tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-355387372024-03-10T02:45:51.042+00:00Boycott Nestle - and other action to protect infant healthI am Campaigns and Networking Coordinator at Baby Milk Action, which monitors the baby food industry. Our aim is to protect breastfeeding and babies fed on formula from practices that put profits before health. This is a daily look behind the scenes of the work of Baby Milk Action, including the boycott of Nestlé (the worst of the baby food companies), which we promote in the UK. See the <a href="http://info.babymilkaction.org">Baby Milk Action</a> website if you are unfamiliar with our work.Mike Bradyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04121310163466468696noreply@blogger.comBlogger631125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35538737.post-60967968158332746732013-08-10T11:12:00.000+01:002013-08-10T11:12:21.577+01:00This blog has moved<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
You can now find my campaign blog on the Baby Milk Action site at:<br />
<a href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog">http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog</a></div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript" src="http://embed.technorati.com/embed/dbm2zdrjt.js"></script>
<!-- Start of StatCounter Code -->
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
var sc_project=1935474;
var sc_invisible=0;
var sc_partition=17;
var sc_security="650a9fb1";
</script>
<!-- End of StatCounter Code --></div>Mike Bradyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04121310163466468696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35538737.post-9783572147641164612013-04-09T20:50:00.002+01:002013-04-10T20:46:03.423+01:00Danone rationing formula and Nestlé discounts<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
Campaigners are pointing to new aggressive baby milk marketing practices in the UK as a sign of increased competition with Nestlé entering the UK market, where Danone is currently the largest company.<br />
<br />
Nestlé and Danone are respectively the world's biggest and second-biggest manufacturers of breastmilk substitutes. They have been engaged in an increasingly aggressive marketing war, particularly in Asia, since Danone purchased the NUMICO brand in 2007 (Nutricia, Milupa, Aptamil, Cow & Gate etc).<br />
<br />
This marketing war has now reached the UK following Nestlé's takeover of Pfizer Nutrition/Wyeth in 2012, manufacture of the SMA brand. Both Danone and Nestlé have launched new strategies to promote their products - the former gaining media coverage by claiming individuals in the UK are buying up formula to send to China thus causing a shortage in the UK, the latter taking advantage of any formula panic buying by putting its follow-on formula on prominent price promotion to increase sales. Nestlé has told the BBC: <i>'We do not have any evidence of bulk purchase of SMA for export.'</i><br />
<br />
<br />
Further details and analysis on the Baby Milk Action press release at:<br />
<a href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease09apr13">http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease09apr13</a><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript" src="http://embed.technorati.com/embed/dbm2zdrjt.js"></script>
<!-- Start of StatCounter Code -->
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
var sc_project=1935474;
var sc_invisible=0;
var sc_partition=17;
var sc_security="650a9fb1";
</script>
<!-- End of StatCounter Code --></div>Mike Bradyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04121310163466468696noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35538737.post-44265826710353035642012-11-14T18:48:00.000+00:002012-12-06T18:50:26.944+00:00WHO regrets PAHO linking with Nestle<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
As <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/19/us-obesity-who-industry-idUSBRE89I0K620121019" target="_blank" title="Reuters">Reuters reported on 19 October 2012</a>, the Pan American Health Organisation (PAHO) has linked with various junk food companies, including Nestlé.<br />
<br />
The World Health Organisation (WHO) has today released a statement distancing itself from the decision to accept money from the food and beverage industry, a decision it describes as "unfortunate".<br />
<!--break--><br />
<br />
Moves in 2011 by the WHO Director General to set up a multi-stakeholder public health forum were opposed by Member States and public interest organisations such as Baby Milk Action and the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), leading to WHO to take a clearer stand on conflicts of interest.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/WorldHealthOrganization/posts/481000155278706" target="_blank" title="WHO">WHO's statement on PAHO's link to Nestlé and other companies</a> states:<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em><br /></em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em>The World Health Organization (WHO) recognizes the importance of working with the private sector. However since part of our work involves setting norms, standards and guidelines for public health, we have very strict guidelines for accepting money from the private sector. </em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em><br /></em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em>WHO does not accept funds from the food and beverage industry for its noncommunicable diseases work. </em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em><br /></em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em>It is unfortunate that the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO-WHO) has accepted money from the food and beverage industry.</em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em><br /></em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em>PAHO - while it is a WHO regional office for the Americas – is, unlike the other regional offices, also the health agency of the Organization of American States. Therefore in some areas, PAHO has its own operating guidelines. Not all PAHO guidelines are aligned with WHO. One such area is collaboration with the private sector.</em></div>
<br />
Nestlé systematically undermines public health messages by, for example, claiming its formula 'protects' babies, when babies fed on formula are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty more likely to die (example below, <a href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/cem/cemoct11#nestle" target="_self" title="CEM">Nestlé advertising Nan formula on television in Armenia in 2011</a>). It also refuses to bring instructions on preparing formula into line with <a href="http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/micro/pif2007/en/index.html" target="_blank" title="WHO">WHO guidance</a>, so denying parents information on how to reduce the risks from the possible intrinsic contamination of powdered infant formula, which is not a sterile product.<br />
<br />
<img align="left" border="0" height="222" src="http://info.babymilkaction.org/sites/info.babymilkaction.org/files/images/nestlenanarmenia_030911sm.jpg" width="360" /><br />
Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator at Baby Milk Action said:<br />
<div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em><br /></em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em>"It is welcome that WHO has come out against PAHO linking with the food and beverage industry. </em><em>Nestlé is desparate to undermine controls on its marketing practices, which contribute to the unnecessary death and suffering of infants around the world and to the global rise in obesity and non-communicable diseases. As I speak, it is attempting to <a href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/philippines2012">undermine strong baby milk regulations introduced in the Philippines</a>. Nestlé invests heavily in trying to promote itself as a "health, nutrition and wellness" company to distract from its unethical marketing of baby milks and the high sugar, salt and fat content of many of its junk foods. It also attempts to sponsor civil society organisations, health workers, government programmes and UN initiatives to neutralise them as critics or regulators and to gain kudos by association. Governments should govern and corporations should follow the rules. It is very welcome that WHO Member States rejected a proposal last year to set up a multi-stakeholder forum that the same junk food companies were clamouring to be part of. </em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em><br /></em></div>
Baby Milk Action helped to set up the Conflicts of Interest (COI) Coalition and invites other concerned organisation to endorse the statement calling on public interest organisations to put the public interest first and maintain their independence from the corporate sector. See:<br />
<a href="http://coicoalition.blogspot.co.uk/" target="_blank" title="COI Coalition">http://coicoalition.blogspot.co.uk/</a><br />
<br />
The intervention by Patti Rundall, Policy Director of Baby Milk Action, at the World Health Organisation Executive Board meeting in 2011 regarding the proposed multi-stakeholder forum, which has since died a natural death, raises some of the key issues about conflicts of interest with particular reference to infant feeding. See:<br />
<a href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/policyblog/speeches" target="_self">http://info.babymilkaction.org/policyblog/speeches</a></div>
</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript" src="http://embed.technorati.com/embed/dbm2zdrjt.js"></script>
<!-- Start of StatCounter Code -->
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
var sc_project=1935474;
var sc_invisible=0;
var sc_partition=17;
var sc_security="650a9fb1";
</script>
<!-- End of StatCounter Code --></div>Mike Bradyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04121310163466468696noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35538737.post-49358077197621013492012-11-05T18:45:00.000+00:002012-12-06T18:46:29.248+00:00Hipp on BBC Radio 4 You and Yours - ignoring safety guidance on making up formula<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
A representative of the Hipp baby food company was interviewed on BBC Radio 4 You and Yours programme on 5 November 2012, together with Dr. Helen Crawley of the <a href="http://www.firststepsnutrition.org/news.html#infantmilks" target="_blank" title="First Steps Nutrition Trust">First Steps Nutrition Trust</a> (<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01nphns" target="_blank" title="BBC Radio 4 You and Yours">click here to listen again</a>).<br />
<br />
The discussion was about the refusal of Hipp to provide correct guidance on how to reconstitute its powdered infant formula. The facts, as Dr. Crawley explained, are clear. The Department of Health confirmed its guidance had not changed, despite Hipp claiming in the programme that it had been given permission to flout the guidance.<br />
<br />
<!--break--><a href="http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/ife.html" target="_blank" title="Baby Milk Action Virtual Shop"><img alt="Infant Formula Explained" border="0" height="317" src="http://www.babymilkaction.org/pics/merchandise/formulaexplaineddvd.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; float: left; margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 10px;" width="222" /></a>Powdered formula is not sterile and may contain harmful pathogens, such as <em>cronobacter sakazakii</em> (previously known as <em>enterobacter sakazakii)</em> and <em>salmonella</em>. Although studies have found contamination levels as high as 14% of tins (<a href="http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/Product-SpecificInformation/InfantFormula/AlertsSafetyInformation/ucm111299.htm" target="_blank" title="FDA">research cited by the US Food and Drugs Administation</a>), ill effects are very rare, but can included meningitis and death.<br />
<br />
The risks can be reduced by killing the bacteria by reconstituting the formula with water above 70 deg. C. In practice this temperature can be achieved by boiling a full kettle and allowing it to cool, but for no more than 30 minutes. The formula should then be allowed to cool to a safe temperature before feeding. The following resources provide this information:<br />
<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
The Department of Health <em>Guide to Bottle Feeding</em> booklet includes the instructions - <a href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_124525" target="_blank" title="HMSO">click here</a>.</div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
A clear leaflet to follow if you are using formula (Hipp or any other) or advising parents, can be downloaded from the Department of Health - <a href="http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_129346.pdf" target="_blank" title="PDF">click here</a>.</div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
The World Health Organisation <em>Guidelines for the safe preparation, storage and handling of powdered infant formula</em> are also clear about using water above 70 deg. C. Its report includes background information on the risks and the reasons for the guidance - <a href="http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/micro/pif2007/en/index.html" target="_blank" title="WHO">click here</a>.</div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
Baby Milk Action produced the Infant Formula Explained DVD on behalf of the Baby Feeding Law Group (consisting of leading UK health professional and mother support groups), which includes a short film for parents on how to reconstitute powdered formula correctly to reduce the risks - <a href="http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/ife.html" target="_blank" title="BFLG">click here</a>.</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.6em; margin-left: 1.2em; margin-right: 1.2em; margin-top: 0.6em; padding: 0px;">
Despite the clear guidance for parents from the Department of Health and WHO, Hipp told Radio 4 that the guidance is unclear.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.6em; margin-left: 1.2em; margin-right: 1.2em; margin-top: 0.6em; padding: 0px;">
Why is Hipp putting babies at risk by telling people to use water at a lower temperature on its labels?</div>
<br />
<img align="left" border="1" height="419" src="http://info.babymilkaction.org/sites/info.babymilkaction.org/files/images/cpjuly2012hippsm.jpg" width="288" /><br />
It comes down to its own profits and marketing campaigns. Hipp's current advertising and promotion is based on so-called probiotics added to its formula. There is no proven benefit of adding probiotics to formula, despite the impression given by Hipp in advertising such as that shown below (left, advertising to health workers, exposed on Baby Milk Action's <a href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/cem/cemsep12" target="_self" title="CEM">Campaign for Ethical Marketing action sheet September 2012</a>).<br />
<br />
The First Steps Nutrition Trust guide to <a href="http://www.firststepsnutrition.org/pdfs/Infant_milks_November2012.pdf" target="_blank" title="First Steps Nutrition">Infant Milks in the UK</a> was updated in November 2012 to include information on Hipp's new probiotic formula and states:<br />
<em><br /></em>
<em>A few clinical trials have shown health benefits for specific bacterial strains, however, on the strength of a review of randomised control trials in healthy term infants, the ESPGHAN (European Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition) Committee on Nutrition have found that there is too much uncertainty to draw any reliable conclusions on the efficacy of probiotics in infant milks. They did not recommend their routine use in formula milks for infants.</em><br />
<br />
Water hot enough to kill harmful pathogens will also kill the probiotic bacteria and this is the reason Hipp is trying to hide the risks and ignore the safety guidance.<br />
<br />
However, in doing so, Hipp is showing its contempt for the<em> Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations (2007)</em>, adopted by the four countries of the UK. The <em>Guidance Notes</em> from the Food Standards Agency that accompany the Regulations and <em>"shows how the regulations should be interpreted"</em> is also very clear:<br />
<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em><strong> Labelling relating to the preparation, storage and disposal of infant formula and follow-on formula </strong></em><br />
<em><strong><br /></strong></em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em> 24. Regulation 17 (1)(d) and 18(1)(d) require that instructions are provided for appropriate preparation, storage and disposal of the product. The Agency recommends that these instructions should include information noting that: </em><br />
<em><br /></em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em> • Powdered infant formulae and follow-on formulae are not sterile, and as such can contain harmful bacteria. It is therefore important to be very careful when preparing formula to reduce the risks. Boiled tap water (not bottled water) cooled for no more than 30 minutes should be used to prepare infant feeds. </em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em><br /></em>
<em> • All equipment used for feeding and preparing feed must be thoroughly cleaned and sterilised before use, and bottles should be made up fresh for each feed, as storing made-up formula milk may increase the chance of a baby becoming ill. </em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em><br /></em>
<em> 25. Further advice about the preparation and storage of formula can be found at the website below: <a href="http://www.breastfeeding.nhs.uk/en/materialforclients/index.asp" target="_blank">http://www.breastfeeding.nhs.uk/en/materialforclients/index.asp</a> (advice to consumers) <a href="http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Healthcare/Maternity/Maternalandinfantnutrition/DH_" target="_blank">http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Healthcare/Maternity/Maternalandinfantnutrition/DH_</a> 4123674 (advice to health professionals)</em><br />
<em><br /></em></div>
The links mentioned in the Guidance Notes take you to the Department of Health booklet on formula feeding mentioned above, which states:<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em><strong><br /></strong></em>
<em><strong>Bacteria in infant formula </strong></em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em><br /></em>
<em> Even when tins and packets of powdered infant formula are sealed, they can sometimes contain bacteria such as Cronobacter sakazakii (formerly know as Enterobacter sakazakii) and more rarely Salmonella. Although these bacteria are very rare, the infections they cause can be life-threatening. </em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em><br /></em>
<em> To reduce the risk of infection, make up each feed as your baby needs it, using boiled water at a temperature of 70oC or above. Water at this temperature will kill any harmful bacteria that may be present.</em><br />
<em><br /></em></div>
Unfortunately, the regulatory authorities in the UK are not acting to enforce the regulations.<br />
<br />
As Baby Milk Action also recently reported, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is also failing to protect babies and their families in the UK when it comes to misleading claims made in advertisements. For example, it refuses to even investigate advertisments like that shown above. See our <a href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease25oct12" target="_self" title="Press releases">24 October 2012 press release</a>.<br />
<br />
What can you do?<br />
<ul>
<li>Direct people using formula to the above guidance so they know how to prepare it correctly.</li>
<li><a href="http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/membership.html" target="_blank" title="Virtual Shop">Join Baby Milk Action</a> (or send gift membership to a friend or collague).</li>
<li>Support our <a href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/cem/cemindex" target="_self" title="CEM">Campaign for Ethical Marketing</a>.</li>
<li>Report examples of questionable promotion to the Baby Feeding Law Group monitoring project, which Baby Milk Action coordinates - <a href="http://www.babyfeedinglawgroup.org.uk/monitoring/reportviolations" target="_blank" title="BFLG">click here</a>.</li>
</ul>
<div id="wrchoverdiv" style="display: none;">
<div id="wrccontainer">
<div id="wrcheader">
