Please click here to view INFACT's Newsletter Table of Contents.

 

The Gerber Baby--Trademark or Con Artist? Breastfeeding logo


What Gerber refused to do:

 

Gerber vs Guatemala

dealizing its infant feeding products has been a trademark of Gerber since it first introduced its baby foods in 1928. In order to create an image of allure, charisma and trust for its products, it fathered the "Gerber Baby" face to launch its first advertising campaign. The rest is history and the now famous face continues to seduce new parents to a product not in the least worthy of the irresistible expression. Exploitation by image is hardly a new concept; however, when this impacts negatively on the nutritional well-being of infants, those responsible for health care have an obligation to respond. In its historic International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes, the World Health Organization recognized the potential for harm when it structured its labelling requirements for breast milk substitutes.

neither the container nor the label should have pictures of infants, nor should they have other pictures or text which may idealize the use of infant formula.

Guatemala, a tiny Central American country with a long history of US government interventions, is again in direct firing line. This time the Guatemalan Law on the Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes Decree 66-83 and the Government Agreement NO 841-87 are at stake. Since 1983 the Guatemalan law regulating information on infant feeding and the marketing of infant feeding products has been in place. Recognizing the International Code to be a minimum standard, the Decree is more comprehensive than the International Code. Of interest is the directive's inclusion of the following:

The Ministry of Public Health is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the public receives information on the feeding of children for their first two years of life. All information must state that breast milk is the best food for children under two years; none may have photos or other representations of children under two years; and none may show images of health professionals or symbols that suggest that products within the scope are recommended by health authorities.

When in 1992 Gerber applied to have its new "step by step" products introduced into the Guatemalan market, it was requested by the Food and Drug Registration and Control Division to comply with the Guatemalan labelling laws.

Gerber violations chart

All requests were legitimate under the national marketing standard. These labelling requests were supported by the National Breastfeeding Promotion Committee (CONAPLAM). Gerber, in spite of the standard stalled and asked for an injunction against the labelling requirements, claiming that its products were not covered by the marketing law and refused to make the labelling changes. After further consultations with Gerber, the Ministry of Health, CONAPLAM and Food Regulation officials, the Prosecutor General declared the Gerber request for an injunction unacceptable. Guatemala's Food Regulation and Control continued its resolve for acceptable labelling. Gerber continued to stonewall, and after unsuccessful attempts to "fund" the activities of CONAPLAM, brought in the US State Department. Guatemala was threatened with withdrawal of Most Favoured Nation trading status for violating "trademark" agreements.

In the end Guatemala's Supreme Court of Justice decided in favour of the Gerber Company. The court decided that the Guatemalan law only applied to locally produced complementary foods. Gerber imports its products!

Under the rules of trade agreements such as the World Trade Organization countries retain autonomy to regulate health and consumer standards. Yet even these rules will give way to bully tactics when large global corporations with compliant governments use their economic and political power to undo regulations that exist to protect the health of the most vulnerable of citizens. Even the Canadian government under the NAFTA agreement refuses to implement regulations protecting infant and young child nutrition by not demanding International Code compliance by the infant food industry.

Gerber continues to blatantly violate most articles of the Guatemalan infant food marketing decree (See chart above).

 


Top | Winter 96 Contents