Boycott Nestle - and other action to protect infant health

Governments should govern, and corporations should follow the rules

2012-01-17T12:03:00.001Z

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 http://www.unscn.org/files/Publications/SCN_News/SCNNEWS39_10.01_high_def.pdf

SCN is the United Nations System Standing Committee on Nutrition. The theme of the journal is: Nutrition and Business - How to Engage?

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.

We see it with the baby milk issue and our latest newsletter, Update 44, 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.

The Editorial to SCN News is generally optimistic about working with corporations, stating, for example:

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.

The journal presents some cases of initiatives involving business that are deemed to be successful by the authors and also notes: "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."

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.

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.

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:

1. Understand the problem and the role played by the private sector

2. Determine the appropriate public-interest response

3. Decide the appropriate relationship with the private sector in this context

4. Identify the extent of conflicts of interest, minimise them and manage those that are consid- ered acceptable or unavoidable

5. 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.

Read the full article for further details.

Product placement of baby milk in TV programmes is banned

2011-12-15T16:23:00.001Z

Did you know that it is against the rules for television programmes to accept payment for showing baby milk in television programmes?

The ban is contained in the Ofcom Broadcasting Code.

Ofcom (the independent regulator and competition authority for the UK communication industries) introduced rules regarding product placement in television programmes in February 2011.

Products that cannot be placed in programmes include: "infant formula (baby milk), including follow-on formula". 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.

You can find the text of rules via the Law section of the Baby Feeding Law Group (BFLG) website and information on how to register a complaint in the Report violations section of the same site. Baby Milk Action coordinates the BFLG monitoring project.

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 clicking here.

Was this useful? Please click here.

A question for members of the United Reformed Church

2011-11-27T10:19:00.003Z

We have received shocking news from the United Reformed Church (URC) Secretary for Church and Society.

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.

The Resolution referenced inclusion in the FTSE4Good Index, an ethical investment listing from FTSE, as the criteria for ending support for the boycott.

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.

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.

Instead, URC Church and Society told us the Resolution was binding and had to be implemented as a matter of urgency.

Our press release regarding this shocking news can be found - along with a chronology of events - at:

http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease26nov11

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.

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?

Pressure and persuasion - small acts help to hold big corporations to account

2011-09-23T19:13:00.004+01:00

I was pleased to provide information to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) for a briefing it produced on Campaigning and the private sector - click here.

This includes profiles of the campaigning strategies of a range of organisations, including Amnesty International, Greenpeace and Baby Milk Action.

Although it includes in the title the question Persuasion or pressure? these are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, with some corporations it takes pressure to persuade them to act.

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 International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes 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.

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 Campaign for Ethical Marketing action sheet, July 2009).

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) - click here.

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 Update 42): "The industry is fighting a rearguard action against regulation on a country-by-country basis."

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).

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 Philippines Victory 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 ABS-CBNNews report). 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.

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 Global Obligations for the Right to Food as part of a Task Force of the UN System Standing Committee on Nutrition - click here to order.

At present, the best we have at the international level is the UN Global Compact and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. 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: UN Global Compact - 10 years of helping cover up corporate malpractice.

In recent weeks, Baby Milk Action has brought together over 140 citizens groups in the Conflicts of Interest Coalition 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.

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.

The Conflicts of Interest Coalition - protecting health right now in New York

2011-09-21T20:44:00.005+01:00

Baby 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).

The Coalition represents thousands of non-profit public health advocacy groups around the world.

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.

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.

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.

You can follow developments on the new COI Coalition blog at:

http://coicoalition.blogspot.com/

and Patti's own Policy blog at:

http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/policyblog

Department of Health responds to Baby Milk Action email campaign

2011-07-29T16:10:00.003+01:00

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.

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 Global Strategy for Infant and Young Child Feeding, which it supported at the World Health Assembly, it is backtracking on action that had been taken.

Please sign the ePetition on the Prime Minister's website calling on the Government to deliver on its infant feeding obligations - click here. Petitions receiving 100,000 signatures will be debated in Parliament.

If you have not signed up to receive email alerts from Baby Milk Action, please do so now to be kept informed of the next steps in this and other campaigns.

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.

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’.

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.

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.

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.

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:

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publichealth/Healthyliveshealthypeople/index.htm

Following this publication, the Department of Health will issue a series of policy statements including the final outcomes framework in the autumn.

I hope this information is helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Customer Service Centre

Department of Health

Reuniting mothers and babies - we are all Habiba

2011-06-21T13:34:00.002+01:00

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.

We have been asked to support mothers' rights in a similar case in Spain, that of Habiba and her daughter.

You can find information in English and a petition to send on the Habiba campaign page. There is also a Facebook group and blog, with various events planned in Spain, the UK and other countries, such as a gathering in Trafalgar Square on 21 June.

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".

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Ref. 1 Jones G et al. (2003) How many child deaths can we prevent this year? The Lancet, no 362, 65-71.

Nestle's brave new world. Good Grief!

2011-05-27T22:09:00.003+01:00

It has been a busy month for Nestlé as it tries to remake the world in its own image. It culminated in Nestlé announcing "The first comprehensive nutrition system for babies", 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. Nestlé, Good Grief! (Click here for the ringtone).

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 BabyNes machine:

"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."

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.

Nestlé further extols the virtues of its magical machine thus:

"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."

So we are to believe BabyNes 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.

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 Salmonella and Enterobacter Sakazakii. 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 Enterobacter Sakazakii, 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.

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 leading to its recommendations on reconstituting powdered formula. 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.

Baby Milk Action recently produced on behalf of the Baby Feeding Law Group called Infant Formula Explained 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.

Instead a potentially dangerous method of preparing formula is being touted as offering the "utmost safety".

In the world of marketing, of course, everything is always new and improved.

Last year we exposed Nestlé claiming the formula in its tins was 'The new "Gold Standard" in infant nutrition', another attempt to appropriate the language of breastfeeding, long described as the "Gold Standard". 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.

The withdrawal of the leaflets was one of four actions highlighted by Nestlé in its response to the Breaking the Rules, Stretching the Rules 2010 monitoring report which profiles the practices of 22 formula and feeding bottle companies with examples of violations from 46 countries.

The report contains page after page of examples of Nestlé materials showing how the company systematically violates the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes 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).

While promising action on just four of these examples - including the ‘Gold Standard’ leaflet - Nestlé defended the rest of the 130 violations it counted in the report.

So Nestlé intends to continue with 97% of the violations exposed.

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 Immunofortis claims from its formula labels).

Nestlé continues with marketing strategies such as claiming its formula 'protects' 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 there is 'no proven benefit' from adding highlighted ingredients such as DHA to formula. 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.

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.

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 Nestlé, Good Grief! jingle as a ringtone - click here.

The boycott means that even in some of the reporting about BabyNes, journalists are questioning Nestlé on violations of the Code.

How Nestlé responds is illuminating. Nestlé told Nutraingredients:

"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.”

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, FTSE changed the criteria. 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.

Nestlé is promoting its new BabyNes 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.

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.

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 International Code, "top government officials" met to discuss "Future Directions in Nutrition, Water, Rural Development". 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).

No, the "top government officials" were in Washington at Nestlé's Creating Shared Value Forum. 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.

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 "multi-stakeholder forum" which will "identify future priorities in global health".

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.

The same week as Nestlé Creating Shared Value Forum, 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 Creating Shared Value Prize because the company's continued marketing of formula "still jeopardizes the health of infants and children in Laos." - Click here.

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.

The campaign against Dr. Chan’s proposed partnership with corporations in a World Health Forum continues. The stated aim of the Forum is to “Improve health outcomes, with WHO meeting the expectations of its Member States and partners”.

Well, we already know what Nestlé expects.

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 "jeopardizes the health of infants and children" are to be ignored because a FTSE committee sitting in London examining Nestlé’s policy statements and other presentations.

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 "The first comprehensive nutrition system for babies".

Nestlé, Good Grief!

Hype about 'human breastmilk' from GM cows tells us much about existing formula

2011-04-04T12:11:00.002+01:00

Headlines claiming that scientists have produced 'breastmilk' from Genetically Modified (GM) cows 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 UK Department of Health. 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).

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. Click here to send a message to your representatives in the European Parliament.

Here is a quote from Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator, Baby Milk Action for any journalists that need one:

"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."

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.

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:

"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’."

Beware of the hype. Left: Mead Johnson suggests its formula improves babies eye sight, although there is 'no proven benefit' from adding DHA to formula.

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 Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Directive 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 - click here.

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.

The health claims approach: Advocates of allowing companies to make health claims have suggested: "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." 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.

The evidence-based approach: 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.

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.

If policy makers are serious about infant health, then supporting an evidence-based approach is the way to go.

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):

Lysozyme (results from four GM cows): Characterization of Bioactive Recombinant Human Lysozyme Expressed in Milk of Cloned Transgenic Cattle

Lactoferrin (results from two GM cows): Cattle Mammary Bioreactor Generated by a Novel Procedure of Transgenic Cloning for Large-Scale Production of Functional Human Lactoferrin

Alpha-lactalbumin: paper not yet found.

Please contact us 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.

Offensive from those defending industry DHA health claim

2011-03-30T18:02:00.003+01:00

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. Click here 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.

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 - click here.

UNICEF gives its strong support to the Resolution

On the side of mothers and babies, we see that UNICEF has responded 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.

MEPs opposing the Resolution use an argument that makes support more sensible

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: "If an ingredient is proven to be safe and important for baby health, then it should be included." 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 EU Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Directive. Nobody who really cares about infant health would want an inferior formula on the market, it is too important a product.

DHA is not a required ingredient because it has no proven benefit

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.

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.

Cochrane Library review attacked

EFSA's letter suggests that the independent, systematic Cochrane Library review, 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: "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."

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 Archive of Diseases in Childhood: "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 19 subjects remained in the relevant intervention group, providing inadequate power to provide any realistic estimation of the treatment effect." [emphasis added]

Evidence of risks ignored in EFSA letter

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 Archive of Disease on Childhood as having 'considerable weaknesses (e.g. a very low number of subjects)' - in fact a study group of 105. 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 (click here):

"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."

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.

EFSA 'unaware' of other factors in breastmilk relevant to DHA effect

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:

"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."

EFSA states:

"We are unaware of any factor in breast milk which is needed for DHA to exert its 'optimal' effect."

This raises questions about gaps in the scientific basis for EFSA's position.

EFSA dismisses the call for further research by pointing out:

"DHA levels in formula as proposed for the claim are in the normal range of DHA content naturally present in mother's milk."

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.

Professor with links to Martek and Mead Johnson attacks Baby Milk Action

Wading into the issue in extended comments in Nutraingredients is Professor Berthold Koletzko, calling the EFSA investigation a "profound scientific evaluation", ignoring the shortcomings mentioned above and the findings of independent scientists.

Professor Koletzko attacks Baby Milk Action for 'pseudo-scientific' 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 2008 paper recommending DHA be added to formula. The declaration included in that paper states:

"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."

Martek Biosciences manufactures the DHA additives used by the majority of formula companies.

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 'load-mouthed lobbying group'.

The need for objectivity

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.

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.

The wider harm that will be caused by opposing the Resolution

As UNICEF points out: "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."

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 clicking here.

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 Myths stop mothers giving their babies the best start in life.

Protecting babies fed on formula

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:

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.

There are several issues with this argument.

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:

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 Goodnight milks (click here for analysis by the UK Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition of Goodnight milks and associated claims).

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.

Thirdly, science IS conducted in the public interest on new ingredients.

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.

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.

So please do keep sending messages. Our multilingual campaign page tells you how to do so quickly and easily - click here. If you have already sent your own messages, use the tools on that page to ask friends and colleagues to do the same.

Is breast best? book launch - a bit less polarisation please for the sake of the children

2011-03-19T09:20:00.006Z

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 launched here. It has the title: "Is Breast Best?: Taking on the Breastfeeding Experts and the New High Stakes of Motherhood" and Joan Wolf is speaking on it at a conference on 21 March.

We saw similar headlines 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.

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 prefaces her pieces relating to breastfeeding with comments like: "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."

But I do wonder about Zoe's understanding of how science works when I read her criticism that in research on health outcomes: "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.'"

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, 'How could we have been so stupid!'

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.

There are two points that I would like to make, however.

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.

Saying so does not make someone anti-baby milk. Baby Milk Action is sometimes attacked as anti-baby milk, even though our work is, as our slogan says, about 'Protecting breastfeeding - Protecting babies fed on formula'.

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 Infant Formula Explained. 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 Baby Feeding Law Group (BFLG), which consists of 23 health professional, mother support and consumer protection organisations, and Mark-it Television. This is my quote from our DVD press release - Mike Brady, who appears in the film speaking about the BFLG monitoring project which examines company marketing materials, said:

"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."

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.

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 ruled two years ago, after a long investigation, that the company could not substantiate its claim.

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 (examples here).

However, price can be used as a basis for choosing formula, in terms of not wasting your money: all formula on the market has, by law, 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 Infant Formula Explained 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.

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.

You see, what we and our partners in the BFLG want is the best for babies.

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.

According to the Infant Feeding Survey from the Office of National Statistics, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 National Institute of Clinical Excellence) to make the case for better support for mothers.

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.

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.

We should also be concerned that some of the unnecessary illness comes from formula not being reconstituted properly.

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 Global Strategy for Infant and Young Child Feeding and the Innocenti Declaration. 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.

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 guide to bottle feeding 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.

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.

What we really need are headlines saying, 'Department of Health plans to abandon mothers and babies'. Those might help reverse the decision to scrap efforts to improve breastfeeding rates and reduce unnecessary illness amongst formula-fed babies.

That would benefit ALL mothers and babies.

Nestle tries to co-opt the good reputation of others

2011-02-21T15:30:00.003Z

Nestlé opened nominations for its Creating Shared Value prize this February 2011. The company could improve its public image by accepting Baby Milk Action's four-point plan for saving infant lives and ultimately ending the boycott - but instead it is opening its cheque book to try to buy itself some good publicity by co-opting the good reputation of others. However, there is a risk that anyone supporting Nestlé's Creating Shared Value award will find they are dragged down by association with one of the world's four most boycotted companies. And as news breaks in the UK about companies infiltrating environmental groups, we should remember that Nestlé is being pursued through the courts in Switzerland after spying on campaigners there.

Nestlé is 'widely boycotted' according to its Global Public Affairs Manager and ranks poorly in public polls of corporate responsibility (for example, receiving a 'positivity' score in social media of just 12 out of 100 in an audit by Yomego Social Media Reputation, according to PR week). So the company launched the Nestlé Prize in Creating Shared Value in 2009 which "seeks to encourage and reward innovative approaches to the problems of nutrition, water, and rural development." A request for nominations is being publicised currently with a prize of CHF 500,000 (approximately US$ 480,000).

Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator at Baby Milk Action said: "Nestlé seems to think this PR stunt is a good investment to try to improve its abysmal image. It does not want to change the marketing practices that boost its profits while contributing to the problems of nutrition, water and rural development and lead to its poor reputation. It falls to members of the public to show they are not taken in. The more people support the Nestlé boycott - and tell Nestlé they are doing so - the more success we have in forcing it to change its practices."

Nestlé whole concept of Creating Shared Value is a Public Relations (PR) strategy to divert criticism of its business practices. Baby Milk Action and other Nestlé Critics have registered complaints about the misleading nature of the company's Creating Shared Value reports with the United Nations Global Compact Office, which posts the reports on its website. While refusing to investigate the complaints, the UN Global Compact Office continues to highlight Nestlé reports and accepted it as a Patron Sponsor of its 10th birthday conference in New York last year.

So in calling for nominations from initiatives that are no doubt doing good work, Nestlé is trying to cover itself with their reputation and convince people that it is somehow driving forward good practice in tackling problems of nutrition, water and rural development. Make no mistake, at the same time as violating international human rights and environmental standards, Nestlé is also trying to set the agenda on how corporations should be regulated at international fora, such as the World Economic Forum, and nation by nation. Nestlé opposes binding regulations as a 'straitjacket' on the 'engineers of wealth' and demands to be trusted to do the right thing because of its 'values'.

Nestlé has demonstrated time and again that it is not worthy of trust. While claiming to abide by the marketing requirements for baby foods, it is continue to systematically violate those standards. Its current global marketing strategy is to claim that its formula 'protects' babies when, in reality, babies fed on formula are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. After receiving thousands of emails from campaign supporters, Nestlé has admitted that there is 'no proven benefit' from adding ingredients such as DHA to formula, but refuses to end the marketing campaign based upon these ingredients, which mislead parents and health workers. More emails are needed - click here.

Nestlé only changes its practices when forced to do so by regulations or the pressure of public campaigns. Although still defending its logos, Nestlé has said it has discontinued a leaflet Baby Milk Action exposed that claims its formula is 'The new "Gold Standard" in infant nutrition' - a leaflet that should never have been produced in the first place. Campaigning does work - and with enough pressure Nestlé will be persuaded to drop its logos and other misleading claims, such as the claim its formula reduces diarrhoea (left - in reality, babies fed on formula are more likely to suffer from diarrhoea than breastfed babies).

For Nestlé it is a cost/benefit analysis: how much does its malpractice fuel the boycott versus how much extra sales these methods generate. To try to improve the ratio in its favour, executives invests heavily in PR stunts such as the Creating Shared Value prize and sponsorship of good causes. For example, it has entered into a secret deal with the Virgin London Marathon to promote its Pure Life bottled water - the organisers have refused to reveal their criteria for accepting sponsors, in breach of Charity Commission guidance. Nestlé's marketing of Pure Life bottled water has been criticised from Pakistan to Brazil for its impact on municipal water supplies and local communities - it had to stop pumping in Brazil under the threat of daily fines after a ten-year battle by the community affected by its bottling plant (famously Nestlé claimed its so-called independent auditors, Bureau Veritas, cleared it of any wrong-doing in Brazil, but Bureau Veritas admitted to Baby Milk Action they weren't even aware Nestlé had been taken to court by the public prosecutor and their work was not a legal audit).

Nestlé hopes to gain kudos from its support of the London Marathon with the Pure Life brand - and as no alternative water is on offer, boycott supporters entering the event either have to break their personal boycotts or endanger their health. Nestlé's Chairman has ridiculed the idea of giving back to society stating to business leaders in Boston, according to the Boston Herald: "companies should only pursue charitable endeavors with an underlying intention of making money for investors."

While those who are working on the ground to have a positive impact may be tempted by Nestlé's prize money, they should be aware of how they are being used by Nestlé and if they allow their reputations to be co-opted are, willingly or not, helping the company to deflect criticism.

In a less obvious way, Nestlé tries to improve its image through activity on the internet, reportedly recruiting PR companies to defend its reputation in social media and paying celebrities to post positive tweet about it. It has taken parenting bloggers on all-expenses-paid trips to luxury hotels and offered all-expenses-paid trips to Switzerland to health journalists.

