IMS Act: “Justice delayed Justice Denied” Dr. Arun Gupta

Rohtak

17 April. 2011

History

• The world recognizes that commercial promotion undermines breastfeeding

• 1981 : World Health Assembly adopts International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes

India enacted a Law in 1992

• 1992:Bill 41 of 1992 was enacted

“Infant Milk Substitutes, Feeding Bottles and Infant Foods (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 1992’(IMS Act)

• It was strengthened by an amendment in 2003

• Cable TV networks Act in 2000 banned all TV ads

• All Parties supported it.

• ACASH and BPNI gazetted as NGOs

1994: Nestle promotes Cerelac for use during 4th month of life

Here is bold and underlined statement from this advert to use Cerelac during 4th month

1994 : Nestle did wrong labels

• Used ‘Breastmilk’ instead of ‘mothers milk.

• Did not use Hindi in labels of its infant milk substitute ‘Lactogen’

• Incorrect label on ‘Cerelac’

Complaint filed against Nestle

• October 1994 : complaint filed in MM court Delhi on behalf of AASH, by authorised Representative Dr Arun Gupta.

Cognizance taken in 1995

• Feb 1995 : cognizance taken by the Hon Judge, “ ….(4) On perusal of the record and testimony of CW 1 it is clear that there are sufficient matter on the record to summon the accused persons for the violation of section 6(1)(a), 6(1(c) of the Act read with the rule 6 and 7 punishable u/s.20(2) of the Act. ….”

Nestle filed a Writ Petition in HC

• To challenge the constitutional validity of the IMS Act.

• 2004: Asked another prayer to quash the lower court case filed by Arun Gupta on behalf of ACASH.

• 2011: Order reserved

Delaying tactics begin

• 1996-97 : Did not appear in Court

• Then I was asked by the Judge to file application under section 311

• Nestle used this for almost a decade not to allow discussion on this .

• Time and again Nestle would say they have pending case in HC

• 1998 Justice Lahoti gave a judgment in HC that lower court case to proceed.

Delay continues

• 2001: It took many years to revert and order was passed to proceed the matter.

• 2002: Nestle filed a revision petition in Sessions Court, and was dismissed.

• 2003: Case property goes missing

• Enquiry revealed nothing and clerk was dismissed.

Delay continues

• Court shifts from Tis Hazari to Rohini

• Three time Judges have changed

• Argument to charge is going on

• 16 July 2011 next hearing on framing the charge.

2011 : still waiting

• For Justice

• Nestle in the high court : Added another prayer asking to quash the proceeding s between 1994 -1997 saying they are confused between two legislations IMS Act and PFA

• In the lower court they are fighting on lost property and saying that adverts may have been given by some one else to tarnish their image

Success of our campaign: Curbed promotion

• It has been effective in curbing the promotional activities of baby food companies in the health care system, directly to public through print and other media.

• Here are some of the earlier promos:

Promotion of baby foods at 4 months

• Infacare

Association with Misinformation

‘Meri Saheli’ a Hindi Magazine, a leading Gynecologist of Mumbai recommends that other foods should start at 3 months and all that surrounded by “Nestle Cerelac”

Heinz’s “Farex”’ promoted defying the law

What do you see the best in this picture? And what is second best?

New Cerelac with false health claims

Inducement to doctors continue even today

2005 Nestle continues to BREAK the law !

Global Trends in Preterm Nutrition, Amravatiorg by Nestle Nutrition Institute 13 March 2011

Dexolac Pamphlet

Infant foods sale at http://www.hushbabies.com

Sponsoring health meetings

Funding research in KEM Pune

Baby Food Companies Undermining Breastfeeding

Nestle Nutrition Institute Conference organized at  Lucknow on 12.03.2011

Ranch 14 April 2011

Waiting for justice !

• Mothers and Children of India !