New Delhi, Aug. 21 :    New Delhi, Aug. 21:  A cherubic face beams on the television screen. The baby lying on his back is fed spoonfuls of a brand of infant food marketed by a multinational. It works like magic - the infant gets up and starts walking. Most people will find nothing offensive about this advertisement, but it has raised the hackles of government and non-government organisations campaigning for breastfeeding and against infant milk substitutes, feeding bottles and infant food. For them, this advertisement is tantamount to violation of the Infant Milk Substitutes (IMS) Act passed in 1992. The IMS Act bans advertisement of all milk substitutes and feeding bottles. It allows advertisement of infant food but only on compliance with certain guidelines. Now even this privilege may be taken away. The government is planning to tighten the Act by extending the ban to advertisement of milk food like Nestum, Cerelac, Farex, Weano and Lactogen 2. 'We are going to amend the Act and one of the suggestions is to ban the advertisement of baby food,' an official in the human resources development ministry said. The IMS Act states that advertisement of infant food must be accompanied by the warning that infant milk substitutes or infant food is not the sole source of nourishment for the baby. They must not use terms like 'full protein food' or 'health food', 'energy food' or 'complete food'. The Act also bans manufacturers and distributors from making gifts to pregnant women, mothers of infants and members of their families. 'We are not against infant food. But most advertisements of infant food do not specify the age when the infants should be put on this food,' a government official said. A recent study on the use of infant food in the slums of Mumbai showed that mothers were diluting Cerelac and feeding it through the bottle. 'Instead of highlighting the importance of mother's milk, the advertisements glorify infant food,' the official added. But the amendment to enlarge the scope of the ban will nettle manufacturers. Companies like Nestle, which have a large chunk of share in the infant food market, have already shown their disapproval of the restrictions on advertisement. Three years after the Act was passed, Nestle had moved court against its provisions. Despite repeated efforts by The Telegraph, Nestle did not respond to the questions put to it. Arun Gupta of the Breast Feeding Promotion Network in India (BFNI) charged multinationals with dodging the law. 'This kind of behaviour is typical,' said Gupta, whose organisation is one of the four chosen by the government to monitor the implementation of the IMS Act. Although the Act has stopped all advertisements of milk substitutes and feeding bottles, guidelines on infant food remain on paper only. 'All through these eight years, private television channels have been advertising infant food without sticking to the guidelines,' Gupta said. In 1997, Doordarshan, under pressure from the Centre, was forced to drop the advertisement of infant food. But last year, the advertisements were renewed and Doordarshan claimed that it had the sanction of the law ministry. Latest research shows that a baby should be breastfed till the age of six months. Any advertisement of infant food without this basic information is harmful for the child. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), one of the major causes of malnourishment in children is inadequate breastfeeding and premature introduction of complementary feeding. Every year, almost 10 per cent of children born in India die before the age of five. Four per cent of children die before completing one year. It has been estimated that a bottle-fed baby is nine times more likely to die before the age of one than a breastfed baby.