In the UK it is being reported today that companies have infiltrated environmental groups. In so many areas, Nestlé has been there first: it employed a former MI6 officer to run a spying network in Switzerland that infiltrated Attac Switzerland, gathering information not only on the baby milk campaign, but on water campaigners in Brazil and trade unionists in Colombia whose members had been targeted by paramilitary death squads after organising at Nestlé factories.

Nestlé likes to talk of Creating Shared Value - and wants the media and public to do so to as it tries to associate Nestlé with positive stories. But Nestlé's real concern is Creating Shareholder Value, putting its own profits before health, human rights and the truth.

Members can now register to start our online monitoring course

2011-02-03T10:25:00.001Z

One of the activities in our Make a Mark in 2010 initiative was to develop an online training course on monitoring the baby food industry.

The technology has been put in place and the first module has now been made live on our website. Further modules in the 8-module course will be added over the coming months.

The first two modules will be free to members of Baby Milk Action. Non-members will be able to access the modules at a future date.

The course is based on the training the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) gives to member organisations around the world. These have been tailored to the situation in the UK and include information on the narrower UK marketing legislation.

Each module consists of short filmed talks, interactive quizzes, reading, a powerpoint presentation and an exercise. Participants have access to the tutor via the online discussion forum and will be able to book a personal tutorial by phone or skype during the course. The course culminates in a guided monitoring exercise to receive a Baby Milk Action certificate as a Code Monitor.

So if you are a member, register with the site and then upgrade your registration to 'member' by following the instructions at:

http://info.babymilkaction.org/members/registration

If you are not yet a member of Baby Milk Action, you can join by clicking here.

Once you are registered as a member, log in to the website and you will find the link to Module 1 appears under the Courses -> Monitoring menu.

The unprincipled men who wish to dictate how the world is run

2011-01-26T16:32:00.005Z

Mr. Paul Bulcke (left), CEO of Nestlé SA, and his predecessor and current Nestlé Chairman, Peter Brabeck-Letmathé, are seeking to set the agenda at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Swizerland this week. Nestlé is 'widely boycotted' in the words of its Global Public Affairs Manager, due to its aggressive marketing of baby foods in breach of international standards. Given the documentary evidence of systematic violations of the marketing requirements and the strategies employed by Mr. Bulcke and Mr Brabeck as they put their own profits before the lives and well-being of babies and their families, Baby Milk Action says it is ironic that Mr. Bulcke, co-chair of the meeting, believes he has any credibility in calling for "new global principles to fuel development". Mr. Bulcke, who was appointed CEO after achieving high growth in the baby food sector in Latin America, states in a press release on the Nestlé site: "When run in a principled way, with strong values and a long-term perspective, business can be an engine for development and prosperity."

Mr. Brabeck has for decades advocated that corporations be trusted to follow voluntary principles and be given greater power in policy setting than civil society organisations as the "engineers of wealth". At the last Nestlé shareholder AGM in April 2010 Mr. Brabeck warned against tying corporations up in a “regulatory straightjacket”, saying this was unnecessary as people should trust Nestlé's values. Mr. Brabeck's stance is inconsistent, however, because while opposing strong regulations protecting babies and their families in line with international marketing standards in favour of voluntary measures, he has argued that protection of company brands should be "entrenched in the law and strictly enforced by the authorities". Mr. Brabeck also argues publicly that corporations should be trusted as global citizens, but told business leaders in Boston in 2005, that corporations should not feel obligated to 'give back' to the community and should only support good causes if it will benefit shareholders.

Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator at Baby Milk Action, said, "Mr. Bulcke and Mr. Brabeck have demonstrated the only principle they seem to understand is money - that is why we call on people around the world to join the boycott until they agree to stop pushing baby foods in ways that undermine breastfeeding and endanger babies fed on formula. The boycott has forced some changes, but they still have a long way to go. Mr. Bulcke is trying to present himself as a principled business leader on the global stage as part of his strategy to divert attention from what Nestlé's does in reality."

Both Mr. Bulcke and Mr. Brabeck have rejected Baby Milk Action's four-point plan for saving infant lives and ultimately ending the boycott.

Mr. Bulcke's comments come as thousands of people have emailed the company over its latest baby milk marketing strategy, calling on it to stop violating international marketing standards. In other areas of concern, the India media has this week exposed a secret deal between Nestlé and universities to target young girls with information on nutrition - a request for information on the deal under India's Right to Information law was blocked by Nestlé (see Times of India). While attempting to set the global agenda, Nestlé is also the subject of complaints for violations of the UN Global Compact Principles registered Baby Milk Action and other Nestlé Critics. The UN Global Compact Office has refused to investigate the complaints, but continues to accept funding from Nestlé for its events and posts Nestlé's criticised reports on its website.

Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator at Baby Milk Action, said:

"Nestlé current global baby milk marketing strategy involves promoting its formula with the claim it 'protects' babies, when in reality babies fed on formula are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. I have written directly to Mr. Bulcke on this matter and he refuses to stop what is a clear violation of international marketing standards."

In its latest communication on the 'protect' logos added to formula labels in 120 countries, Nestlé has admitted that there is 'no proven benefit' from adding to formula ingredients such as DHA and ARA highlighted in the logos, but is still refusing to remove the logos. After receiving thousands of emails in Baby Milk Action's Email Nestlé campaign, Nestlé has said it has discontinued a leaflet promoting its formula as 'The new "Gold Standards" in infant nutrition', but not other leaflets claiming, for example, that its formula reduces the incidence of diarrhoea. Babies fed on formula rather than breastfed are more likely to suffer from diarrhoea. According to WHO, "infants who are not breastfed in the first month of life may be as much as 25 times more likely to die than infants who are exclusively breastfed."

According to UNICEF: "Marketing practices that undermine breastfeeding are potentially hazardous wherever they are pursued: in the developing world, WHO estimates that some 1.5 million children die each year because they are not adequately breastfed. These facts are not in dispute."

Nestlé is also refusing to warn on labels that powdered infant formula is not sterile and the simple steps required to reduce the risks of possible contamination with harmful bacteria. Nestlé has had to recall formula in the past after contamination with Enterobacter Sakazakii, which has led to deaths in Europe (see WHO publication on this known problem).

Nestlé is not only criticised for violating the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant Resolutions. Campaigners monitoring other aspects of its business criticise the company for:

* trade union busting and failing to act on related court decisions;

* failure to act on child labour and slavery in its cocoa supply chain;

* exploitation of farmers, particularly in the dairy and coffee sectors;

* environmental degradation, particularly of water resources;

Click here for the report: Nestlé's UN Global Compact cover up - How Nestlé’s Shared Value reports cover up malpractice and bring the UN voluntary initiative for corporate responsibility into disrepute.

WHO breastfeeding recommendations under attack from industry-funded scientists

2011-01-14T18:43:00.001Z

The BBC, the Guardian and other media are carrying stories about a comment piece from four authors published in the British Medical Journal today. This is not a new scientific study - it is a review of existing research selected by the authors and has been published in the 'Comment' section of the BMJ. Three of the four authors of the piece, Mary Fewtrell, Alan Lucas and David Wilson, receive funding from the baby food industry. Prof Lucas in particular plays a key role in advising the UK baby food industry, and has opposed the WHO recommendation for many years. In 2003 he went so far as to appear for the defence when one of the largest baby food companies, SMA Wyeth was successfully prosecuted for illegal advertising by Trading Standards.

www.babymilkaction.org/press/press31july03.html

http://www.babymilkaction.org/update/update33.html#2

http://www.babymilkaction.org/www.babymilkaction.org/update/update29.html#2

http://www.babymilkaction.org/www.babymilkaction.org/update/update23.html#11

Baby Milk Action expects this comment piece and the media coverage it is generating to be used by companies in their attempt to weaken national policies and legislation requiring complementary foods to be labelled for use from 6 months. In the UK, baby food companies are already labelling complementary foods for use from 4 months of age despite Government policy recommending 6 months exclusive breastfeeding or formula feeding.

When looking at the authors' comment piece, the following points should be borne in mind:

The four authors are not attacking the recommendation that breastfeeding continue alongside complementary foods or the WHO recommendation of breastfeeding into the second year of life and beyond. Baby Milk Action is concerned about misreporting of the paper, with headlines such as, "Breastfeeding 'not always best'" or "Recommendation to breastfeed for 6 months challenged". Please post examples as comments to this articles, with links if possible.
This is not a new scientific study - it is a review of existing research selected by the authors and has been published in the 'Comment' section of the BMJ.
WHO’s policy arose from a systematic review of 3,000 studies on infant feeding. See The optimal duration of exclusive breastfeeding and Guiding principles for complementary feeding of the breastfed child. WHO has issued a statement today (14 January 2011):

WHO's global public health recommendation is for infants to be exclusively breastfed for the first 6 months of life to achieve optimal growth, development and health. Thereafter, infants should be given nutritious complementary foods and continue breastfeeding up to the age of 2 years or beyond.

WHO closely follows new research findings in this area and has a process for periodically re-examining recommendations. Systematic reviews accompanied by an assessment of the quality of evidence are used to review guidelines in a process that is designed to ensure that the recommendations are based on the best available evidence and free from conflicts of interest.

The paper in this week's BMJ is not the result of a systematic review. The latest systematic review on this issue available in the Cochrane Library was published in 2009 ("Optimal duration of exclusive breastfeeding (Review)", Kramer MS, Kakuma R. The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 4). It included studies in developed and developing countries and its findings are supportive of the current WHO recommendations. It found that the results of two controlled trials and 18 other studies suggest that exclusive breastfeeding (which means that the infant should have only breast milk, and no other foods or liquids) for 6 months has several advantages over exclusive breastfeeding for 3-4 months followed by mixed breastfeeding. These advantages include a lower risk of gastrointestinal infection for the baby, more rapid maternal weight loss after birth, and delayed return of menstrual periods. No reduced risks of other infections or of allergic diseases have been demonstrated. No adverse effects on growth have been documented with exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months, but a reduced level of iron has been observed in developing-country settings.

Keeping recommendations under review is good practice and randomised controlled trials are also in progress; the four authors are pre-empting the results of these and do not refer to the 2009 review published by the Cochrane Library.
The four authors imply that delayed introduction of solid foods may be linked to increased obesity - this is total conflict with the studies which show that early introduction - particularly of sugary foods is an important factor behind the obesity epidemic. Breastfeeding may actually help in the development of taste receptors.
The argument to introduce solids at 4 months to prevent coeliac disease and allergies was summarised by ESPGHAN in late 2009 and was considered by many to be flawed. see our press release: http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press23dec09.html
The UK Scientific Committee on Nutrition (SACN) and the Committee on Toxicity (COT) are reviewing the evidence on solid foods and coeliac disease. The draft opinion is NOT FINAL BUT Is on the SACN website with the Agenda papers for next week's SACN meeting. See paper SMCN/11/01 downloadable from http://www.sacn.gov.uk/meetings/sub_groups/maternal_child_nutrition/19012011.html
SACN use international growth charts to describe the optimal pattern of infant growth in the UK (UK-WHO charts). These are based on studies of babies in 7 countries around the world and no significant difference was found between their growth profiles. The proposal from the four scientists that babies are treated differently depending on where they live conflicts with this research evidence. The mean age at introduction of solids to this cohort of breastfed infants in the WHO studies was 5.4 months (or "..about 6-months").
The UK policy is to introduce complementary foods at around 6-months and progress responsively, in line with individual babies' progress and acceptance. Not all babies need solids at the same time: in every aspect of infant development there is a wide range of normal. Very importantly the introduction of the new policy in 2003 has been associated with a marked reduction in the numbers of mothers giving solids very early (i.e. before 4-months). Since it is widely accepted that very early introduction carries greater risk (particularly of coeliac disease), the UK policy could be considered from this perspective a success.
The practice of ‘baby-led weaning’ is becoming more widespread, where babies are allowed to play with appropriately prepared solid foods and decide for themselves when to eat. Experience in this area suggests that babies naturally start to ingest complementary foods at around 6 months of age, when various developmental factors (hand-eye coordination, mastication ability etc) come together. This may be an evolved natural behaviour that has been lost through the practice of spoon feeding prepared paps. Further research is required in this area.
Marianne Monie, Chair of the nationwide Breastfeeding Network, made an important point about the risk of swine flu: “The evidence supports introducing food when a baby is developmentally ready at around 6 months. Introducing food or infant formula before that time increases the risk of infections. Questioning the wisdom of the six-month guideline at a time when babies are at risk of catching swine flu is unfortunate, because exclusive breastfeeding reduces the risk of secondary infections that can be serious enough to need hospital admission. Parents should not feel pressured into rushing their baby onto solid food. Waiting until around six months gives another two valuable months of additional protection against chest and stomach infection."

Response from Joanna Moorhead:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/jan/14/breastfeeding-comment-joanna-moorhead

Response from UNICEF UK:

http://www.babyfriendly.org.uk/pdfs/unicef_uk_response_to_BMJ_article_140111.pdf

Mumsnet questions to Mike Brady

2010-12-21T08:21:00.005Z

Q and A with Mike Brady

The Mumsnet parenting website invited their followers to post questions to be answered by Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator at Baby Milk Action, and selected the following.

Edited versions of these answers will be posted on the Mumsnet site - full answers are given here.

Browse the questions provided by Mumsnet below and click on the links to go straight to Mike Brady's full answer.

1. Lowercase

what drives you to carry on campaigning?

what has been the single most positive/encouraging change you have seen during your campaign?

2. Ceidlihgirl

Bottlefeeding mums perceive Baby Milk Action to be anti formula. Whilst this may not be the case, that perception will affect the credibility of anything you say. Does your organisation need a makeover?

3. Lagrandissima

Do you work with schools to raise awareness of issues around the formula industry? Do you think it might be useful to educate future parents at an early age about the pros/cons of formula/BFing?

Also, just wanted to say thank you for standing up to the big corporations. Shame our politicians don't have the balls to.

4. FrozenNorthpole

My question is this: if there is one message you would like the 18-21 year old mums / dads of the future to receive about breastfeeding, what would it be?

5. Tiktok

I would like to ask Mike how Baby Milk Action can explain that concern about formula is not the same as judging mothers who use it.

Maybe an idea to respond to this one !

6. Funnysinthegarden

Along with other posters, I too am uncomfortable with this discussion. I'm afraid that BMA and it's followers really do appear to be anti formula, and to me that is unacceptable.

I am not sure if politically it is wise for Mumsnet to host a chat with an organisation which holds such one sided views. Of course they say they support both types of infant feeding, but a glance at their site would suggest otherwise.

Suffice to say I won't be posting a question.

Incidentally, why is a man fronting this campaign. Surely there are many women who would be better placed to do so?

7. Tabblouleh

Question 1: Mike how did you get involved with BMA?

Question 2: What practical actions can MNers do to support BMA and are there any tasks which MNers could volunteer to help out with?

Question 3: How can we launch an effective campaign to ensure HCPs know/understand and communicate the safe methods of preparing formula?

FORMULA

8. Lyns12

My question is what you would suggest to a mother who does not want to use formula but still requires, for whatever reason, milk to supplement her own?

9. HermyaTheRedNosedReindeer

I've come across some health care professionals who aren't as clued up on breastfeeding as what they are on formula feeding. It seems that the information is so readily available to those who want to find it, do you think there is any way of correcting the inbalance that seems to exist in some quarters?

10. Organiccarrottcake

Mike Brady My question is, how can the marketing of formula properly be controlled in the UK when the only apparent organisation to control it, the ASA, is a toothless waste of time. As it stands, if an advert is found to breach the regulations (such as the big-cup advert) the company is simply told to stop running it. Often they don't (I've seen this advert since its banning despite C&G telling me they were not running it again) and even if it isn't run again there's no requirement for retraction so viewers simply assumed it's run its course.

11. Jean Kelly

Hey Mike I have two questions:

1. Why do you think our food safety authorities don't test and approve formula? Surely it should be regulated so it doesn't contain such harmful things; bisphenol-A, aluminum, enterobacter sakazakii and salmonella enterica.

2. A lot of people are unaware of the risks of using formula so cant make an informed decision when deciding how to feed their babies. Do you think formula should be labeled with the health risks like tobacco boxes are?

12. Cuppateajanice

Powdered formula is impossible to make and store in a sterile manner, and therefore liquid formula is theoretically 'safer' in terms of potential hazardous contents.

Why, then, is there no concentrated sterile liquid formula product available on the market which can be diluted with cooled boiled water to provide a safer drink for babies.

Are current liquid sterilization/pasteurisation etc. techniques effective enough to allow a bottle of concentrated liquid formula to be kept in a fridge and used safely for a number of days? Are any formula companies looking into such a product or would it not be viable?

13. Himalaya

Do you think that the other baby milk companies that also violate the marketing code are relieved that the singular focus of the campaign on Nestle takes the heat off them? Is there any competition amongst baby milk companies to be recognised and seen as the most ethical in marketing, or do they all keep their heads down to stay out of the way of bad publicity?

NESTLE

14. Scrappydappydo

Do you think the boycott of nestle is having an impact. I haven't brought nestle products for 10 years but sometimes wonder if its worth it as they are such a huge company - not sure if little old me makes much of dent (not that I'll stop the boycott).

15. Lactivist

Hi Mike - How can I get across to people that it is important to boycott Nestle - my sons school seem to think it is something that happens abroad and nothing to do with us.

16. Maisyandpanduluce

I live overseas. Nestle is ubiquitous - in the way that, oh I don't know, bread, is in the UK. Any hints for boycotting things here?

FOLLOW-ON MILK

17. Marzipananimal

Hi Mike - How can I get across to people that it is important to boycott Nestle - my sons school seem to think it is something that happens abroad and nothing to do with us?

There’s a mix-up with the questions, as this appears above.

FORMULA IN 3RD WORLD COUNTRIES

18. Milamae

Do you think the use of formula in developed countries is over demonized in order to protest against it's use in 3rd world countries?

Can you see how this alienates many parents and do you think a different approach would be more beneficial?

19. Snugglepops

I am interested in inappropriate formula feeding during disasters and the aftermath, such as Haiti.

How do we ensure that aid money we give is not used to provide formula and thereby increase the suffering or babies and children at such a difficult point of their lives?

Is formula safe only in countries with good water supply, good standard of living, hygiene etc?

20. Himalaya

As I understand it from "UNICEF stats www.childinfo.org/breastfeeding_infantfeeding.html etc..the majority of babies in the developing world who are not exclusively breastfed are not given other milk or given formula, but water or complimentary foods traditional in that community such as maize meal porridge.

So the challenge of enabling more women to exlusively breast feed for longer and save the lives of 140 million children a year is not simply one of breastmilk vs formula (or of poor people vs big corporates) it is also about challenging some of the traditional practices handed down from Grandmas etc...

So the question is, do you think that there is any hope, that a company such a Nestle could be a force for good. They have has so much marketing expertise, scientific research and global reach, and an interest in selling products to children and families throughout their lives - do you think there is any hope that they might become a force for good in promoting sound nutrition, from breastfeeding to eventual weening and beyond. Do you see any sign of companies doing this?

Bonus question: What is the story behind the famous twins photo?

I have seen that there was a discussion about the famous ‘twins’ picture used on a postcard sold by Baby Milk Action and so have given the background to this and the issues it raises.

