Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
The Milk Code History
Transcript of The Milk Code History
The International Code protects mothers and babies from unethical marketing practices and false health claims of milk companies that disempower mothers to breastfeed.
Anticipating possible sales decrease, milk companies introduced follow-up milk for toddlers.
The Milk Code institutionalized the International Code in the Philippines, stipulating sanctions for violations.
The World Health Assembly issued resolution 39.28 stating that follow-up milk is unnecessary, in the midst of widespread introduction of six months and above milk formula.
The National Demographic and Health Survey showed only 16.1% were exclusively breastfed and 13% were never breastfed.
RIRR intended to ensure successful implementation of the Milk Code and to restrict many marketing practices used to boost sales of other breastmilk substitutes and not only infant formula.
Milk companies filed a Temporary Restraining Order for the RIRR before the Supreme Court (SC).
The SC denied the petition for a TRO.
US Chamber of Commerce sent a pressure letter to Pres. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo which implied a possible “risk to reputation of the Philippines as a stable and viable destination for investment.”
Petitioners applied for a review of SC decision, to which SC reversed this decision granting the TRO and effectively preventing implementation of the RIRR.
The SC delivered final decision- it lifted the TRO against the RIRR and found only two out of 13 relevant provision null and void.
2011. Family Health Survey showed that while 92% children were ever breastfed, only 27% infants were exclusively breastfed.
The proposition dubbed Milk Monster Bill by Milk Code advocates from civil society intended to narrow down coverage of EO 51, seemingly resurrecting petitions by milk companies in 2006.
The consolidated bill was tabled and discused during the joint committee hearing of Health and Trade and Industry, but did not reach consensus among legislators, especially since other initial supporters of the amendment retracted their support when hearing arguments that the amendments would undermine breastfeeding.
Click to START