Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Mass protest over Facebook policy on breastfeeding photos gains media attention

There has been a petition on the Facebook social networking site for over a year protesting about the removal of breastfeeding photos. I posted some of the images from our breastfeeding calendar in solidarity.

The argument continues and a virtual protest was held on the site this week and outside the company's headquarters. See:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=39521488436

This has been picked up by The Guardian today. See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/dec/30/facebook-breastfeeding-ban

Also see Morgan Gallagher's blog and campaign collecting photos at:
http://one-of-those-women.blogspot.com/2008/12/if-facebook-deleted-your-photo.html

The Guardian reports that Facebook has a clear policy on when a breastfeeding photo becomes obscene, quoting Facebook's Barry Schnitt as follows: "Photos containing a fully exposed breast, as defined by showing the nipple or areola, do violate those terms (on obscene, pornographic or sexually explicit material) and may be removed."

However, from Morgan's blog you can see that even 'nipple-free' photos have been deleted.

I've done a nipple hunt on our calendar and it passes the Barry test. You can order it here:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/calendarlatest.html

Our popular poster is borderline on the Barry test, however. You can order that one here:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/posters.html

This one from an earlier calendar would be hit by the ban as Barry would no doubt shout "nipple!"

PLEASE DON'T COPY THIS PICTURE WITHOUT OBTAINING COPYRIGHT APPROVAL FIRST (contact mikebrady@babymilkaction.org):

You can sign the Facebook petition calling for it to revise its policy at:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2517126532

Saturday, December 20, 2008

Two awards and an authority rating

News of two awards and something similar.

Firstly, Nestlé has won yet another shaming award. This time it is from a consumer group in Taiwan. The Taipei Times reports:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2008/12/20/2003431591

---
In the private sector, RT Mart, Fonterra and Nestle Taiwan all received the “Very Black Award” — “black” standing for black-hearted products — by the foundation for poor business practices during the melamine scandal.
---

Nestlé had criticised a delisting order from the food safety authorities, claiming the level of melamine in its products was within safe limits. Nestlé did say it would comply with the order, however. For more on the melamine scandal, analysis of the levels found in different products and Nestlé's response see the Nestlé Critics website at:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=56&Itemid=1

Meanwhile in Argentina, our partners in the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) are in the news for a breastfeeding photo compeitition. They received a silver medal from the World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action in a 'marathon' during World Breastfeeding Week for staging the long-running event. See the report at:
http://www.anbariloche.com.ar/noticia.php?nota=6748

Finally, not an award as such, but a reader of this blog has alerted me to a report by someone tracking the reputation of companies at:
http://bacatu.blogspot.com/2008/09/perceptions-of-cow-and-gate.html

This includes the following comments on the authority of blogs that are critical of the aggressive marketing strategies used for Cow & Gate (a brand owned by Danone):
http://bacatu.blogspot.com/2008/09/perceptions-of-cow-and-gate.html

---
Both websites have a greater authority than cowandgate.co.uk measured by how many sites are linking to them and how authoritative those sites are, on average.
  • Half Pint Pixie has 233 sites linking to it which are (on average) 240 times more authoritative than that site
  • Boycott Nestle has 167 / 114
  • Cow and Gate has just 71 / 60
---

So hurrah for us and raspberries for the misbehaving baby food companies.

Friday, December 19, 2008

Three awards

News of three awards.