Nestle-free Week 2010 gets off to a Tweeting good start

2010-10-25T11:38:00.004+01:00

It is International Nestlé-Free Week from 25 - 31 October 2010 (press release). A week for people who boycott Nestlé over its baby milk pushing to do more to spread the word and for those who don't boycott to give it a go. This year people are being asked to email Nestlé over its last baby milk marketing strategy: it is claiming its formula 'protects' babies despite the fact that babies who are fed breastmilk substitutes are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die.

Boycotters in the United States started the ball rolling yesterday with a Twitter Party. Thousands of tweets were entered on the Twitter site using the #noNestle hashtag. People shared information about how Nestlé violates the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and other measures adopted by the World Health Assembly; how right now Nestlé is undermining breastfeeding by promoting its formula as 'The new "Gold Standard" in infant nutrition'; how Nestlé denies information to parents who use formula that would help them to reduce risks - Nestlé refuses to warn them that powdered formula is not sterile and may contain harmful bacteria. Some people tweeted about the different brands that Nestlé owns. Part of the purpose of the week is to persuade people who think it is too hard to give up Nestlé products to look for alternatives and some tweeters made suggestions of other products to use when boycotting Nestlé. Nestlé-Free Week includes Halloween and campaigners have produced 'Nestlé Free' bags for giving out candy to children knocking on their doors.

The discussion continues on the #noNestle hashtag during International Nestlé-Free Week and beyond. We have adopted a Tweet Ribbon produced last year by a boycotter, which people can add to their Twitter avatar. See:

http://twibbon.com/join/Nestle-Free-Week

People are also spreading the word on Facebook by inviting friends to join the event page:

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=161402963879234&index=1

Breastfeeding or using formula, International Nestlé-Free Week needs your support

2010-10-11T22:24:00.002+01:00

It is International Nestlé-Free Week at the end of October. Our press release can be found at:

http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease10oct10

I saw a comment on one discussion board where someone had posted a link: "sorry .. but some people cant breast feed .. so making people feel guilty because they cant .. no thanks ..."

I posted the following comment:

I have joined this forum to leave a comment from Baby Milk Action. Our slogan is 'Protecting breastfeeding - Protecting babies fed on formula' and we do NOT work to stop people having access to formula or to stop Nestlé or any other company from selling it. There is no intention to make mothers feel guilty over how they feed their children. It is a mother's decision.

The demand is simple: for Nestlé to market its products in accordance with the international marketing standards adopted by the World Health Assembly. These are very clear in their purpose: "to contribute to the provision of safe and adequate nutrition for infants, by the protection and promotion of breastfeeding, and by ensuring the proper use of breastmilk substitutes, when these are necessary, on the basis of adequate information and through appropriate marketing and distribution."

As we show on our site with reference to Nestlé's own materials it both undermines breastfeeding with untrue claims about its formula and refuses to provide information for those who use formula with information on how to reduce the risks. Powdered formula is not sterile and Nestlé does not want to admit this on labels because doing so would undermine its claims that its formula protects babies and may harm its sales - Nestlé cares about profit above all else, hence the need to hit it in the pocket with the boycott to force changes.

Powdered formula sold in the UK does warn on labels that it is not sterile and the instructions include the step required to kill any possible harmful bacteria in the powder. If companies are not forced to include this information, they hide it. The information on how to mix up formula to reduce risks is available from the World Health Organisation and the UK Department of Health.

So whether breastfeeding or using formula, we hope everyone agrees that babies have a right to protection and mothers have a right to accurate information. Supporting International Nestlé-Free Week is a way to help achieve that.

Find out more on the press release, including how to send a message to Nestlé and join the Facebook group.

http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease10oct10

You must be having a laugh!

2010-09-30T13:18:00.004+01:00

Funny!

Thanks to VictoriaSlinglady for this.

Why 'Cow & Gate, pah'? If you are in the UK or Ireland, you may have seen that those nice people at Danone were inspired by an earlier laughing baby youtube clip when creating an advertisement for their Cow & Gate formula. This has claims suggesting the formula provides everything a baby needs. However, amongst other shortcomings, formula, unlike breastmilk, it is not a living substance. As a mother produces protective properties in response to infections in the environment, this is passed tailor-made through breastfeeding to a child at its most vulnerable time. In addition, powdered infant formula is not a sterile product, meaning it may contain harmful bacteria such as enterobacter sakazakii and salmonella. Thanks to our campaigning labels in the UK now warn that powdered infant formula is not sterile and instructions are improving, though need to be clearer about the importance of including a step of mixing up the powder with water above 70 degrees Centigrade to kill any bacteria that may be in the formula. The feeding bottle or cup should then be cooled before feeding to the child. For more on making formula feeding safer, see the infant feeding section of this site.

Unfortunately, Danone has little regard for providing accurate information and systematically violates the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant Resolutions adopted by the World Health Assembly setting out minimum marketing standards. The UK Government has still not implemented these measures (despite repeated calls from the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child to do so) and the Advertising Standards Authority voluntary advertising code ignores the Code and Resolutions, even though companies should abide by them independently of government measures. However, even the ASA will sometimes take action and last week ruled against a Danone advertisement for Cow & Gate formula, in which the company made untrue claims implying a child over 6 months could only receive the iron it required through a processed milk. In truth a breasfed baby or a baby fed on infant formula, will receive the iron it needs through normal family foods introduced into the diet around that time. See:

http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/news/1029911/Cow---Gate-Milk-ad-banned-iron-claim/

Danone is laughing all the way to the bank since taking over the Nutricia, Milupa, Aptamil and Cow & Gate brands in 2007. At that time it promised Baby Milk Action a 'root-and-branch review' of marketing activities. Well, time is now running out and if the forthcoming global monitoring report produced by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) shows that Danone has not delivered on its promise and is getting as bad as Nestlé as it tries to compete with the worst of the baby food companies (which seems to be the case, particularly in Asia), then it will likely face consumer action. The Nestlé boycott is a key tool in forcing Nestlé to change policies and practices (click here for our current campaign action). If Danone won't change to abide by the marketing standards voluntarily, then it may be time to hit it in the pocket in the same way.

In the meantime, in the UK we continue to work to improve the formula marketing requirements to protect breastfeeding and protect babies fed on formula. You can support our current campaign by clicking here.

You might not feel like laughing now, so scroll up and watch that clip again!

Over 140,000 people call for United Nations to protect, promote and support breastfeeding and appropriate information

2010-09-22T15:33:00.000+01:00

The UN Secretary General, Ban KI-moon, is today announcing a worldwide campaign to save the lives of 16 million mothers and children over the next five years and a fund of US$40 billion to help achieve this goal. See The Guardian.

This is wonderful news - and we should perhaps not be too surprised to find that Nestlé, a company with a long record of abusing women and child rights, is trying to muscle in on the initiative to try to distract attention from its on-going aggressive marketing of baby milks in breach of international standards and other much-criticised practices.

Far too many mothers and children die from preventable causes. While we welcome the new United Nations initiative, we should also remember that there are far cheaper, but politically more difficult, steps that can be taken to reduce unnecessary child deaths: implementing and enforcing existing measures adopted by the United Nations. Over 140,000 people have signed a rolling petition calling for policy makers to take action to protect, promote and support breastfeeding, with over 3,000 addressing a specific message to the Secretary General over the last three days. See the ONE MILLION CAMPAIGN.

In the area of infant feeding, the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes is helping to save lives in many countries, but many more have yet to implement it and the subsequent, relevant Resolutions of the World Health Assembly. These international minimum standards aim to protect breastfeeding and ensure breastmilk substitutes are used safely when necessary and companies are called on to abide by them independently of government action, but do not do so.

Worse still, the United Nations Global Compact, a voluntary initiative intended to improve the behaviour of transnational corporations, has been found to be complicit in working with companies such as Nestlé to allow violations of the Code and Resolutions to continue: it accepts Nestlé funding to promote the initiative and posts on its website Nestlé's PR materials claiming the company abides by the Code and Resolution, but refuses to investigate reports of egregious violations of the Global Compact Principles registered under the initiatives Integrity Measures. There are also concerns that corporations will be using the UN Secretary General's new initiative as a way to improve their images, while continuing to abuse human rights.

A few weeks ago, the Secretary General's Office worked in 'collaboration' (to use the word in a report on the World Health Organisation site) with the International Business Leaders Forum at 'a special meeting to explore ways the private sector can contribute to supporting the Global Strategy for Women’s and Children’s Health'. According to the report, 'Best practices from a range of industry sectors and companies were showcased', with Nestlé one of the companies there with something to show and tell - though not, presumably, it's latest baby milk strategy of claiming its breastmilk substitutes 'protect' babies when it knows babies who are not breastfed are more likely to become sick and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die.

The report concludes: 'A number of companies are already looking seriously at how they might respond to the Global Strategy, and identify commitments, which will be announced to the public during the UN Millennium Develop Goals (MDG) Summit on 22 September 2010 in New York and in the months to come.'

However, when Baby Milk Action contacted the Secretary General's Office, we were informed that only governments are involved in the Global Strategy launch. Is the Secretary General wary of appearing publicly too close to Nestlé, one of the four most boycotted companies on the planet over its pushing of baby milk in breach of international marketing standards adopted by the World Health Assembly, part of the UN system?

The Global Strategy for Women's and Children's Health follows on the Global Strategy for Infant and Young Child Feeding, which has proved to be an invaluable tool for improving breastfeeding rates, that could prevent 1.3 million under-5 deaths in the 42 countries where most under-5 deaths occur. A World Health Organisation (WHO)/Lancet study found that improving breastfeeding rates could save more lives than universal provision of safe water, adequate sanitation and childhood vaccines. This strategy and the adoption of the International Code and Resolutions is the UN at its best: bringing policy makers together from around the world to coordinate action that helps to save lives.

In turning these initiatives into reality, people on the ground have come up against the baby food industry. As industry analysts Euromonitor state in their report on the state of the baby food industry in 2008: “The industry is fighting a rearguard action against regulation on a country-by-country basis."

Part of Nestlé's strategy is to try to 'partner' with the United Nations. Earlier this year, Nestlé was a patron sponsor of a UN Global Compact event in New York, despite Baby Milk Action and other Nestlé Critics having registered an official complaint with the UN Global Compact Office over Nestlé's egregious violations of the Global Compact Principles and its bringing the initiative into disrepute. The Global Compact Office refused to investigate the case, citing lack of resources or mandate. In a telling comment, it stated:

"Of course, abuses of the 10 Principles do occur; however we believe that such abuses only indicate that it is important for the company to remain in the Compact and learn from its mistakes."

In my view, the UN Global Compact is worse than useless because it provides public relations cover to Nestlé and other companies violating human rights by posting their reports and taking part in joint events, while refusing to investigate complaints.

If the Secretary General is being courted by Nestlé and others who want to be seen as playing a part in the new Global Strategy for Women's and Children's Health - and Bill Gates is cited as a speaker by the Guardian - then what hope is there for poorly resourced citizens' groups such as Baby Milk Action and our partners having our legitimate concerns addressed?

I'll sum up with a quote that can be used by journalists, citing Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator, Baby Milk Action:

"In our complaint to the UN Global Compact Office, we focused in on Nestlé latest global marketing strategy where it is claiming its baby milk 'protects' babies and is 'the new "Gold Standard" in infant nutrition'. Nestlé also refuses to provide information on known risks of formula feeding to parents who use its products and the simple steps that can reduce these risks. As Nestlé knows, babies fed on breastmilk substitutes are more likely to become ill than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. Such marketing strategies are not only clear violations of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, Nestlé has been told they violate specific national regulations and has been emailed by thousands of people calling on it to immediately stop these practices. Nestlé continues to defend them. While Nestlé continues to put its own profits before the health and well-being of babies, the UN should not only be investigating it for violating the Code and the Global Compact Principles, it should be closing the door on executives who want to be seen as partners. It is welcome that the new Global Strategy for Women's and Children's Health stresses the importance of breastfeeding, but we should remember that promotion and support of breastfeeding and accurate, independent information is undermined if protection is not also put in place."

For images of Nestlé's latest promotions and a quick form for emailing Nestlé, see:

http://info.babymilkaction.org/emailnestle

Midwives should tell Danone to keep its ill-gotten Aptamil loot

2010-09-16T15:36:00.000+01:00

We are receiving many outraged reports from people who have seen that Danone is offering midwives grants of up to £1,000 from a fund of £20,000. This sponsorship is branded with the Danone formula name and logo, Aptamil (Danone is also behind the Nutricia, Milupa and Cow & Gate formula brands).

The money is being handled by the charity Tommy's. I would say Danone is using the charity to 'launder' the money in an attempt to make it more acceptable.

Firstly, for Tommy's and midwives to accept funds from Danone violates World Health Assembly marketing requirements.

Article 7.3 of the Code states:

"No financial or material inducements to promote products within the scope of this Code should be offered by manufacturers or distributors to health workers or members of their families, nor should these be accepted by health workers or members of their families."

Danone is promoting the Aptamil formula brand by linking the funding to it. The Aptamil logo features prominently on the charity's webpage and this links to an Aptamil-branded website that promotes the products with misleading claims.

It is not only a concern that Danone's money is linked to the Aptamil formula brand, accepting money from a formula company creates a conflict of interest for health workers. The World Health Assembly has adopted several Resolutions addressing conflicts of interest, such as Resolution 58.32, which calls for measures: "to ensure that financial support and other incentives for programmes and health professionals working in infant and young-child health do not create conflicts of interest."

A baby food company providing midwives with grants creates a conflict of interest, whatever the purported purpose of the grant.

Secondly, aside from these issues, we should not forget that Danone is second only to Nestlé for worldwide violations of the International Code and Resolutions. The only reason that Danone is not the target of a boycott like Nestlé is that after taking over the Aptamil and other brands from NUMICO in 2007, it promised to conduct a 'root and branch' review of marketing practices. All indications are that it has not taken the required action to end violations - quite the opposite. The next global monitoring report from the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), due this year, will inform campaigners whether it is time to launch a consumer campaign against Danone to stop its aggressive marketing practices. The boycott of Nestlé has forced it to change some practices and is currently putting pressure on Nestlé to stop its latest global marketing campaign - click here.

In the UK, Danone brands have rulings against them from the Advertising Standards Authority for misleading parents. For example, the ASA upheld Baby Milk Action's complaints against advertising claims that Aptamil is the 'best follow-on formula' and protects against infection. See our press release from 22 July 2009.

Any health worker that has accepted Danone money is required to disclose this to their employers. Article 7.5 of the International Code states:

"Manufacturers and distributors of products within the scope of this Code should disclose to the institution to which a recipient health worker is affiliated any contribution made to him or on his behalf for fellowships, study tours, research grants, attendance at professional conferences, or the like. Similar disclosures should be made by the recipient."

Here is a quote from me, Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator, Baby Milk Action, for anyone that needs one:

"Danone is second only to Nestlé in the global baby milk market and pushes its products almost as aggressively. If it does not deliver on its promise to clean up the marketing for brands it took over when it purchased NUMICO, it will find itself, like Nestlé, the target of a consumer campaign.

"The money on offer is linked to a Danone formula brand name, Aptamil, and so is serving a promotional purpose. It is a breach of World Health Assembly marketing standards for companies to offer such financial benefits and health workers are also in breach of standards on conflicts of interest if they accept them. Even if this was not the case, the fact that Aptamil is promoted with misleading claims, some of which have rulings against them from the Advertising Standards Authority, shows this is a company that puts its own profits before the health and well-being of mothers and babies and its ill-gotten loot should be untouchable by those wanting to protect and support mothers and babies."

You can see examples of Danone violations of the International Code and Resolutions in the UK in the monitoring reports Baby Milk Action produces for the Baby Feeding Law Group.

Ask UN Secretary General to protect mothers and babies on 22 September

2010-09-15T15:13:00.003+01:00

A MESSAGE FROM THE ONE MILLION CAMPAIGN

Dear Friend,

Globally 3.6 million Infants die before they reach their first birthday and millions are malnourished because of inadequate and inappropriate breastfeeding and complementary feeding practices.

Most effective interventions to save babies’ lives and prevent malnutrition is to enhance early and exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months, and good complementary feeding thereafter along with continued breastfeeding. For this, women needed to be supported.

The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki- moon will launch the Global Strategy for Women's and Children's Health at a special event during the MDG Summit in New York on 22nd September.

Let's call upon the UN Secretary General to ensure support to women.

SIEZE THE MOMENT and raise your voice.

Sign and send the petition to the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki - moon to urge him to include specific budgetary support for adequate maternity benefits and entitlements, skilled counseling in health systems, in order to make it possible for women to breastfeed successfully.

SIGN IT HERE

http://www.onemillioncampaign.org/view_campaigns/sieze-moment-sign-your-support-women-breastfeed

JUST A FEW days left ACT NOW and ASK 10 of your YOUR FRIENDS TO SIGN UP AS WELL!

http://onemillioncampaign.org/tell_your_friends?user_id=-1&node_id=585

Thanks !!

Team One Million Campaign

email un

2010-09-15T15:13:00.001+01:00

A MESSAGE FROM THE ONE MILLION CAMPAIGN

Dear Friend,

Globally 3.6 million Infants die before they reach their first birthday and millions are malnourished because of inadequate and inappropriate breastfeeding and complementary feeding practices.

The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki- moon will launch the Global Strategy for Women's and Children's Health at a special event during the MDG Summit in New York on 22nd September.

Let's call upon the UN Secretary General to ensure support to women.

SIEZE THE MOMENT and raise your voice.

SIGN IT HERE

http://www.onemillioncampaign.org/view_campaigns/sieze-moment-sign-your-support-women-breastfeed

JUST A FEW days left ACT NOW and ASK 10 of your YOUR FRIENDS TO SIGN UP AS WELL!

http://onemillioncampaign.org/tell_your_friends?user_id=-1&node_id=585

Thanks !!

Team One Million Campaign

email un

2010-09-15T15:13:00.000+01:00

A MESSAGE FROM THE ONE MILLION CAMPAIGN

Dear Friend,

Globally 3.6 million Infants die before they reach their first birthday and millions are malnourished because of inadequate and inappropriate breastfeeding and complementary feeding practices.

The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki- moon will launch the Global Strategy for Women's and Children's Health at a special event during the MDG Summit in New York on 22nd September.

Let's call upon the UN Secretary General to ensure support to women.

SIEZE THE MOMENT and raise your voice.

SIGN IT HERE

http://www.onemillioncampaign.org/view_campaigns/sieze-moment-sign-your-support-women-breastfeed

JUST A FEW days left ACT NOW and ASK 10 of your YOUR FRIENDS TO SIGN UP AS WELL!

http://onemillioncampaign.org/tell_your_friends?user_id=-1&node_id=585

Thanks !!

