The interests at play in baby milk debate

As Public Health minister Beth Mugo huddled with a group of mostly male MPs in a corner of the members’ lounge on Thursday afternoon, the most audible words she uttered were: “Do you have children?”

The order of business in Parliament is such that MPs first deal with a host of questions, many of them personal concerns and mundane, before settling down to lawmaking.

It was the reason Mrs Mugo had brought the MPs together to appeal to their parental instincts as she lobbied support for the Breast Milk Substitutes (Regulation and Control) Bill.

Long time coming

The Bill had been a long time coming, according to Mrs Mugo. Despite having been drawn up more than 10 years ago, she said, the companies that manufacture breast milk substitutes had ensured the Bill it never made the journey to Parliament.

At one time, a prepared draft of the law disappeared from the office of the Attorney-General, she revealed.

When it was introduced in Parliament, however, there was no sign that anybody other than those in government was interested in it.

And there was little interest at the Second Reading — the stage at which MPs discuss the changes they think should be made to the Bill to make it better.

Mrs Mugo and Transport minister Amos Kimunya were mover and seconder of the Bill, respectively, and contributors praised it as timely and necessary.

This, however, changed last Wednesday when it was introduced for the Third Reading — the stage at which amendments are introduced and voted on.

Commercial interests played out strongly even as Mrs Mugo and a select number of MPs made a case for the promotion of breastfeeding. (READ: Group opposes new health regulation)

On the floor of the House, MPs Charles Keter, Charles Kilonzo, Aden Duale, Fred Outa and Isaac Ruto said procedure had not been followed in introducing amendments to the Bill.

They convinced Mr Philip Kaloki, who was chairing the committee of the House, to postpone the Third Reading to Thursday.

Gichugu MP Martha Karua said she could see the motive behind the filibustering. “We have a duty to protect our children. Commercial interests cannot override all other stakeholders,” she said.

“I know exactly what’s happening ... I want to appeal to members to think of that child who cannot be here to speak for themselves and, for a change, to put profits behind us and put the welfare of our children before us,” said Mrs Mugo.

On Thursday, only Mr Kilonzo and Mr Keter had the amendments spoken of on Wednesday.

The interest in this Bill began to be seen soon after it was introduced and handed over to the parliamentary Committee on Health for scrutiny. The committee invited views from the public and interested parties.

Manufacturers were up in arms over provisions seeking to prevent them from marketing their products to health workers, which saw committee chairman Dr Robert Monda caution stakeholders that there was a need to strike a delicate balance of interests. (READ: Firms barred from advertising baby milk)

Industry players

In the deliberations before the committee, industry players argued that infant formulas are an important and internationally traded commodity.

They said restrictions on marketing should be limited to direct contact with mothers. “Ethical interaction with healthcare professionals to create awareness should not be restricted,” they argued.

Through the Kenya Association of Manufacturers, arguments were made against a provision that health workers be banned from accepting complementary products, scholarships, fellowships, research grants, funding for meetings, conferences or seminars from a manufacturer or a distributor.

It was argued that prohibiting these would limit the capacity of healthcare professionals to increase their knowledge and skills.

However, proponents of the amendment said that allowing this to happen would be tantamount to opening the door to influence from manufacturers.