Firstly, Nestlé has won yet another shaming award. This time it is from a consumer group in Taiwan. The Taipei Times reports:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2008/12/20/2003431591

---
In the private sector, RT Mart, Fonterra and Nestle Taiwan all received the “Very Black Award” — “black” standing for black-hearted products — by the foundation for poor business practices during the melamine scandal.
---

Nestlé had criticised a delisting order from the food safety authorities, claiming the level of melamine in its products was within safe limits. Nestlé did say it would comply with the order, however. For more on the melamine scandal, analysis of the levels found in different products and Nestlé's response see the Nestlé Critics website at:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=56&Itemid=1

Meanwhile in Argentina, our partners in the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) are in the news for a breastfeeding photo compeitition. They received a silver medal from the World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action in a 'marathon' during World Breastfeeding Week for staging the long-running event. See the report at:
http://www.anbariloche.com.ar/noticia.php?nota=6748

Finally, a reader of this blog has alerted me to a report by someone tracking the reputation of companies at:


This includes the following comments on the authority of blogs that are critical of the aggressive marketing strategies used for Cow & Gate (a brand owned by Danone):
http://bacatu.blogspot.com/2008/09/perceptions-of-cow-and-gate.html

---
Both websites have a greater authority than cowandgate.co.uk measured by how many sites are linking to them and how authoritative those sites are, on average.
  • Half Pint Pixie has 233 sites linking to it which are (on average) 240 times more authoritative than that site
  • Boycott Nestle has 167 / 114
  • Cow and Gate has just 71 / 60
---

So hurrah for us and raspberries for the misbehaving baby food companies.

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Improving the search experience

A couple of search engine issues have been on the work plan for today.

Firstly we have a new search engine feature on the Baby Milk Action website. This not only searches that site, but the IBFAN website and the Nestlé Critics website. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/

I did try including this blog in the searches, but it pulled up irrelevant pages in my tests, due to the archive links that appear on the right. Until I find a solution (suggestions welcome), the blog will have to be searched separately.

Also on search engines, we had an issue with pages from the old IBFAN site appearing in search engine listings. People visiting that site might think corporate malpractice and the campaign to protect infant health stopped in 2005. So I've added re-directions to the new site. Personally I hate it when I follow an old link and it just takes me to the home page or a 'page not found' message. So I've tried to be a bit more user friendly and the re-directions take you to the actual page on the new site, or at least the relevant index.

Let me know what you think of these two developments.

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Who is setting the global health agenda?

We have a new addition to our on-line Virtual Shop.

It is called Global Health Watch 2 and is an alternative world health report. Our Policy Director, Patti Rundall, contributed to the section on infant feeding.

If you are concerned about the corporate takeover of the health agenda it is a particularly relevant read. Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, is pumping large sums of money into initiatives such as GAIN, which is operating in the field of infant nutrition. GAIN has companies such as Danone on the board. Danone is a major violator of the World Health Assembly marketing requirements, more so since its takeover of the Nutricia, Milupa and Cow & Gate brands. We have asked Danone's Chief Executive to indicate the company will bring policies and practices into line with the WHA marketing requirements and he refuses to give this undertaking.

GAIN is pursuing the promotion of processed foods for addressing micronutrient malnutrition in developing countries. Critics suggest it is more beneficial, cost effective and respectful of indigenous cultures to promote more balanced use of local foods. But with the sums being pumped into GAIN and the involvement of transnational corporations there is a danger that the public health debate is being distorted.

You can find the book and lots more information about it (including a flier) at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/publications02.html#globalhwatch2

Friday, December 12, 2008

Nestle-Free Sweden

I've received pictures of the posters used by colleagues in Sweden for promoting International Nestlé Free Week in October.

You can continue to promote Nestlé-Free Zones using the resources on our website:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/boycott/nestlefree.html



Thursday, December 11, 2008

Take action against Nestle spying

I have been sent the following from victims of Nestlé's spying activities. You may like to sign their petition. You can find more on the Nestlé Critics website at:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=54&Itemid=1

---
Manifesto for freedom of expression and against spying by Nestle and Securitas

In June 2008, the TSR TV channel in French-speaking Switzerland revealed that the private security company Securitas had infiltrated a working group of ATTAC, the altermondialist movement, on behalf of Nestle. The group was working on a book on Nestle's policy in several areas, including genetic engineering, bottled water, milk powder and coffee, and in particular its attitude to workers and unions. In September 2008, the TSR revealed another case of espionage. A Securitas executive infiltrated the "Groupe anti-répression" in Lausanne, an organization that had collected information on case of police brutality. Recent revelations lead to the conclusion that spying operations continued well after 2005.