<div id="wrctitle">
WebRep</div>
</div>
<div id="wrccurrentvote">
currentVote</div>
<div id="wrcratingtext">
noRating</div>
<div id="wrcweighttext">
noWeight</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript" src="http://embed.technorati.com/embed/dbm2zdrjt.js"></script>
<!-- Start of StatCounter Code -->
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
var sc_project=1935474;
var sc_invisible=0;
var sc_partition=17;
var sc_security="650a9fb1";
</script>
<!-- End of StatCounter Code --></div>Mike Bradyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04121310163466468696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35538737.post-32490146387300881232012-11-04T18:41:00.000+00:002012-12-06T18:42:09.096+00:00A message of thanks from Philippines campaigners<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<img alt="Gloria and Miguel" border="0" height="196" src="http://babymilkaction.org/sites/info.babymilkaction.org/files/images/philippinesgloriamiguel.jpg" style="float: left; margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 10px;" width="132" /><br />
During <a href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/nestlefreeweek" target="_self" title="Nestle-Free Week">International Nestle-Free Week 2012</a> (29 October - 4 November) people have been sending messages to Nestle about its systematic violations of baby milk marketing rules and signing a petition of solidarity with the people of the Philippines. A message of thanks has just been received from campaigners in the Philippines (see below).<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Protect_mothers_and_babies_in_the_Philippines_from_the_baby_food_industry/" target="_blank" title="AVAAZ"><img align="none" border="0" height="35" src="http://dev.babymilkaction.org/sites/info.babymilkaction.org/files/images/avaazlogo.jpg" width="144" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Nestle-Free Week is a time for for people who boycott Nestlé over the way it pushes baby milk to do more to promote the boycott - and for those who don't boycott to give it a go.<br />
<br />
Above: Gloria joined the successful campaign with her son Miguel in 2007. Mothers and babies need your help again. <a href="http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Protect_mothers_and_babies_in_the_Philippines_from_the_baby_food_industry/" target="_blank" title="AVAAZ">Please sign the petition of solidarity</a>. This is helping bring attention to this issue - see, for example, this report in the Philippines on <a href="http://wikamag.com/philippine-breastfeeding-advocacy-groups-oppose-amending-of-milk-code/" target="_blank" title="Wikimag">23 October 2012</a>.<br />
<br />
<!--break-->In the Philippines Nestle is leading an attempt to bring in a new law to replace regulations introduced in 2007 to stop companies advertising baby milks and targeting pregnant women and new mothers. Campaigners in the Philippines call it Nestle's Monster Bill. The <a href="http://www2.wpro.who.int/philippines/sites/maternal/who+joint+statement+with+doh+and+unicef+on+breastfeeding+bill.htm" target="_blank" title="WHO">Philippines Department of Health, UNICEF and WHO</a> said in September:<br />
<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em>"The draft House Bill... aims to support multinational companies while damaging the Filipino society: families, the mothers and children." </em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em><br /></em></div>
Questions are being asked about the influence Nestle is using to gain support from the Department of Trade and politicians who are facing an election next year.<br />
<br />
<strong>On 4 September 2012, Baby Milk Action received the following message from MOM CARE - Movement Opposing Milk Code Amendments and Revision, the new name from the Breastfeeding Consortium in the Philippines.</strong><br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em><br /></em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em>"Thank you for your commitment to the campaign. </em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em><br /></em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em>Thank you for your kindheartedness.</em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em><br /></em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em>Nestle never sleeps and greedy Nestle will never stop amassing profits from the poor people in the Philippines who have large families as their consumers.</em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em><br /></em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em>Nestle leads IPNAP a conglomerate of Nestle-Wyeth, Mead Johnson, Abbott and Fonterra multinational milk companies who dangle gifts of any sorts especially to the lawmakers/lawbreakers in Philippine Congress to weaken the Milk Code law and replace with a pro-Nestle vested interest Monster Bill. Now, it is election time for politicians and the big question how much influence peddling was contributed to the election money bag? </em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em><br /></em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em>Recently, IPNAP's government ally the Department of Trade and Industry was on the news last week "DTI bucks the amendment Bill in the name of informed choice for lactating mothers". DTI mimics Nestle stand. Nestle style is to sow confusion by letting the Department of Health and DTI fight each other. DOH issued a media statement with UNICEF and WHO, "ban babymilk ads till 36 months old" IPNAP and DTI chorused, "ban babymilk ads till 6 months old" thereafter free wheeling promo lies.</em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em><br /></em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em>We call on our global partners to defend breastfeeding vigilantly because Nestle creeps in every legislative process to wreck breastfeeding initiatives in every country. Nestle masquerade as pro-breastfeeding but in truth undermines it by pushing policymakers to make a law that will favor their economic interest and not the consumers.</em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em><br /></em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em>They bleed the consumers to illness, poverty and death.</em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em><br /></em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em>Playing with national legislation is their new trick in Vietnam, Kenya, Hongkong, Philippines etc.</em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em><br /></em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em>Keep Nestle away from your home, away from your life, away from your generation's future. </em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em><br /></em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em>It is not good food, good life as Nestle promise, it is in fact Bad life after all."</em></div>
<br />
<div id="wrchoverdiv" style="display: none;">
<div id="wrccontainer">
<div id="wrcheader">
<div id="wrctitle">
WebRep</div>
</div>
<div id="wrccurrentvote">
currentVote</div>
<div id="wrcratingtext">
noRating</div>
<div id="wrcweighttext">
noWeight</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript" src="http://embed.technorati.com/embed/dbm2zdrjt.js"></script>
<!-- Start of StatCounter Code -->
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
var sc_project=1935474;
var sc_invisible=0;
var sc_partition=17;
var sc_security="650a9fb1";
</script>
<!-- End of StatCounter Code --></div>Mike Bradyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04121310163466468696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35538737.post-16120923222730849082012-10-18T18:36:00.000+01:002012-12-06T18:38:11.654+00:00Comment on UNICEF breastfeeding report: Preventing disease and saving resources<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
UNICEF has published a report today called: <em>"Preventing Disease and Saving Resources: the potential contribution of increasing breastfeeding rates in the UK". </em><br />
<em><br /></em>
UNICEF'S press release states: <em>"The report findings show that for just five illnesses, moderate increases in breastfeeding would translate into cost savings for the NHS of £40 million and tens of thousands of fewer hospital admissions and GP consultations."</em><br />
<!--break-->See:<br />
<a href="http://www.unicef.org.uk/BabyFriendly/News-and-Research/News/Breastfeeding-could-save-the-NHS-millions/" style="color: #027ac6; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" title="UNICEF">http://www.unicef.org.uk/BabyFriendly/News-and-Research/News/Breastfeeding-could-save-the-NHS-millions/</a><br />
<br />
Here's a quick response from me, Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator at Baby Milk Action:<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em><br /></em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em>"This report is very welcome. The finding that babies who are not breastfed are more likely to become ill and require hospital and other medical treatment is neither surprising or new. The big question is will the present Government act when others have failed to do so in the past? Unfortunately, the current administration has taken steps backwards by, for example, scrapping the Infant Feeding Coordinator posts at the Department of Health despite these being one of the initiatives included in the <a href="http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/global_strategy/en/index.html" target="_blank" title="WHO">Global Strategy on Infant and Young Child Feeding</a>, which the UK claims to support. Some of the countries that have followed the strategy, including prohibiting the promotion of breastmilk substitutes in line with internationally agreed minimum marketing standards, have seen marked increases in breastfeeding rates, Brazil being a particularly good example. Of course, in parts of the world without the same level of health service support babies who are not breastfed are not only more likely to become ill, but more likely to die.</em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em><br /></em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em>"Stopping baby milk company promotion has to be part of the public health policy response to this unnecessary illness and suffering. That is not to say that mothers who use formula should be made to feel guilty for doing so. Formula should be available for those who need it and everyone benefits if there is accurate independent information on infant feeding, instead of promotion from baby milk companies with a vested interest in selling their products. Don't forget, the millions companies spend on their promotion campaigns ultimately goes onto the price they charge for formula."</em></div>
<br />
The following advertisements all appeared in the same health worker journal showing how each of the companies claims its formula is closer to breastmilk than the other brands. They cannot all be telling the truth. Unfortunately, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) refuses to investigate advertising in health journals. When Baby Milk Action has brought complaints about follow-on formula advertising to the public, the ASA has ruled against the claims that Aptamil and SMA are the best formulas. The claims do not stand up to scrutiny. Baby milk companies have shown they cannot be trusted to provide accurate information to parents or health workers. See: <a href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/cem/cemsep12" style="color: #027ac6; text-decoration: none;" target="_self" title="CEM">http://info.babymilkaction.org/cem/cemsep12</a><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<img align="none" border="0" height="142" src="http://info.babymilkaction.org/sites/info.babymilkaction.org/files/images/communitypractionerjul12.jpg" width="475" /></div>
<br />
The Government has known about the health and financial impact for years of course. For example, in 2006 the <a href="http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/index.jsp?action=download&r=true&o=30155" target="_blank" title="NICE">National Institute for Clinical Excellence</a> costed the savings to the NHS from a modest increase in breastfeeding rates (a 10% increase in initiation) and found many thousands of babies would not suffer illness and millions would be saved.<br />
<br />
As UNICEF points out, the National Infant Feeding Survey tells us that 90% of mothers who stopped breastfeeding their babies by the time they were 6 weeks old wanted to breastfeed for longer. With greater support, many would have been able to do so, fewer babies would have become sick or even died and there would have been cost savings.<br />
<br />
It is not just about support, of course. Breastfeeding is the normal way to feed a child. Denying a child breastmilk and giving it an alternative type of milk, even one processed to the best of current knowledge, is inevitably not going to be as beneficial. Breastmilk is a living substance and is a continuation of the nurture a mother has provided to her child through the placenta.<br />
<br />
Formula is sometimes described a fourth best after breastfeeding, the mother's expressed breastmilk and donor breastmilk. Formula can save lives when breastmilk is unavailable either from the mother or donors, but modified cow's milk will always have limitations. In the UK, composition of formula is closely regulated so that those on the market have the ingredients known to be necessary. As scientific knowledge changes, the regulations are updated to change the composition. Mothers who do not breastfeed, or carers without access to breastmilk, can base their choice on their baby's preference and/or cost. Every company tries to claim its formula is better than the other brands, but this is marketing hype designed to inflate prices.<br />
<br />
So aside from the short and long-term health impacts, financially the public is suffering a double whammy. As more tax money goes to paying for the care of babies who are not breastfed, parents who use formula are paying over the odds as prices are inflated to pay for the multi-million pound marketing campaigns run by the baby milk companies.<br />
<br />
Based on figures from dairy farmers, the proportion of the selling price of formula that goes towards promotion and profit is between 53% and 80%. That means parents who use formula for 12 months are paying anything between about £231 and £884 towards promotion and profit. See:<br />
<a href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog310712" target="_self" title="Campaign blog">http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog310712</a><br />
<br />
The latest marketing strategy of the baby milk companies is to claim they are friends of breastfeeding, wanting to offer advice and support to mothers. Danone claims that 3,000 mothers are signing up to its Cow & Gate branded baby club every week.<br />
<br />
We have seen that companies have ostensibly given up on the first 6 months period, promoting their follow-on milk for use after breastfeeding for six months. This follows campaigns exposing their misleading claims and public health messages about the importance of breastfeeding. But companies ignore the fact that it is <strong>exclusive</strong> breastfeeding that is recommended for 6 months, with breastfeeding continuing beyond this age with the introduction of complementary foods. Companies also break the UK <em>Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations (2007)</em> and associated <em>Guidance Notes</em> by using the same brand names for follow-on milks and infant formula for use from birth and making the brand the focus of the advertising. See examples in the Baby Feeding Law Group monitoring project:<br />
<a href="http://www.babyfeedinglawgroup.org.uk/reports/bflgreports" target="_blank" title="BFLG">http://www.babyfeedinglawgroup.org.uk/reports/bflgreports</a><br />
Involving baby milk companies in breastfeeding promotion is like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop. We receive complaints about the outrageous emails mothers have received from companies. For example, Pfizer/Wyeth has promoted its SMA brand in an email headed:<em> "How is feeding going?".</em> It then plants seeds of doubt about breastfeeding:<br />
<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em>"If you’re breastfeeding, do you sometimes wonder if your baby is getting enough milk?"</em></div>
<br />
Although purporting to offer supportive advice, it highlights negatives:<br />
<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em>"Feeling sore? .... If the pain continues or your nipples start to crack or bleed...."</em></div>
<br />
Wyeth suggests people contact their midwife or public health nurse, <em>"or call the SMA Careline".</em><br />
<br />
After all that comes the closing punch: <em>"Thinking of bottle feeding?" </em>This is accompanied by an advertisement for SMA infant formula (which it is illegal to advertise) and the idealising claim (also prohibited) boasting the formula has <em>"a new fat blend closer to that of breast milk".</em><br />
<br />
The information that babies fed on the formula are more likely to become sick, be hospitalised and cost the NHS money treat is missing. As is the fact that these email marketing campaigns, the Careline, the cuddly toys, free gifts, free lunches for health workers and so on all go onto the price of formula.<br />
<img align="left" border="0" height="213" src="http://info.babymilkaction.org/sites/info.babymilkaction.org/files/images/aptamilbear0912sm.jpg" width="288" /><strong><em><br /></em></strong><br />
<strong><em>What do parents really need? A free bear from Danone branded with its Aptamil formula name and logo (left) paid for by premiums on the price of formula - or accurate independent information on infant feeding from the health care system, no company promotion and cheaper formula?</em></strong><br />
<br />
Not for nothing are mothers supporting Baby Milk Action's<em> "No promotion, cheaper formula"</em> campaign. It doesn't matter if they are breastfeeding or using formula.<br />
Everyone benefits by stopping baby milk company promotion:<br />
<a href="http://www.change.org/petitions/baby-milk-companies-no-promotion-cheaper-formula" style="color: #027ac6; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" title="Change.org">http://www.change.org/petitions/baby-milk-companies-no-promotion-cheaper-formula</a><br />
<br />
So why doesn't the Government act?<br />
<br />
Why didn't it act in 2006 when the law was last revised and all health professional organisations, mother support groups and its own Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition called on it to prohibit company advertising, promotion and claims?<br />
<br />
Why does it ignore the repeated calls from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child to implement the internationally agreed minimum marketing standards, which companies should already be abiding by in the UK?<br />
<br />
These are very good questions. Ask your Member of Parliament.</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript" src="http://embed.technorati.com/embed/dbm2zdrjt.js"></script>
<!-- Start of StatCounter Code -->
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
var sc_project=1935474;
var sc_invisible=0;
var sc_partition=17;
var sc_security="650a9fb1";
</script>
<!-- End of StatCounter Code --></div>Mike Bradyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04121310163466468696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35538737.post-23393518332386502992012-10-09T20:51:00.000+01:002012-10-09T20:51:30.117+01:00Infant Sleep Information SourceThe September 2012 issue of <em>Breastfeeding Briefs</em> from the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) is on the theme of "Sleeping with the baby". It is guest edited by Dr Helen Ball who has researched and written extensively on this theme.<br />
<br />
Dr Ball explains:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>Over the past year, my colleague Dr Charlotte Russell and I have been working with several organisations in the UK (La Leche League, National Childbirth Trust, UNICEF Baby Friendly Initiative) to produce an infant sleep information website (ISIS) that aims to inform parents and health care providers about the research evidence available on where and how babies sleep (www.isisonline.org.uk). This editorial will summarise some of the issues we discuss on the site, and consider how the latest research is informing parents and healthcare providers.</em></blockquote>
