Healthy Skepticism Library item: 5958
Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.
Publication type: news
Requejo R.
Ad ban on milk substitutes frozen
Manila Standard Today 2006 Aug 17
http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=politics02_aug17_2006
Full text:
Ad ban on milk substitutes frozen
The Supreme Court has restrained the Department of Health from enforcing the revised implementing rules and regulations of Executive Order 51, otherwise known as the Milk Code. The IRR, among others, bans the promotion and advertising of breast milk substitutes, according to a healthcare group.
In a two-page resolution, the high court en banc issued a temporary restraining order enjoining Health officials from implementing the RIRR of EO 51, which is a reversal of its July 11 resolution denying the appeal of the Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines for the TRO or preliminary injunction.
“Effective immediately and continuing until further orders from this Court, you, respondents Health Secretary Francisco Duque III, Health Undersecretaries Dr. Ethelyn Nieto, Dr. Margarita Galon, lawyer Alexander Padilla and Dr. Jade del Mundon, and Assistant Secretaries Dr. Mario Villaverde, Dr. David Lozada and Dr. Nemesio Gako, your agents, representatives or persons acting in your place or stead, are hereby enjoined from implementing the questioned Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Milk Code,” the Court resolution said.
The tribunal also directed the petitioner PHAP to post a bond in the amount of P500,000 within five days or the TRO will be automatically lifted.
PHAP is composed of the providers of medicine, medical and other laboratory equipment such as Abbot Laboratories, Wyeth Philippines, Mead Johnson, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Bayer Philippines, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Mercury Drug Corp. and other broad-based healthcare companies which produce and/or distribute pharmaceutical, medical and nutritional products.
PHAP argued that the RIRR went beyond the provisions of the Milk Code, which in effect, amended the Executive Order 51, that came into force on July 7.
The petitioners said such amendment is unconstitutional since the only way the law can be amended is through legislation.
The enforcement of the RIRR will “unavoidably affect the investment and expansion plans” of key milk manufacturers in the country as they may opt to cut down their current productions due to these new restrictions, the pharmaceutical group said.
“As a result thereof, the milk industry may be forced to curtail the employment of highly skilled medical representatives who contribute to providing accurate, useful and scientific information pertaining to formula milk, and other personnel of the various milk manufacturers,” the petitioners said.
PHAP asserted that the RIRR is unconstitutional as “it impairs the right of the people of access to information, and even encroaches upon the legitimate and lawful exercise by citizens of their property rights, thereby unreasonably interfering with lawful business without due process of law.”
The petitioners said the IRR illegally provides that “exclusive breastfeeding is for infants from zero to six months old.” It imposes that “there is neither substitute nor replacement for breast milk.”
The PHAP also complained that Section 4 (f) of the RIRR imposes absolute ban on advertising, promotions or sponsorships of breast milk substitutes while Section 11 “alarmingly broadens the coverage of said ban by extending the same on advertising, promotion, sponsorships, or marketing materials and activities for breast milk substitutes intended for infants and young children from zero to 24 months or beyond.”
“These prohibitions are not found in the Milk Code and are therefore patently beyond the provisions of the same,” the petitioners argued.
The PHAP explained that the Milk Code explicitly limits its coverage only to infants or persons falling within the age bracket of zero to 12 months and recognizes the fact that infant formula may be a proper and possible substitute for breast milk in certain instances.
The petitioner said EO 51 only regulates advertising and promotion activities and materials, and furthermore limits such regulation to breast milk substitutes intended for infants or babies zero to 12 months old and not imposes an absolute ban on advertising.
Besides, the RIRR is unconstitutional as it imposes on violators a fine ranging from P10,000 to P1 million, PHAP stressed. Rey E. Requejo
