|
作者：傑奇‧艾倫‧朱利安諾 博士
嬰兒奶粉
殷殷期盼寶寶到來的父母，正是資金豐厚的財團促銷活動中的受害者。很多奶粉公司對發展中國家採取了侵略式的行銷策略，因此，很多運動人士呼籲要杯葛這些奶粉公司的其他產品，他們指稱：這些奶粉公司到貧窮地區的地方醫院提供免費奶粉，意圖先讓母親們減少哺育母乳，等到那一期的奶粉供應完了，母親們回到醫院再度索取時，卻發現奶粉已經不再免費供應，但因為她們的母乳已經乾涸，她們除了花錢購買奶粉之外，實在沒有其他選擇。
為了讓這些奶粉能用得久些，這些貧窮的媽媽們只好用水稀釋奶粉的濃度，因此減少了奶粉的營養價值。同時，她們用的水通常也是受到污染的；因此在這些嬰兒奶粉公司大舉前進這些國家之後，嬰兒死亡率就急遽上升。
哺乳行動世界聯盟（The World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action, WABA） 認為：被哺育母乳是每個孩童應有的的權利。（照片提供
WABA）
世界衛生組織指出，每年有超過150萬名的嬰兒，因為缺乏母乳的哺育而死亡。在美國，每1千名嬰兒中，就有4名是因未被哺育母乳而死亡；而水污染在美國也是常見的問題，竟然也有很多人直接使用自來水去沖泡奶粉。
嬰兒奶粉公司很快就指出，上述案例並不表示這些嬰兒的死亡是由嬰兒奶粉所導致，但是，這兩者間的關聯性也無需數據來加以證明。根據世界衛生組織和聯合國國際兒童教育基金，在1981年建立的「母乳替代品國際行銷法規」，該法規建議母乳替代品都不應該做廣告，同時也應禁止提供免費的樣品給媽媽們，更不應該讓這些產品透過全球的醫療保健機構進行推廣。
「公關觀察」報導，這些奶粉公司對於上述情況的公開回應，都是交由大型公關公司來處理，而其中一家公關公司甚至發展出如何應付教會與其他反對團體的全套辦法。「公關觀察」指出，「一家大型公關公司利用這些資訊，在聯盟中玩弄分化的伎倆，試圖讓這些組織彼此對立，它用策略性的、最低限度的『改革』方案來動搖『溫和』派，進而使他們自動放棄抵制活動。」
在美國的父母親們是無法抵擋這樣的行銷手法的。就以我個人的經驗來說，在我妻子懷孕期間的第39週，我們前往婦產科醫生那裡進行產前檢查。醫院發給我們一個塑膠尿布袋，袋子上印有一個叫「哺育母乳說明袋」的標籤；但在那標籤的上面，卻清楚地印有此袋是由嬰兒奶粉公司所提供。在袋子裏，除了有一組奶瓶，一個保持低溫的袋子，還有一本叫「餵母乳媽媽指南」的小冊子。並且在袋中還有一大疊優待卷和小冊子，一罐免費的牛奶和全部嬰兒奶粉產品的廣告。我們的婦產科醫生其實是好意，他相信每隔一段時間給小孩餵食嬰兒奶粉是無傷大雅的，他也認為在銷售量前五名的幾種奶粉當中，這個品牌是最好的。
由於很多藥房業者接受了「賣得最好的產品，就是最具營養的產品」這種謬論，公關公司現在真是樂不可支，因為他們就是在賣這種「最好賣」的產品呢。
警告標語－不安全（有毒的）的飲水（照片提供 美國環保署）
對很多公關公司來說，這種行銷方法是一種標準策略，好為不同的財團客戶抵銷掉環保人士抗爭的影響。1994年，紐約一家大型公關公司向「氯物質化學委員會」遞交的一份報告，被人洩漏給一位綠色和平人士，再轉交給「公關觀察」。該報告中提出了若干指導方針，教導大家如何處理外界對於戴奧辛的指控。戴奧辛會造成癌症已經是鐵證如山，而這個物質又是製造氯時必然會產生的副產品。
在一篇名為「避免醫療機構加入反氯運動」的文章中，公關公司向業界建議：辦一場著名內科醫師的座談會，請他們審查有關氯的資料，發表有關氯否危害健康的意見，以及氯在藥物學與醫療器具之利用上作為一種關鍵性化學物質。再者，鼓勵這些醫師們在「美國醫療協會期刊」上評論同僚的文章，藉此突顯氯在疾病治療過程中的重要性。或者，透過仔細設計的會議，讓藥界業者代表與針對特別病症有研究的組織聚在一起討論，說服後者去相信，這些特別病症（如關節炎、纖維化囊腫等等）的治療有可能透過化學物「氯」來達成，並要求他們通過支持使那些用化學物「氯」的治療法，再進一步傳遞這些療法給醫療界。
曾遭到公關公司花費數百萬美元去加以扭曲的環境與環境衛生議題，可說是不勝枚舉。業界告訴我們應該要帶小孩去打疫苗，而我們自己也該做預防注射；但是，很多疫苗為了長期保存，通常都含有汞，結果是讓小孩體內所含的汞，比環保署所容許的成人體內含量還要高。
當市府官員發誓說自來水是安全的，很多獨立研究室的實驗報告卻已指出，自來水含有幾百種化學物質和重金屬。同時，許多電視節目教導民眾去修繕房舍，結果使數百萬人接觸到了有毒的物質，其中也包括木屑，這種物質最近才被國家環境衛生科學學院列入「致癌物質報告」中。
我們必須非常謹慎地做抉擇，我們究竟該相信什麼。身體的直覺反應就是最好的指標，如果你覺得自己被告知的資訊不大對勁，無論是誰告訴你的，它也許真的是不對勁。
參考資料
1.公關公司有關戴奧辛的報告；它被洩露給綠色和平組織，並登在「公關觀察」的網站
http://www.prwatch.org/
prwissues/1996Q2/women.html.
2.在「如何成為好母親」雜誌上，一篇有關嬰兒奶粉行銷的特別報導：http://www.mothering.com/Special
Articles/Issue101/formulaprofit.htm
3.看看國際嬰兒食品製造商協會的網站： http://www.babymilk.com/navfrma.html
謹記：他們的目的是不計任何代價地銷售嬰兒奶粉。
4.看看那些公關公司是如何從環境組織中收集資料，來發展他們的反環境運動：
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/
1996Q2/bart.html
5.參閱這份對公關公司員工的調查報告，他們自始至終都不承認他們是在說謊：
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/
2000Q2/liars.html