The editorial is a fascinating overview of questions relating to co-sleeping, possible positive and negative impacts on breastfeeding and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and the latest evidence and advice.<br />
<br />
You can download the issue of Breastfeeding Briefs below from the IBFAN site (where you will also find past issues) - <a href="http://www.ibfan.org/news-breast_download.html" target="_blank" title="IBFAN">click here</a>.<br />
<br />
There is information for health workers and resources for parents and carers on the ISIS site:<br />
<a href="http://www.isisonline.org.uk/" target="_blank" title="ISIS">http://www.isisonline.org.uk/</a><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript" src="http://embed.technorati.com/embed/dbm2zdrjt.js"></script>
<!-- Start of StatCounter Code -->
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
var sc_project=1935474;
var sc_invisible=0;
var sc_partition=17;
var sc_security="650a9fb1";
</script>
<!-- End of StatCounter Code --></div>Mike Bradyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04121310163466468696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35538737.post-28307690875966648342012-09-13T17:44:00.001+01:002012-09-13T17:46:29.578+01:00Formula advertising in the British Journal of MidwiferyThe British Journal of Midwifery has published a letter from Baby Milk Action after a member of its editorial board defended accepting infant formula advertising, which has been criticised by readers. Professor Lewis suggested that concerns about such advertising are due to <em>"enmity and distrust" </em>and suggested the priority should be on<em> "resolving differences".</em><br />
<br />
My letter is reproduced below.<br />
<br />
<!--break-->In the guest editorial<em> "Breast is best but choice is paramount</em>" published in BJM 20(6), Prof. Lewis suggests that <em>"concern and conflict must at some point give way to careful consideration, cooperation and hopefully, conciliation",</em> but then attacks Baby Milk Action with bogus arguments. Indeed, the title of the editorial and its suggestion that stopping advertising restricts choice or denies information is itself bogus. Advertising, branded free gifts and branded competitions are not providing information, they are strategies designed to sell products.<br />
<br />
The article states: <em>"there is little evidence that Baby Milk Action are willing to acknowledge any positive changes within the food and infant feeding industry and against such enmity and distrust all future opportunities for an alliance and attainment of our wider aspirations for improved infant feeding is likely to founder." </em><br />
<br />
Baby Milk Action, which works to protect the right of all pregnant women and mothers to accurate, independent information, does acknowledge positive changes. For example, we welcomed Danone’s statement that it had taken action to stop 50% of the violations of the <em>International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes</em> and subsequent, relevant Resolutions of the World Health Assembly in the last global monitoring report produced by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN). We continue to communicate with Danone over ongoing systematic violations and it recently agreed to stop distributing materials in the health care system targeted at parents. While we publicly welcome these steps, we will continue to call for full compliance with the <em>International Code</em> and Resolutions, and for Danone to stop targeting health workers and parents in violation of these measures.<br />
<br />
We are also in ongoing communication with Nestlé. Nestlé executives agreed to act on only 3% of violations (four out of 130) in the last monitoring report. I attended the Nestlé shareholder meeting this year and began by welcoming the fact that Nestlé had dropped a claim that one of its formula milks is <em>"The new 'gold standard' in infant nutrition"</em> after we campaigned on this. However, Nestlé continues to be the worst of the companies in terms of the scale and scope of violations and also takes the lead in opposing or undermining implementation of the Code and Resolutions in legislation. It is for this reason that it is the target of a boycott. The article refers to FTSE4Good without mentioning that Nestlé was only included in this ethical listing because the relevant criteria were weakened in September 2010 as no companies are complying with the previous criteria and FTSE wanted to bring some onto the list.<br />
Article 7.2 of the Code states: <em>"Information provided by manufacturers and distributors to health professionals regarding products within the scope of this Code should be restricted to scientific and factual matters".</em> Formula advertising self-evidently does not provide scientific and factual information.<br />
<br />
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld complains about formula advertising to the public, but refuses to consider complaints about advertising in professional journals on the grounds they should self-regulate. It is welcome to learn that there are health workers calling on the BJM to stop accepting formula advertising. This does not prohibit proper peer-reviewed scientific articles on formula appearing.<br />
<br />
There is much more that could be said, but to finish, the article argues that various actors are <em>"caught up on the particulars of the Code rather than finding a resolution for our differences."</em> It is entirely sensible to expect companies to abide by these internationally agreed minimum standards for marketing of nutritional products for the most vulnerable people on the planet - babies. Putting priority on <em>"resolving differences"</em> with baby food companies, which in the BJM case coincidently involves profiting financially from the relationship, does a disservice to babies, their carers and readers of the BJM.<br />
<br />
Yours sincerely,<br />
<br />
Mike Brady<br />
Campaigns and Networking Coordinator<br />
Baby Milk Action<br />
<br />
In a further response, Professor Lewis comments: <em>"The ASA... accepts that adverts in healthcare journals are aimed at professionals who should be capable of considering the information and making up their own minds as to it benefits or disadvantage to the ways in which they practice – Baby Milk Action rather sadly, does not credit midwives with that capacity."</em><br />
<br />
So if I understand this argument correctly, the British Journal of Midwifery abdicates its editorial responsibility and justifies pocketing money from baby food companies for publishing misleading advertising on the grounds that it is the responsibility of midwives to disregard it. To which I can only think, surely that's no way to run a journal.<br />
<br />
Take a look at our <a href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/cem/cemsep12" target="_self" title="CEM">September 2012 Campaign for Ethical Marketing </a>to see how companies target healthworkers. And please let us know if you find Danone's leaflets in health facilities anywhere in the world.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript" src="http://embed.technorati.com/embed/dbm2zdrjt.js"></script>
<!-- Start of StatCounter Code -->
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
var sc_project=1935474;
var sc_invisible=0;
var sc_partition=17;
var sc_security="650a9fb1";
</script>
<!-- End of StatCounter Code --></div>Mike Bradyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04121310163466468696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35538737.post-80683315206326599482012-08-07T16:07:00.002+01:002012-08-07T16:08:23.277+01:00Rachel's Dairy added to Nestlé boycott listRachel's Dairy has been added to the <a href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/nestleboycottlist" target="_self" title="Nestle boycott list">Nestlé boycott list</a> as it is now owned by Lactalais Nestlé Chilled Dairy (LNCD).<br />
<br />
Lactalis purchased Rachel's Dairy in August 2010. In May 2012, the organic yoghurt and dairy product company, was moved into LNCD, which is a joint venture with Nestlé. Lactalis owns 60% of <a href="http://www.lactalis.fr/english/actualites/actualite_detail.htm" target="_blank" title="Lactalis">LNCD</a> and Nestlé 40%.<br />
<br />
Nestlé puts its own profits before health as it pushes its baby foods using strategies that violate internationally agreed marketing standards and is found to be the worst of the companies in terms of scale and scope of its violations. The boycott helps to force changes in Nestlé practices by raising awareness of Nestlé practices and giving it a financial reason to change.<br />
<br />
Nestlé is one of the four most boycotted companies on the planet, <a href="http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/businessinsight/archives/2005/09/01/branded.html" target="_blank" title="The Guardian">according to GMI Poll</a>. Wholefood shops and other retailers are now delisting Rachel's Dairy.<br />
<br />
While this will impact on Nestlé profits, it is LNCD that is threatening jobs at Rachel's Dairy as Lactalis moves the business into the joint venture. Lactalis told the BBC in May 2012: <em>"These changes will strengthen and help sustain Rachel's success for the future, and secure the long term business relationships with local farmers and the area." </em>See: <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-18088696" target="_blank" title="BBC">Jobs under threat at Aberystwyth dairy firm Rachel's</a><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript" src="http://embed.technorati.com/embed/dbm2zdrjt.js"></script>
<!-- Start of StatCounter Code -->
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
var sc_project=1935474;
var sc_invisible=0;
var sc_partition=17;
var sc_security="650a9fb1";
</script>
<!-- End of StatCounter Code --></div>Mike Bradyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04121310163466468696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35538737.post-71681761345008254052012-08-03T09:44:00.001+01:002012-08-07T16:08:10.541+01:00SMA formula pricingWyeth is embarking on yet another national advertising campaign for its SMA formula.<br />
<br />
This must be costing millions of pounds - a bill ultimately paid by those who buy formula.<br />
<br />
The subvert below made me think about how much mark up there is on formula.<br />
<br />
<img align="none" border="0" class="mceItem" height="422" src="http://info.babymilkaction.org/sites/info.babymilkaction.org/files/images/wyethsubvert0712.jpg" width="358" /><br />
<br />
Companies won't reveal the breakdown of their costs, so the calculation below is based on speculation.<br />
<br />
A 250 ml bottle of Wyeth's new SMA ready-to-feed formula costs 89 pence.<br />
<br />
The dairy farmer will have received less than 7 pence for the milk (according to Farmers for Action farmers currently receive 27 pence per litre for milk from processors - <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18946221" target="_blank" title="BBC news">click here</a>).<br />
<br />
Changing the fat content, pasteurising, packaging and distributing whole milk costs about 3 pence for 250 ml (Farmers for Action figures suggest 27 pence processing costs for 2.3 litres). Let's speculate and say that changing the protein content, adding vitamins, extracts from algae (LCPs) and other additives triples the processing costs of formula milk compared with whole milk. That would be 9 pence for 250 ml. This would make the total cost of the milk and production 16 pence per 250 ml.<br />
<br />
The remaining 73 pence of the 89 pence selling price will be split between company and retailer profit and the costs of marketing, including advertising campaigns, baby clubs, "carelines", events for health workers, and other promotion.<br />
<br />
Although marketing figures are hard to come by, it is known that Wyeth awarded a <a href="http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/850467/SMA-hands-direct-account-Partners-Andrews-Aldridge/?DCMP=ILC-SEARCH" target="_blank" title="PR Week">contract for £2 million</a> to a PR agency in 2008 for targeting pregnant women, new mothers and health workers. In 2012 it must surely have already spent far more than this, having run two national billboard advertising and mass media campaigns by the end of July and planned the <a href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease22jun12" target="_self" title="Press releases">SMA Baby Know How roadshow</a> to launch its new formula packaging (which was cancelled following protests).<br />
<br />
Wyeth already has a criminal conviction for breaking advertising regulations and complaints have been upheld by the Advertising Standards Authority. Its Self-serving Marketing Activities benefit no-one and inflate prices through the costs of these and by positioning the product with misleading, idealising claims.<br />
<br />
All formulas on the UK market have to comply with composition regulations and optional ingredients (which have been added to most formulas) have no proven benefit, so there is no health advantage from buying more expensive formula.<br />
<br />
Formula is said to have the highest profit margins of any product on the supermarket shelves. For example, New Zealand’s Economic Development Minister Gerry Brownlee stated in October 2010: "<em>A kilo of infant formula is worth ten times the value of a kilo of milk powder, so it’s obvious which product New Zealand should be selling."</em><br />
<br />
These are obviously rough calculations, but not for nothing are hundreds of people signing the 'No promotion - Cheaper formula' petition on Change.org at:<br />
<a href="http://www.change.org/petitions/baby-milk-companies-no-promotion-cheaper-formula" target="_blank" title="Change.org">http://www.change.org/petitions/baby-milk-companies-no-promotion-cheaper-formula</a><br />
<br />
If you can help improve this calculation, please <a href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/contact" target="_self" title="Contact us">contact Baby Milk Action</a>.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript" src="http://embed.technorati.com/embed/dbm2zdrjt.js"></script>
<!-- Start of StatCounter Code -->
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
var sc_project=1935474;
var sc_invisible=0;
var sc_partition=17;
var sc_security="650a9fb1";
</script>
<!-- End of StatCounter Code --></div>Mike Bradyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04121310163466468696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35538737.post-56065448461656016142012-05-23T23:04:00.004+01:002012-05-23T23:05:24.645+01:00Something nestling in the Baby Milk Action officeMany thanks to supporter Nigel Harrison for creating the MyMeter iPhone app for Baby Milk Action.<br />
This is a fun detector simulator. Watch the film clip to see what it does and how it works.<br />
<br />
<object height="360" width="640"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1obB4SOUwEU?version=3&hl=en_US">
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true">
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always">
<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1obB4SOUwEU?version=3&hl=en_US" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></object><br />
<br />
You can download the app from the app store by <a href="http://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/mymeter/id496759989?ls=1&mt=8" target="_blank" title="App store">clicking here</a>.<br />
<br />
You could use it as a fun way to raise the Nestlé boycott.<br />
<br />
The beauty of the boycott is wherever you see Nestlé's products, that is an opportunity to talk about the way Nestlé pushes its baby milks in violation of international marketing standards. There is a potted explanation of the boycott below.<br />
<br />
If you identify a product from the boycott list, you can use the MyMeter app to simulate detecting it. Then give your friend or colleague one of <a href="http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/boycott.html" target="_blank" title="Baby Milk Action Virtual Shop">Baby Milk Action's leaflets or boycott cards</a>. You could download the 'Fight the Nestlé monster' leaflet to use. Take a look at the leaflet for ten key facts that Nestlé executives do not want people to know. See:<br />
<a href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/monster" target="_self" title="Nestle monster">http://info.babymilkaction.org/monster</a><br />
<br />
For the 'Fight the Nestlé monster' t-shirts - <a href="http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/tshirts.html#monster" target="_blank" title="Baby Milk Action Virtual Shop">click here</a>.<br />
<br />
The app has lots of other possible applications. You might like to use it with kids to identify the healthy or unhealthy option between different foods. Of course, you control the signal, so you need to know the facts.<br />
<br />
Have fun and tell your friends!<br />
<br />
<object height="360" width="640"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gLYcg4tmRCo?version=3&hl=en_US">
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true">
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always">
<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gLYcg4tmRCo?version=3&hl=en_US" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></object><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: medium;"><strong>Why boycott Nestlé</strong></span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;"><strong><br /></strong></span><br />
<em><span style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">Nestlé pushes baby milk using strategies that are prohibited by <a href="http://www.ibfan.org/issue-international_code-understant.html" style="color: #cc0000; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" title="IBFAN site">international marketing standards</a>, so undermining breastfeeding. For example, it claims on labels around the world that its formula 'protects' babies, but it knows that babies who are fed on formula are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. <a href="http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/yqsanswered/yqanestle.html#13aug01" style="color: #cc0000; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" title="Baby Milk Action archive">According to UNICEF</a>, </span><span style="font-weight: normal;">"Improved breastfeeding practices and reduction of artificial feeding could save an estimated 1.5 million children a year."</span></em><br />
<br />
Nestlé is the worst of the baby food companies and so is the target of a boycott. The <a href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease15may11" style="color: #cc0000; text-decoration: none;" target="_self" title="Press releases">latest global monitoring report</a> from the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) has page after page of examples of Nestlé materials that violate the marketing standards adopted by the World Health Assembly.<br />
<br />
Some countries, such as India and Brazil, have introduced strong laws and have proved that companies can comply with the marketing requirements when they are forced to. In India companies have been unable to grow the market and in Brazil breastfeeding rates have increased significantly since violations have been stopped. Where companies think they can get away with it, they put their profits first. The boycott gives the global market leader a financial reason to think again.<br />
<strong><br /></strong><br />
Nestlé also endangers babies that are fed on formula by refusing to warn that powdered formula is not sterile and may contain harmful bacteria. It refuses to bring its instructions into line with <a href="http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/micro/pif2007/en/index.html" style="color: #cc0000; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" title="WHO site">World Health Organisation Guidelines</a> for reducing risks.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: medium;"><strong>Nestlé's 'protect' logos explained</strong></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Spoof marketing guru, Mr. Henry Nastie (really Baby Milk Action's Mike Brady) explains all about Nestlé's protect logos. Apart from the awful accent, everything is true.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><object height="360" width="480"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2Z1ylqNtsGw?version=3&hl=en_US">
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true">
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always">
<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2Z1ylqNtsGw?version=3&hl=en_US" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></object></span><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript" src="http://embed.technorati.com/embed/dbm2zdrjt.js"></script>