We, the undersigned, find it scandalous that private companies conduct such snooping operations. We condemn outright the spying activities carried out by Nestle and Securitas against ATTAC and other altermondialist organisations.

We demand that Nestle and Securitas stop all espionage immediately!

Rather than employing spies to work against people likely to be critical towards it, the food giant Nestle would do better to run its business in a way that makes that criticism unnecessary. The undersigned call on Nestle to respect workers and unions throughout the world, to guarantee fair prices to producers, to protect the environment and to ensure that their products are of high quality.

The undersigned demand that the Cantonal and Federal authorities expose the Nestle and Securitas scandals. Moreover, we demand that they take the necessary measures to protect the rights to free expression and freedom of association, from the clandestine actions of private companies.

http://www.suisse.attac.org/phpPetitions/index.php?petition=2

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Nestlé's Bear Brand coffee creamer in Laos

A peer-reviewed study in the British Medical Journal in September examined how parents are using Nestlé Bear Brand coffee creamer as a breastmilk substitute. It is unsuitable for this purpose and Nestlé prints a warning to this effect on the labels.

So why is it being used? Researchers found the warnings are undermined by the more prominent logo of a mother bear holding a baby bear in the breastfeeding position.


If Nestlé was concerned about this misuse of its product then surely it would take the simple step of removing this logo. That's what we are calling for. In a response to the article, Nestlé says it is reviewing the product and has currently stopped its distribution. Why has it taken so long to respond, however? The production of the logo was a deliberate act. It would be very interesting to know the results of the focus groups during its development.

Another product that is used inappropriately is Nestlé whole milk, marketed as Nido or Ninho in many countries and promoted in the infant feeding sections of pharmacies and supermarkets. We have asked Nestlé to remove it from this section as poor mothers who use powdered milk are more likely to buy this unsuitable product which is much cheaper than infant formula. Nestlé has refused.

It commented at the time: "Why would the company want to promote other non-suitable products to feed infants in competition with its own products?"

Because it gains extra sales and profits?

The question Nestlé has failed to answer is why does it continue with practices it knows to be harmful? Why does it take exposés and campaigning to force changes?

See more on this in our Boycott News 41 newsletter at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/update/update41c.html#16

Wednesday, December 03, 2008

Melamine found in Nestlé formula in US and Saudi Arabia - what levels are safe?

I've written previously about the double standard shown towards contaminated formula in China. A ban was put on all Chinese-manufactured formula by the US in case it was contaminated with melamine, which can harm a baby's kidneys. On 12 September 2008 the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said:

---quote begins
For infant formula, the safety/risk assessment concludes that at this time FDA is unable to establish any level of melamine and melamine-related compounds in infant formula that does not raise public health concerns. In large part, this is because of gaps in our scientific knowledge.
---quote ends

This is archived on various blogs and the nowpublic site.

The FDA arranged testing on rats and came up with a figure for Tolerable Daily Intake of 0.63 mg/kg bw/d (milligrams/kg body weight/day). A 10-fold safety tolerance has been applied for infants, giving a TDI of 0.063, which, for a 3kg infant, equates to:
0.063 mg/kg-bw/d x 3 kg/infant = 0.189 mg melamine/infant/day.
The calculation continues:
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/melamra4.html

---extract begins

To estimate the level of melamine that does not raise public health concerns, FDA used a worst case exposure scenario in which all of an infant’s total daily dietary intake (typically 0.15 kg powdered infant formula) is contaminated with melamine. The previously determined (see above) total amount of melamine/infant/day:

0.189 mg/infant/day divided by 0.15 kg of food = the food contamination level that would provide this amount of melamine to a 3 kg infant per day. Thus, 0.189 mg melamine divided by 0.15 kg of food = 1.26 mg melamine/kg food.

