: Nutrition for Niger Plumpynut / Issues Bibliography Paper - Case Study Example

Nutrition for Niger- Plumpy’nut The rate at which children are dying of ailments related to malnutrition is quite stunning. According to Cooper (2007), studies show that the world loses approximately five million children due to malnutrition related diseases. Most of these children come from developing nations, especially the African continent where the rate of poverty is quite high. In Niger, 17 per cent of the children have malnutrition related ailments (Global Living, 2014). It was because of these issues that saw the emergence of Plumpy’nut, a product manufactured by Nurtiset (Nutrition for Niger, 2008).

Apart from analyzing the controversies associated with patenting of Nutiset’s product, the essay further talks of Plumpy’nut and its benefits to developing nations especially Niger. According to studies, one of the reasons as to why children die of malnutrition is because they do not have access to essential body nutrients such as vitamins and minerals in addition to milk (Nutriset, 2014). This is because most women have no food hence they usually lack breast milk, which usually plays a major role when it comes to child development.

Apart from being unable to produce breast milk, most mothers also cannot afford the price of milk; hence, they mostly rely on donations. Although most mothers rely on milk donations, most of it usually ends up being spoilt, this is because most of these women have no electricity hence cannot store the milk in refrigerators (Cooper, 2007). Although powdered milk is the best option due to its durability, it is also useless; this is because most families lack clean water, which is necessary when using milk powder.

It was because of these complications that Nutriset came up with Plumpy’nut. According to Cooper (2007), this product comprises of powdered milk mixed with peanut butter and enriched with minerals and vitamins. According to Morrison (2013), unlike milk powder, Plumpy’nut does not require water to drink; neither does it need cooking or refrigeration processes. According to studies, this paste radically transformed the care of malnourished children, especially in those from developing nations, who were the most affected.

Apart from improving nutritional care, the product has made home medication quite easy, whereby one no longer has to seek such medications in health centers; hence, it has resulted to a decline in mortality rates (Ritz, 2010). Although Nutriset is the reason behind Plumpy’nut innovation and the company is still far behind in solving the issue of malnutrition owing to the fact its annual production is still low in comparison to the number of children dying of malnutrition around the globe (Doyon, 2012).

It is because of this that many companies are competing to produce product similar to Plumpy’nut despite restrictions from Nutriset, which claims that the product is under its patent and should not be manufactured by any other company until the patent expires (Schofield, 2010). Despite companies being aware of the product being patented, they are still defying the rules. This is because according to them, it is not fair for a company to place such restrictions yet children are dying because Nutriset is not able to meet all their needs.

For instance, in Haiti, a company known as “partners in health” is already manufacturing products related to Plumpy’nut (Rice, 2010). Although the main reason behind patenting of products is the offering of incentives to innovators whereby they are given a period to make sales before any other company begins to produce similar products. Many organizations are claiming that rules of patenting need reviews, for instance, innovations related to health products should not have patents (Innovation, n.d). Although Nutriset claims that patenting rules are worth of being adhered, a number of companies have not taken this lightly.

For instance, in the US two American NGOs have filed a case claiming that the patenting of Plumpy’nut be overturned since there is no need for a company to enjoy the benefits that come alongside patenting yet children are dying on a daily basis due to malnutrition related cases (Morrison, 2013).ReferencesCooper, A. (2007). “A Life Saver Called "Plumpynut".” CBS News. Retrieved on 27 July 2014 from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-life-saver-called-plumpynut/Doyon, S. (2012). “India. The Expert and the Militant.” MSF. Retrieved on 27 July 2014 from http://www.msf-crash.org/livres/en/india-the-expert-and-the-militantGlobal Living. (2014). Treat Malnutrition with Plumpynut® in Niger.

Retrieved on 27 July 2014 from http://www.globalgiving.org/projects/malnutrition-plumpynut-children-niger/Innovation. (n.d). Pharmaceutical Patents. Retrieved on 27 July 2014 from http://www.innovation.org/documents/File/Pharmaceutical_Patents.pdfMorison, S. (2013). “PlumpyNut: The lifesaver that costs. well, peanuts.” The Independent. Retrieved on 27 July 2014 from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/plumpynut-the-lifesaver-that-costs- well-peanuts-8783650.htmlNutriset. (2014).

Plumpy’Nut® and the CMAM Approach: How Nutrisets R&D Has Helped Change the Way to Transform Severe Acute Malnutrition. Retrieved on 27 July 2014 from http://www.nutriset.fr/en/innovation/plumpynut-cmam-example.htmlNutrition for Niger-Plumpynut. (2008). [Video File]. Retrieved on 27 July 2014 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VSCMoRDp2c Rice, A. (2010). “The Peanut Solution.” The New York Times. Retrieved on 27 July 2014 from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/magazine/05Plumpy-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0Ritz, L. (2010). “The Saga of Plumpy’nut and Patents.

” Boston University School of public Health. Retrieved on 27 July 2014 from http://www.bu.edu/themovement/past- issues/spring2011/the-saga-of-plumpy/Schofield, H. (2010). “Legal fight over Plumpynut, the hunger wonder-product.” BBC News. Retrieved on 27 July from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8610427.stm