<!-- Start of StatCounter Code -->
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
var sc_project=1935474;
var sc_invisible=0;
var sc_partition=17;
var sc_security="650a9fb1";
</script>
<!-- End of StatCounter Code --></div>Mike Bradyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04121310163466468696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35538737.post-37883406024665369272012-04-30T09:38:00.002+01:002012-04-30T09:39:37.708+01:00Nestlé demonstration - Croydon<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><strong>11:00 - 12:00 Saturday 19 May 2012</strong></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><strong><span style="font-size: small;">Download the flier with map, car park and travel details - <a href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/sites/info.babymilkaction.org/files/demo12.pdf" target="_blank" title="PDF">click here</a></span></strong></span><br />
<strong><strong>Join the virtual demonstration on Facebook - <a href="http://www.facebook.com/events/193514587435510/" style="color: #027ac6; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" title="Facebook">click here</a></strong></strong><br />
<strong><strong></strong></strong><br />
<strong><span style="font-size: small;">Nestlé refuses to change its baby milk marketing practices - unless there are protests</span></strong><br />
<br />
Baby Milk Action and our partners around the world have been working for over thirty years to protect mothers, babies and their families from the aggressive marketing practices of the baby food companies.<br />
<br />
Today over 60 countries had introduced laws to enforce the marketing standards we helped to bring at the World Health Assembly, the world's highest health policy setting body. However, according to industry analysts Euromonitor:<em> "The industry is fighting a rearguard action against regulation on a country-by-country basis".</em><br />
<br />
We monitor the companies and remind them they have a responsibility to respect the marketing standards even where governments have not yet introduced laws. On 19 April, I attended the <a href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease19apr12" target="_self" title="Press releases">Nestlé shareholder meeting</a> in Lausanne, Switzerland, to ask the company's board and the shareholders to respect the marketing standards and to bring its policies and practices into line. One of the concerns is that Nestlé promotes its formula with the claim it "protects" babies. In truth, babies who are fed on formula are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. The clip below from the 2010 demonstration includes and explanation of the logos:<br />
<strong><br /></strong><br />
<strong>Film clip - Nestle baby milk marketing strategy explained - <a href="http://youtu.be/2Z1ylqNtsGw" target="_blank" title="youtube">click here if it is not displayed below</a>.</strong><br />
<strong><br /></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<object height="360" width="480"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2Z1ylqNtsGw?version=3&hl=en_US">
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true">
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always">
<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2Z1ylqNtsGw?version=3&hl=en_US" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></object></div>
<strong><br /></strong><br />
<strong>Mr. Henry Nastie was played by me, Mike Brady of Baby Milk Action. Other people interviewed were campaign supporters who had come to demonstrate at Nestlé (UK) HQ</strong><br />
<br />
The response from the Nestlé Chairman, Peter Brabeck-Letmathé, at the shareholder meeting was that it is not for Baby Milk Action to tell him what to do. All we are asking is for Nestlé executives to follow the rules.<br />
<br />
We need to keep up the pressure, because pressure works. Recently thousands of people emailed the company to complain about it promoting its formula with the claim it is <em>"The new 'Gold Standard' in infant nutrition".</em> As a result, Nestlé discontinued the leaflet with this claim. However, it is refusing to stop the majority (97%) of the violations in the last global monitoring report.<br />
<br />
<img alt="Nestle monster" border="0" class="mceItem" height="258" src="http://www.babymilkaction.org/pics/merchandise/nestlemonstertshirtsmid.jpg" style="float: left; margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 10px;" width="360" /><br />
<strong>We are holding a demonstration at Nestlé (UK) HQ in Croydon on Saturday 19 May from 11:00 to 12:00 to say this is just not good enough. Please do come along if you can. You can let us know you are coming by completing our online form - </strong><strong><a href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/nestledemonstration" target="_self" title="Nestle demonstration">click here</a></strong><strong>.</strong><br />
<strong><br /></strong><br />
You might like to wear one of our new "Fight the Nestlé monster". The monster has just grown as it has swallowed Pfizer's infant nutrition business. That means it now owns the SMA brand, which brings it into the UK market. <a href="http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/tshirts.html#monster" target="_blank" title="Baby Milk Action Virtual Shop">Click here for the t-shirt</a>.<br />
<br />
If you can't make it to the demonstration, you can support our other events and campaigns.<br />
Donations are also very welcome and help to keep us operating to hold Nestlé and the rest of the baby food industry to account.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/sites/info.babymilkaction.org/files/demo12.pdf" target="_blank" title="PDF"><img align="left" border="1" height="211" name="mceItemDrupalImage" src="http://info.babymilkaction.org/sites/info.babymilkaction.org/files/images/demo12.jpg" width="299" /></a><strong>Download the attached leaflet for a map, NCP car parks and other information - <a href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/sites/info.babymilkaction.org/files/demo12.pdf" target="_blank" title="PDF">click here</a>.</strong><br />
<strong><br /></strong><br />
You can scan the OCR code on the leaflet with a smartphone to access the data about the demonstration.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript" src="http://embed.technorati.com/embed/dbm2zdrjt.js"></script>
<!-- Start of StatCounter Code -->
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
var sc_project=1935474;
var sc_invisible=0;
var sc_partition=17;
var sc_security="650a9fb1";
</script>
<!-- End of StatCounter Code --></div>Mike Bradyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04121310163466468696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35538737.post-54843840386077994302012-04-11T18:51:00.002+01:002012-04-11T18:53:36.898+01:00Latest newsWhile this blog has been a little quiet recently, a lot has been going on elsewhere.<br /><br />You can catch up by reading Baby Milk Action's latest Update newsletter and Nestlé Boycott News available on the Baby Milk Action website at:<br /><a href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/update/update44contents">http://info.babymilkaction.org/update/update44contents</a><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript" src="http://embed.technorati.com/embed/dbm2zdrjt.js"></script>
<!-- Start of StatCounter Code -->
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
var sc_project=1935474;
var sc_invisible=0;
var sc_partition=17;
var sc_security="650a9fb1";
</script>
<!-- End of StatCounter Code --></div>Mike Bradyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04121310163466468696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35538737.post-50185227831298931692012-02-11T10:16:00.008+00:002012-02-11T11:15:14.294+00:00Another nail in the coffin of satire<p>I was going to include this expression in a press release sent out yesterday, but no-one in the office understood what it meant.</p><p>If you have to explain a joke then it isn't very funny. But here goes.</p><p>There is a famous (?) observation by the American musical satirist Tom Lehrer. When Henry Kissinger, President Nixon's Secretary of State during the Vietnam War, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973, Lehrer said: <em>"It was at that moment that satire died."</em></p><p>If satire is pushing the real towards the absurd to make a point, he felt <em>"There was nothing more to say after that."</em></p><p>So what put another nail in the coffin of satire?</p><p>The Chairman of Nestlé, Peter Brabeck-Letmathé, is (possibly) to be awarded an honorary degree by the University of Alberta for <em>"the preservation, distribution and management of one of humanity’s most vital resources: water."</em></p><p>Nestlé makes much of reducing its water usage in its Public Relations reports. What it is less forthcoming about - and what the award committee either disregarded or were ignorant of - is Nestlé and Mr. Brabeck are rather better known in human rights and environmental circles for their harmful impact on water.<em> </em></p><p>See our press release for further information and an email campaign asking the University of Alberta not to make itself look foolish by giving a degree to Mr. Brabeck:</p><p><a href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease10feb12" mce_href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease10feb12" title="Press releases" target="_self">http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease10feb12</a></p><p>You could tell them it puts another nail in the coffin of satire, but I guess they might not understand.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript" src="http://embed.technorati.com/embed/dbm2zdrjt.js"></script>
<!-- Start of StatCounter Code -->
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
var sc_project=1935474;
var sc_invisible=0;
var sc_partition=17;
var sc_security="650a9fb1";
</script>
<!-- End of StatCounter Code --></div>Mike Bradyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04121310163466468696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35538737.post-77464789452938221202012-01-17T12:03:00.001+00:002012-01-17T12:04:33.975+00:00Governments should govern, and corporations should follow the rules<p>The latest edition of SCN News contains an article written by myself and Patti Rundall, our Policy Director, with this title. See page 51 of <a title="SCN News" href="http://www.unscn.org/files/Publications/SCN_News/SCNNEWS39_10.01_high_def.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.unscn.org/files/Publications/SCN_News/SCNNEWS39_10.01_high_def.pdf</a></p><p><!--break--></p><p>SCN is the <a title="SCN" href="http://www.unscn.org/en/publications/scn_news/" target="_blank">United Nations System Standing Committee on Nutrition</a>. The theme of the journal is: <em>Nutrition and Business - How to Engage?</em></p><p>There is a trend being followed by some policy makers at UN, government and civil society level to see working in partnership with corporations as the way to achieve goals relating to nutrition and tackling diet-related ill health, such as Non-Communicable Diseases or NCDs. NCDs include things like heart disease (responsible for 29% of global deaths) and diabetes, which are on the increase as more and more people become overweight and obese.</p><p>We see it with the baby milk issue and our latest newsletter, <a title="Update 44" href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/update/update44" target="_self">Update 44</a>, examines some specific cases where a desire by policy makers to work with corporations (which sometimes includes accepting funding) has led to the rights of mothers and babies being neglected or even undermined. Baby Milk Action engages with companies such as Nestlé and Danone through ongoing correspondence regarding marketing practices that violate international standards. As we report in Update, Nestlé is not so keen to engage with our proposals for substantive meetings to discuss the need for it to make changes to its policies and practices, or even to resolve disagreements over interpretation of the marketing requirements. </p><p>The Editorial to SCN News is generally optimistic about working with corporations, stating, for example:</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>Nutrition and business interests are overlapping more and more. Businesses are increasingly including product and social innovation as well as sustainability into their core corporate strategies and supply chains. Business is also continuously reaching out to new consumers, including the urban and rural poor, exploring emerging markets and engaging with other nutrition stakeholders. While these overlaps create opportunities for cooperation and convergence of interests for achieving food and nutrition security, they also carry controversy, and sometimes cause heated debate, especially on transparency and accountability issues. There are cases of actual or perceived conflicts of interest that undermine such convergence and diminish trust, jeopardizing potentially fruitful initiatives.</em></p><p>The journal presents some cases of initiatives involving business that are deemed to be successful by the authors and also notes: <em>"Millions of farmers and rural entrepreneurs form the bulk of agricultural production and investments. Private businesses, of all sizes, constitute the food supply chain as it evolves from the farm to the fork."</em> </p><p>Like several other peer-reviewed articles in the journal, we warn that there is a failure in governance when it comes to nutrition and the industrialised food sector, which involves some of the world's largest transnational corporations. </p><p>Before even considering how to engage with business, we argue that policy makers need to understand that executives have a legal obligation to put their shareholders' interest before all others. If executives aren't looking for some advantage in engaging with policy makers, they are failing in this duty. That is not to question the ethics or morality of executives; it is to state what should be obvious. However, talk of win-win solutions sometimes seems to paint too rosy - or naive - a picture of the relationships. </p><p>So we set out and describe five key steps for policy makers to take when considering nutrition, health and other issues and the role of the private sector:</p><p>1.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Understand the problem and the role played by the private sector</p><p>2.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Determine the appropriate public-interest response</p><p>3.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Decide the appropriate relationship with the private sector in this context</p><p>4.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Identify the extent of conflicts of interest, minimise them and manage those that are consid- ered acceptable or unavoidable</p><p>5.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>If deciding to work with the private sector in some way, avoid the language of partnership, define the relationship clearly and ensure that your original objectives do not get subverted.</p><p><a title="SCN News" href="http://www.unscn.org/files/Publications/SCN_News/SCNNEWS39_10.01_high_def.pdf" target="_blank">Read the full article</a> for further details.</p><p> </p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript" src="http://embed.technorati.com/embed/dbm2zdrjt.js"></script>
<!-- Start of StatCounter Code -->
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
var sc_project=1935474;
var sc_invisible=0;
var sc_partition=17;
var sc_security="650a9fb1";
</script>
<!-- End of StatCounter Code --></div>Mike Bradyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04121310163466468696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35538737.post-78856702653482305282011-12-15T16:23:00.001+00:002011-12-15T16:24:48.873+00:00Product placement of baby milk in TV programmes is banned<p>Did you know that it is against the rules for television programmes to accept payment for showing baby milk in television programmes? </p><p>The ban is contained in the Ofcom Broadcasting Code.</p><p>Ofcom (the independent regulator and competition authority for the UK communication industries) introduced rules regarding product placement in television programmes in February 2011. </p><p>Products that cannot be placed in programmes include: <em>"infant formula (baby milk), including follow-on formula".</em> However, Ofcom does point out that some products may appear in programmes because they have been chosen by the producers as props. Companies can be fined for breaking the rules. </p><p>You can find the text of rules via the <a title="BFLG" href="http://www.babyfeedinglawgroup.org.uk/thelaw" target="_blank">Law section</a> of the Baby Feeding Law Group (BFLG) website and information on how to register a complaint in the <a title="BFLG" href="http://www.babyfeedinglawgroup.org.uk/monitoring/reportviolations" target="_blank">Report violations section</a> of the same site. Baby Milk Action coordinates the BFLG monitoring project.</p><p>Baby Milk Action submitted comments to the Ofcom and government consultations on the proposals, calling for all baby foods to be included in the ban. Our full submission can be downloaded by <a title="PDF" href="http://www.babymilkaction.org/pdfs/BMAcProductPlacement.pdf" target="_blank">clicking here</a>.</p><p>Was this useful? <a href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/emmathompsonappeal" target="_self">Please click here</a>.</p><p> </p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript" src="http://embed.technorati.com/embed/dbm2zdrjt.js"></script>
<!-- Start of StatCounter Code -->
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
var sc_project=1935474;
var sc_invisible=0;
var sc_partition=17;
var sc_security="650a9fb1";
</script>
<!-- End of StatCounter Code --></div>Mike Bradyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04121310163466468696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35538737.post-75414655263800959902011-11-27T10:19:00.003+00:002011-11-27T10:32:55.182+00:00A question for members of the United Reformed ChurchWe have received shocking news from the United Reformed Church (URC) Secretary for Church and Society.<div><br /></div><div>In July 2010 the URC Assembly renewed its long-running support for the Nestlé boycott until such time as Nestlé stops violating the international baby food marketing requirements.</div><div><br /></div><div>The Resolution referenced inclusion in the FTSE4Good Index, an ethical investment listing from FTSE, as the criteria for ending support for the boycott.</div><div><br /></div><div>Nestlé was included in the Index in March 2011 after the FTSE4Good criteria were changed in September 2010 - that is, after the URC Assembly Resolution - to allow companies that violate the marketing requirements into the Index. The stated aim was to weaken the criteria to bring half of the baby food sector into the Index on the grounds this would make it easier to engage with the companies.</div><div><br /></div><div>Given this development, we expected the matter to go back to the URC Assembly so it could review the Resolution as the situation had changed. Nestlé would not have been included in the Index under the criteria in place at the time of the Resolution. It is not its marketing practices that have changed, but the FTSE4Good criteria.</div><div><br /></div><div>Instead, URC Church and Society told us the Resolution was binding and had to be implemented as a matter of urgency.</div><div><br /></div><div>Our press release regarding this shocking news can be found - along with a chronology of events - at:</div><div><a href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease26nov11">http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease26nov11</a></div><div><br /></div><div>It is for URC members to decide whether to take any action over this matter - we have to concentrate on assisting our partners in developing countries, particularly as Nestlé will undoubtedly the exploit the URC announcement to undermine efforts to stop its ongoing marketing malpractice.</div><div><br /></div><div>I would be interested in the views of URC members, however, particularly those who supported the July 2010 Resolution. Was it the intention of members to end support for the boycott if FTSE weakened the FTSE4Good criteria?</div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript" src="http://embed.technorati.com/embed/dbm2zdrjt.js"></script>