Therefore, if 100% of the diet were contaminated at a level of 1.26 ppm of melamine, an infant’s daily intake would equal 0.063 mg/kg bw/d. This value of 1.26 ppm is rounded down to 1.0 ppm melamine to provide an additional margin of safety.

---extract ends

The FDA also arranged testing of US-manufactured and found contamination with melamine, but below this 1.0 ppm level.

This information was not released, however, and it took a Freedom of Information request from the Associated Press. They report on the manufacturers whose formula is contaminated with melamine and/or cyanuric acid, which is often found together and has been ascribed the same safety limit. See:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/INFANT_FORMULA?SITE=NCAGW&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

---extract begins

Mead Johnson's Infant Formula Powder, Enfamil LIPIL with Iron found melamine at levels of 0.137 and 0.14 parts per million. Three tests of Nestle's Good Start Supreme Infant Formula with Iron detected an average of 0.247 parts per million of cyanuric acid.

---extract ends

So the FDA does not include these products on its list of those to avoid. It does, however, continue to list "infant formula manufactured in China" as a blanket prohibition. See:
http://www.fda.gov/oc/opacom/hottopics/melamine.html

Melamine has also been found in Nestlé formula in Saudi Arabia, though the levels are not given.

Levels in Sanlu/Fonterra formula that caused the problems in China were 1,000 times higher than those found in these US formula, but at the time Nestlé boasted that no melamine had been found in Nestlé products - though this was not true as a Nestlé whole milk was on the contaminated list. See:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=56&Itemid=1

Nestlé hasn't commented on its website on the latest cases where melamine has been found in its products.

CNN has a response from a US trade body. See:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/11/27/infant.formula.melamine/?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail

---quote begins
A spokeswoman for the Atlanta, Georgia-based International Formula Council, a trade group, said she had not seen the data, but was encouraged that the quantity found was below levels deemed safe in infants by the governments of China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Hong Kong, Canada and New Zealand.

"Apparently these trace levels can be found in lots of food," said spokeswoman Mardi Mountford.
---quote ends

So to summarise, the levels found in Nestlé and Mead Johnson formula is about one thousandth of the level that led to thousands of babies being hospitalized in China and at least four deaths. However, little is known about the effects of lower-level contamination. Evidence used for the FDA analysis is based on preliminary studies on rats.

It is in the industry's interest to downplay the risks, because it could affect their profits. And we may not actually know for some years what the impact may be.

With other medicines (and strictly speaking, formula is a nutritional medicine intended for specific cases of intervention) successful tests on animals and even human trials do not detect all problems. It is not unusual for drugs to be recalled after problems are detected when they are used in far larger populations.

However, any sickness that may be caused by even low levels of melamine in formula may possibly be difficult to detect given that due to the shortcomings of formula, compared to the biological norm of breastmilk, formula-fed infants are more likely to suffer short and long-term illness in any case.

We call for a precautionary principle to be followed and known toxins be excluded from foodstuffs, particularly those for infants.

Tuesday, December 02, 2008

Companies see profits in melamine contamination worries

The scandal of formula and other products contaminated with melamine in China, which resulted in 4 deaths and 54,000 babies hospitalized, was seen as a 'rather positive' situation for Nestlé by Chairman, Peter Brabeck-Letmathé, as he claimed Nestlé products were free of melamine. However, Nestlé was claiming that tests had shown none of its products were contaminated despite one whole milk product being on the contaminated list. Nestlé didn't link to the test results in its press release, but we did in our report posted to the Nestlé Critics website. See:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=56&Itemid=1

Nestlé is not the only company trying to cash in on the crisis by portraying itself as a 'safe' alternative. The International Code Documentation Centre has issued a legal briefing which examines the approach taken by Abbott in three different countries. These range from providing information onn which products are clear to full-on promotion of brands. The different approaches depend on the level of implementation of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes. This limits companies to providing scientific and factual information to health workers who are given responsibility for advising parents.