Team One Million Campaign

Ulverston Breastfeeding Festival

2010-08-21T05:28:00.005+01:00

The First Ulverston Breastfeeding Festival (16 - 22 August) was a thoroughly enjoyable event and one that deserves to grow. The town of Ulverston, close to the coast on the south side of the Lake District, is a delightful setting. I spoke on Friday in the Parish Church Hall, after a showing of the UNICEF Philippines film, Formula for Disaster. Many thanks to Jo Dawson for the invitation and for the hard work she put in with help from friends and family to make the event a reality. I really hope it becomes part of the calendar and inspires others in the UK and elsewhere.

There are links to the film and some of the information included in my presentation below, along with other news from the festival. My weekend at the festival was an opportunity to encourage people to email Nestlé over its latest baby milk marketing strategy (it is claiming its formula 'protects' babies, despite the fact that babies fed on formula are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die). Before reading on, take a minute to email Nestlé by clicking here (will open in a new window).

There were events throughout the week, including workshops and talks on baby-led weaning, milk banking, breastfeeding information for grandparents and the Breastfeeding Manifesto. There was a breastfeeding fair on the Saturday in the Coronation Hall, with stalls by Baby Milk Action and other organisations involved. Sedleigh played his song 'Every Drop Counts' and other music outside the hall - close to statues of Ulverston son, Stan Laurel, and his partner in comedy, Oliver Hardy.

The Madonna and Child Project is running until 28 August, an exhibition of beautiful, iconic mother and baby portrait prints with associated birth stories, by Canadian artist Kate Hansen.

At the beginning of the week, breastfeeding mothers gathered for the Big Breastfeeding Picture, which helped to gain coverage in the local media. There were various café events during the week as well, for a more informal chat over tea, coffee and cake or something more substantial. On Sunday morning, before the final café gathering, some of us climbed Hoad Hill, for amazing views over Morecombe Bay towards Blackpool on one side, the peaks of the Lake District on the other and in the far distance, the peaks of Yorkshire.

Ulverston has a series of festivals throughout the year, and anyone entering the town could not miss the signs saying the current one was The Breastfeeding Festival.

So why not plan a visit to the area next August to coincide with the Festival? Windermere and Coniston lakes are very close by with extensive tourist facilities and Ulverston itself offers camping, B&B and hotel accommodation. For a taste of what to expect, take a look at this year's programme: http://www.thebreastfeedingfestival.btik.com/p_People.ikml

You can view the film about infant feeding in the Philippines online by going to: http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/05/watch-film-from-philippines-here.htm.

In my talk I provided an update on what happened since the film. You can find much of the information here.

I then spoke about the situation in the UK. Here's a youtube clip I put together for the launch of the ONE MILLION CAMPAIGN last year, which has some of the information.

Click here to sign the ONE MILLION CAMPAIGN petition.

You can the text of a similar talk, with the powerpoint presentation, here:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog070310

Gillian Weaver, Chair of the UK Association of Milk Banking, told me about this great clip about a recent fundraising cycle ride by supporter, Steve Haberfield.

You can hear more of the song Every Drop Counts, by Sedleigh below. Sedleigh performed this and other songs live outside the Coronation Hall and at one of Gillian's talks. If you make a donation to the work of UKAMB, you will be sent the full song. See: http://www.ukamb.org/edc/index.html

Remember you can find news of forthcoming events on our diary dates page and we'll post up the dates for the Ulverston Breastfeeding Festival 2011 event when we have them and hope we can take part once again.

Campaign to Simplify the UK Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations

2010-07-24T08:25:00.003+01:00

The newly formed coalition Government in the UK has prioritised cutting public expenditure and the deficit and has also launched a campaign to scrap or amend unnecessary or ineffective legislation. The public are being invited to submit suggestions.

Baby Milk Action is suggesting the Government simplify the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations. You can support this suggestion by clicking on the 5th star under the heading 'Add a Rating' and leaving comments on the Government website - click here.

The regulations in their current form place an unnecessary burden on business, the public and enforcement authorities by treating infant formula and follow-on formula differently. When the last government was revising the Regulations, public bodies such as Trading Standards and the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition called for the ban on promoting infant formula to all breastmilk substitutes, including follow-on formulas. This was not done. In a review commissioned by the last government, Trading Standards and the umbrella body submitted evidence and stated: "One of the major problems for enforcement officers is the use of advertising and promotional material which blurs the distinction between follow-on formula and infant formula."

Health experts, including the Baby Feeding Law Group, a coalition of 23 health worker and mother support organsiations, called for the law to be brought into line with the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant Resolutions of the World Health Assembly. Baby Milk Action prepared a report (left) that was submitted to the consultation on the law that took place in 2006 that sets out the changes required (click here to access). This references studies by public bodies such as the National Institute for Clinical Excellence that show savings that could be made to the National Health Service by small increases in breastfeeding rates. Simplifying the formula marketing regulations in the way we are proposing, would help to achieve this.

Prohibiting the promotion of breastmilk substitutes does not prevent them being sold. Formula will still be available for those that need it and our proposals will ensure those who use formula have the information they need to reduce risks.

In the General Election in May 2010, the Liberal Democrats, who are now part of the coalition government, supported our pledge saying they will work for the International Code and Resolutions to be implemented in the UK and elsewhere. Now it is time to act on this pledge.

Click here to give your support to our proposal for simplifying the law by clicking on the 5th star under 'Add a Rating' and leave a comment.

Promotion of artificial feeding takes many forms. Our partner in the BFLG, the National Childbirth Trust, is currently highlighting how exam bodies are even playing a role in promoting formula and attacking those who call for companies to abide by the international marketing standards. See the NCT press release at:
http://www.nct.org.uk/press-office/press-releases/view/224

Virgin London Marathon keeps sponsorship policy confidential - but welcomes Nestle back for 2011

2010-07-24T08:00:00.002+01:00

Baby Milk Action asked the Virgin London Marathon for its sponsorship policy and a public statement on Nestlé's sponsorship.

We have been told:

"Nestle will continue as one of the sponsors to the Virgin London Marathon next year (2011).

"The London Marathon’s sponsorship policy is confidential to the organisation of the event including the Race Director, CEO, Board of Directors and Trustees."

We have asked why the sponsorship policy is confidential. Many organisations do make their sponsorship policy publicly available. The better organisations are also prepared to consult on their policies or welcome feedback on them.

Obviously we are also concerned to learn that Virgin London Marathon has a sponsorship policy that allows a company as unethical as Nestlé to pass as a sponsor. We have asked what consideration was given, if any, to ethical concerns over Nestlé's practices and the promotion of its name, particularly given it is the most boycotted company in the UK and this has an impact on many who wish to support the London Marathon.

Organisations such as Nelson Mandela's Children's Fund and Breakthrough Breast Cancer have turned down donations (of £250,000 and £1 million respectively) from Nestlé because it conflicts with their funding policies. Nestlé's current Chairman, Peter Brabeck-Letmathé, has clearly stated that the purpose of supporting good causes is to benefit shareholders. Putting those who wish to run the London Marathon, often in support of a charity themselves, in the position where they have to break their boycott or put their health at risk is a pretty disgusting strategy. For further analysis of Mr. Brabeck's view of good causes see:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/03/nestle-generosity-to-good-causes.html

Nestlé is targeted with boycott action over its marketing of baby milk. In its current global marketing campaign, it is claiming its baby milk 'protects' babies and is 'The new "Gold Standard" in infant nutrition'. Babies fed on baby milk rather than breastfed are at greater risk of becoming ill and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. Members of the public are emailing Nestlé, but the company has indicated it will continue this strategy, which violates the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes. See the Email Nestlé campaign.

Nestlé is also specifically criticised over its bottled water businesses, as explained in our press release for the London Marathon in 2010.

Nestlé is one of the companies people can vote into the Corporate Hall of Shame in 2010. The nomination states:

"Nestlé – for undermining the human right to water and aggressively expanding its environmentally destructive water bottling operations over the objections of communities globally."

Baby Milk Action would welcome the organisers of the Virgin London Marathon being open about their sponsorship policy and allow people who wish ethical standards to be applied to comment.

Anyone who wishes to register their concern over Nestlé being promoted as a sponsor of the London Marathon, can join the Facebook group: "We want Nestlé out of the London Marathon". See:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=134180279931568

Update 22 July 2010 - The Virgin London Marathon has already responded by saying 'no further comment' to our questions regarding why the sponsorship policy is being kept confidential and what consideration was given to concerns about Nestlé's suitability.

What's the real 'Gold Standard' in infant nutrition, Paul?

2010-07-14T06:19:00.001+01:00

Nestlé is promoting its breastmilk substitutes with the claim they are, 'The new "Gold Standard" in infant nutrition' (June 2010). What does Paul the psychic octopus, who predicted the World Cup winners, think is the real gold standard?

Image by a supporter of Baby Milk Action's 'email Nestle' campaign: http://info.babymilkaction.org/emailnestle

Nestle won't stop its baby milk 'protects' marketing strategy just yet

2010-07-09T15:39:00.002+01:00

I have posted an analysis of Nestlé's response to Baby Milk Action's current 'Email Nestlé' campaign to our website. Nestlé has added logos to labels claiming its baby milk 'protects' babies and is promoting them with this and other health claims.

Nestlé is sending a standard response to people who have sent emails. This is given on our site with Baby Milk Action's analysis and a suggested reply. See:

http://info.babymilkaction.org/cem/cemjul10

Happy birthday UN Global Compact - 10 years helping to cover up corporate malpractice

2010-06-23T16:54:00.003+01:00

The United Nations Global Compact marks its 10th anniversary in New York on Thursday 24 June 2010. Nestlé, one of the four most boycotted companies on the planet, is a patron sponsor, despite being the target of a complaint for egregious violations of the Global Compact Principles, a complaint the Global Compact Office has refused to investigate.

http://www.leaderssummit2010.org/

The Global Compact sets out Principles that corporations are asked to abide by voluntarily. Baby Milk Action registered complaints about Nestlé in 2009 and found that the Global Compact is not only ineffective in stopping malpractice, it enables them to continue by providing public relations cover and promoting company reports without checking for factual accuracy or investigating when egregious violations of the Global Compact Principles are reported.

[Left, Nestlé promotes its breastmilk substitutes to health workers with health claims, such as claiming it will reduce diarrhoea, despite the fact babies who are not breastfed are at greater risk of diarrhoea and illness and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. The Global Compact Office refused to investigate the way Nestlé pushes its baby milk in ways that endanger infant health and violate human rights and the Global Compact Principles].

The Global Compact was introduced by then UN Secretary General, Koffi Annan, in partnership with the World Economic Forum as an alternative to the international regulatory systems many were calling for.

Baby Milk Action and other campaign groups concerned about egregious violations of the Global Compact Principles by Nestlé registered a complaint with the UN Global Compact Office last year under Integrity Measures. See the report: Nestlé’s UN Global Compact cover up - How Nestlé's Shared Value reports cover up malpractice and bring the UN voluntary initiative for corporate social responsibility into disrepute, available via:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press17june09.html

Concerns raised included:

* aggressive marketing of baby milks and foods and undermining of breastfeeding, in breach of international standards;
* trade union busting and failing to act on related court decisions;
* failure to act on child labour and slavery in its cocoa supply chain;
* exploitation of farmers, particularly in the dairy and coffee sectors;
* environmental degradation, particularly of water resources;

In its responses, the Global Compact Office stressed that the Global Compact is a voluntary initiative and the Office has no mandate or resources to conduct investigations, but will promote 'dialogue'. As the campaign groups are already in 'dialogue' with Nestlé - and finding it unwilling to stop its egregious violations of the Principles - Baby Milk Action asked the Global Compact Office to conduct the review cited in the provisions of the Integrity Measures, which gives the Office the power to exclude companies and delist them from its website.

The UN Global Compact Office refused to conduct a review and continues to post Nestlé's Creating Shared Value and other reports on its website. The UN Global Compact Office stated in a telling phrase about the initiative:

"Of course, abuses of the 10 Principles do occur; however we believe that such abuses only indicate that it is important for the company to remain in the Compact and learn from its mistakes."

The Office has been asked for information on how Nestlé has 'learned from its mistakes' and has received no further information, though a briefing paper has been promised. For further details see:

http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/policyblog210510

Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator at Baby Milk Action, said:

"From the outset corporate accountability campaigners were concerned that the voluntary UN Global Compact would achieve little and divert attention from effective, enforceable regulations. In practice, Baby Milk Action's experience is the situation is far worse than this : the UN Global Compact is not only ineffective in holding companies to account, it is complicit in allowing violations of the Principles to continue by providing corporations with public relations cover. Nestlé's misleading reports are posted to the Global Compact website and even launched at joint events, giving them an apparent endorsement that is not deserved, but is exploited by Nestlé. We are currently asking members of the public to call on Nestlé to stop its latest global baby milk marketing scam, because the Global Compact Office did nothing to hold Nestlé to account. No company has been excluded from the Global Compact for violating the Principles - only for failing to send reports to be posted on the website regardless of their factual content."

Baby Milk Action is promoting the campaign 'Email Nestlé in June - stop its latest baby milk marketing scam', on Facebook, youtube, Twitter and its own site, particularly during UK Breastfeeding Awareness Week (21 - 27 July). See:

http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease16jun10

Members of the public are calling on the Nestlé to remove colourful 'protect' logos and other health claims from labels of its breastmilk substitutes as these undermine the obligatory message that 'breasfeeding is best for babies', introduced as a result of past campaigns which led to the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes being adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1981. Nestlé has recently added the 'protect' logos in a bid to promote its products despite the fact that babies fed on breastmilk substitutes are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. Idealizing images and text are prohibited on labels by Article 9.2 of the International Code. Nestlé also promotes its products to health workers with slogans such as, "Start healthy, Stay healthy".

According to UNICEF: "Improved breastfeeding practices and reduction of artificial feeding could save an estimated 1.5 million children a year".

'Protect' logos have already been added by Nestlé to products in 120 countries. Nestlé's health claims are disputed by independent scientific experts and even deemed contrary to national law in countries such as South Africa and blocked by Brazil's strong law. References are given on the campaign press release:

http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease16jun10

Nestlé has responded to the campaign so far by defending its 'protect' marketing strategy.

For further information contact Mike Brady on +44 7986 736179.

United Reformed Church Assembly 2010 presents opportunity to expose Nestlé malpractice

2010-06-21T21:46:00.008+01:00

We have just learned that the forthcoming Assembly of the United Reformed Church (4 July) presents an ideal opportunity to put pressure on Nestlé to stop its systematic violations of the World Health Assembly's marketing requirements for baby foods. If you will be attending the Assembly, please look at the up-to-date information in this site, particularly concerning Nestlé's current global baby milk marketing scam. Nestlé is claiming its baby milk 'protects' babies even though it knows babies fed on it are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. Contact me if you would like to discuss this further. Nestlé puts its profits before all else and the changes we have compelled it to make have come from exposure, and the public backing the boycott and telling Nestlé they are doing so.

[Left, How Nestlé promotes its breastmilk substitutes to health workers - this leaflet from Egypt June 2010 - claiming its formula 'protects' and is 'Strengthening the immune defenses and reducing the incidence of diarrhea in the crucial first year of life.' In truth, babies fed on baby milk are proven to be more likely to suffer diarrhoea than breastfed babies.]

The Assembly is due to debate the Church's boycott on investing funds in Nestlé and, possibly, the Church's promotion of the boycott. We are very pleased that the URC has been a long-time supporter of the campaign, as well as one of Baby Milk Action's funders, and hope this will be an opportunity to update the membership and reinvigorate the Church's involvement in the campaign.

From information we have received this week from the URC Church and Society Committee: "it had decided in 2007 that it was timely to review its 1992 boycott. As part of a period of information gathering and a wider review of the Church's ethical investment guidelines, some URC representatives attended a meeting with Nestlé organised by the ecumenical Church Investors Group in December 2009. This informed, in March 2010, a decision to propose to the Assembly that Nestlé should no longer be treated on a different investment basis from all other companies under its new, more rigorous, Ethical Investment Principles. Nestlé was invited by the URC to make a presentation in June 2010 to address some specific concerns."

Although the Committee began the review process three years ago and has met twice with Nestlé, Baby Milk Action was not approached or invited to brief the Committee prior to its decisions being taken and was only informed by the Committee on 21 June 2010, less than 2 weeks before the Assembly is due to take place, that it was asking the Assembly to endorse its decision to invest in Nestlé.

Baby Milk Action has now been invited to meet with some representatives of the Committee, but as it is currently concentrating on promoting its 'Email Nestlé in June' campaign and as it is National Breastfeeding Awareness Week has asked the Committee to hold the Resolution over to the next Assembly. This would also give Baby Milk Action time to arrange for experts to brief the Committee.

Baby Milk Action needs sufficient time to respond to the 22-page document prepared by the Committee for the Assembly and the Committee needs time to meet to review its investment decision in the light of this, if it is willing to do so. We will also try to prepare a briefing paper that can be distributed to the Assembly if the Committee does decide to press ahead with the Resolutions on allowing investment and dropping the boycott. The report reproduces Nestlé assertions without responses from Baby Milk Action. This is not only because Baby Milk Action was not consulted - it appears the Committee did not consult our website. For example, the Committee report includes Nestlé saying: "Nestlé itself has never marketed Perlagon on the basis that it combats diarrhoea." Search the Baby Milk Action website for 'Pelargon' and you immediately come to Baby Milk Action's response to this denial (contained in a 2004 briefing to the Methodist Church). As can be seen from Nestlé's own leaflet for Pelargon which claims 'Diarrhoea and its side-effects are counteracted...', Nestlé was not telling the truth

Had the Committee checked with Baby Milk Action during the past three years, would it have come to a different decision about Nestlé's claims and the proposal to put to the Assembly? In response to a Baby Milk Action letter-writing campaign in 2003 backed by pressure from the boycott, Nestlé not only admitted producing the above leaflets, it said it was "preparing new materials for health professionals in Southern Africa with increased focus on the factual and scientific matters in these materials." The boycott brings results. No wonder Nestlé wants the URC to end its support for the boycott and compromise its independence by profiting from its latest marketing campaign claiming Nestlé baby milk reduces diarrhoea.

The March 2010 decision by the Committee to invest came after Nestlé's Vice President, Neils Christiansen, briefed Church officials in December 2009. On first glance the Baby Milk Action information included in the report for the Assembly has been taken from a briefing from 6 years ago. We need to analyse the report, particularly the assurances given by the Mr. Christiansen and his team last December, but time is short - our priority during June is on targeting Nestlé's claims that its baby milk 'protects' babies and reduces the incidence of diarrhoea and other claims of health benefits - in truth babies fed on baby milk are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. Click here for the press release and link to send a message to Nestlé.

We need all the support we can get. The Methodist Church Central Finance Board decided to invest in Nestlé in 2006 against our advice, suggesting this was a parallel strategy to the boycott to address the 'scandal' of Nestlé baby milk marketing. However, Nestlé has used that investment to try to undermine the campaign. The Methodist Church has had to contact Nestlé several times to ask it to stop misrepresenting the investment decision. The the Central Finance Board decision appears to have influenced the URC Committee, although the Methodist Conference was not asked to endorse - and did not endorse - investing in Nestlé. This was a decision of the Central Finance Board, following a report produced by the Joint Advisory Committee on the Ethics of Investment (JACEI), which suggested investment would allow closer 'engagement' with Nestlé management. The Methodist Conference in 2006 did adopt texts stating:

"JACEI acknowledges the continuing concern with regard to some aspects of Nestlé's interpretation of the International Code, the implementation of company guidelines and the transparency of the procedures for monitoring compliance. These concerns may cause some through conscience to maintain a consumer boycott of Nestlé products." [emphasis added - documents available here]

We have yet to be told of any benefit of the Central Finance Board's strategy of 'changing things from within'.