<!-- Start of StatCounter Code -->
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
var sc_project=1935474;
var sc_invisible=0;
var sc_partition=17;
var sc_security="650a9fb1";
</script>
<!-- End of StatCounter Code --></div>Mike Bradyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04121310163466468696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35538737.post-35197425926236380772011-09-23T19:13:00.004+01:002011-09-23T19:21:44.001+01:00Pressure and persuasion - small acts help to hold big corporations to account<p><img class="mceItem" src="http://info.babymilkaction.org/sites/info.babymilkaction.org/files/images/ncvoguide11.jpg" border="0" alt="NCVO Guide" width="360" height="255" style="border: 1px solid black; margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 10px; float: left;" /><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I was pleased to provide information to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) for a briefing it produced on <em>Campaigning and the private sector </em>- <a title="NCVO" href="http://www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/sites/default/files/In_Focus_Campaigning_and_the_private_sector.pdf" target="_blank">click here</a>.</p><p>This includes profiles of the campaigning strategies of a range of organisations, including Amnesty International, Greenpeace and Baby Milk Action.</p><p>Although it includes in the title the question <em>Persuasion or pressure? </em>these are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, with some corporations it takes pressure to persuade them to act.</p><p> </p><p><!--break-->However, it is not always necessary to launch a public campaign to force changes. I often take up cases when I receive reports of websites or shops that are violating the <em>International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes</em> and subsequent, relevant Resolutions of the World Health Assembly. Sometimes simply informing the people responsible that their bright promotional idea is a violation of the Code and Resolutions - and perhaps even illegal -is often sufficient.</p><p>With Nestlé, which we target with the boycott as it is the worst of the baby food companies, we also try persuasion by reminding it of its obligations under the Code and Resolutions. It usually takes an exposure campaign to force changes as it is reluctant to admit to violations. For example, it initially ignored our report about point-of-sale promotion in Africa, but agreed to crack down on the practice after members of the public took up the case (see our <a title="Baby Milk Action archive" href="http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemjuly09.html#1" target="_blank">Campaign for Ethical Marketing action sheet, July 2009</a>).</p><p>Our partners in the International Code Documentation Centre (ICDC) recently reported that a Nestlé lunch for health workers in South Africa was cancelled after they raised concerns with Nestlé Head Office. Although such events are common - and usually defended by Nestlé executives - there were possibly greater sensitivities in this case as the South African authorities are currently considering what action to take to implement the Code and Resolutions. You can read a report from ICDC on the website of the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) - <a title="IBFAN" href="http://www.ibfan.org/newsletters-world-africa-20110831.html" target="_blank">click here</a>.</p><p>As the NCVO briefing explains, we use a broad range of strategies to put pressure on companies, but we also work for strategic changes in the regulation of corporations that will provide a level playing field for all companies and back regulations with enforcement methods. This involves working for new Resolutions at the World Health Assembly, to address changes in marketing practices and scientific knowledge, and encouraging governments to implement the Code and Resolutions at the national level in independently monitored and enforced legislation. Achieving legislation is a major activity of ICDC, working with the IBFAN network as a whole. The strategy has been so successful that the industry itself is complaining of 'constraints' in countries such as India where the formula market has barely grown over the last decade, in contrast to China, where there is a weak code of conduct and sales have surged ahead. Industry analysts Euromonitor note (see <a title="Update 42 - page 6" href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/update/update42page6" target="_self">Update 42</a>):<em> "The industry is fighting a rearguard action against regulation on a country-by-country basis."</em></p><p>That could explain why Nestlé wants to look responsive to complaints in South Africa at present. Its stated policy is to encourage governments to go for voluntary measures to implement the Code and Resolutions - rather than legislation with meaningful sanctions (which in the case of India's exemplary legislation include imprisonment of the Managing Director).</p><p><img class="mceItem" src="http://www.babymilkaction.org/pics/photographs/philippinespetition06dsm.jpg" border="0" alt="Philippines petition" width="288" height="216" style="float: left; margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 10px;" /></p><p>Introducing - and defending - legislation is no easy task. We have reported in the past how it took an international campaign to defend new baby food marketing regulations in the Philippines in 2007 (see <a title="Baby Milk Action archive" href="http://www.babymilkaction.org/update/update40b.html#philippines" target="_blank">Philippines Victory</a> in Update 40). We have recently learned through the exposure of US diplomatic cables by Wikileaks that we not only faced the machinations of the baby food companies and the US Chamber of Commerce threatening to disinvest from the Philippines, the US Government was also putting pressure directly on the Philippines Government to weaken regulations drafted to protect infant health (see <a title="ABS-CBNNews" href="http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/-depth/09/10/11/wikileaks-cable-us-lobbied-vs-breastfeeding-philippines" target="_blank">ABS-CBNNews report</a>). That the regulations came in largely unscathed despite this pressure is a direct result of campaigning, nationally (including a petition shown left) and internationally (with petitions of support and other action). The main Philippines broadsheet put the campaign on its front page as a result of international concern, quoting a message from someone who had signed Baby Milk Action's petition in its report, showing how individual action can help to save lives on the other side of the world. </p><p>Where national measures are lacking or ineffective, we have argued that the global community has a responsibility to act. How this could operate in practice is something I explored in depth in a chapter I wrote for the book<em> Global Obligations for the Right to Food</em> as part of a Task Force of the UN System Standing Committee on Nutrition - <a title="Baby Milk Acton Virtual Shop" href="http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/publications02.html#gorf" target="_blank">click here to order</a>.</p><p>At present, the best we have at the international level is the <em>UN Global Compact</em> and the <em>OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises</em>. We have been pursuing complaints about Nestlé human rights abuses under both measures for the past two years and found them to be ineffective and in need of replacement or reform. In the case of the UN Global Compact, it is actually counterproductive as it provides public relations cover for companies by posting their social responsibility reports on the official website without any form of checking. In the case of Nestlé, the Global Compact Office even takes part in joint launch events and accepts Nestlé as a Patron Sponsor of prestige events, such as its 10th anniversary celebrations in New York last year. See our press release: <a title="Press releases" href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease23jun10" target="_self">UN Global Compact - 10 years of helping cover up corporate malpractice</a>.</p><p>In recent weeks, Baby Milk Action has brought together over 140 citizens groups in the <a title="COI Coalition" href="http://coicoalition.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Conflicts of Interest Coalition</a> to ensure that policy making on health issues, such as Non-Communicable Diseases, is pursued in the public interest. It is an uphill struggle as corporations not only have massive lobbying resources, but a revolving door operates between their staff and government and United Nations staff in many areas.</p><p>So campaigning continues to be essential: when policy makers fail to hold corporations to account, it falls to us - you and me, together with many other people around the world - to do so. </p><p> </p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript" src="http://embed.technorati.com/embed/dbm2zdrjt.js"></script>
<!-- Start of StatCounter Code -->
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
var sc_project=1935474;
var sc_invisible=0;
var sc_partition=17;
var sc_security="650a9fb1";
</script>
<!-- End of StatCounter Code --></div>Mike Bradyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04121310163466468696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35538737.post-41741102088903466172011-09-21T20:44:00.005+01:002011-09-21T20:57:02.168+01:00The Conflicts of Interest Coalition - protecting health right now in New YorkBaby Milk Action recently formed the Conflict of Interest (COI) Coalition, bringing together - so far - over 140 international networks and civil society organisations calling for the United Nations to avoid conflicts of interest as it sets policies on obesity, diabetes and other Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs).<div><br /></div><div>The Coalition represents thousands of non-profit public health advocacy groups around the world.</div><div><br /></div><div>It is necessary because food corporations such as Nestlé and alcohol companies companies are lobbying to set the rules on tackling the rise in NCDs for which they are partly responsible. Pharmaceutical companies that can also profit from policy decisions are also involved in lobbying. All want to be seen as 'partners' in tackling the problems.</div><div><br /></div><div>The COI Coalition is calling for there to be a Code of Conduct on relationships so that policies are made in the public interest. While corporate interests can be consulted, they should not be involved in setting the policies or these will inevitably be weakened to protect corporate interests, instead of protecting health.</div><div><br /></div><div>The corporations are out in force this week at the UN General Assembly where these issues are being discussed. Baby Milk Action's Policy Director, Patti Rundall, is also there, with colleagues in the COI Coalition.</div><div><br /></div><div>You can follow developments on the new COI Coalition blog at:</div><div><a href="http://coicoalition.blogspot.com/">http://coicoalition.blogspot.com/</a></div><div><br /></div><div>and Patti's own Policy blog at:</div><div><a href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/policyblog">http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/policyblog</a></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript" src="http://embed.technorati.com/embed/dbm2zdrjt.js"></script>
<!-- Start of StatCounter Code -->
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
var sc_project=1935474;
var sc_invisible=0;
var sc_partition=17;
var sc_security="650a9fb1";
</script>
<!-- End of StatCounter Code --></div>Mike Bradyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04121310163466468696noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35538737.post-42350753018106898322011-07-29T16:10:00.003+01:002011-08-11T22:21:04.744+01:00Department of Health responds to Baby Milk Action email campaign<p>Over 1,000 people have sent emails to the Secretary of State for Health, Mr. Andrew Lansley, asking the Government to reconsider its decision to scrap its Infant Feeding Coordinator posts and its support for National Breastfeeding Awareness Week. The response from the Department of Health is given below.</p><p><!--break--></p><p>It is welcome that the Department of Health recognises the health benefits of breastfeeding and the savings to the National Health Service. However, the Government has not only failed to meet its obligations under the <a title="WHO site" href="http://www.who.int/child_adolescent_health/documents/9241562218/en/index.html" target="_blank">Global Strategy for Infant and Young Child Feeding</a>, which it supported at the World Health Assembly, it is backtracking on action that had been taken. </p><p>Please sign the ePetition on the Prime Minister's website calling on the Government to deliver on its infant feeding obligations - <a href="http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/4764">click here</a>. Petitions receiving 100,000 signatures will be debated in Parliament.</p><p>If you have not signed up to receive email alerts from Baby Milk Action, <a title="Email alerts" href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/emailalerts" target="_self">please do so now</a> to be kept informed of the next steps in this and other campaigns.</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>Thank you for your email of **** to Andrew Lansley about infant feeding which was forwarded to the Department of Health on ****. I have been asked to reply. </em></p><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>The Department of Health is committed to supporting healthier choices, including breastfeeding, through the ‘Healthy Child Programme’ as set out in the Public Health White Paper ‘Healthy Lives, Healthy People: our strategy for public health in England’.</em></p><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>The Department recognises the evidence-based health benefits of breastfeeding both for the mother and her baby and the savings to the NHS. The Department’s approach is to support all parents and parents-to-be with information to enable them to make an informed choice when deciding how to feed their baby.</em></p><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>Due to reduced budgets this year, the Department was unable to co-ordinate the National Breastfeeding Week and provide free resources for local events. However, support and information is currently available to health professionals and parents via NHS Choices, the National Breastfeeding Helpline, UNICEF UK Baby Friendly Initiative and localpeer support programmes.</em></p><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>At present, the Department is reshaping the whole health and social care system, and looking at how this can work to deliver the best possible health and social care outcomes. Public health will remain a key component in all of this. It is important that organisations working to promote better health engage with all parts of the new health system as it develops to ensure that we make the most of the available evidence on infant feeding to drive the greatest health gains. The Department is also already actively encouraging local groups to nominate representatives from their networks to attend national meetings to continue to share positive practice and information on infant feeding. This will help the Department to ensure continued communication and support to the current infrastructure until the new system is operating.</em></p><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>The Department received a large number of responses to its recent consultation on the White Paper and the associated proposals for a new public health outcomes framework, and for funding and commissioning of public health services in the newly defined system. Responses to the consultation were used to inform ‘Healthy Lives, Healthy People: Next Steps and Way Forward’, which sets out the key elements of the new public health system. This can be accessed at the link below:</em></p><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><a title="Department of Health" href="http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publichealth/Healthyliveshealthypeople/index.htm" target="_blank"><em>http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publichealth/Healthyliveshealthypeople/index.htm</em></a></p><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>Following this publication, the Department of Health will issue a series of policy statements including the final outcomes framework in the autumn. </em></p><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>I hope this information is helpful.</em></p><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>Yours sincerely, </em></p><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>Customer Service Centre </em></p><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>Department of Health</em></p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript" src="http://embed.technorati.com/embed/dbm2zdrjt.js"></script>
<!-- Start of StatCounter Code -->
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
var sc_project=1935474;
var sc_invisible=0;
var sc_partition=17;
var sc_security="650a9fb1";
</script>
<!-- End of StatCounter Code --></div>Mike Bradyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04121310163466468696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35538737.post-56589222900042743052011-06-21T13:34:00.002+01:002011-06-21T13:35:31.150+01:00Reuniting mothers and babies - we are all Habiba<p><a title="Facebook" href="http://www.facebook.com/WeAreAllHabiba?ref=ts&sk=wall" target="_blank"><img src="http://info.babymilkaction.org/sites/info.babymilkaction.org/files/images/habiba.jpg" border="0" width="200" height="168" align="left" /></a>Baby Milk Action has repeatedly raised concerns when mothers have been separated from their babies in immigration or detention centres or denied access to feed them. This action has led to questions being raised in Parliament and changes to government procedures.</p><p>We have been asked to support mothers' rights in a similar case in Spain, that of Habiba and her daughter.</p><p><!--break-->You can find information in English and a petition to send on the <a title="Habiba campaign page" href="http://actuable.es/peticiones/immf-give-back-habiba-s-baby" target="_blank">Habiba campaign page</a>. There is also a <a title="Facebook" href="http://www.facebook.com/WeAreAllHabiba" target="_blank">Facebook group</a> and <a title="Habiba blog" href="http://www.weareallhabiba.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">blog</a>, with various events planned in Spain, the UK and other countries, such as a gathering in Trafalgar Square on 21 June.</p><p>Baby Milk Action has sent the following letter to the authorities who have separated Habiba from her daughter claiming that breastfeeding is "chaotic" and "damaging".</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;">I apologise for writing in English, but the case of the mother Habiba who has been forcibly separated from her daughter has been brought to our attention and we wish to bring the following information to your attnetion and call for a review of the case as a matter of urgency.</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;">Baby Milk Action is the UK member the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) a network of over 200 citizens groups in over 100 countries and together the world’s health community we work to ensure that the critical value of breastfeeding and the importance of keeping mothers and babies together is recognised. We are contacting you to clarify your policies regarding breastfeeding mothers.</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;">Apart from its psychological importance, breastfeeding reduces the incidence of infectious diseases, chronic diseases and auto-immune diseases, offers optimal development and growth, cognitive and visual development and evidence suggests that it decreases the risk of obesity. The benefits of breastfeeding extend throughout the whole life cycle. In the global context, breastfeeding and appropriate complementary feeding help fulfil the Millennium Development Goals and have the potential to reduce under-5 mortality by 19%. (ref 1).</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;">The decision to separate breastfeeding mothers from their babies flies in the face of a number of UN Resolutions and conventions, including the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and the relevant, subsequent WHA resolutions, the Global Strategy on Infant and Young Child Feeding, UNICEF’s Baby-friendly Hospital Initiative and the Innocenti Declaration on the Protection, Promotion and Support of Breastfeeding, which all stress the critical importance of exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life with nutritionally adequate and safe complementary feeding alongside continued breastfeeding up to the age of two years and beyond. Article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child also recognizes the contribution breastfeeding makes to the fulfilment of the right of the child to the highest attainable standard of health.</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;">We would be grateful if you could review your policies in this area as a matter of urgency to ensure they are in line with these measures and provide mothers with the necessary support to continue breastfeeding.</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;">Ref. 1 Jones G et al. (2003) How many child deaths can we prevent this year? The Lancet, no 362, 65-71.</p><p> </p><p> </p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript" src="http://embed.technorati.com/embed/dbm2zdrjt.js"></script>