As ICDC states in its briefing, available at:
http://www.ibfan.org/site2005/abm/paginas/articles/arch_art/299-14.pdf

---quote begins
Companies misbehave depending on what they can get away with !!

Following the Sanlu melamine-in-milk scandal in China which resulted in 4 deaths and more than 54,000 babies falling ill, baby food companies took out expensive ads in major dailies and public places to assure parents in Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia of the safety and quality of their products. How they go about it depends on the national measures which are in force.

• In Hong Kong where the International Code has not been implemented at all, the Abbott Ross ad is so promotional it amounts to a Code violation.

• In Singapore, where there is an industry-led voluntary Code, the ad is slightly more restrained but is still very promotional.

• In Malaysia, where a stronger voluntary Code is actively overseen by the government, the ad is reduced to little more than bare information.

These ads show how the Code is a useful tool in protecting breastfeeding when implemented carefully at country level.
---quote ends

The Code, which companies are supposed to abide by independently of government measures, limits companies to providing scientific and factual information to health workers who are given responsibility for advising parents. Authorities can provide this information, such as on the website of the Hong Kong Government's Food and Environmental Health Department, where Nestlé's contaminated milk is listed alongside a list of products that were found to be uncontaminated.

Find out more about the melamine scandal in our Update 41 newsletter, now available online at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/update/update41.html

Monday, December 01, 2008

The right to post information on Nestlé and debate its activities

This blog has been locked by blogger over the past ten days, supposedly as a 'spam blog'. This happened once before. I believed at the time this was because I was posting daily and the Google algorithm thought this must be the work of an automaton!

But it happened ten days ago and again today - I am not even sure if this will post as my unlock request is still listed as pending.

People can flag blogs as objectionable and potentially this has happened. Certainly over on the Nestlé Critics website there have been some recent comments from people complaining about it being one sided. This despite the fact it directs people to Nestlé's own site and, in specific instances, Nestlé's press releases and other materials and allows people to comment.

Anyway, I have no objection to people hearing from Nestlé employees - that's why a section specifically for them to leave comments exists on the Nestlé Critics site. See:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=42&Itemid=88

Here's the recent comment:

---
Guys
Get balanced, why you are having 1 sided view in 21st century?
. I am a boiler operator in Nestle' factory in India.
Let me share, ok you find out:
- Check water reduction to produce same product in last 5 years.
- Check energy reduction to produce same product in last 5 years.
- OK check the CFC phase out & check with other MNCs
Having no comment from any of Nestle' worker should be enough to review your opinion
l am lucky to be with Nestle'
cheers
---

And another couple of pro-Nestlé comments from the visitors section:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=43&Itemid=89

---
when you are stoping this site?
We are pained to see the -ve propaganda from ill informed people......
Ok, guys. You are enjoying the freedom of expression.
Fine one day some one shall alunch a site "friends of Nestle'"
Cheers
---

And:

---
I caution readers that this site does a disservice to the public. Promoting breast feeding is admirable and should continue whole-heartedly. However, presenting misleading or half-truths about Nestle (or any infant formula manufacturer) does not further the health of children in this country or elsewhere. I work in academia (not industry) and it is essential for facts to be presented in a forum where many experts can comment (representatives from academia, healthcare, and industry). Sites like this one do just the opposite and no one can make a decision to boycott or promote anything related to infant nutrition from reading information solely from this site.
---

Anyone who is familiar with the campaign and the evidence-base for all claims made about Nestlé malpractice will be able to form their own opinion about such comments.

I'm all for debating Nestlé malpractice and took part in many debates myself with Nestlé Executives until they called a halt having being embarassed at losing them and fueling support for the boycott in the process.

Today Nestlé refuses to even set out its terms and conditions for attending an independent expert tribunal we have proposed.

So, yes please, let's have more debate, not less.

And whoever keeps getting my blog locked, please stop it!