It is a fallacious argument that investing gives more influence. FTSE4Good, an ethical investment listing, confirmed to Baby Milk Action this week, "Nestle is not included in the FTSE4Good indices," but this does not stop 'engagement'. FTSE4Good went on, "As you know we are engaging with all the infant food manufacturers re our criteria as a key aim is about improving company practices." That is the normal approach of ethical investing - don't invest in companies until they make meaningful changes, demonstrated by independent monitoring. Invest without those changes, leverage is lost and conflicts of interest result as the investor profits from the malpractice.

Nestlé current refusal to remove the 'protect' logos from the labels of its breastmilk substitutes certainly shows that it has not changed. This and other health claims and promotional practices are a clear violation of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1981. In May 2010, the World Health Assembly expressed its concern over ongoing violations, particularly those related to health claims and specifically stated it: "CALLS UPON infant food manufacturers and distributors to comply fully with their responsibilities under the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant World Health Assembly resolutions;”

However, in its response to our 'Email Nestlé' campaign, the company is refusing to remove the claims and ignores the measures adopted by the World Health Assembly. Nestlé is telling the public : "the World Health Assembly does not formulate marketing standards -– rather it makes health policy recommendations to Member States."

Nestlé is telling the media, "The 'Protect' logo is simply used to inform people of the scientifically proven benefits of the product in meeting the nutritional needs of babies."

According to UNICEF: "Improved breastfeeding practices and reduction of artificial feeding could save an estimated 1.5 million children a year".

According to the World Health Organisation: "Exclusive breastfeeding in the first six months of life is particularly beneficial, and infants who are not breastfed in the first month of life may be as much as 25 times more likely to die than infants who are exclusively breastfed."

Independent reviews have a different view of specific claims used by Nestlé. For example, the Cochrane Library has reviewed studies regarding added LCPs and supposed benefits to brain and eye development and concluded these are 'not proven'. The Department of Health in South Africa told Nestlé its claims breach South African labelling laws, but Nestlé refused to remove them.

Nestlé strategy of claiming its formula 'protects' babies undermines the obligatory 'breastfeeding is best for babies' warning that the boycott helped to bring in. The 'protect' strategy comes from the very top of the company, as does the strategy to undermine the boycott. Mr. Christiansen, who led the Nestlé delegation to the URC, is credited within Nestlé for ending the first boycott of the company in 1984 by making promises to abide by the International Code (the marketing standards Nestlé now suggest do not exist). The promises were broken and the boycott relaunched in 1988. Today, according to even Nestlé's Global Public Affairs Manager, Nestlé is 'widely boycotted'. In fact, an independent survey found it to be one of the four most boycotted companies on the planet and the most boycotted in the UK. The boycott has forced some significant changes from Nestlé (see some examples here), but it continues to reject Baby Milk Action's four-point plan for saving lives and ultimately ending the boycott. For example, it refuses to accept the validity of the World Health Assembly measures. Nestlé is singled out for boycott action because monitoring finds it to be the worst of the baby food companies.

We will do our best to respond to Nestlé's latest attempt to undermine the boycott and hope that the URC Assembly will become an opportunity for Church members to say they find it unacceptable that Nestlé continues to systematically violate the World Health Assembly marketing standards.

It is, of course, for the members to decide whether they wish to invest in Nestlé - and so profit from this malpractice - and to consider the message this will send. It is for members to decide whether to act collectively in promoting the boycott. We did offer today to debate with Nestlé at the Assembly, but have already been told this is not possible. We will respond to the report as best we can - but we have rather a lot else on at the moment and time is short. We need all the help we can get so that Nestlé's attempt at a PR coup instead shines the spotlight on what it is doing right now around the world.

Despite the Methodist Church Central Finance Board deciding to invest in Nestlé and 'engage', the company has relaunched its strategy of claiming its baby milk reduces diarrhoea and is further away than ever from meeting the FTSE4Good criteria and our own four-point plan for ending the boycott as it now denies the marketing standards adopted by the World Health Assembly. The boycott, however, stopped Nestlé's 'counteracts diarrhoea' claim in the past and other violations of the World Health Assembly marketing standards. We will stop its latest global marketing strategy as well with enough public support.

If the URC invests in Nestlé it will profit from violations of the World Health Assembly marketing standards, such as the company's global strategy claiming its baby milk 'protects'. This tin in Saudi Arabia (May 2010), also has the prominent flash 'New Active Immunity' to divert attention from the fact that babies fed on baby milk are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies. Such images and text are prohibited by Article 9.2 of the International Code.

Other claims on the back of the label include: "LCPUFA Two special fatty acids found in breast milk, important for your babies defense system, and contribute to the development of brain and vision." In its response to Baby Milk Action's current campaign, Nestlé says these claims are 'scientifically proven'. This is simply untrue. Read the analysis by the independent and respected Cochrane Library at http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000376.html

Nestlé says the 'protect' logos have been launched in 120 countries. For an example from Africa click here.

Here I am focusing on the baby milk issue. There are other issues, such as the way Nestlé is using its Fairtrade KitKat to divert attention from its cocoa purchasing record. While Fairtrade KitKat benefits the producers of the 1% of cocoa sourced by Nestlé for this product, Nestlé has failed to deliver on its promise to end child slavery in its cocoa supply chain by 2006. It has been taken to court in the US by campaigners acting on behalf of former child slaves from Ivory Coast.

Nestlé has also been targeted recently by Greenpeace over the harmful impact its sourcing of palm oil. It has responded in the same way as it responded to the child slavery campaigners in 2001: promising to end the practice within five years. It remains to be seen whether it will deliver on this undertaking or not.

Similarly, there are other groups raising concerns about Nestlé trade union busting activities, impact on water supplies and spying on campaign groups. You can find information on this issues on the Nestlé Critics website at:

http://www.nestlecritics.org/

Also see the report the Nestlé Critics submitted to the United Nations Global Compact under its Integrity Measures:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press17june09.html

Brazilian Breastfeeding Conference - message of solidarity for campaign against Nestle's 'protect' baby milk marketing strategy

2010-06-21T14:44:00.004+01:00

[The following message has been received from the Brazilian National Breastfeeding Conference (10 - 12 June 2010) - Encontro Nacional de Aleitamento Materno (ENAM) - regarding Nestlé's latest global breastmilk substitutes marketing strategy and Baby Milk Action's campaign to stop this. It is UK Breastfeeding Awarness Week at present (21 - 27 June)]

Participants at the ENAM Conference are concerned to learn that Nestlé is promoting its breastmilk substitutes around the world with the claim its products 'protect' babies. Like Nestlé we know that babies fed on breastmilk substitutes are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die.

We are pleased that in Brazil Nestlé's marketing strategy is against our laws and our laws have been strong enough to stop Nestlé using the strategy here. We are disturbed to learn that Nestlé is using the strategy in 120 other countries.

Article 9.2 of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes is very clear: "Neither the container nor the label should have pictures of infants, nor should they have other pictures or text which may idealise the use of infant formula." [emphasis added]. Article 11.3 of the Code is clear that manufacturers and distributors should abide by its provisions independently of government measures.

The latest Resolution adopted by the World Health Assembly in May 2010 calls once again for these measures to be implemented and for additional action to prevent infant feeding products being promoted with health claims that have not been explicitly approved.

Accordingly, we call on Nestle to respect the Code and remove these labels from the market with immediate effect.

We recommend that governments follow the example of Brazil and introduce the Code and subsequent, relevant Resolutions in strong legislation and enforce this. Breastfeeding rates have been recovering in Brazil in recent decades due to the efforts being made here to protect, promote and support breastfeeding.

We send a message of solidarity to everyone around the world who is taking action, big and small, to hold Nestle and other companies to account for violations of the Code and Resolutions.

Notes from Baby Milk Action

Brazil has introduced progressively stronger regulations implementing the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant Resolutions of the World Health Assembly. These prohibit all advertising and promotion of products for children up to two years of age (in the UK advertising of follow-on formula for use from 6 months of age and complementary foods, often promoted from 4 months of age, is commonplace). Brazilian regulations also require prominent Ministry of Health warnings on labels of such foods, whole milks and feeding bottles and teats. Breastfeeding rates in Brazil declined after Nestlé entered the market at the beginning of the last century. Rate have increased from less than 3 months median duration in the early 1980s to over 10 months today. Baby Milk Action has asked supporters to send messages to Brazilian policy makers several times when the dairy industry has lobbied to weaken the regulations. For further information, see this blog from 2007. Nestlé, principally, now focuses on sponsoring health workers in Brazil, creating conflicts of interest in violation of World Health Assembly Resolutions.

Protest Nestlé's claim that breastmilk substitutes 'protect' babies, public urged for UK breastfeeding awareness week (21 - 27 June)

2010-06-17T10:33:00.006+01:00

This is the title of a press release we have been sending out as part of our campaign: Email Nestlé in June - stop its latest baby milk marketing scam.

Nestlé's Global Public Affairs Manager, Dr. Gayle Crozier-Willi, is taking the lead in defending Nestlé's strategy of promoting its baby milk with logos saying it 'protects' babies and other claims about its supposed benefits - claims that do not stand up to scrutiny.

Dr. Gayle Crozier-Willi latest response to campaign supporters puts the following argument for ignoring Nestlé's responsibilities under the World Health Assembly marketing standards. She says: "the World Health Assembly does not formulate marketing standards – rather it makes health policy recommendations to Member States."

Funny that. Article 11.3 of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1981 states: "Independently of any other measures taken for implementation of this Code, manufacturers and distributors of products within the scope of this Code should regard themselves as responsible for monitoring their marketing practices according to the principles and aim of this Code, and for taking steps to ensure that their conduct at every level conforms to them."

In addition, Dr. Gayle Crozier-Willi was leading Nestlé's delegation lobbying Health Ministers at the World Health Assembly last month and so she knows they adopted a further Resolution on 22 May that specifically: “CALLS UPON infant food manufacturers and distributors to comply fully with their responsibilities under the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant World Health Assembly resolutions.”

Nestlé is demonstrating its contempt for this call. If you think it should abide by the International Code, please email it via:

http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog260510

Nestlé has still not got the message that it will lose more business through people's outrage than it will make from boosting sales of its formula. So please do keep spreading the word. Nestlé puts profits before all else - even the lives of babies and the rights of mothers, as this clear breach of the World Health Assembly marketing requirements shows. So we need as many messages as possible to go to Nestlé to give it a financial reason to stop this shameful marketing strategy.

See the press release at:

http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease16jun10

And send an email to Dr. Crozier-Willi via:

http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog260510

We want Nestle out of the London Marathon - Facebook group

2010-06-14T11:15:00.002+01:00

Nestle is sponsoring the London Marathon with its controversial Pure Life brand of bottled water. The next London Marathon will take place on 17 April 2011. If you would like there to be alternative supplies, you can join the Facebook group: "We want Nestlé out of the London Marathon". See:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=134180279931568&v=info

Nestle is the most boycotted company in the UK and its strategy it to try to improve its image and put boycott supporters and other campaigners in a predicament: withdraw from the marathon, endanger their health by not accepting water or break their boycott.

Members of this group are calling for alternative water to be provided and want Nestle out of the London Marathon. You can give your views on the London Marathon Facebook discussion board:

http://www.facebook.com/virginlondonmarathon?ref=ts

Nestle is the target of a boycott (and one of the four most boycotted companies on the planet) because the way it pushes baby milk. It breaks international marketing standards adopted by the World Health Assembly, undermines breastfeeding and puts babies that have to be fed on formula at risk.

Nestle pretends this is an issue of the past, but its current global marketing strategy is to promote its baby milk with the claim it 'protects' babies. Nestle knows that babies fed on its formula are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. Its claims undermine the obligatory 'breastmilk is best for babies' message that the boycott helped to bring in. You can send a message to Nestle about this at:

http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog260510

Nestle is also refusing to warn on labels that powdered formula is not a sterile product and the simple steps required to reduce risks of possible contamination with bacteria. Even babies fed on baby milk in the best conditions have died of such contamination. The World Health Organisation has issued guidelines for reconstituting formula to reduce the risk, but Nestle refuses to change its labels. See: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/micro/pif2007/en/index.html

Nestle bottled water business is the target of campaigners around the world for the harm it causes to their communities. In Brazil, Nestle's bottling of Pure Life water damaged an historic water park, prompting residents, dependent on the park for their livelihoods, to petition the public prosecutor to take action. Nestle was taken to court and eventually stopped pumping under the threat of daily fines - but it took 10 years of campaigning. See:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press2march06.html

For concerns about Nestle's bottling in other countries, particularly the United States, see the water section of the Nestle Critics website:

http://www.nestlecritics.org/

The Nestle Critics site also has information from groups campaigning about Nestle failure to deliver on its promise to end child slavery in its cocoa supply chain by 2006, its use of palm oil implicated in destroying Indonesian rainforest (Nestle has said it will stop this following a Greenpeace campaign - but only by 2015), trade union busting, spying on campaigners and other concerns.

Supporting the campaign to remove Nestle from the sponsors of the London Marathon will help draw attention to its malpractice and add to the pressure for it to change.

Most people who run the Marathon do so because they want to contribute to good causes.

Nestle is not an appropriate sponsor.

Nestle's Chairman, Peter Brabeck-Letmathé, has stated clearly that companies should only pursue charitable endeavors with an underlying intention of making money for investors (see Boston Herald).

Nestle sponsorship of BlogHer Conference starts to go wrong for most-boycotted company

2010-05-31T15:57:00.001+01:00

The Nestlé boycott works its magic again as sponsorship of the BlogHer conference by its Stouffer brand comes under scrutiny. The Conference is due to take place in New York in the United States (6 - 7 August). Ironically, this came to my attention by a posting on a blog by someone defending her decision to attend Nestlé's parenting-blogger event in California in October 2009, which led to a first-class public relations disaster on Twitter, the social networking site. Nestlé has an abysmal image in cyberspace and is trying to improve this. As debate rages over whether bloggers should attend the Conference and what they can do there to support the campaign if they do, some thoughts come to my mind, which I will share here. It is very welcome to see people taking a stand, but the fact that Nestlé is contributing to the unnecessary death and suffering of babies around the world is an uncomfortable fact to face if you are someone who loves a particular product or want to accept its largesse. Accordingly, facing the facts is generally avoided in the arguments for not taking a stand.

While some bloggers in this debate are dismissive of the boycott as a strategy, there are two groups of people who have no doubt as to its importance: Nestlé executives and campaigners.

According to Nestlé's Global Head of Public Affairs, Dr. Gayle Crozier-Willi, Nestlé is widely boycotted. In fact, an independent survey by GMIPoll found it is one of the four most boycotted companies on the planet, the most boycotted in the UK, where Baby Milk Action is based. For executives, the boycott ranges between being an irritant to an unavoidable problem to be dealt with, depending on the day and the forum. Our job as campaigners is to move it to the right end of this spectrum, because that is when we see change. For example, Nestlé refused to translate the labels of baby milks into the national language in countries such as Malawi until we got the issue onto national television - then they rushed out translated labels. When we held national demonstrations in the UK, picked up by Swiss television, Nestlé announced it would stop promoting complementary foods from too early an age. When boycotters have contacted Nestlé over specific examples of malpractice, such as leaflets claiming Nestlé formula 'counteracts diarrhoea', Nestlé has said it would replace them. In our current campaign against Nestlé's new global strategy claiming its formula 'protects' babies (see youtube clip below), Nestlé has already taken action over point-of-sale display of tins, after we exposed that Nestlé's distribution system was allowing such things to go ahead, despite Nestlé's published policy saying they are not permitted. In the following clip, I take on the role of Mr. Nastie to explain Nestlé's baby milk marketing strategy.

With enough pressure we will persuade Nestlé to remove its 'protect' logos from labels of baby milk - send a message here. At the shareholder meeting in April 2010, Richard Laube, Chief Executive of Nestlé Nutrition, defended the practice when we raised it and admitted the strategy has been rolled out in 120 countries. Nestlé knows that babies fed on its formula are more likely to become sick and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die, but it puts its own profits first. Not only is there no justification for such an irresponsible strategy, it is a clear violation of Article 9.2 of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, which Nestlé claims to respect, which states: "Neither the container nor the label should have pictures of infants, nor should they have other pictures or text which may idealise the use of infant formula." [emphasis added]

This is only one concern amongst many, but it is particularly harmful as it undermines the message that breastfeeding protects babies. With enough mobilisation, we will stop it as we have stopped other outrageous practices. You can find out more and take action here: http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog260510

Now, in the debate about the BlogHer conference, there is a phenomena that I have noticed before when Nestlé sponsorship is involved: there is a distinct lack of engagement on the actual issue of Nestlé marketing practices and an unwillingness to look at the evidence. So people will say things like, 'it is recycled old news'. Well, there have been problems with Nestlé for over a hundred years, but anyone paying attention knows we are talking about things Nestlé is doing RIGHT NOW.

Some say that it is a simple fact of life that it takes money to organise events and any sponsor could be criticised by someone, so just take the money and do good with it. Which brings to mind the stance taken by the Indian Academy of Paediatrics, which has refused sponsorship by Nestlé or any other company involved in infant nutrition since 1997, taking the view that it was better to pay for their own meals than compromise their independence. The Academy argued against all such sponsorship for health workers and this was introduced in legislation in 2003 - legislation Nestlé is accused of breaking. The World Health Assembly, made up of the world's health ministries, has also adopted Resolutions calling for conflicts of interest in sponsorship of health workers and health programmes to be avoided.

The stance taken in India has an impact on sales - and breastfeeding rates. The industry analysts, Euromonitor, stated in their report on the market in 2008: "The huge disparity in the retail value of milk formula sales between China and India is mainly due to the significant differences between their official regulatory regimes.” The action by paediatricians to protect infant health is reflected in other measures. Euromonitor notes: “In India, all advertising is prohibited, while in China, TV advertising and the use of celebrity spokespeople are allowed.”

If the Indian Academy of Paediatrics can find other ways to hold its meetings, surely it is not beyond the imagination of bloggers in the US to put in place an ethical funding policy for their events?

With regards the boycott, every little helps and the way we promote it is intended to make it as easy to support as possible. We target Nestlé's flagship product, Nescafé, while publishing a list of major brands so people can avoid the whole lot, which obviously has more impact. We produce 'Nescafé - No Thanks' cards that people can leave where Nescafé is sold requesting an alternative option.