<!-- Start of StatCounter Code -->
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
var sc_project=1935474;
var sc_invisible=0;
var sc_partition=17;
var sc_security="650a9fb1";
</script>
<!-- End of StatCounter Code --></div>Mike Bradyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04121310163466468696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35538737.post-68186215198322891732011-05-27T22:09:00.003+01:002011-05-27T22:13:32.100+01:00Nestle's brave new world. Good Grief!<p>It has been a busy month for Nestlé as it tries to remake the world in its own image. It culminated in Nestlé announcing <em>"The first comprehensive nutrition system for babies",</em> a machine that squirts out milk into feeding bottles for new borns. How on earth has the human race survived without there being a way to provide nutrition to its young? In Nestlé's world, the past is prelude and the fact that babies were once nurtured by milk produced by their mothers' bodies is to be consigned to our primitive past it seems. <em>Nestlé, Good Grief! </em>(<a href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/ringtones">Click here for the ringtone</a>).</p><p><!--break--></p><p>In the old days, people sometimes talked of the mother-baby pair. Once breastfeeding was established - which sometimes required a little guidance as breastfeeding became an increasingly lost art - the mother would produce milk in response to cues from her child and it would change during the day and over time, tailored to the needs of the child. Milk was available on demand, at the right temperature. In Nestlé’s brave new world, it says of its <em>BabyNes</em> machine:</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>"The composition of the six consecutive formulas meets the evolving nutritional needs in the first three years of life: four formulas in the first year, and one formula for each of the following two years. The customised composition of these products is tailored to suit the growth pattern in early life and the baby’s changing nutritional needs, while taking into account the steady introduction of solid food into the infant’s diet."</em></p><p>The language has been appropriated. The machine produces milk 'tailored' to the baby we are to believe. Human milk is a living substance and not only adapts in its nutritional content, it is truly tailored to the needs of the baby as the mother’s body produces protective factors in response to infections in the environment, a medicine that is essential for reducing risk of infections. Without breastmilk babies are more likely to become sick and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die.</p><p>Nestlé further extols the virtues of its magical machine thus:</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>"The single-serve portions are sealed in capsules, used in the proprietary BabyNes machine, which recognises each capsule and prepares the bottle with precisely the right dosage and temperature, at the push of a button, in less than one minute. The BabyNes machine combines state-of-the-art technology with the utmost safety and convenience, and ensures a hygienic, quick and easy bottle preparation."</em></p><p><em> </em>So we are to believe <em>BabyNes</em> knows how to produce precisely the right dosage. Yet it is a false picture. A breastfed baby takes as much as it needs, not so easy to do when a plastic nipple is held in its mouth, no matter how precisely the volume in it has been decreed by the Nestlé machine.</p><p>Most misleading of all is to describe the machine's output as hygienic. The water used to make the formula is not boiled, just filtered. The World Health Organisation recommends all water be boiled, even bottled water. The capsules contain powder, and as they are sealed might appear to offer sterile certainty, but powdered formula is itself not sterile and may contain harmful pathogens such as <em>Salmonella</em> and <em>Enterobacter Sakazakii</em>. Nestlé knows this well as it has had to recall thousands of tins of formula in the past after such contamination has been found in its powder. The US Food and Drug Adminstration has cited a study of tins on the market that found 14% contained <em>Enterobacter Sakazakii,</em> which in rare cases can lead to fatal illness, though there are simple steps to reduce the risks - steps Nestlé’s machine seems not to take.</p><p>It was the death of a child in Belgium fed on contaminated Nestlé formula in 2002 that was a catalyst for a World Health Organisation investigation <a style="color: #027ac6; text-decoration: none;" title="WHO site" href="http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/micro/pif2007/en/index.html" target="_blank">leading to its recommendations on reconstituting powdered formula</a>. This includes reconstituting formula with water above 70 degrees Celsius to kill any harmful bacteria, then cooling the formula. Nestlé says its machine mixes feed in one minute without boiling the water.</p><p>Baby Milk Action recently produced on behalf of the Baby Feeding Law Group called <a style="color: #027ac6; text-decoration: none;" title="Infant Formula Explained" href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/formula_guidance/ife_dvd" target="_self">Infant Formula Explained</a> to show how to prepare a bottle in line with this guidance - necessary because companies are reluctant to tell parents that powdered formula is not sterile and how to reduce the risks. We have asked Nestlé many times to bring its warnings and instructions into line, and it has refused. Now we know part of the reason why: its machine has been under development for six years and if it acknowledged that formula should be prepared with water above 70 degrees, it would have had to go back to the drawing board.</p><p style="margin-top: 0.6em; margin-right: 1.2em; margin-bottom: 0.6em; margin-left: 1.2em; padding: 0px;">Instead a potentially dangerous method of preparing formula is being touted as offering the <em>"utmost safety".</em><em> </em></p><p style="margin-top: 0.6em; margin-right: 1.2em; margin-bottom: 0.6em; margin-left: 1.2em; padding: 0px;"><em> </em>In the world of marketing, of course, everything is always new and improved. </p><p style="margin-top: 0.6em; margin-right: 1.2em; margin-bottom: 0.6em; margin-left: 1.2em; padding: 0px;"><img src="http://info.babymilkaction.org/sites/info.babymilkaction.org/files/images/nestlenandubai10mid.jpg" border="0" width="360" height="356" align="left" />Last year we exposed Nestlé claiming the formula in its tins was <em>'The new "Gold Standard" in infant nutrition', </em>another attempt to appropriate the language of breastfeeding, long described as the <em>"Gold Standard".</em> After thousands of emails from boycott supporters, Nestlé said it had discontinued the leaflet - after attempting to argue that the 'Gold' referred to the colour of the formula labels.</p><p style="margin-top: 0.6em; margin-right: 1.2em; margin-bottom: 0.6em; margin-left: 1.2em; padding: 0px;">The withdrawal of the leaflets was one of four actions highlighted by Nestlé in its response to the<em> Breaking the Rules, Stretching the Rules 2010</em> monitoring report which profiles the practices of 22 formula and feeding bottle companies with examples of violations from 46 countries. </p><p style="margin-top: 0.6em; margin-right: 1.2em; margin-bottom: 0.6em; margin-left: 1.2em; padding: 0px;">The report contains page after page of examples of Nestlé materials showing how the company systematically violates the <em>International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes </em>and subsequent, relevant Resolutions of the World Health Assembly. Earlier this month I joined Annelies Allain from the International Code Documentation Centre to present the report in Geneva prior to the World Health Assembly (you can watch the film below).</p><p style="margin-top: 0.6em; margin-right: 1.2em; margin-bottom: 0.6em; margin-left: 1.2em; text-align: center; padding: 0px;"><object width="360" height="235"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QBlPpr83Y2Q?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QBlPpr83Y2Q?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="360" height="235" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object></p><p style="margin-top: 0.6em; margin-right: 1.2em; margin-bottom: 0.6em; margin-left: 1.2em; padding: 0px;">While promising action on just four of these examples - including the<em> ‘Gold Standard’ </em>leaflet - Nestlé defended the rest of the 130 violations it counted in the report.</p><p style="margin-top: 0.6em; margin-right: 1.2em; margin-bottom: 0.6em; margin-left: 1.2em; padding: 0px;">So Nestlé intends to continue with 97% of the violations exposed. </p><p style="margin-top: 0.6em; margin-right: 1.2em; margin-bottom: 0.6em; margin-left: 1.2em; padding: 0px;">In Nestlé's brave new world this open contempt for the marketing requirements adopted by the world's highest health policy setting body - which repeated its call last year for companies to meet their responsibilities - is turned on its head. Nestlé cites the fact that it decided only four violations were valid as proof it is doing little wrong - whereas in reality this shows it is doing virtually nothing to put things right (Danone, by contrast, said action it has taken would stop 50% of the violations in its profile and it promised to make other changes such as removing the <em>Immunofortis</em> claims from its formula labels). </p><p>Nestlé continues with marketing strategies such as claiming its formula <em>'protects' </em>babies, with colourful logos on labels and promotion to health workers and mothers. This is despite acknowledging to Baby Milk Action in our ongoing correspondence that actually <a style="color: #027ac6; text-decoration: none;" title="Update 43 - page 14" href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/update/update43page14" target="_self">there is 'no proven benefit' from adding highlighted ingredients such as DHA to formula</a>. Nestlé's argument is that it refers to the benefits of DHA in breastmilk, not in its formula - though whether parents who are drawn in by the logos appreciate this sophistry is debatable.</p><p>Where Nestlé does make changes it is either because legislation gives it no choice, or because of campaign pressure. Although Nestlé prefers to invest in diverting criticism, when executives judge bad publicity is fuelling the boycott to too great a degree, or it is bombarded with messages, then it changes policies and practices. Even though Nestlé is one of the four most boycotted companies on the planet, further pressure is needed.</p><p>To this end some of us gathered at Nestlé (UK) HQ last Saturday to record some campaign clips that will be available soon. You can already download a <em>Nestlé, Good Grief!</em> jingle as a ringtone - <a style="color: #027ac6; text-decoration: none;" title="Ringtones" href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/ringtones" target="_self">click here</a>.</p><p>The boycott means that even in some of the reporting about <em>BabyNes</em>, journalists are questioning Nestlé on violations of the Code.</p><p>How Nestlé responds is illuminating. Nestlé told <a title="Nutraingredients" href="http://www.nutraingredients.com/Industry/Nestle-defends-infant-formula-marketing-policies" target="_blank">Nutraingredients</a>:</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>"We have the industry’s toughest system in place to enforce WHO Code compliance. Indeed, we are the only infant formula manufacturer listed by FTSE4Good, the London Stock Exchange’s Ethical Index.”</em></p><p>The first statement is demonstrably false given the systematic way Nestlé violates the Code. The second statement ignores the fact that in order for Nestlé to be listed by FTSE4Good, <a title="Press releases" href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease21mar11" target="_self">FTSE changed the criteria</a>. Systematically violating the Code on the ground is not an obstacle to being listed and FTSE has not yet conducted any evaluation of Nestlé marketing practices. In Nestlé's brave new world something becomes true just because Nestlé says it is true and FTSE decided to believe Nestlé rather than monitoring evidence when Nestlé said it had put policies and systems in place to stop violations.</p><p>Nestlé is promoting its new <em>BabyNes</em> product with a press release, news conference and postings on its website and in social media. However, all forms of promotion of breastmilk substitutes are prohibited by the Code and Resolutions.</p><p>If Nestlé tried these tactics in a country that has implemented the Code and Resolutions in legislation it could find itself in court, as Johnson and Johnson did in India in the 1990s for press releasing information about a new feeding bottle. India has exemplary legislation with a sanction of imprisonment for the Managing Director under what is criminal law. Johnson and Johnson apologised and later said it realised it was inappropriate to be marketing feeding bottles in India and discontinued its feeding bottle business. Nestlé has also been taken to court in India, for failing to translate warnings on formula labels. It continues to fight the case and unsuccessfully took the government to court to have the law struck down on the grounds it was infringing its rights.</p><p>All this is as nothing to Nestlé's master stroke last week in tyring to usher in its brave new world. Thirty years after the adoption of the <em>International Code</em>,<em> "top government officials"</em> met to discuss <em>"Future Directions in Nutrition, Water, Rural Development".</em> I'm not talking about the World Health Assembly gathering in Geneva, where the world's health ministries discussed these and other issues such as the growing problem of non-communicable diseases caused by the diets promoted by junk food companies such as Nestlé (for that is what much of its food is, despite its attempt to rebrand itself as a Nutrition, Health and Wellness company). </p><p>No, the <em>"top government officials"</em> were in Washington at Nestlé's <em>Creating Shared Value Forum.</em> This was not only an attempt by Nestlé to appropriate the language of development, portray itself and its model as beneficial, and set the policy agenda. It was surely also a shot across the bows of the World Health Assembly meeting at the exact same time across the Atlantic, a warning that in Nestlé’s brave new world the world’s highest health policy setting body was close to being irrelevant.</p><p>In Geneva the Director General of the World Health Organisation, Margaret Chan, was presenting a report to Member States on funding as WHO's budget is being squeezed. The solution the DG proposed is to bring in business by setting up the World Health Forum. Perhaps with an eye on Nestlé's event in Washington she said this would be a <em>"multi-stakeholder forum"</em> which will <em>"identify future priorities in global health".</em> </p><p>Baby Milk Action and its partners in the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) and other organisations raised concerns over conflicts of interest. Corporate Accountability International joined us in delivering a letter to Dr. Chan signed by over 100 organizations and individuals from more than 24 countries.</p><p>The same week as Nestlé <em>Creating Shared Value Forum</em>, Save the Children Australia, Oxfam, Care and 13 other Aid agencies working in Laos wrote a letter to Nestlé stating that they will not be applying Nestle's <em>Creating Shared Value Prize</em> because the company's continued marketing of formula<em> "still jeopardizes the health of infants and children in Laos." </em>- <a title="Press releases" href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease24may110" target="_self">Click here</a>.</p><p>However, we can expect some organisation to accept Nestlé’s money and Nestlé will publicise this as if it is some kind of development agency.</p><p>The campaign against Dr. Chan’s proposed partnership with corporations in a World Health Forum continues. The stated aim of the Forum is to <em>“Improve health outcomes, with WHO meeting the expectations of its Member States and partners”.</em></p><p>Well, we already know what Nestlé expects. </p><p>Nestlé wants people to believe that its refusal to act on 97% of the violations of the WHO Code is a good thing and that those experts on the ground who state the company<em> "jeopardizes the health of infants and children"</em> are to be ignored because a FTSE committee sitting in London examining Nestlé’s policy statements and other presentations. </p><p>While Nestlé continues to undermine breastfeeding and refuses to warn parents who use formula of the risks, in its brave new world it wants people to believe that thanks to Nestlé the human race has finally been delivered<em> "The first comprehensive nutrition system for babies".</em></p><p>Nestlé, Good Grief!</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript" src="http://embed.technorati.com/embed/dbm2zdrjt.js"></script>
<!-- Start of StatCounter Code -->
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
var sc_project=1935474;
var sc_invisible=0;
var sc_partition=17;
var sc_security="650a9fb1";
</script>
