothers’

decision in baby and infant feeding, which is against World Health Assembly Resolution 63.23

and Government Regulation No. 33/2012. The significant effects of ‘line extension’

marketing methods on mothers’ decision to use infant formula and toddler

complimentary feeding packages have been noted in a recent Australian study.

Second, the partnership with baby food companies in matters of baby and

infant feeding is contradictory in many ways to existing efforts to promote

breastfeeding practices. We know from many studies that breastfeeding is the single

most effective intervention to improve infant nutrition and prevent morbidity and

mortality from infection. Exclusive breastfeeding, the introduction to nutritious

homemade complementary foods and continuation of breastfeeding up to the age of

two years should be promoted instead of opening the door to what are essentially less

nutritious, more expensive alternatives.

Third, it is likely ineffective. The notion of program intervention in public

health should not be harm anyone and should be beneficial for people. It is likely that

partnership with baby food companies provide benefits in certain matters related to

nutrition program. For example, fortification foods with micronutrients technologies

that have been acknowledged by some reputable institutions such as the International

Business Leaders Forum at Harvard University may give benefits in improving

nutrition knowledge and programs for Indonesia. Another benefit is that the

opportunity to create job employments through the production of fortified foods.

Although these two benefits will likely to have valuable advantages in the country,

they will not directly address malnutrition problems. Since the SUN’s program is

aimed to eliminate stunting cases, the primary intervention should be focused on

improving infant and young child feeding. Benefits to the private sector should not

obscure the SUN initiative’s core objective.

Fourth, by partnering with the baby food company, it seems reducing the

government’s cost to ending malnutrition. But, there are several issues that we must

consider. Although the central government has allocated USD 70 million per year to

the SUN program, and provincial governments have also allocated resources, it is

insufficient to cover a comprehensive program. The reach of health workers is also

limited, which some argue could be extended by effective private sector support.

Private sector partnership will help the government to fill in the funding and resource

gaps. However, the cost to cover the drawback is even bigger. Importantly, the

engagement of the baby food company represents a direct threat to the future

production of local nutritious foods in Indonesia, which already makes a significant

contribution to our health, our communities, and our ecosystems. If the local food will

no longer sustain, families will definitely need to spend more money to buy baby food

products from the market. Thus, there is no cost effective impact in the long-term

effect of the program. The fact that this contribution is largely ‘hidden’ in our health

statistics and is not accounted for in ‘dollar terms’ should not disguise the fact that

local wisdom and local food production are intrinsic to the health of our economy and

societies. Indonesia is an agriculture country, where 60% of the land is involved in

agricultural production.

As such, the decision to develop public-private partnerships in matters of baby

and infant nutrition needs to be carefully considered. We know from experience and

numerous studies that breastfeeding is the best option for young children and that

developing our traditional wisdom in nutrition is empowering for communities and

local economies. Thus, in commemorating the second year of Indonesia’s

involvement in the SUN movement, I urge the government to not partner with baby

food companies.

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/12/26/should-government-partner-with-baby-food-companies.html