We promote International Nestlé-Free Week at the end of October (encompassing Halloween, which is a big chocolate event in some countries) so that people who do not usually boycott can be asked to avoid Nestlé products during that week. Those that normally only boycott Nescafé are asked to boycott all of them for the week. So when people say they have been given pause for thought because Nestlé makes such and such a product, that is not an argument for doing nothing, but an excuse.

In the BlogHer debate, some are saying that those who support the boycott should not go to the Conference. Everyone has to make up their own mind - Baby Milk Action certainly doesn't dictate. There is a difference between speakers who will be seen to endorse Nestlé if they share a platform with company spokespeople or are surrounded by branding and someone who sits in the audience to listen, learn and perhaps question.

Nestlé sponsorship provides an opportunity for campaigners and it is valid to attend to raise awareness and question Nestlé's involvement. Do not forget that following the Twitter disaster last year, Nestlé is embarking on a strategy to improve its image in cyberspace and sponsoring bloggers and their events is part of that strategy - people need to be alerted to how they are being used.

Nestlé is already reportedly paying celebrities US$10,000 per Tweet to say nice things about the company. It is worth recalling that when Mark Thomas, a British comedian and investigative reporter, was putting together an exposé of Nestlé for his television programme, they went digging through his past looking for any links with the company. Mark obtained company documents including his name using the data protection act and found a memo saying that if Nestlé could find he had advertised a company product they could attack him for hypocrisy for speaking out. You can see Mark's first programme on Nestlé on youtube.

Some people are saying it would be hypocritical for boycotters to attend the BlogHer event. There is a difference between an event organised by Nestlé (like its blogger event last year) and an event where the organisers have accepted Nestlé sponsorship, where we might hope to persuade the organisers to either get out of the arrangement or put in place a policy to prevent a repetition. Baby Milk Action has attended health worker events sponsored by baby food companies so we can gather material, take photographs, speak to other attendees and put the case to organisers that the action of the companies is not appropriate.

Handing out leaflets inside an event can be effective - and I will gladly help to make any leaflets for the BlogHer event legally bomb proof. Alternatively, or in addition, picketing events with placards and politely offering leaflets to those entering means that Nestlé's sponsorship is turned against it. And campaigners should always be polite, because even a few unpleasant comments will be used to suggest all campaigners are 'hateful' and provide an excuse for avoiding the real issues.

The dilemma for speakers reminds me of the situation Stephen Lewis, then Executive Deputy Director of UNICEF, found himself in when invited to be the key-note speaker at a nutrition event in Canada, only to find later it was sponsored by Nestlé and other formula companies.

He decided it would have more impact to attend and raise the unethical behaviour of the companies in his speech and say he thought their sponsorship of the event was inappropriate. See:

http://www.infactcanada.ca/nutblast.htm

A few year’s ago we handed letters to Members of Parliament, church and business leaders and other VIP guests as they entered a prestige Nestlé event, called its ‘development lecture’ – that year on the theme of malnutrition. This provided an opportunity for the guests to put the issues we raised direct to the CEO of Nestlé (UK). You may have heard Nestlé say it likes people to put questions – but they cancelled the event the following year because they didn't want to be questioned:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/boycott/boyct25.html#3

To bring it up to date, we have a share in Nestlé to attend the shareholder meeting to raise questions directly with the board of directors before other shareholders and also organise events on Nestlé’s doorstep. As the film clip above shows, although the boycott stops some malpractice, the company is always coming up with new ways to undermine breastfeeding to boost sales of its baby milk – the latest being its claim that its formula ‘protects’ babies:

http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog260510

Even if people do not want to support the boycott, they can still send a message to Nestlé via the above link asking the company to stop claiming its baby milk 'protects' babies.

It just takes a click.

Send a message to Nestle and spread the word

2010-05-28T18:34:00.003+01:00

All postings regarding Nestlé's marketing of baby milk were censored at the company's Creating Shared Value Forum yesterday, so with the management refusing to engage with the public, we need to increase the number of messages going to Nestlé. Baby Milk Action is making this easier with new features on our new-look website.

You will find you can now easily share links to pages of interest with your friends. Try it out on our new film clip about Nestlé's strategy of promoting baby milk with the claim that it 'protects' babies, even though it knows babies fed on baby milk are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. The page includes a form for sending a message to Nestlé calling for it to stop this practice. See: http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog260510

When you've sent your message, why not pass on the link using the 'share this link' feature on you'll find on the site (left column), or the link at the bottom of the page, where you can add a personalised message. You can also share pages on Facebook.

People left comments on Nestlé's Facebook page yesterday while its Creating Shared Value event was taking place as comments posted to the discussion board, where Nestlé invited the public to engage with the company, did not get past the moderators. None of the questions were put to the panel at the associated event in London, which became a Public Relations coup for Nestlé as speakers spoke of their work in development in front of the Nestlé brand name.

The volume of messages about its baby milk marketing did at least prompt moderators to acknowledge people had been sending them and respond with links to Nestlé's policy statements and an offer to send its audit reports. However, Nestlé's policy statements and misleading audits are amongst the things people complain about - hence, Nestlé's refusal to post the actual comments people were making.

Nestlé's Creating Shared Value reports are also an attempt to Greenwash the company and divert criticism of its negative impact on babies, people and the environment. Past reports have been analysed by the Nestlé Critics, but there was no-one at the event to challenge Nestlé's portrayal of itself. So let's spread the word ourselves and plan for a demonstration at the event next year so the voices of those who Nestlé wishes to pretend do not exist will be heard.

LIVE 27 May - Nestlé Forum in London

2010-05-27T10:48:00.001+01:00

Nestle is hosting a Forum in London today 27 May - broadcast on the internet - about its Creating Shared Value strategy. Nestle portrays itself as a model of ethical behaviour, driven by its values. Yet the claims it makes and reports it produces are very misleading.

Choose your way of putting questions about Nestle's pushing of baby milk and other issues to Nestlé and panellists. See the links at the bottom for sources of information about ongoing Nestlé malpractice, which shows Nestlé Creating Shared Value strategy is meaningless PR intended to divert criticism so it can carry on boosting profits while others count the cost.

How to put your questions - choose your method

Watch Nestle Forum webcast live and post comments:

http://clients.world-television.com/nestle/CSV_2010/

Post comments to Twitter at:

http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23csv2010

Post comments to Facebook at:

http://www.facebook.com/Nestle?v=wall&story_fbid=122651214433034

Post comments to Nestle Forum discussion board:

http://www.creatingsharedvalue.org/Forum.aspx

Concerns about Nestlé

Watch Mr. Henry Nastie, spoof marketing guru, explain the truth about Nestlé baby milk marketing at:

http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog260510

Nestlé's misleading Creating Shared Value reports exposed:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press17june09.html

live nestle forum

2010-05-27T10:48:00.000+01:00

How to put your questions - choose your method

Watch Nestle Forum webcast live and post comments:

http://clients.world-television.com/nestle/CSV_2010/

Post comments to Twitter at:

http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23csv2010

Post comments to Facebook at:

http://www.facebook.com/Nestle?v=wall&story_fbid=122651214433034

Post comments to Nestle Forum discussion board:

http://www.creatingsharedvalue.org/Forum.aspx

Concerns about Nestlé

Watch Mr. Henry Nastie, spoof marketing guru, explain the truth about Nestlé baby milk marketing at:

http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog260510

Nestlé's misleading Creating Shared Value reports exposed:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press17june09.html

Film clip: Nestle latest baby milk marketing strategy explained

2010-05-26T14:11:00.001+01:00

The following talk by Mr. Henry Nastie, spoof marketing guru, was recorded outside Nestlé (UK) HQ on 22 May 2010. References for the information in the film are given below.

Mr. Henry Nastie was played by Mike Brady of Baby Milk Action. Other people interviewed were campaign supporters who had come to demonstrate at Nestlé (UK) HQ.

For a suggested letter to send to Nestlé, see the Campaign for Ethical Marketing action sheet.

On 26 and 27 May it is possible to post questions and comments about Nestlé's business practices to its Creating Shared Value open forum. See: http://www.creatingsharedvalue.org/Forum.aspx

Support Baby Milk Acton's Make a Mark campaign.

References:

1. Nestlé is the most boycotted company in the UK and one of the four most boycotted companies on the planet according to a 2005 survey by GMIPoll, reported in The Guardian newspaper on 1 September 2005. Nestlé is the target of a boycott because monitoring by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) finds Nestlé, the market leader, to be the worst of the baby food companies. The boycott has forced Nestlé to make changes - see some examples here. In the case of Malawi, in the past Nestlé refused to translate the required warnings into Chichewa, the national language, citing 'cost restraints'. It backed down after Baby Milk Action targeted this and Mark Thomas exposed Nestlé on his national television programme in 1999 - watch on youtube.

2. Nestlé claims it has reissued its instructions to distributors regarding prohibition of point-of-sale display of formula after Baby Milk Action contacted it about the display in a rural area of Malawi shown in the film. Not only does the display reveal that Nestlé systems are failing, it suggests that distributors may see no risk in promoting formula with the 'protect' logo even in the poorest of conditions if they believe it will 'protect' babies. Under-5 mortality in Malawi is 140 per 1,000 live births.

3. Nestlé (UK) HQ is in Croydon. Campaigners demonstrate every year on the anniversary of the adoption of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1981.

4. According to UNICEF: "Improved breastfeeding practices and reduction of artificial feeding could save an estimated 1.5 million children a year" and "Marketing practices that undermine breastfeeding are potentially hazardous wherever they are pursued: in the developing world, WHO estimates that some 1.5 million children die each year because they are not adequately breastfed. These facts are not in dispute." The 2003 WHO/Lancet Child Survival Series asked 'How many child deaths can we prevent this year?' and concluded that 1.3 million under-5 deaths in the 42 countries where most occur could be prevented by improved breastfeeding rates. See Your Questions Answered. According to WHO (2006): "The protection, promotion and support of breastfeeding rank among the most effective interventions to improve child survival. It is estimated that high coverage of optimal breastfeeding practices could avert 13% of the 10.6 million deaths of children under five years occurring globally every year. Exclusive breastfeeding in the first six months of life is particularly beneficial, and infants who are not breastfed in the first month of life may be as much as 25 times more likely to die than infants who are exclusively breastfed."

5. Baby Milk Action contacted Nestlé about its 'Protect' logos in July 2009 and asked members of the public to do the same, using its Campaign for Ethical Marketing action sheet. Nestlé posted a public response to its website in October 2009 following the public campaign and responded to Baby Milk Action after being reported to the UN Global Compact Office for breaching its principles. Nestlé defends the logos. A full analysis is available here.

6. The UN Global Compact Office has said it can do nothing of the violations of its principles other than encourage 'dialogue'. It also stated: "Of course, abuses of the 10 Principles do occur; however we believe that such abuses only indicate that it is important for the company to remain in the Compact and learn from its mistakes." Nestlé uses its involvement in the UN Global Compact in its Public Relations campaigns to try to divert criticism. Baby Milk Action also reported Nestlé over the 'protect' logos to the Swiss Government department responsible for enforcing the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. The Swiss Government also said it was unwilling to do anything other than promote 'dialogue'. Baby Milk Action asked it to request samples of the latest baby milk labels from the countries where the formula has been launched - it refused to do so and said it was closing the case. Further details here.

7. Baby Milk Action raised the 'protect' marketing campaign and other issues at the Nestlé shareholder meeting on 15 April 2010. Mr. Richard Laube, Chief Executive of Nestlé Nutrition, defended the logos and said they had been launched in 120 countries.

8. Nestlé's Global Public Affairs Manager, Dr. Gayle Crozier-Willi, said in correspondence with Baby Milk Action on 14 January 2010:

Nestlé makes significant investment in R&D and technology to deliver innovative products with scientifically proven nutritional benefits in many different areas. Concerning the 'Protect' logo, while all our infant nutrition products meet the needs of non-breastfed babies during the first critical months of life, the functional benefits that are encapsulated in the 'Protect' logo are the result of many years of intensive research on how best to improve the nutritional composition to stimulate the infant's immune system. The logo helps distinguish this particular formula from other less advanced products but does not claim in any manner that infant formula is superior to breast milk.

The 'proven' nature of the claims is disputed by independent reviewers (see below). In addition, all idealizing claims are prohibited by Article 9.2 of the International Code, which states:

Neither the container nor the label should have pictures of infants, nor should they have other pictures or text which may idealise the use of infant formula. [emphasis added]

The colourful logo, which says 'Protect Start' on the infant formula for use from birth and 'Protect Plus' on the follow-on formula for use from 6 months and the terms DHA, ARA, Opti-Pro and Bifodigenic effect. Analysis:

• DHA and ARA are Long Chain Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids LCPUFAs. According to the respected Cochrane Library: "It has been suggested that low levels of long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFA) found in formula milk may contribute to lower IQ levels and vision skills in term infants. Some milk formulas with added LCPUFA are commercially available. This review found that feeding term infants with milk formula enriched with LCPUFA had no proven benefit regarding vision, cognition or physical growth." http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000376.html

• Bifodigenic effect appears to be suggesting the formula contains an oligosaccharide - sometimes marketed as 'prebiotics' - (breastmilk contains over 100) to promote bacteria growth and provide protection against allergies. The Cochrane Library concluded a review: "There is insufficient evidence to recommend the addition of prebiotics to infant feeds for prevention of allergic disease or food reactions." http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab006474.html

• Opti-Pro implies a benefit for eyes (until recently, Nestlé owned marketed Opti-Free contact lens solutions) or 'Optimum Protein', itself an idealising claim. Nestlé's Dr. Crozier-Willi, said in her letter of 14 January 2010:

The logo 'Opti-pro' does not refer to eye development at all, rather it refers to an optimised mix of milk proteins which when ingested, results in the infant having a blood amino acid composition which closely resembles that of an infant on breast milk. This represents quite an advance in the application of technology to superior nutrition and is explained in detail in the scientific information that we share with health professionals.

Article 7.2 of the International Code states: "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, and such information should not imply or create a belief that bottle feeding is equivalent or superior to breastfeeding."

9. All of Baby Milk Action's posters had been removed from outside Nestlé (UK) HQ when it returned to remove them itself after packing up after the demonstration. Nestlé representatives, though generally calm and collected in public (unlike Mr. Nastie), are aggressive in trying to remove criticism. For example, Baby Milk Action was threatened with legal action by Nestlé prior to the launch of the Nestlé Critics website during International Nestlé-Free Week in 2008 - click here. In March 2010, Nestlé forced youtube to remove a Greenpeace film clip exposing the harm caused by the company's sourcing of palm oil - click here. Nestlé has also been accused of spying on campaigners in Switzerland - click here.

How Nestle spins when it gives into campaigners' demands - Greenpeace campaign update

2010-05-17T12:25:00.003+01:00

Greenpeace is reporting that Nestlé has agreed to all of its demands regarding its sourcing of palm oil from suppliers accused of destroying Indonesian rainforest to produce it. Nestlé had earlier resisted calls to change its policies and practices and received many thousands of messages and Greenpeace campaigners dropped in - literally - on its shareholder meeting in Switzerland last April. From our own success in holding Nestlé to account, we know that its Public Relations team will be swinging into action to portray this as 'Nestlé taking the lead' - ignoring the great efforts campaigners have had to go to and using its climb down to divert attention from other concerns about it awful management behaviour.

We have several examples from the Baby Milk Action campaign we can cite. For example, we campaigned for three years over Nestlé's refusal to translate labels into the national language of the country where they were sold and prompted Nestlé to review its labels after getting this onto national UK television (The Mark Thomas Product).

This was portrayed by Nestlé in its 'Code Action Report' (left) as if it was unilaterally taking action. While it did indeed put out new labels in Malawi, one of the examples cited, these were rejected by the Government as inadequate. Although they have since been changed, Nestlé has added a logo claiming its formula 'protects' babies, when in truth babies fed on it are more likely to become sick and, in conditions of poverty as exist in Malawi, are more likely to die. This is the target of a current Baby Milk Action campaign - click here to send a message to Nestlé.

So don't be surprised if Nestlé puts out statements and pamphlets about it tightening its requirements for sourcing palm oil - without acknowledging it was forced to do so. Greenpeace is right to say that Nestlé must be closely monitored to see if it delivers on its undertaking.

In another example, we campaigned for 9 years to force Nestlé to accept a 1994 World Health Assembly (WHA) Resolution saying that complementary feeding should be fostered from 6 months of age - Nestlé routinely promoted such foods for use from 4 months of age or even less. It took bringing the Resolution into law and policies in many countries, further Resolutions at the Assembly and, finally, national demonstrations in the UK to prompt change. During the course of the week of demonstrations in 2003, which were filmed by Swiss television, Nestlé contacted Baby Milk Action to say it was accepting the WHA Resolutions - but again it spun this as Nestlé 'taking the lead', the headline in the 7th edition of its 'Code Action Report', shown left. Again, it has not lived up to its claim to change its practices and continues to push complementary foods from too early an age. A recent example was given on the PhDinParenting blog a couple of weeks ago.

Nestlé's Code Action Report has a curious history - Nestlé launched it in October 1999, with the claim:

"This is the first edition of a monthly report, issued by Nestlé to interested parties around the world, which is designed to be a reliable and authoritative source of information on implementation of the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes, including its Aims, Principles and Articles.

"This new initiative is intended to encourage meaningful dialogue with all interested parties concerned with infant feeding and nutrition, the encouragement of breast-feeding and the promotion of the WHO International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes."

Baby Milk Action took Nestlé at its word and entered into this 'dialogue' - as a result Nestlé had to publish corrections and apologies in subsequent issues of the Code Action Report, including a full-page right-to-reply from Baby Milk Action after it disputed our evidence regarding its use of community health workers to promote baby milks in the Philippines. It apologised to the Danish and other governments in the pages of the report for misrepresenting letters Nestlé claimed were official verification that it was abiding by the Code and Resolutions. For full analysis of this PR disaster surrounding these letters, see our 1999 briefing, Don't Judge a Book by its Cover.

So Nestlé decided that 'meaningful dialogue' was not such a good idea. The sequence of 'monthly' Code Action Reports, posted to Nestlé's anti-boycott website, are as follows:

Number 1: October 1999

Number 2: November 1999

Number 3: January 2000

Number 4: April 2000 (They are starting to come a little more slowly now)

Number 5: August 2000 (Now more than a year to wait..)

Number 6: October 2001 (And if you can believe it, an even longer wait..)

Number 7: June 2003 .. the newest edition on the site - no new report for nearly 7 years!

We are not alone in finding that when Nestlé backs down it tries to spin this to its own advantage.

In 2003 Oxfam launched a campaign against Nestlé's attempt to extract US$ 6 million from the Ethiopian Government at a time the country was experiencing famine. The compensation claim related to a factory that had been nationalised 27 years before, prior to Nestlé owning the company that had owned the factory. The Government offered US$ 1.5 million compensation, but Nestlé tried an accounting trick to increase this four-fold. Its Global Head of Communications, Francois Perroud, went on the radio claiming it was in the Government's interest to settle if it was to attract future investment. People sent messages and packs of rice to Nestlé and eventually it agreed to settle for US$ 1.5 million and donate this to initiatives in Ethiopia (history here). But Nestlé has no shame - the following year, when the Guardian newspaper reported that Breakthrough Breast Cancer had refused a £1 million donation from Nestlé on ethical grounds, Nestlé sent a letter to the newspaper dismissing criticism of its baby food marketing and claimed it was a force for good in the world, citing the donation made to Ethiopia - of course, it did not mention that that the donation came about not because of Nestlé altruism, but because of campaign protest. In addition, Nestlé's Chairman has made it very clear that any donations to good causes have to benefit shareholders.

