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, lowbirth weight and obesity problems affecting the first 1,000 days of a childs 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 sectors 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 SUNs 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 initiatives core objective.
Fourth, by partnering with the baby food company, it seems reducing the
governments 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 Indonesias
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-withbaby-food-companies.html