WHO’s Infantile Preoccupation with Baby Formula

The human race is facing serious health challenges from HIV/AIDS, bird flu, SARS, and drug-defeating super bacteria to name only a few. So what will the World Health Organization (WHO) debate in two weeks at its annual assembly? A resolution attacking the use of baby formula, of course.

Surprised? Don’t be. The WHO is a United Nations entity, so frittering away time, energy and resources addressing a less-than-critical issue is in its nature. And the WHO has been on an anti-formula crusade for more than two decades.

The WHO originally waded into to the formula issue in the mid-1970s because of concerns over high infant mortality rates in developing countries. The organization has been on its anti-formula crusade ever since.

In mid-May, the WHO is set to consider a resolution that would codify a broad set of restrictions on baby formula marketing. Included in the proposal is a requirement that cans of formula carry tobacco-like warning labels designed to alert purchasers to the “dangers” of using formula.

Unsurprisingly, the resolution ignores obvious problems with the anti-formula policy.

For instance, the WHO specifically recommends that HIV-positive mothers reject formula in favor of breast feeding even though, as the organization admits, one in five babies breastfed by HIV-positive mothers will acquire the deadly disease. This policy is particularly disturbing in light of the evidence showing that, while infant mortality in the developing world declined through the 1980s, it is once again on the rise. And experts attribute this reversal to the increasing number of infant deaths caused by HIV/AIDS, particular in Africa where as much as 50 percent of the population is infected with the deadly virus.

That sad finding calls the WHO’s entire anti-formula philosophy into question. Remember, the WHO first began its effort to eradicate formula for the purpose of reducing infant mortality. Now, the WHO’s own policy could contribute to more infant deaths.

The zealous rejection of formula also threatens to set back women’s efforts to enter the workforce in developing nations. In the U.S. and Europe, the availability of formula and its responsible use allowed women more freedom to take and keep jobs outside the home. It’s hard to understand why the WHO wouldn’t want women in developing nations to experience the same benefit. Keeping women tied to the home in these countries also makes it harder for them to achieve equality and enjoy freedom. It also holds back development and economic growth in those nations as bright, motivated and talented workers are forced to stay home.

In addition, the WHO’s attack on formula discourages adoption by sending the message to potential adoptive mothers that their efforts to feed their babies will be inadequate and, perhaps, even dangerous. Thus, the anti-formula effort threatens millions of orphans. Indeed, the WHO’s disturbing predisposition against formula exhibited itself after the recent south Asian tsunami when WHO field personnel reportedly left to rot on the docks thousands of cases of donated formula meant for tsunami orphans.

To be sure, breast feeding’s superiority to formula feeding is undisputed. And there are important concerns about mothers in developing nations mixing formula with contaminated water or over-diluting it so that the relatively expensive product will last longer. But formula has also been shown to be a safe and nutritious alternative.

The WHO’s anti-formula policy is wrongheaded and irresponsible. It represents a broad attack on women in both developing and developed nations and tragically chooses the wrong side on a critical health policy question, putting babies’ lives at risk.

During the nearly three decades that the WHO has pursued its crusade, the U.S. government has been a key obstacle to the organization’s wackier proposals. Unfortunately, there’s reason to think that the U.S. representatives might sit on the sidelines at the upcoming assembly and allow the proposed resolution to be approved. That would be a tragic mistake.

U.S. taxpayers, who pay 25 percent of the WHO’s annual budget, ought to make sure our government and the organization hear our opposition. Maybe then, common sense could prevail and the WHO could be forced to moderate its position.