So well done to everyone who campaigned on Nestlé's sourcing of palm oil. The company needs to be monitored to see it it delivers. Greenpeace is now moving on to target another company in its palm oil campaign.

Those who are concerned about Nestlé practices should not be misled if Nestlé now claims to be taking the lead on palm oil - this is a PR response and it has not changed its business ethos. Continued pressure is need to stop it claiming its baby milk 'protects' babies and other malpractice. Click here to send a message to Nestlé. The Greenpeace victory - as with our past victories - show that if we make enough noise, then Nestlé will judge it is in its own best interests to change.

You can help to make some noise by demonstrating at Nestlé UK (HQ) in Croydon on 22 May 11:00 - 12:00 or another Nestlé site or location where Nestlé products are sold. For further information on this and other future events, see our Diary Dates page.

Making a mark in the UK General Election

2010-05-03T23:13:00.002+01:00

I've just sent out a press release with the news that the Liberal Democrats have pledged their support to our campaign to protect infant health. We have asked the parties vying for power in the UK General Election to pledge to work for the implementation of the World Health Assembly marketing requirements in the UK and support these minimum standards internationally. The Green Party and Scottish Green Party have also made this pledge. We wrote to all party leaders as part of our Make a Mark in 2010 activities.

The Liberal Democrats have sometimes been in second place in polling in the lead up to the vote, which takes place on 6 May and may hold the balance of power if no party wins an outright majority. The Scottish Green Party is already represented in the Scottish Parliament and the Greens are hoping to enter the UK Parliament at this election. We are still waiting for position statements from the other parties.

You can find out more from the press release - where you can also download a leaflet including the pledge. If you are in the UK, ask candidates in your constituency to make the pledge. See:

http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease03may10

The London Marathon - Nestle's sick strategy for attacking the UK boycott

2010-04-25T04:01:00.001+01:00

Nestlé is the most boycotted company in the UK over the way it pushes baby milk and it is desperate to change the situation. It is reportedly paying celebrities US$10,000 per tweet to say nice things about it on Twitter and is hiring a PR firm to try to improve its image in cyberspace. Today it is sponsoring the London Marathon and is supplying branded Nestlé Pure Life water to runners around the course. We have produced leaflets for runners and others to hand out to use this as an opportunity to show they do not support Nestlé and have produced a press release including the following quote.

Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator at Baby Milk Action, said: "People have to drink water doing a marathon and it is the height of irresponsibility that the organisers are providing water with the Nestlé brand, which is boycotted by many. We considered whether we could provide alternative water along the route, but it is simply unfeasible. Anyone running must put their own health first, but can hand out our leaflets to show they disagree with being forced to drink Nestlé water - for some it will be the first Nestlé product to have passed their lips for many years. It is a pretty sick way of Nestlé to force people to break their boycott and shows how desperate the company is."

Best wishes if you take part in the Marathon. Please let us and the organisers know what you think of having Nestlé as a sponsor.

Vote for babies in the UK General Election

2010-04-16T15:18:00.001+01:00

I've just posted a new page on our website with a leaflet for the UK General Election campaign. See:

http://info.babymilkaction.org/ukelection2010

Nestle tries to shake off boycotters

2010-04-08T17:05:00.002+01:00

We have a boycott list with the main Nestlé brands in the UK. I was just adding a note that Nestlé is in the process of selling its Alcon contact lens solutions business to Novartis. This is due to complete in mid-2010. In the process I remembered I needed to update the link to Nestlé own brands page. We link to it from our boycott list, but Nestlé keeps changing the address of the page in small ways so the link dies (for example, its been changed from Brands.htm to BrandHome.htm). Thank you to everyone who contacted me about the dead link.

You can find our list with the link to Nestlé's latest page at
http://info.babymilkaction.org/nestleboycottlist

The game of 'find the Nestlé's brand page' is not the only one Nestlé likes to play. A new one surfaced when I visited the Annabel Karmel Facebook page today. Unsurprising as it was recruiting PR experts to try to improve its abysmal image in cyberspace. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2010/02/nestle-launches-cyberwar.html

Bestselling children's recipe book author Annabel Karmel withdrew from a campaign marketing Nestlé cereals last month after finding out more about Nestlé's baby food marketing practices and the boycott. Many members of the public posted messages and some alerted Baby Milk Action to the link up and a misleading statement defending Nestlé that was part of the campaign. See:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog060410

Visiting the site today I noticed a Nestlé advertisement at the side, calling on people to 'learn more about Nestlé approach to Corporate Social Responsibility'. This is trying to prompt visitors to listen to Nestlé's portrayal of its activities, rather than listen to boycotter supporters and critics.

They are probably targeting any page where Nestlé is mentioned, knowing that with a 'positivity' score in social media of just 12 out of 100 in an audit by Yomego Social Media Reputation (PR Week) these are likely to be critical comments.

Now you might think we know more than enough about Nestlé's approach to Corporate Social Responsibility: Put profits before all else, leave others to count the cost in damage to human lives and the environment, set up a team to tell people to ignore the critics, produce swish PR reports, recruit celebrities and others to pass on misinformation.

But I don't want to stop people hearing what Nestlé would like you to believe. You can find its latest Creating Shared Value report on its site at:
http://www2.nestle.com/CSV/Pages/CSV.aspx

For analysis of its previous report and the complaint the Nestlé Critics registered with the UN Global Compact, which posted the report on its website, see:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press17june09.html

Baby Milk Action is also on Facebook and Twitter. I've added some icons to our website so you can find us.

People power

2010-04-06T14:10:00.002+01:00

There are two reasons why Nestlé is the most boycotted company in the UK and one of the four most boycotted companies on the planet (findings of an independent poll conducted by GMIPoll and reported in The Guardian http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/businessinsight/archives/2005/09/01/branded.html).

Because Nestlé is so bad and because you, campaign supporters, are so good.

The decision of children's food author Annabel Karmel, to withdraw from a link-up with Nestlé last month demonstrates this clearly.

Nestlé is the worst of the baby food companies, pushing its products in breach of international standards and contributing to the unnecessary death and suffering of babies around the world. Although the boycott has forced some changes to Nestlé policies and practices, it still refuses to sign up to Baby Milk Action's four-point plan for saving lives and ending the boycott. Its attitude is demonstrated by its latest global monitoring strategy, claiming its formula 'protects' babies - a disgraceful practice that it is defending even though it knows babies fed on the formula are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. It will take further pressure to force Nestlé to stop this. Click here to send Nestlé a message.

While Nestlé spends billions of pounds promoting its products and image around the world, its PR team is surprisingly inept at countering criticism. Nestlé had a 'positivity' score in social media of just 12 out of 100 in an audit by Yomego Social Media Reputation, according to PR Week reporting in February on Nestlé throwing more money at PR experts to try to counter this. Nestlé is also amongst the top ten companies criticised for social and environmental practices, according to ECOFACT. Greenpeace, targeting Nestlé over its sourcing policies for palm oil used in products like Fairtrade KitKat, found Nestlé's PR experts scored an own goal by using legal threats to force youtube to remove a spoof KitKat advertisement exposing how rainforests in Indonesia are being destroyed, contributing to climate change and endangering orang-utans. The clip went viral on other sites and youtube reinstated it. You can watch it here.

It is public support and action that makes all the difference. People like you spreading the word and sending messages to company executives.

Last year Nestlé's PR experts took 20 parenting bloggers to stay in a 5-star hotel in California, complete with celebrity chef, to co-opt them as cheerleaders for the company. Campaign supporters wrote blogs calling on them not to go. Some dropped out. Others went and some offered to take questions on the Twitter channel that Nestlé had set up for the event. This became a full-blow PR disaster for Nestlé that fuelled International Nestlé-Free Week in the US (during Halloween) and made it into the mainstream media. Baby Milk Action became aware of the event because of the surge in traffic to our sites from people posting links and we joined in, providing information and offering to debate with Nestlé on Twitter (not taken up).

The point is, there is no way that Baby Milk Action could have achieved this alone. Nor would we want to have to try to do so. This is a mass campaign and it relies on the many thousands of boycott supporters around the world looking for opportunities to promote the boycott . We can provide information and support as best we can - supported by the network of campaigners, the majority volunteers, in the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), who monitor what Nestlé and other companies are doing around the world.

The recent case of Annabel Karmel shows how important supporters are in spreading this information (or raising awareness as campaigners like to say).

Annabel Karmel is a best-selling author of recipe books for children's food. She teamed up with Nestlé to promote its 'whole grain' cereals. There are concerns about Nestlé's cereals as they are criticised for having high salt and sugar levels, except for Shredded Wheat, the only 100% whole grain cereal which is used as a marketing balloon to hang the less healthy cereals on. The bigger concern was that Annabel put a statement defending the link up onto her website, which appeared to have been drafted by Nestlé's PR team as it suggested that evidence showed that Nestlé supported breastfeeding and complied with the relevant marketing requirements. People very quickly started leaving comments on the website and on Annabel's facebook fan page pointing to the evidence showing that, in truth, Nestlé systematically violates the World Health Assembly marketing requirements.

Baby Milk Action was tipped off and I added my comments and contacted Annabel and her media person for a response to the evidence of malpractice, including Nestlé's latest global 'protect' claims used to market baby milk. All I received was a standard response about the importance of eating whole grain cereal - the defence of Nestlé's baby food marketing given on the website was not repeated in this message, perhaps a sign of the embarrassment of trying to defend it. However, the email said: "I know you expressed concerns about the company and I have forwarded these to Nestle who will respond to you directly."

I posted on the Annabel Facebook page warning people that their details would be sent directly to Nestlé if they raised concerns - though I think that is not good practice from a data protection point of view, a check of the privacy statement on Annabel's site showed she is warning she might pass on data to companies.

Then on 25 March Annabel made a welcome statement on her Facebook page:

"We have had a few enquiries about my association on the Nestlé whole grain cereals campaign. I was initially happy to work with them on a range of healthy cereals which met my ideals on nutrition. However after listening to people’s comments, I have made the decision not to continue my association with Nestle. Annabel"

The link to the past statement defending Nestlé is now dead.

So the upshot is that Annabel, many of her 5,000 Facebook fans and lots of people who visited will have come across the concerns. As a secondary impact, we have had lots of traffic to our sites, more people joining our email lists to keep updated and perhaps even some of the recent members have joined as a result.

I think this reinforces Baby Milk Action's approach of trying to contact celebrities and public figures who defend Nestlé to try to put them right before trying to shame them. We did eventually go public over George Clooney as he has passed on Nestlé's misinformation to others even after we provided evidence showing he had been misled. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press31jan09.html

There are various boycott groups and events that have been set up on Facebook and other social networking sites. It is impossible for Baby Milk Action to monitor them all, though we have our own official group on Facebook at:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=4978994961

We welcome people promoting the boycott and other campaigns themselves. Please put a link to our website and be careful to use the explanations for the campaign as given here or feel free to send text to me for checking. Anything we produce is legally water-tight and we shall step in if there is a challenge - but we cannot be held responsible if incorrect statements are made in editing our information.

If you have your own site or blog, you can even use a banner advertisement or logo that will link to our site. See:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/nestlefree

We also welcome help in promoting the campaign at events, whether to do with infant feeding, development or other issues. For example, we have a leaflet for promoting the boycott at Fair Trade events, explaining why Fairtrade KitKat has been added to the boycott list. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2010/02/boycott-fairtrade-kitkat.html

If you would like a Baby Milk Action stall at an event or a guest speaker, please contact us. We have a network of area contacts who are able to provide support and I try to take up invitations to speak when I can, such as at the recent La Leche League Ireland Conference.

With the General Election just called in the UK, we have the opportunity to ask politicians to pledge to strengthen the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations. The UK law is very weak, allowing companies to advertise breastmilk substitutes, such as follow-on formula, widely. The Government's own review has called for steps to be taken to strengthen the law. So do ask candidates on the doorstep if they will do this. We have written to the party leaders and will add a campaign for the election to this site shortly.

Baby Milk Action does need income to provide this support, of course. Though our annual budget is less than the cost of one Nestlé television advertisement, we have to work hard to raise what we do spend. So please do remember to encourage people to join Baby Milk Action and to visit our online Virtual Shop for information, merchandise and to make a donation. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/

The boycott led directly to the World Health Assembly introducing marketing standards for baby milk and we have had a lot of success in bringing these into legislation around the world. But where there is no legislation or it is not enforced, companies continue to push their products in ways that endanger health. The boycott and our campaigns targeting other companies remain essential. With enough public support and pressure we will force Nestlé to stop it latest global 'protect' marketing strategy. The label from Malawi that is pictured on our campaign sheet to illustrate this strategy also shows the power of the boycott, because Nestlé refused to translate this label into the national language of the country until campaign pressure let to it being exposed on national television. Every person you tell, every link you post, every message you send to Nestlé helps to hold companies to account and to protect babies.

Corporate influence on the UK Government

2010-03-22T20:30:00.003Z

A investigative television programme on Channel 4's Dispatches in the UK is reporting on how corporate lobbyists recruit politicians to gain access to Government Ministers and the Chairs of influential Parliamentary committees.

A former Minister, Stephen Byers MP, has been secretly filmed at a bogus lobbying company set up by the journalists describing himself as like a 'cab for hire' at £ 3,000 - £ 5,000 per day. He claimed he had been able to get labelling regulations changed for a supermarket client. Since realising he was being filmed, he has claimed that he had been exaggerating and the Ministers he claimed to have lobbied have said that he had not contacted them and they had not changed regulations.

The Guardian reports on this today and states that Harriet Harman, the leader of the Commons, told MPs, "I want to reassure honourable members and the public that ministers act in the public interest. They make decisions in the public interest. It is an absolutely fundamental part of the duties of their office."

I commented on the article as follows:

Having seen how Ministers behaved when drafting the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations, I question this statement.

All leading health worker bodies, mother support groups and the UN Committee on the Rights for the Child have called on the Government to bring the law into line with minimum international standards to protect breastfeeding and babies fed on formula. The Government's own Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition, Trading Standards and LACORS also called for stronger measures.

The Government followed the industry line of doing the minimum possible. In part they were concerned at upsetting the European Commission by going further than its weak Directive - but other countries did go further. They were also concerned about legal action - and were taken to the high court by the industry in 2008 as it successfully tried to delay some of the measures coming into force.

So putting corporate interests before the public interest is not necessarily due to dodgy dealings - it may be down to lack of courage.

An Independent Review Panel has just reported and noted the problems with enforcing the law and calling for the Government to take steps. It now has the justification to strengthen the law. The Panel even suggested the Government could cite the precautionary principle to do so.

The question is will they, or whoever forms the next government, act to protect infants and mothers? And if not, why not? See:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease11mar10a

There are reasons to be concerned about corporate influence or at least mindset. The head of the Food Standards Agency came from the dairy industry.
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/12/uk-formula-influence.html

And the Independent on Sunday reported in 2008: "Rosie Cooper, a parliamentary private secretary to the Health minister Ben Bradshaw, is undergoing a year-long Industry and Parliament Trust fellowship with Nestlé."
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/05/nestle-uk-government.html

She and other MPs also enjoyed a trip to South Africa at Nestlé's expense. Nestlé, the most boycotted company in the UK and one of the four most boycotted on the planet, over the way it markets baby milk. A company the Department of Health in South Africa was taking to task at the time over the claims it is using on the labels for its baby milk, which mislead mothers.

Greenpeace shames Nestle over source of palm oil in products like Fairtrade KitKat

2010-03-17T09:20:00.011Z

Thousands of copies of our new leaflet have been downloaded, exposing Nestlé's attempts to undermine the boycott over its baby milk marketing and improve its image using its token Fairtrade KitKat product - which involves just 1% of its cocoa purchase. Nestlé is also criticised for failing to deliver on a promise to end child slavery in its cocoa supply chain.

We need to update the leaflet now to include information from Greenpeace's campaign, exposing the source of plam oil in Nestlé products. Greenpeace states on its site today:

We have new evidence which shows that Nestlé - the makers of Kit Kat - are using palm oil produced in areas where the orang-utans' rainforests once grew. Even worse, the company doesn't seem to care.

Greenpeace are organising a protest at Nestlé (UK) HQ today and have released the youtube clip below.

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/kitkat

Click here for Nestlé's response - it says, "we have made a commitment to using only "Certified Sustainable Palm Oil" by 2015."

Sounds a bit like its commitment in 2001 to end child slavery in its cocoa supply chain by 2005. Nestlé has not only failed to deliver on this and an extended deadline of 2008, it has been obstructive to the process. Let's hope its statement on palm oil is not also an empty promise to diffuse bad publicity.

The protest comes as Nestlé launches its latest 'Creating Shared Value' report boasting of its claimed beneficial impact around the world. The previous report prompted a complaint by leading experts on Nestlé to the office of the UN Global Compact, which publishes the reports on its website. See:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press17june09.html

I note from Nestlé's press release that Hilary Parsons, formerly of Nestlé (UK), has been promoted to Nestlé S.A. Public Affairs Manager. A few years ago Hilary lost a series of debates with me on Nestlé's baby milk marketing activities, despite her best efforts to mislead people. Nestlé now refuses to even speak if Baby Milk Action is present. While some may question Hilary's effectiveness at PR when Nestlé is the most boycotted company in the UK and one of the four most boycotted on the planet, her promotion indicates to me once again what Nestlé's real values are.

What's your milk worth?

2010-03-10T12:38:00.003Z

This is the text of a talk I gave to the La Leche League Ireland Conference on 7 March 2010. The accompanying PowerPoint presentation is attached to the posting of this blog on our website. See: http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog070310

Many thanks for the invitation to speak at the Conference. I bring greetings from everyone at Baby Milk Action. No doubt many of you are in contact with Patti Rundall, our Policy Director, and Sarah Hansen, our Office Manager.

I've been asked to speak on the topic: "What is your milk worth?"

And I've been thinking about the different ways to answer this. My immediate thought was there's a short answer and a long answer.

Here's the short answer. [SLIDE: Baby Quinn poster]

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a smile is worth a thousand more.

But I guess you do want some words from me too, so here's the long answer.

What's your milk worth?

Well, a La Leche League Conference doesn't need me to explain how babies without breastmilk suffer greater short and long-term illness. Your milk is worth better health for your babies, which is priceless.

But I'm going to try to be a bit more precise than priceless.

So how does Euros 130/litre sound for the value of breastmilk? [SLIDE: € 130/l]

That's how much neonatal units in hospitals in the UK pay to milk banks - but that's not for the milk, that for the processing costs of the milk bank that collects and pasturises it. Premature babies fed on it have better chances of surviving.

