Hamilton and Whinnett's (1987) comparison of the WHO and UK codes for the marketing of breastmilk substitutes is very informative in its contrasting of quasi-governmental (WHO) and industry (Food Manufacturers Federation) approaches to code development. Their methodology of surveying an array of interested parties --companies, government agencies, health professionals, nursing mothers, and chemists --is also very valuable.
Still, I am dissatisfied with the interpretations given to their comparison, and with the lack of readily available complementary interpretations. The net result, I believe, is to present industry selfregulation as a very weak mode of social control in the matter of consumer policy. I realize that there is no unanimity about the benefits of industry self-regulation, and that responsible researchers can sometimes conclude that the same bottle is half-full or halfempty, on the basis of the same evidence. For Hamilton and Whinnett, however, the bottle is near empty --a guilty verdict which, in my opinion, remains unproven. I will limit myself to some observations based primarily on my extensive studies of advertising selfregulation in a score of countries, including the United Kingdom.
- Regarding the infant-formula controversy that resulted in the 1981 WHO International Code of Marketing for Breastmilk Substitutes, I think it unfair to imply that industry had an equal voice in its drafting, or to say that it was the result of a "consensus" (p. 168). Yes, pharmaceutical associations and firms lobbied extensively at the national and international levels but they had no votes at the World Health Assembly meeting that approved the Code --only governments are members of the WHO. To quote Chetley to the effect that "Does one invite bacteria to a conference on infections?" (p. 169) is surely a gratuitous insult to the industry, although not necessarily intended as such.