6.關於疫苗中含汞的報導： http://www.mothering.com/Special
Articles/Issue105/mercury105.htm
7.和「企業監察」一起密切注意產業的活動：
http://www.corpwatch.org/.
8.專案學習樹和美國森林基金會： http://www.plt.org/html/about_plt/about_
index.html ； http://www.affoundation.org/.
傑奇‧艾倫‧朱利安諾 博士是一位西雅圖的作家和教師。他目前正在西雅圖的新家中，等待著他新寶寶的誕生，並尋找著可以信任的人。請把你的想法，評論和願景寫到以下信箱給他：jackie@healingourworld.com
並參觀他的網站： http://www.healingourworld.com
【文章連載】
■販賣環境的毀滅和疾病 (上) (下)
全文與圖片詳見：http://ens-news.com/ens/may2001/2001L-05-04g.html
版權歸屬Environment News Service(ENS)，環境資訊協會(林修誼 譯，陳潁峰、蔡麗伶 審校)
中英對照全文：http://e-info.org.tw/issue/surround/2001/is-surround01112901.htm
|
|
By Jackie Alan Giuliano, Ph.D.
Infant Formula
Expectant parents are the victims of well funded marketing campaigns by the makers of infant formula. Many infant formula companies aggressively market their goods in developing countries. Many activists boycott other products of the formula companies, charging that these companies provide free formula to local hospitals in poor areas, promoting its ease of use over breastmilk. When mothers return to the hospital for more formula after they are discharged, it is no longer free, but since their breast milk is now dried up, they have no choice but to buy it.
To make the product stretch, poor mothers will often dilute the formula with water, reducing its nutritional value. The water they use is often contaminated. Infant death rates have skyrocketed in these countries since the infant formula makers moved in.
Breastfeeding is the right of every child says the World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action (WABA) (Photo courtesy
WABA)
The World Health Organization says that over 1.5 million babies die each year from lack of breastfeeding. In the United States, four of every 1,000 infants die because they are not breastfed. Polluted water is common in the U.S. as well, and many people use tap water to mix their babies' formula.
The infant formula industry is quick to point out that this does not mean that the deaths were because of infant formula use, but it doesn't take a statistician to figure out the connection. The International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, created by the World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations International Children's Education Fund (UNICEF) in 1981, recommends that there be no advertising of breastmilk substitutes, no free samples of breastmilk substitutes to mothers, and no promotion of products through healthcare facilities anywhere in the world.
