What You Don’t Know About the Codex Can Hurt You: How Trade Policy Trumps Global Health Governance in Infant and Young Child Nutrition

Russ, K.; Baker, Phillip; Byrd, M. Gentry; Kang, Manho; Siregar, Rizki Nauli; Zahid, Hammad; McCoy, David

doi:10.34172/ijhpm.2021.109

Cited by 16 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, evidence suggests that the scope of provisions and strength of Thailand's Act was significantly narrowed, due to corporate political activity during the policy formulation (28) , and external pressure from other member states in the WTO (29) .…”

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, GUMs are not covered by the Act, with the consequence that the restraints on marketing through cross-promotion intended by the WHO Code are still not enacted in Thai law. This has at least partially resulted from the interference of BMS companies in the legislation of the Act, at both national and international levels (28,29) . This study has some limitations.…”

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Act provisions follow the WHO Code because the WHO Code is intended as the minimum standard for national law. However, evidence suggests that the scope of provisions and strength of Thailand's Act was significantly narrowed due to corporate political activity during the policy formulation (28) and external pressure from other Member States in the WTO (29) .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Regulation of baby food marketing in Thailand: a NetCode analysis

Cetthakrikul

Kelly

Banwell

et al. 2022

Public Health Nutr.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To report on the prevalence of different types of breast-milk substitutes (BMS) marketing and the compliance of such marketing with the “Control of Marketing of Infant and Young Child Food Act 2017” (The Act) and the “International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (WHO Code)” in Thailand. Design: Cross-sectional quantitative study, guided by the WHO/UNICEF NetCode Periodic Assessment Protocol. Setting: Health facilities and retail outlets in Bangkok, Thai media. Participants and data sources: Mothers of 0-2-year-old children, health professionals, promotions at retail outlets and health facilities, product labels, marketing on television and the internet. Results: Marketing to mothers was highly prevalent, mostly from electronic or digital media, while BMS companies provided items to health professionals to distribute to mothers. Promotional materials in health facilities displayed company brands or logos. At retail outlets, most promotions were price-related. Around two-fifths of labels contained nutrition or health claims. Television marketing was growing-up-milk advertisements, while internet promotions were varied from price-related materials to product reviews. Most instances of non-compliant BMS marketing with the Act were advertisements to mothers, and most were infant formula. Most non-compliant BMS marketing with the WHO Code was mainly concerned growing-up milks, which are not covered by the Act and appeared in the media. Conclusions: BMS marketing does not fully comply with the Act or the WHO Code. The Thai government should conduct regular monitoring and enforcement activities, educate health professionals, and strengthen the Act’s provisions on the media and growing-up milk to fully align with the WHO Code.

show abstract

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Regulation of baby food marketing in Thailand: a NetCode analysis

Cetthakrikul

Kelly

Banwell

et al. 2022

Public Health Nutr.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…27 In order to safeguard regulatory space for governments within the global trade regime, Russ et al call for substantially expanding the participation of government health agencies and civil society organizations in the CAC. 89 A third approach, calls for radical change, involving new social, economic and political food systems structures and relations of power. Rose puts forward how practices of food systems decommodification and commoning, under the organizing political principle of 'food as a commons, ' are expanding in many localities worldwide, offering a countervailing force to the capitalist-industrial food system model and the crises that it is generating.…”

Section: Forms Of Powermentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Understanding Power Within Food Systems and Challenges To Fo...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Political Economy of Healthy and Sustainable Food Systems: An Introduction to a Special Issue

Baker

Lacy-Nichols

Williams

et al. 2021

Int J Health Policy Manag

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Today’s food systems are contributing to multiple intersecting health and ecological crises. Many are now calling for transformative, or even radical, food systems change. Our starting assumption in this Special Issue is the broad claim that the transformative changes being called for in a global food system in crisis cannot – and ultimately will not – be achieved without intense scrutiny of and changes in the underlying political economies that drive today’s food systems. The aim is to draw from diverse disciplinary perspectives to critically evaluate the political economy of food systems, understand key challenges, and inform new thinking and action. We received 19 contributions covering a diversity of country contexts and perspectives, and revealing inter-connected challenges and opportunities for realising the transformation agenda. We find that a number of important changes in food governance and power relations have occurred in recent decades, with a displacement of power in four directions. First, upwards as globalization has given rise to more complex and globally integrated food systems governed increasingly by transnational food corporations (TFCs) and international financial actors. Second, downwards as urbanization and decentralization of authority in many countries gives cities and sub-national actors more prominence in food governance. Third, outwards with a greater role for corporate and civil society actors facilitated by an expansion of food industry power, and increasing preferences for market-orientated and multi-stakeholder forms of governance. Finally, power has also shifted inwards as markets have become increasingly concentrated through corporate strategies to gain market power within and across food supply chain segments. The transformation of food systems will ultimately require greater scrutiny of these challenges. Technical ‘problem-solving’ and overly-circumscribed policy approaches that depoliticise food systems challenges, are insufficient to generate the change we need, within the narrow time-frame we have. While there will be many paths to transformation, rights-based and commoning approaches hold great promise, based on principles of participation, accountability and non-discrimination, alongside coalition building and social mobilization, including social movements grounded in food sovereignty and agroecology.

show abstract