Milking the breasts

I really hate to milk the issue but the controversy over government regulatory power over commercial interests in regard to the Milk Code does trigger paranoia over which of the sides enjoyed longer breast feeding during childhood. Don’t get me wrong. I have always been a great admirer of breasts and the nutritional value these have been proven to produce, though I am open to the possible criticism, especially from the likes of Peter Wallace, that I was deprived of the nutrients at the formative stages of my life.

Raul C. Pangalangan dealt with the fundamental legal issues in his column in Friday’s issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer (June 22). Perhaps I had enough of my mother’s milk to judge that his arguments were generally cogent. Since I am not a lawyer and since I generally hate lawyers, let me move on to the other important issues.

The infant formula companies say they are only protecting free speech rights and thus the right of citizens to information (oops, this I also parrot from Pangalangan’s version of the issue; however his is consistent with the version of Solita Monsod’s, in her column, also in the PDI, June 16.

First of all, let me say that the advertising that is sought to be banned or regulated benefits not only the cause of the advertisers but also the media of advertising. Which is why I do appreciate the efforts of the local media ( the PDI and ANC) to present a balanced picture.

As an example, yesterday I chanced upon the episode of Korina____(I don’t really know how the program is called; all I remember is that it goes by some title and teasers like ‘flavors of the month’ which makes you wonder if the program producers were breast-fed themselves; but I digress).

The first part of the program featured the side of government and non-government organizations promoting infant and mother health. The second part guested Wallace and the lawyer for the infant formula companies. The conlcuding portion presented a lawyer for the UNICEF. Fairly balanced except that there were questions of fact the producers could have resolved by themselves. Well, we can always blame that on lack of time of resources. But that is exactly the point. How do most of us get information? And how do we know which if the so-called claims are right? And we feel we get ‘information’ overloead, are we really equipped to evaluate conflicting claims?

Citizens elect governments partly to help them evaluate all sorts of claims they themselves have no time to validate because validating information, while useful, has benefits less than the cost of doing so. Which is why communities need to cooperate in regard to common problems.

Having worked on issues on energy and the environment for almost three decades, the issue at hand has consequences way beyond the issue of milk, which I milk for other ends.

I will write about these at a later date, but let me give you a preview. How do we address climate change? Is it a problem at all? Should we believe all that the ‘scientists’ and lawyers say? Now in another age of other stupendous claims on additives and biofuels, I believe the problem of information vetting persists. Doesn’t every claim somehow mask a ‘vested’ interest?

Way back during the time of martial law, one of the first edicts of the dictatorship was to ban claims about fuel additives, later to be proven to be mostly unfounded. The overthrow of the dictator brought us to another end of the extreme. Where are we now?