I am grateful to ENN for facilitating and am pleased to see this discussion getting started. So far there are many excellent comments.
To begin with, I recognize that there are many products that could be included in such guidelines, including commercial complementary foods, fortified blended foods, and a growing array of ready to eat foods that may eventually expand beyond any definition we choose to include in such marketing guidelines. The present ones were intentionally designed only to cover only RUSFs and cover RUTFs only when they are used OUTSIDE the context of treating SAM. (I greatly doubt that treatment of SAM is something anyone would advertise products for, at least to the general public.)
Here I will respond to the comments from my friend Andre Briend. He makes excellent points.
First, we are indeed uncertain whether some way can be found to provide a few of the more difficult to obtain nutrients at lower cost than from the natural foods they contain. However, it is an even more complex question whether doing so will always provide the same health effects as the natural foods themselves do--for example so far we cannot find any way to provide the cancer-lower effects of vegetables in the diet by supplementing with certain nutrients or other substances in them. Many of us are struck by the impact of milk on infant growth, for example. I doubt we'll find a way to match that with non-milk or at least plant food diets, no matter what nutrients they are fortified with (except perhaps soy formula--which is too expensive). That said, I certainly think that some, such as the fatty acids DHA and EPA, deserve a good deal more research. Some groups may well benefit from supplementation, even in rich countries. (The same is likely true for vitamin D, though perhaps not so much in most low-income populations who get a lot of sun.)
Second, I agree that our language about water should be changed. IF mothers provided cooked foods soon after cooking, they would be safe. But the main point is that RUSFs are being inappropriately promoted as a way to reduce the risks of water-born disease and that is probably, on the whole, not among their benefits. Our main point is that while RUSFs do not spoil or get risk dangerous levels of bacterial contamination like most other foods, that is not the same as saying their use will reduce the child's risk of getting sick from bacterial contamination in his/her environment, as many may assume. (And I agree that Andre, Nutriset and others have not used this as an argument.)
While Andre is correct that food is a much better medium for bacterial growth than plain water, the sad fact is that the more nutritious that food, the more rapid and dangerous is said bacterial growth. Plain gruel with no milk or other animal foods added, the main type of food given to infants, does not become dangerous for quite some time, especially if stored with a lid on, not such a difficult behavior to achieve. These thin gruels are NOT good complementary food for infants. But if replaced by RUSF, the water gruels contain will have to be replaced by drinking water, itself often unsafe, especially for infants. Thus I do not on the whole think that our point about water is misleading.
I personally tend to agree with Andre's point about using RUSFs for preventing malnutrition, but that opinion is not shared by others in the group that produced the guidelines.
More importantly, while Andre agrees that these products must be safely used and not harm breastfeeding, he does not address the other issues that the guidelines are intended to address. Will open commercial sales of RUSFs (as opposed to controlled use by NGOs and other organizations), accompanied by advertising and promotion be beneficial? We know from past experience with other products (including drugs, as Massimo mentions) that the free market will exploit the good will toward these products generated through their use in responsible ways by the development community. At the very least, this can lead to poor people spending too much on them.
Trying to find a way to reduce the risks attendant to commercial promotion of these products to the public in low-income countries is the main purpose of the guidelines. The debatable points rightly raised by Andre can, if necessary, simply be left out of any future marketing guidelines without reducing their importance or effectiveness.
If harmful marketing is simply allowed to happen; if nothing is done to prevent this, then it is only a matter of time until someone documents resulting harm. A polarized situation will result, just as in the case of infant formula companies. Then manufacturers and organizations associated with these products may end up being called the "bad guys" in simplistic media reports. This would be unfortunate and harmful to all concerned.
Thus I would be interested in hearing Nutriset's response to the guidelines (which should be considered separately from the cover letter that ENN published separately). I sent the guidelines for comment to another RUTF manufacturer and they wrote back to me that they found the guidelines to be constructive, well-worded and easy to follow. Their only warning was that not too much information can fit on labels of products that may be sold in quite small amounts. (Other solutions can be found of course.)