<!-- End of StatCounter Code --></div>Mike Bradyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04121310163466468696noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35538737.post-60029852992445563282011-04-04T12:11:00.002+01:002011-04-04T12:13:14.691+01:00Hype about 'human breastmilk' from GM cows tells us much about existing formula<p>Headlines claiming that scientists have produced <a title="The Telegraph" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/geneticmodification/8423536/Genetically-modified-cows-produce-human-milk.html" target="_blank">'breastmilk' from Genetically Modified (GM) cows</a> should sound alarm bells for policy makers as they vote this week in the European Parliament on whether to improve measures for approving health claims on formula. Firstly, this story demonstrates once again that existing formulas lack many of the components found in breatmilk, three of which the researchers claim now to be able to produce from different GM cows. Given the existing misleading claims that formula companies put on labels, about how their formula boosts the immune system and supports brain and eye development for example, over a third of parents already believe formula is "very similar or the same" as breastmilk according to a survey by the <a title="The Guardian" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2004/may/10/medicineandhealth.sciencenews" target="_blank">UK Department of Health</a>. Secondly, the GM cow's are not producing 'human breast milk' (hence the quotes in the reports), but are potentially a source of some of the missing components. Other components, some of which may still need to be discovered, and living substances, are not being produced by the cows and the milk will still require subsequent processing even if it was found to be beneficial and safe (aside from animal welfare and environmental considerations).</p><p><!--break--></p><p>Members of the European Parliament will be voting on a Resolution on Wednesday 6 April about the approval process for health claims and deciding whether to block a claim for an ingredient, DHA, generally produced by microalgae fermentation. Companies claim this is important for eye and brain development, but independent research has found "no proven benefit" from adding it to formula - if there was, it would have been made a required ingredient in the European Union's composition regulations. The industry is lobbying hard to stop the Resolution from the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee from being approved by the full Parliament. <a title="EU Campaign" href="http://www.babymilkaction.org/eucampaign/" target="_blank">Click here</a> to send a message to your representatives in the European Parliament.</p><p>Here is a quote from Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator, Baby Milk Action for any journalists that need one:</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>"Every time we see these types of headlines it reinforces the fact that formula currently on the market is not the same as breastmilk and scientists are still seeking ways to reduce its shortcomings - yet misleading claims made on labels and in advertising have convinced a third of parents in the UK that existing formula is the 'very similar or the same' as breastmilk. The Advertising Standards Authority has already ruled against claims that formula boosts the immune system and the suggestion these cows are producing 'human breastmilk' is just as misleading - scientists are actually claiming they have found a way to produce three components missing from current formulas and change fat and protein levels. This is not going to be a living substance tailored to the baby like breastmilk. Baby Milk Action is working for the composition of formula to be improved for those babies who are not breastfed and it will be interesting to see if the missing components that these scientists claim to be able to produce can be proven to be beneficial and safe if included in a formula. The European Parliament has the chance to vote on Wednesday 6 April in support of a Resolution from the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee that will improve the process for approving health claims and block misleading claims. I urge all MEPs to vote in favour of the Resolution."</em></p><p>To protect babies fed on formula we need to look behind the hype and put in place a system that requires benefits and safety to be proven. If ingredients are beneficial and safe, they should not be promoted with marketing claims, but required as an ingredient in all formulas, so inferior formulas are not being fed to babies. This chance of a mass market attracts investors backing new wonder ingredients to add to formula, but policy makers need to keep clear heads and do what is right for infant health - and in this case, also consider the animal welfare and environmental issues.</p><p><img src="http://info.babymilkaction.org/sites/info.babymilkaction.org/files/images/meadjohnsonduck0210.jpg" border="0" width="360" height="311" align="left" name="mceItemDrupalImage" />The current regulatory system means that companies can add ingredients to formula and make health claims about them, at least on follow-on formula, without evidence of benefit. In the case of DHA, in 1996 investment advisors Hambrecht & Quist suggested investing in Martek Bio-sciences Corporation, that had developed Formulaide, an additive produced by microalgae fermentation, saying:</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>"Even if Formulaide (DHA/AHA) had no benefit we think that it would be widely incorporated into most formulas as a marketing tool and to allow companies to promote their formula as ‘closest to human milk’."</em></p><p><strong>Beware of the hype</strong>. Left: Mead Johnson suggests its formula improves babies eye sight, although there is 'no proven benefit' from adding DHA to formula. </p><p>Baby Milk Action takes the view that if there truly is evidence for a health claim that should trigger a review of the list of ingredients required in formula by law and the evidence - including a substantial amount of independent research, not just company-funded research - should be examined. This happened when the EU<em> Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Directive</em> was updated in 2006 and it was decided not to add DHA to the required list of ingredients because there was 'no proven benefit'. There is also evidence of possible adverse reactions amongst some infants, which suggests a warning is more appropriate than a health claim. In the United States, manufacturers are required to record and report cases of adverse reactions - and the US Food and Drug Administration had recorded 98 cases itself by 2007. Those backing the baby food industry's DHA claim are lobbying hard to stop the European Parliament voting to improve the health claim approval system - <a title="Campaign blog" href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog300311" target="_self">click here</a>.</p><p>Research in the public interest should take place to try to reduce the poorer health outcomes amongst babies fed on formula. With regard commercial research there are two different approaches as to how to motivate it.</p><p><strong>The health claims approach</strong>: Advocates of allowing companies to make health claims have suggested: <em>"In the future, manufacturers might not be willing to invest major financial resources into the development, clinical evaluation and implementation of further improvements, if there is no chance to communicate such improvements."</em> This encourages companies to seek ingredients about which they can make a claim, regardless of the benefits (as with DHA). If improvements have a genuine benefit, then making them optional in this way will mean some babies receive inferior formula.</p><p><strong>The evidence-based approach</strong>: Baby Milk Action's view is that breastmilk substitutes (the only food for a child for about the first 6 months of life) is too important a product and that adding new ingredients should be based on scientific evidence. Adding ingredients without approval effectively means a mass uncontrolled trial is being conducted on the population at large. Requiring companies to prove ingredients are beneficial and safe will not stop ingredients from being added and will not stop companies from profiting from their investment - advances are generally driven by biotech companies who will find a greater market if their products are added to the list of required ingredients.</p><p>Following the evidence-based approach means companies and investors profit from producing something that will benefit health, rather than producing something to be used in a marketing campaign.</p><p>If policy makers are serious about infant health, then supporting an evidence-based approach is the way to go.</p><p>Press reports with 'human breast milk' from cows headlines cite publications in the Public Library of Science One by Professor Ning Li and name three ingredients. From searching the Public Library of Science One website, these appear to be the papers (to be confirmed):</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Lysozyme (results from four GM cows)</strong>: <a title="Public Library of Science One" href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0017593" target="_blank">Characterization of Bioactive Recombinant Human Lysozyme Expressed in Milk of Cloned Transgenic Cattle</a></p><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Lactoferrin (results from two GM cows)</strong>: <a title="Public Library of Science One" href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0003453" target="_blank">Cattle Mammary Bioreactor Generated by a Novel Procedure of Transgenic Cloning for Large-Scale Production of Functional Human Lactoferrin</a></p><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Alpha-lactalbumin</strong>: paper not yet found.</p><p>Please <a title="Contact us" href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/contact" target="_self">contact us</a> if you have further information on the actual research. We would also like to track how this story is reported around the world, so please post links to articles as comments to this blog.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript" src="http://embed.technorati.com/embed/dbm2zdrjt.js"></script>
<!-- Start of StatCounter Code -->
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
var sc_project=1935474;
var sc_invisible=0;
var sc_partition=17;
var sc_security="650a9fb1";
</script>
<!-- End of StatCounter Code --></div>Mike Bradyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04121310163466468696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35538737.post-21117721006716980582011-03-30T18:02:00.003+01:002011-03-31T18:14:09.022+01:00Offensive from those defending industry DHA health claim<p>Thank you so much to everyone who has contacted their representatives in the European Parliament asking them to vote in favour of a Resolution to protect the rights of parents and carers to accurate information on infant formula. We know it is having an impact because those defending the rights of the baby food industry to put misleading claims onto formula are becoming more active and Mead Johnson has apparently hired a Public Relations firm to lobby politicians. We need the voices of the public to counter this offensive. <a title="EU campaign" href="http://www.babymilkaction.org/eucampaign/" target="_blank">Click here</a> if you have not yet sent a message to your representatives in the European Parliament yet or to spread the word if you have. If you want to know the detail of what is taking place, read on.</p><p><!--break--></p><p>The European Commission has just written to all Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) supporting authorisation of a claim about DHA and eye development and attacking the Resolution adopted by the European Parliament Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) Committee that would prevent this and lead to improvements in the authorisation process. The arguments the Commission presents show even more clearly that the evidence has not been adequately scrutinised, as will be explained. We have also seen a Professor wading into the debate and calling Baby Milk Action a 'loud-mouthed lobbying organisation' - while failing to reveal his relationship with the company that produces the DHA additives added to formula and the company that has applied for the right to use the health claim. More than ever, we need voters to send messages to their representatives asking them to put the scientific evidence and the well-being of infants before the vested interests of the formula industry and unelected European Commission officials who seem intent on providing a boost to the formula industry regardless of the evidence - <a title="EU campaign" href="http://www.babymilkaction.org/eucampaign/" target="_blank">click here</a>.</p><p><strong>UNICEF gives its strong support to the Resolution</strong></p><p>On the side of mothers and babies, we see that <a title="UNICEF statement" href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/policyblog300311" target="_blank">UNICEF has responded</a> to a request from MEPs for an opinion indicating its strong support for the Resolution opposing the claim. And from the responses sent to our supporters its clear that many MEPs are determined to back the Resolution. But when the vote goes to the full Parliament on the 5th or 6th of April we will need 369 of the 736 MEPs on side - even if only 400 are in the room at the time. We are trying to directly contact those who say they are intending to vote against the resolution (and FOR the claim) to find out their reasons for doing so. There seems to be some confusion that prohibiting the claim will stop DHA being added to formula, which is incorrect. DHA is a permitted ingredient, though it is not a required ingredient, because it has no proven benefit.</p><p><strong>MEPs opposing the Resolution use an argument that makes support more sensible</strong></p><p>The argument put by some MEPs explaining their opposition to the Resolution actually makes more sense as a reason for voting in favour. We have seen several state:<em> "If an ingredient is proven to be safe and important for baby health, then it should be included."</em> That is the position of those supporting the Resolution: if an ingredient is proven safe and beneficial it should be a requirement in all formulas and added to the list of essential ingredients in the <a title="EU site" href="http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/labellingnutrition/children/formulae_en.htm" target="_blank">EU Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Directive</a>. Nobody who really cares about infant health would want an inferior formula on the market, it is too important a product. </p><p><strong>DHA is not a required ingredient because it has no proven benefit</strong></p><p><img src="http://info.babymilkaction.org/sites/info.babymilkaction.org/files/images/meadjohnsonduck0210.jpg" border="0" width="360" height="311" align="left" name="mceItemDrupalImage" /></p><p>When the composition requirements were updated in 2006, DHA was not included on the list of required ingredient because of the lack of evidence of benefit. Those opposing the Resolution are opposing the principle that safe and important ingredients should be included and if successful will allow an unproven ingredient to be added and promoted to mothers with an unsubstantiated claim. The image on the left shows how Mead Johnson promotes its formula as if it will transform a child's eyesight.</p><p>The Commission has written to MEPs attempting to defend the scientific basis of the claim, including a letter from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). However, the arguments prove the point that consideration of the evidence of benefits and risks is incomplete.</p><p><strong>Cochrane Library review attacked</strong></p><p>EFSA's letter suggests that the independent, systematic <a title="Cochrane Library" href="http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000376.html" target="_blank">Cochrane Library review</a>, which found 'no proven benefit' from adding DHA to formula, did not separately consider DHA supplementation at the levels specified by Mead Johnson, which filed the original claim of benefit for the ingredient. Yet Cochrane explicitely refers to the Birch study used as justification and would surely have mentioned the evidence of benefit at higher levels had the evidence been convincing. It states: <em>"Only one group of researchers have shown some beneficial effects on VEP [visually evoked potential] acuity.... Further research is needed to see if the beneficial effects demonstrated by Dallas 2005 trial of Birch et al can be replicated in different settings."</em></p><p>Kathy Kennedy, Professor Alan Lucas and Mary Fewtrell, authors of a study (see below) that has found possible negative health impacts of DHA-supplemented formula, pointed out in defending their study from industry attack in the <a title="Archives of Disease in Childhood" href="http://adc.bmj.com/content/95/8/588/reply#archdischild_el_8934" target="_blank">Archive of Diseases in Childhood</a>: <em>"Birch's study, which may have been one of the most influential trials driving the addition of LCPUFA to US formulas, was based on an incomplete follow up where only <strong>19 subjects</strong> remained in the relevant intervention group, providing inadequate power to provide any realistic estimation of the treatment effect." [emphasis added]</em></p><p><strong>Evidence of risks ignored in EFSA letter</strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">The EFSA letter dismisses the need for further research on possible risks from DHA supplementation, rejecting a study by Kennedy et al published in the <a style="color: #027ac6; text-decoration: none;" title="Archive of Disease in Childhood" href="http://adc.bmj.com/content/95/8/588.abstract" target="_blank">Archive of Disease on Childhood</a> as having<em> 'considerable weaknesses (e.g. a very low number of subjects)'</em> - in fact </span>a study group of 105<span style="font-weight: normal;">. The Kennedy paper itself states that further research is needed to see if the evidence of high blood pressure etc. found in the 10-year follow-up is replicated. Significantly EFSA seems to ignore the evidence we raised in our submission about the evidence held by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of parents and carers reporting adverse reactions to formulas supplemented with Long Chain Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids (such as DHA). The FDA noted in its response to a filing from Martek Biosciences, manufacturer of the DHA additive, for Generally Recognised As Safe approval (<a title="FDA site" href="http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodIngredientsPackaging/GenerallyRecognizedasSafeGRAS/GRASListings/ucm154126.htm" target="_blank">click here</a>):</span></strong></p><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>"Some studies have reported unexpected deaths among infants who consumed formula supplemented with long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids. These unexpected deaths were attributed to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), sepsis or necrotizing enterocolitis. Also, some studies have reported adverse events and other morbidities including diarrhea, flatulence, jaundice, and apnea in infants fed long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids."</em></p><p>The FDA requires formula companies to do post market surveillance - yet in the 9 years since this stipulation no industry reports appear to have been made, while the FDA had recorded 98 cases of parents and carers reporting adverse reactions by 2007. </p><p><strong>EFSA 'unaware' of other factors in breastmilk relevant to DHA effect</strong></p><p>EFSA also dismisses the point that DHA is in a different environment in formula than in breastmilk, yet the FDA stated in its response to Martek:</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>"In addition, CFSAN [Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition] noted that your notice had not accounted for the fact that the bioactive fatty acids ARA and DHA when consumed in mature human milk are part of a complex matrix that includes, for example, linoleic acid, alpha-linolenic acid, and other polyunsaturated fatty acids and that important physiologic considerations relative to the matrix are not accounted for by the simple addition of LCPUFAs to infant formula."</em></p><p>EFSA states:</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>"We are unaware of any factor in breast milk which is needed for DHA to exert its 'optimal' effect."</em></p><p>This raises questions about gaps in the scientific basis for EFSA's position.</p><p>EFSA dismisses the call for further research by pointing out:</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>"DHA levels in formula as proposed for the claim are in the normal range of DHA content naturally present in mother's milk."</em></p><p>It is over-simplistic simply to look at breastmilk as a template in setting levels; health outcomes need to be properly considered. Even when there is benefit from adding an ingredient to formula, it may be required at different levels to those in breastmilk. It should be remembered, for example, that the iron levels in formula are around 5 times that in breastmilk because a child absorbs it differently from the different environment - if formula simply followed the levels in breastmilk, children fed on formula would not absorb enough iron.</p><p><strong>Professor with links to Martek and Mead Johnson attacks Baby Milk Action</strong></p><p>Wading into the issue in extended comments in <a title="Nutraingredients" href="http://www.nutraingredients.com/Regulation/Breast-may-be-best-but-don-t-block-omega-3-infant-formula-claims-says-practitioner" target="_blank">Nutraingredients</a> is Professor Berthold Koletzko, calling the EFSA investigation a <em>"profound scientific evaluation",</em> ignoring the shortcomings mentioned above and the findings of independent scientists. </p><p>Professor Koletzko attacks Baby Milk Action for<em> 'pseudo-scientific' </em>arguments and is entitled to his opinion, but it is relevant to examine his conflicts of interest, which were not declared in the article. Professor Koletzko was lead author of a <a title="PubMed" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18184094" target="_blank">2008 paper</a> recommending DHA be added to formula. The declaration included in that paper states:</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><em> "The scientific workshop held at Barcelona was financially supported by Martek Biosciences Corporation. BK is the recipient of a Freedom to Discover Award of the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation, New York, NY, USA."