PR Watch reports that major public relations firms managed the response of such companies and one firm developed dossiers on the churches and other groups leading the boycott coalition. PR Watch says, "One major company used this information to play on divisions and rivalries within the coalition, using strategic, minimal 'reforms' to talk wavering 'moderates' into abandoning the boycott."
Parents in the United States are not immune to this kind of marketing, as I found out by personal experience. My wife is 39 weeks pregnant. This week, during a prenatal visit to our obstetrician we were handed a plastic diaper bag. On the bag was a label that read "Breastfeeding Instruction Bag." But the top of the label made it clear that an infant formula company provided the bag. Inside the bag, along with a set of baby bottles and a bag to keep them cold, was booklet entitled "Guide for the Breastfeeding Mother." Also in the bag was a huge stack of coupons and brochures and a free can of infant formula and advertisements for the entire line of formula products. Our doctor had the best of intentions. His belief is that it was OK to give the baby a bottle of formula every once in a while and that of the top five best selling formulas, he thought this was the best.
The PR firms would be very pleased, since many health practitioners buy into the fallacy that the best selling products are the best nutritionally. They are simply the best marketed products.
Warning sign (Photo courtesy U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)
This strategy is a standard approach for many PR firms to neutralize activist groups on behalf of a variety of corporate clients. In a 1994 report by a major New York PR firm, leaked to a Greenpeace activist and passed on to PR Watch, a strategy was presented to the Chlorine Chemistry Council. The report advised them about how to cope with the mounting evidence against dioxin, a chemical byproduct of chlorine production that has since been shown to cause cancer.
Under a section titled "Prevent Medical Associations from Joining Anti-Chlorine Movement," the document advised industry to, "Create a panel of eminent physicians and invite them to review data regarding chlorine as a health risk and as a key chemical in pharmaceuticals and medical devices. ... Stimulate peer-reviewed articles for publication in the JAMA [Journal of the American Medical Association] on the role of chlorine chemistry in treating disease. ... Convince through carefully crafted meetings of [pharmaceuticals] industry representatives with organizations devoted to specific illnesses, e.g., arthritis, cystic fibrosis, etc., that the cure for their specific disease may well come through chlorine chemistry and ask them to pass resolutions endorsing chlorine chemistry and communicate their resolutions to medical societies."
The list is endless of the environment and environmental health issues that are manipulated by multimillion dollar PR campaigns. We are told to vaccinate our children, and ourselves, yet many vaccinations contain a mercury based preservative that produces higher levels of mercury in children than the EPA allows in adults.
City officials swear that tap water is safe, while independent lab tests usually show hundreds of chemicals and heavy metals present. Home improvement television programs are putting millions of people in contact with hazardous substances, including wood dust, which has recently been listed in the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences "Report on Carcinogens."
We must be very selective in deciding where to place our trust. Our gut reaction may be the best guide. If something you are told doesn't feel right, it may not be, no matter who is telling you.
RESOURCES
1. See the PR firm report on dioxin that was leaked to Greenpeace at PR Watch at:
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/
1996Q2/women.html.
2. Read the special report on the marketing of infant formula by Mothering Magazine at:
http://www.mothering.com/Special
Articles/Issue101/formulaprofit.htm.
3. Check out the website of the International Association of Infant Food Manufacturers at:
http://www.babymilk.com/navfrma.html. But be careful and remember their objective: to sell infant formula at all costs.
4. See how PR firms try to collect information on environmental organizations to develop their anti-environmental campaigns at:
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1996Q2/
bart.html.
5. Read about a survey of PR industry workers who won't admit that they lie at:
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/
2000Q2/liars.html.
6. Read about mercury in vaccinations at: http://www.mothering.com/Special
Articles/Issue105/mercury105.htm.
7. Follow the actions of industry with Corporate Watch at:
http://www.corpwatch.org/.
8. Read about Project Learning Tree and the American Forest Foundation at:
http://www.plt.org/html/about_plt/
about_index.html and at: http://www.affoundation.org/.
{Jackie Alan Giuliano, Ph.D. is a writer and teacher in Seattle. He can be found in his new home in Seattle, waiting for his new baby and looking around for someone to trust. Please send your thoughts, comments, and visions to him at
jackie@healingourworld.com and visit his web site at
http://www.healingourworld.com}
http://ens-news.com/ens/may2001/
2001L-05-04g.html
|