</em></p><p>Martek Biosciences manufactures the DHA additives used by the majority of formula companies.</p><p>Until recently (December 2009), Bristol Myers Squibb owned Mead Johnson, the company that filed the application to use the DHA claim which Prof. Koletzko is seeking to defend by labelling Baby Milk Action as a<em> 'load-mouthed lobbying group'.</em></p><p><strong>The need for objectivity</strong></p><p>We believe that policy should be based on objective evidence. This is even more important for foods for infants and young children, which is a multi-billion pound industry. There is a need to ensure that research free from commercial influence forms the main basis for policy setting and that the totality of the evidence is independently reviewed. It is impossible to know with industry funded research how much inconvenient data has been hidden.</p><p>We agree that if an ingredient is of proven benefit and safe then it should be included in formula. No claims should be made about these ingredients; claims only have the purpose of boosting sales. Inferior formula should not be on the market and parents and carers have a right to accurate information. </p><p><strong>The wider harm that will be caused by opposing the Resolution</strong></p><p>As UNICEF points out: <em>"There can be little doubt that the use of such health claims can mislead parents into thinking that the formulas are as good as, if not better than breastmilk."</em></p><p>We saw in the Philippines how claims about DHA led some parents and carers to believe it was better to use formula rather than breastfeed. You can watch a UNICEF film about this online by <a title="Baby Milk Action Virtual Shop" href="http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/videos.html#philippines" target="_blank">clicking here</a>.</p><p>Even in the UK, where companies get away with many health claims, access to midwives, health visitors and others is not enough to correct the misleading impression given by baby food industry promotion. According to a Department of Health survey a third of mothers incorrectly believe that infant formula is the same or almost the same as breastfeeding. See <a title="The Guardian" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2004/may/10/medicineandhealth.sciencenews" target="_blank">Myths stop mothers giving their babies the best start in life</a>.</p><p><strong>Protecting babies fed on formula</strong></p><p>There is an argument that allowing companies to make health claims encourages investment on new ingredients that may be of health benefit. Professor Berthold Koletzko sent a statement dated 28 February to all MEPs attacking the Resolution as the German Society for Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. There is no declaration of Prof. Koletzko's links with the baby food industry, as described above. Prof. Koletzko states:</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>Preventing the communication of scientifically assured benefits of optimised products bears the risk that it may slow or stop the significant quality improvements of foods for infants has occurred over the last years and decades in numerous single steps, and which has led to large benefits for child health. In the future, manufacturers might not be willing to invest major financial resources into the development, clinical evaluation and implementation of further improvements, if there is no chance to communicate such improvements.</em></p><p>There are several issues with this argument.</p><p>Firstly, while it is true that the possibility of making claims about some new ingredient encourages investment, this is not necessarily going to lead to benefits for infant health. In the case of DHA, investment advisors Hambrecht & Quist suggested investing in Martek Bio-sciences Corporation in 1996, saying:</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>"Even if Formulaide (DHA/AHA) had no benefit we think that it would be widely incorporated into most formulas as a marketing tool and to allow companies to promote their formula as ‘closest to human milk’."</em></p><p>They understood the value comes from health claims as a marketing tool, not from any health benefit from the ingredient. This approach advocated by Prof. Koletzko also drives a search for something to make a claim about - and we have seen this result in unnecessary and even potentially harmful products such as so-called <em>Goodnight</em> milks (<a title="SACN site" href="http://www.sacn.gov.uk/reports_position_statements/position_statements/sacn_statement_on_good_night_milks_-_november_2008.html" target="_blank">click here</a> for analysis by the UK Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition of <em>Goodnight</em> milks and associated claims).</p><p>Secondly, the US Food and Drug Administration requires companies there to record evidence on ill effects and keeps its own record (see above). Effectively, an uncontrolled mass trial is taking place amongst those who use formula, based on parents self-selecting whether to buy formula with DHA or not. If this was a scientific study, participants would have the right to free and informed consent. Health claims not only negate that principle, they turn it on its head. </p><p>Thirdly, science<strong><em> </em><span style="font-weight: normal;">IS</span></strong> conducted in the public interest on new ingredients. </p><p>Fourthly, if an ingredient is of benefit, should it be denied to babies by allowing inferior formula to be marketed? Note that in this case, Martek does not produce formula itself. If DHA had been accepted as beneficial and added to the list of required ingredients when this was discussed when the EU Directive was updated in 2006, it would have found an even larger market. Pre-approval would not prevent development, it would simply require the benefit and safety of new ingredients to be proven through experiments with proper informed consent, preferably with a significant level of independent studies. </p><p>To ensure that formula is as safe and as beneficial as it can be and that information about it is accurate, we need the Resolution to be supported by the European Parliament at the beginning of April.</p><p>So please do keep sending messages. Our multilingual campaign page tells you how to do so quickly and easily - <a title="EU campaign" href="http://www.babymilkaction.org/eucampaign/" target="_blank">click here</a>. If you have already sent your own messages, use the tools on that page to ask friends and colleagues to do the same.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript" src="http://embed.technorati.com/embed/dbm2zdrjt.js"></script>
<!-- Start of StatCounter Code -->
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
var sc_project=1935474;
var sc_invisible=0;
var sc_partition=17;
var sc_security="650a9fb1";
</script>
<!-- End of StatCounter Code --></div>Mike Bradyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04121310163466468696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35538737.post-60643748176780368172011-03-19T09:20:00.006+00:002011-03-19T17:14:18.504+00:00Is breast best? book launch - a bit less polarisation please for the sake of the children<p>Get ready for another round of 'Breast not best' headlines in the UK that will echo around the world as a book by Joan Wolf, a political scientist, is <a title="Parenting Culture programme" href="http://blogs.kent.ac.uk/parentingculturestudies/files/2011/02/Feeding-children-timetable.pdf" target="_blank">launched here</a>. It has the title: <em>"Is Breast Best?: Taking on the Breastfeeding Experts and the New High Stakes of Motherhood" </em>and Joan Wolf is speaking on it at a conference on 21 March.</p><p></p><p>We saw <a title="Cambridge Evening News" href="http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/National-News/Breastfeeding-not-always-best-125884.xnf?BodyFormat=2&" target="_blank">similar headlines</a> last month with the publication of an article in the British Medical Journal questioning the World Health Organisation's recommendation that babies be exclusively breastfed for 6 months, with continued breastfeeding beyond this alongside the introduction of complementary foods. Interestingly one of the co-authors of that paper pops up on the panel at the book launch. In fairness to Mary Fewtrell, she did not question the benefits of breastfeeding in her article, even if that's what some newspaper headlines said. She was questioning the duration of exclusive breastfeeding, when no other liquids or foods are introduced.</p><p>Also on the panel is Guardian journalist, Zoe Williams, who also has a book to sell on her take on childcare. Personally, I have always liked Zoe's writing in The Guardian and I note she always <a title="The Guardian" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/may/16/familyandrelationships.women" target="_blank">prefaces her pieces</a> relating to breastfeeding with comments like: <em>"So before I start, can I just reiterate how good it is for baby; and I think I've mentioned already a million times, it's an incredibly beautiful thing, when it works."</em></p><p>But I do wonder about Zoe's understanding of how science works when I read <a title="The Guardian" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jun/29/welcome-to-parenthood-zoe-williams" target="_blank">her criticism</a> that in research on health outcomes:<em> "these haven't been adjusted for social class and environment. It boils down to: 'Middle-class babies do better; middle-class babies tend to be breastfed.'"</em></p><p>Now, I'm not a scientist, political or medical, but I've read plenty of research papers and know that adjusting for confounding variables is one of the most basic aspects of research. It's not always easy to do, but the class factor is not something that slipped the minds of scientists in analysing their data. I don't see them reading Zoe Williams and rushing back to their ivory towers, hitting their foreheads and exclaiming, <em>'How could we have been so stupid!'</em></p><p>I haven't read Joan Wolf's book yet, so I'm not going to critique the argument she has with 'breastfeeding experts' at this stage.</p><p>There are two points that I would like to make, however.</p><p>Firstly, 'breastfeeding experts', sometimes labelled more emotionally as the 'breastfeeding mafia' and worse, are often really objective 'health experts' basing their comments on evidence. And the evidence is that babies who are not breastfed, as a population, have poorer health outcomes in the short and longer term than babies who are breastfed. It is an uncomfortable fact when in the UK a quarter of babies receive no breastmilk at all, but fact it is. </p><p>Saying so does not make someone anti-baby milk. Baby Milk Action is sometimes <a title="Mumsnet answers" href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/mumsnetanswers#answer6" target="_self">attacked as anti-baby milk</a>, even though our work is, as our slogan says, about <em>'Protecting breastfeeding - Protecting babies fed on formula'.</em></p><p>I have been working with experts in a range of disciplines (pharmacy, midwifery, paedology etc) over the past 18 months to produce a DVD called <a title="BFLG" href="http://www.babyfeedinglawgroup.org.uk/formulaexplaineddvd.html" target="_blank">Infant Formula Explained</a>. Yes, you've got me - we too have something to sell, well license for use in health facilities. The DVD has been produced by the <a title="BFLG" href="http://www.babyfeedinglawgroup.org.uk/" target="_blank">Baby Feeding Law Group</a> (BFLG), which consists of 23 health professional, mother support and consumer protection organisations, and Mark-it Television. This is my quote from our <a title="Press release" href="http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease18mar11" target="_self">DVD press release</a> - Mike Brady, who appears in the film speaking about the BFLG monitoring project which examines company marketing materials, said:</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>"The media and people with books to sell sometimes like to sensationalise health advocates as breastfeeding zealots, but the fact is we want the best for babies. In the UK nearly a quarter of babies are never breastfed and many mothers who start breastfeeding will use formula at some point. We believe they all have a right to accurate information. As the BFLG monitoring projects shows, company information for both health workers and parents and carers is designed to push the brand and so the Baby Feeding Law Group decided to produce an independent, objective film."</em></p><p>After trying to persuade others to produce such a film, we took it on as the BFLG because of the lack of objective information for mothers and carers who use formula. All baby food companies claim that their particular brand is better than their competitors, leaving people confused. </p><p>I asked the Advertising Standards Authority to investigate the claims of one company that its formula, the most expensive on the market, is the 'best'. The ASA <a title="Baby Milk Action archive" href="http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press22july09.html" target="_blank">ruled two years ago</a>, after a long investigation, that the company could not substantiate its claim. </p><p>Paying more for expensive brands does not give a health benefit, it provides the company's marketing department with more money for television advertisements, free cuddly toy gifts, jollies for health workers and whizzy websites (<a title="BFLG" href="http://www.babyfeedinglawgroup.org.uk/monitoring.html" target="_blank">examples here</a>). </p><p>However, price can be used as a basis for choosing formula, in terms of not wasting your money: all formula on the market has, <a title="UK law" href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3521/regulation/8/made" target="_blank">by law</a>, to contain what is know to be necessary and beneficial to health. Optional ingredients are allowed, but the reason they are not on the required list of ingredients is exactly because there is no proven benefit from them. If there was a benefit, we would be campaigning for the ingredients to be a legal requirement so that inferior formula is not on the market. All the same, companies base their multi-million pound marketing campaigns on them. In the <a title="BFLG" href="http://www.babyfeedinglawgroup.org.uk/formulaexplaineddvd.html" target="_blank">Infant Formula Explained</a> films, the health experts dig into the research to give health workers the information and confidence they need to answer questions from parents and carers about formula and these optional ingredients.</p><p>It also includes films for use with parents showing how to mix up formula in line with World Health Organisation and Department of Health guidance.</p><p>You see, what we and our partners in the BFLG want is the best for babies. </p><p>Which brings me to my second point: this constant fuelling of the so-called 'breastfeeding versus bottle feeding debate' may help to sell books and bring traffic to websites, but it is unhelpful for mothers and babies. For many mothers in the UK, it is pitching them against themselves. </p><p>According to the <a title="Infant Feeding Survey" href="http://www.ic.nhs.uk/statistics-and-data-collections/health-and-lifestyles-related-surveys/infant-feeding-survey/infant-feeding-survey-2005" target="_blank">Infant Feeding Survey from the Office of National Statistics</a>, only 63% of mothers who started breastfeeding were still breastfeeding at 6 weeks and only a third were still breastfeeding at 6 months (pg. 35). Many mothers in the UK both breastfeed and use formula.</p><p>Another statistic tells us that 90% of mothers who stopped breastfeeding by 6 weeks would have preferred to breastfeed for longer. Of those who stopped by 6 months, 40% wanted to breastfeed for longer.</p><p>We can decide how we want to respond to these figures - and the feelings of distress that may lie behind the statement that mothers wanted to breastfeed for longer.</p><p>The response of the formula companies and people who try to negate the evidence regarding infant feeding and health outcomes is to suggest it doesn't matter, formula is almost as good as breastfeeding - or maybe even better if you take the formula companies' claims about benefits to eyesight, brain development and building the immune system at face value. The more 'breast not really best' headlines they can generate, the better they seem to think it is.</p><p>Alternatively, we can acknowledge that there are differences in health outcomes. We can use the fact that the National Health Service spends millions of pounds every year treating some of the extra illness amongst formula fed babies (according to NICE, the <a title="NICE costings" href="http://www.nice.org.uk:80/guidance/index.jsp?action=download&r=true&o=30155" target="_blank">National Institute of Clinical Excellence</a>) to make the case for better support for mothers.</p><p>I think we should be shocked that 90% of mothers who stopped breastfeeding at 6 weeks wanted to breastfeed for longer and be calling for better support. We should also be shocked that formula companies target mothers so aggressively in breach of international marketing standards, profiteer by playing on mothers fears over which is the 'best' formula and market unnecessary, expensive, heavily-advertised products. Aside from exceptional cases of medical need, the only formula that a baby needs when not breastfed is whey-based formula used from birth. Follow-on milks and growing up milks are unnecessary products - any extra nutrients a baby requires can be supplied by solid foods introduced alongside breastfeeding or the whey-based first milk.</p><p>So-called 'hungry baby' and 'good-night' milks do not have any evidence to support the claims they are more satisfying - and as you have to clean a baby's teeth after feeding with 'good-night' milk because of the risk of tooth decay from its sugar content (check the instructions), it is counterproductive even if it did do what it says on the tin.</p><p>We should also be concerned that some of the unnecessary illness comes from formula not being reconstituted properly. </p><p>I would like to ask everybody to write to the Secretary of State for Health, Andrew Lansley, complaining that the Department of Health is planning to scrap its Infant Feeding Coordinator posts and its support for National Breastfeeding Awareness Week. These were manifestations of government commitment to the <a title="WHO site" href="http://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/infantfeeding/9241562218/en/index.html" target="_blank">Global Strategy for Infant and Young Child Feeding</a> and the <a title="Innocenti Declaration" href="http://innocenti15.net/" target="_blank">Innocenti Declaration</a>. It seems that commitment is being forgotten under the cuts agenda. This is one of the worst examples of short-term penny pinching that will lead to medium and long-term costs to the health service and growth in health inequalities.</p><p>The Department of Health was not only promoting and supporting breastfeeding, it was working to help mothers who bottle feed. The Infant Feeding Coordinators have just updated the <a title="Department of Health" href="http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_124525" target="_blank">guide to bottle feeding</a> that we used the basis for the guidance in the Infant Formula Explained DVD (alongside that from the World Health Organisation). The DVD is in line with the new guide and is also appropriate for use in UNICEF Baby Friendly accredited facilities.</p><p>No doubt we will have a spate of 'breast not best' headlines in response to Joan Wolf's book launch and these will echo around the world, undermining breastfeeding cultures in other countries. </p><p>What we really need are headlines saying,<em> 'Department of Health plans to abandon mothers and babies'. </em>Those might help reverse the decision to scrap efforts to improve breastfeeding rates and reduce unnecessary illness amongst formula-fed babies.</p><p>That would benefit ALL mothers and babies.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript" src="http://embed.technorati.com/embed/dbm2zdrjt.js"></script>
<!-- Start of StatCounter Code -->
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
var sc_project=1935474;
var sc_invisible=0;
var sc_partition=17;
var sc_security="650a9fb1";
</script>
<!-- End of StatCounter Code --></div>Mike Bradyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04121310163466468696noreply@blogger.com0