That's one figure. We can also consider the number of lives lost through babies not being breastfed and the cost to our health services. Breastmilk is the most locally produced natural food there is - replacement feeds require processing and transport which has an environmental impact. Mothers aren't paid to breastfeed their babies, but if they don't breastfeed, they have to pay for breastmilk substitutes, so we can think about the cost of that and the multi-billion Euro industry that has arisen and the harm that it does.

I imagine as you've asked me here from Baby Milk Action you'd like to know something about company marketing and what can be done to stop it. We can also turn this question around and ask, "What is breastmilk worth to us?" What will we do to defend breastfeeding.

These are the issues I'm going to explore in a bit more depth, starting with breastmilk being worth Euros 130/litre for neonatology units.

A litre will provide nourishment and protection to many babies, of course, as a few millitres is enough to fill the stomach of a premature baby. [SLIDE: Stomach sizes]

This image shows the stomach size of a normal new-born baby to get an idea. This comes from a reliable source - the LLL International website.

The reduction in Necrotising Enterocolitis is one of the main reasons for having donor milk for babies if they cannot receive their mother's milk while in intensive care or undergoing Kangeroo care. NEC is where the tissue of the bowel dies and it is a big killer of premature babies. I visited the donor milk bank in Chester this week and they rarely have cases of NEC. Breastfeeding has sometimes been described as the continuation of the placenta and it finishes the job of the development of the digestive system.

Other hospitals where babies are dying from NEC are starting to source donor breastmilk from Chester. And just last month the National Institute for Clinical Excellence published its guidelines. I know there is a milk bank across the border in Irvinestown Health Centre in County Fermanagh and I understand it operates across Ireland and is providing donor milk to 700 babies per year. Like many milk banks, I also understand it relies to some extent on fundraising.

The figure I gave for the cost of processing human milk comes from Chester which is a charity and has to raise all its operating costs itself, about € 130,000 per year, and it processes 1000 litres. Someone once said, wouldn't it be strange if health had all the money it needed and the army had to hold jumble sales for weapons. But in the world we live in, it is breastfeeding supporters who hold the jumble sales.

But that does not mean the work is not professional. [SLIDE: Chester conference] Chester is holding a milk bank conference in May - you can find out more information on their website. You'll be able to find the notes for my talk on the Baby Milk Action website next week, but here is the address of the Chester site if you want to note it. This is particularly relevant to Neonatologists, so you might like to suggest your contacts attend.

The mothers who donate the milk are volunteers, of course. They do it, because they know the value of breastmilk.

I started out with Baby Quinn. A picture of contentment. But not just contentment. It is a picture of nurture and protection coming from the living substance that is breastmilk and the warm and love with which it is delivered.

You know better than me that breastfed babies are optimally fed. Denied breastmilk and fed with cow's milk or soya milk, however much it is processed and adapted, they will have greater risk of short and long-term illness. Breastfeeding is worth life and health.

And illness costs not only the individual, but society as a whole. In 2006 we made a submission to the UK government as it was revising our Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations to implement a revised EU Directive. We made a submission calling for the government to implement the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant Resolutions of the World Health Assembly in legislation. [SLIDE: The Code]

The Code and Resolutions, for short, set out how companies can and cannot market their products and came about as a direct result of the Nestlé boycott and wider campaign. The Code itself was adopted in 1981 and aims to protect breastfeeding and babies fed on formula.

Governments are called on to implement it and we asked our government to do so. We had built a coalition called the Baby Feeding Law Group [SLIDE: BFLG], consisting of the major health worker organisations and mother support groups and the submission (shown left) had the backing of all these organisations. If you don't have such a coalition in Ireland, then it might be something to think about.

One of the questions in the UK Government consultation was about costs and we pulled together the figures available to us to make an economic case for protecting breastfeeding. [SLIDE: NICE report]

In the UK, a NICE costing report evaluated possible savings from Baby Friendly Initiative accreditation. They said.

“The evaluation assumes that a 10% improvement in initiation rates is a realistic target.

“On the basis of medical literature we assume that an increase in the number of babies that breastfeed will lead to a reduction in healthcare expenditure because of avoided cases of otitis media, gastroenteritis and asthma. On the basis of an annual birth rate of 605,634 a 10% improvement in breastfeeding would mean that 60,563 additional babies would be breastfed.”

[SLIDE: Cost savings]

• about 17,000 cases of otitis media avoided at a saving of £509,000.

• almost 3900 cases of gastroenteritis being avoided, at a saving of £2.6 million

• over 1500 cases of asthma being avoided, at a saving of £2.6 million.

• a reduction in the cost of teats and formula of £102,000

NICE. Postnatal care: routine postnatal care of women and their babies. Costing report: Implementing NICE guidance in England. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2006. pp 36. www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=345136

A US Study looked at savings to their welfare scheme from breastfeeding. [SLIDE: WIC]

Compared with formula-feeding, breastfeeding each infant enrolled in WIC saved US$478 (€350) in WIC costs and Medicaid expenditures (the US welfare schemes) during the first 6 months of the infant’s life.

Montgomery DL, Splett PL. Economic benefit of breast-feeding infants enrolled in WIC. J Am Diet Assoc 1997 Apr;97(4):379-85 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9120189

They also looked at broader savings to the economy [SLIDE: 3.6 billion]

The US study found a minimum of $3.6 billion would be saved if breastfeeding was increased from current levels (64 percent in-hospital, 29 percent at 6 months) to those recommended by the U.S. Surgeon General (75 and 50 percent), for each year at the higher rate. Pro rata to the population of Ireland, this equates to € 40 million per year of improved breastfeeding.

Figure based on treatment of only three childhood illnesses: otitis media, gastroenteritis, and necrotizing enterocolitis.

This does not count the savings of the cost of formula.

It does include the loss of earnings of the 720 babies who were estimated to die each year in the US from Necrotizing Enterocolitis who would not have died if breastfed.

Weimer. The economic benefits of breastfeeding: A review and analysis, Food Assistance & Nutrition Research Report No. 13. Wash.D.C., USDA, 2001. www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/FANRR13/

In our submission in the UK, we recommended the government commission research on environmental impacts of babies not being breastfed – our figures are out of date. There is no food more locally produced and unprocessed than breastmilk. For formula we need to consider: [SLIDE: Environmental impact]

• Methane from cows is a greenhouse gas. Transport and processing impact.

• Resources used for packaging: 86,000 tons of tin plate would be used each year if every US baby was formula fed, with 550 million discarded tins (1991 figures).

• In 1987, 4.5 million feeding bottles were sold in Pakistan alone.

• A formula-fed 3-month old baby requires a litre of water a day for preparing formula and the equivalent of 73 kg of firewood per year, contributing to deforestation in poor countries.

Radford, A. Breastmilk: A world resource, Baby Milk Action, Cambridge, UK, 1991. www.babymilkaction.org/pdfs/worldresource91.pdf

The UK Government, like the Irish Government, did not listen to the calls for implementing the Code and Resolutions and has done the bare minimum to implement the EU Directive. [SLIDE: Montoring report]. We produce monitoring reports on behalf of the Baby Feeding Law Group, which show the strategies companies are using. You see advertising for follow-on formula on television and idealising claims on formula labels, as well as promotion to health workers, sponsored events, misleading information and so on. The same as you have in Ireland. This is a Cow & Gate mailout after the company signed up a mother. [SLIDE: Sore boobs]

I bought some formula yesterday from the supermarket and I want to demonstrate what the companies are doing. [Formula Race - you had to be there to appreciate this!].

But these claims are misleading. Let's look at the claims made about LCPs - Long Chain Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids. [SLIDE: LCPs]

Longchain polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation in infants born at term

It has been suggested that low levels of long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFA) found in formula milk may contribute to lower IQ levels and vision skills in term infants. Some milk formulas with added LCPUFA are commercially available. This review found that feeding term infants with milk formula enriched with LCPUFA had no proven benefit regarding vision, cognition or physical growth.

Simmer K, Patole S, Rao SC. Longchain polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation in infants born at term. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD000376. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000376.pub2. www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000376.html

[SLIDE: DH study]

Mothers are misled. ‘Myths stop women giving babies the best start in life’ Department of Health survey, May 2004:

“Myth: Over a third (34%) of women believe that modern infant formula milks are very similar or the same as breast milk

“Fact: Infant formula milk does not contain the antibodies, living cells, enzymes or hormones present in breastmilk. Breastmilk is designed for each individual baby and changes over time whereas infant formula milk is designed for every baby.”

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Pressreleases/DH_4081944

So these and other claims are untrue, but companies base their marketing strategies upon them. This can have a devastating impact in developing countries where access to health care to treat sick infants is often lacking.

According to the Lancet series on child survival, improved breastfeeding could save 1.3 million under-5 babies every year.

[SLIDE: Lancet]

By improved breastfeeding, they mean 90% exclusive breastfeeding to 6 months, with continued breastfeeding for 99% of babies during the first year. We are a long way from that at present. But if it were not for breastfeeding, many more millions of babies would die each year.

Improving breastfeeding rates in the 42 countries where most under-5 deaths occur, could prevent 13% of those under-5 deaths. [SLIDE: Lancet comparison] That’s more than would be saved by:

• universal provision of safe water and sanitation (3%)

• universal provision of HIB, Tetanus and Measles vaccines (4%, 2%, 1%).

(Combined total 10%)

Appropriate introduction of complementary foods could save a further 6%.

[SLIDE: World Bank estimate] The World Bank has estimated that meeting the health Millenium Development Goals of providing universal access to safe water and sanitation by 2015 at US$ 30 billion (€22 billion) per year. Of course, there needs to be the improvements to water, sanitation and vaccination, but this give an indication of the value of increasing breastfeeding, which could save more lives. Indeed, many of the children who survive unhealthy conditions would have died if they had not been breastfed.

The Costs of Attaining the Millennium Development Goals, World Bank, accessed March 2010, www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/mdgassessment.pdf

Where is the money and support for breastfeeding? Putting money into breastfeeding support and taking action over marketing are political decisions. And the baby food industry is big money. [SLIDE: Baby food industry]

The retail value of the global baby food market in 2008 according to analysts Euromonitor was € 23 billion. Two-thirds of this is formula. So there's about a € 15.3 billion industry because of babies not receiving breastmilk. Let's consider that some babies cannot be breastfed because they are abandoned or orphaned without access to alternative supplies of breastmilk or because the mother cannot breastfeed for medical reasons. Formula is essential for some babies, so let's knock off the formula required as a nutritional medicine and reduce the sum to € 15 billion to reflect the value of the breastmilk that is being substituted.

To defend this market, companies battle against regulation. According to Euromonitor: [SLIDE: Industry action].

“The industry is fighting a rearguard action against regulation on a country-by-country basis,”

“Government Regulation a Growing Constraint”.

“There are significant international variations in the regulations governing the marketing of milk formula, which are reflected in sales differences across countries.”

To finish, I want to turn this question around and ask you: "What is your milk worth?" By which I mean, what are you doing to defend breastfeeding?

In the discussion about the Politics of Breastfeeding yesterday, people were wanting to know what they could do. We'll be able to explore this more in the discussion, but I want to see if I can inspire you with a story from the Philippines. This is a country where, according to WHO, 16,000 babies die every year because they are not breastfed.

In 2006 the Department of Health introduced regulations to stop companies marketing formula as if it would turn babies into geniuses. [SLIDES: Abbott, Nestlé].

Abbott's formula had an IQ logo, with the word 'eye' in the letter 'I', suggesting it benefits visual and mental development. Nestlé undermined the legally required 'breastmilk is best for babies' message with a colourful logo claiming its formula contains, "Brain Building Blocks". These are referring the the LCPs I mentioned before - where the Cochrane Library review found such claims are not proven.

The pharmaceutical companies that make formula took the government to the Supreme Court and the US Chamber of Commerce wrote to the President demanding the law be struck down or American companies would pull out of the country.

Here's what happened next [SLIDES: Philippine campaign - showing demonstrations, media work, letter-writing campaigns, petitions, UNICEF DVD, culminating in the 'brave breasts' protest outside the Supreme Court. Also see Update 40].

Now, topless protests might not be the thing to do in Ireland. But next time you see an advertisement you might like to remember this story and think, "What is breastmilk worth?" [SLIDE: Action ideas]

Is it worth a letter to the Advertising Standards Authority? Sending violations to La Leche Leage? Starting a campaign in Ireland?

[SLIDE: International ideas - boycott] Supporting the boycott of Nestlé, worst of the companies? Writing to all companies about practices that harm health. Our current priority is Nestlé's new strategy of claiming its formula 'protects' babies. This is about the LCPs we hear about earlier. This label shows that campaigning works. It is from Malawi, one of the world's poorest countries and Nestlé refused to translate it into the national language until we campaigned and shamed it on UK television.

Here's the challenge facing you in Ireland. [SLIDE: Breastfeeding rates]

"Ireland is in the unenviable position of having the lowest breastfeeding rates in Europe and this has been the situation for at least two generations.

"Currently only about 40% of new mothers in Ireland initiate breastfeeding and many of these cease doing do so before their infants are four months old."

Fallon M, Breastfeeding in Ireland, Department of Health and Children, Accessed March 2010, www.equality.ie/index.asp?docID=586

I understand the situation has improved slightly from this figure, but rates are still low.

Here's the hope. [SLIDE: The hope]

La Leche League Ireland exists.

You have come to the Conference.

You know what your milk is worth!!

[SLIDE: Contact us]

Baby Milk Action can help. So do please visit our website and stay in touch. Also look out for an online training course on monitoring which is being added to our website.

Online training course coming soon

2010-03-02T19:11:00.001Z

We are developing an online course on monitoring the baby food industry.

You can find out more by watching a short film clip and trying a sample quiz on our website.

Please take a look and let me know what you think of the technology. If you are a member of Baby Milk Action, also register with our site because the first module will be free to members. Members will also receive a discount on the remaining modules. The planned price for non-members is £10 per module.

See:

http://info.babymilkaction.org/courses/monitoring

Nestlé's friendly MP stands down

2010-02-26T18:20:00.004Z

Mr Tom Levitt, Member of Parliament for Buxton, has announced he is standing down at the next election.

Nestlé bottles Buxton water in the town and has befriended its MP with free tickets to the Wimbledon tennis tournament and a free trip to South Africa.

After the trip, Mr. Levitt praised Nestlé and suggested it should no longer be criticised for issues he said were 30 years in the past. In the Buxton Advertiser today, he is again quoted defending his friends at Nestlé:
http://www.buxtonadvertiser.co.uk/news/MP-Tom-denies-Nestle-job.6108297.jp

There is a short quote from me in the article and I have posted a follow-up to the editor as follows:

---

It is a disgrace that Mr. Levitt continues to claim regarding Nestlé baby milk marketing : "Nestle is amongst the most ethical of traders in this field."

He has been provided with information showing that while he was enjoying his free trip to South Africa, Nestlé was advertising infant formula in supermarkets - a practice so shocking that even its competitors in the Infant Feeding Association tried unsuccessfully to stop it. The voluntary Advertising Standards Authority, part-funded by Nestlé advertising revenue, cleared the practice, meaning all companies may resort to advertising, something prohibited by the international marketing standards Nestlé claims to follow. Nestlé drives down standards.

Mr. Levitt ignores the fact that the Department of Health in South Africa told Nestlé to stop making claims about its formula that undermine breastfeeding - and the fact it says it was not asked for an opinion by the ASA about the Nestlé supermarket advertising as normally happens with issues impacting on health.

Nestlé is currently promoting its formula with the claim it 'protects' babies and refuses to stop misleading mothers; infants fed on formula are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. This is not an issue from 30 to 40 years ago as Mr. Levitt likes to claim when defending his free Wimbledon tickets and other Nestlé benefits.

See our Campaign for Ethical Marketing.
---

The article picks up on a report in Private Eye that Mr. Levitt is heading for a consultancy with Nestlé, something they both deny in the Buxton Advertiser article.

We will watch closely. There is a history of Nestlé paying back people who have defended it. Lord Nazir Ahmed cropped up several times when former Nestlé Pakistan employee, Syed Aamir Raza, exposed practices such as bribing of doctors, which were substantiated by internal company documents. Lord Ahmed arrived uninvited at the European Parliament Public Hearing into the affair, which Nestlé boycotted. When he was unable to speak there, he wrote to Members of the European Parliament offering to brief them.

Aamir had met with Lord Ahmed asking for his help - a meeting I attended - and he was originally enthusiastic. However, a proposed public meeting never went ahead and Lord Ahmed then announced he had conducted an independent investigation in Pakistan which had found Nestlé was doing nothing wrong and that Aamir was trying to blackmail Nestlé. Two years later it emerged that the trip Lord Ahmed made to Pakistan had been organised and paid for by Nestlé and that he was being taken on by the company as a consultant. I took part in a head-to-head interview with Lord Ahmed on the BBC radio when his financial links with Nestlé were revealed. You can listen to the recording at:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/ram/broadcasts.html#lordahmed

Lord Ahmed again came to Nestlé's defence in 2003 when the TUC (Trade Union Congress) refused Nestlé a stand at their annual conference (Nestlé was one of two corporations that regularly exhibited, always amidst controversy - the other being British Nuclear Fuels). We had offered to debate with Nestlé in previous years and it refused - now denied its customary platform it agreed. Lord Ahmed was in the audience and to his lasting shame, stood up and told the audience that Aamir was living happily in Canada and his campaign exposing Nestlé had been about finding a way to leave Pakistan. I pointed out that Aamir was without his wife and children who he had not seen since leaving Pakistan three years before - he was unable to return home after threats from doctors implicated by the internal documents in accepting bribes and after shots were fired at his home, narrowly missing his brother. As Lord Ahmed attacked Aamir in this underhand way, Aamir was indeed in Canada, but distraught as his mother was ill with cancer. Aamir was separated from his wife and children for seven years and he never saw either of his parents again, who both passed away. There are many issues involved in Aamir's case. You can read his evidence here:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/update/update27feature.html

Another case of someone claiming to be independent but turning out to have financial links with Nestlé, revolves around an article published in the British Journal of Midwifery. Nestlé has widely distributed an off-print of the article, without the substantial right-to-reply from Baby Milk Action exposing some of the many errors and misrepresentations in the article. You can find a detailed analysis on our archive site. This provides an in-depth history of the campaign, with reference to source documents which can be downloaded from the site. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/yqsanswered/yqanestle09.html

Nestlé claims the article was written by 'independent midwives'. In reality the lead author was Chris Sidgwick who worked with Nestlé on a video that was distributed to UK health workers in breach of UK law, something that Trading Standards has raised with Nestlé several times. Not only did the authors enjoy an all-expenses-paid trip to Switzerland for 'fact-finding' at Nestlé's HQ, Chris's organisation, HCP Study Events, received funding from the Nestlé Nutrtion Institute. It still does, and Chris crops up from time to time inviting health journalists on jollies to Switzerland on Nestlé's behalf and students to drop their support for the boycott. We have contacted her to discuss her work for Nestlé, but have never received a reply. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2009/09/nestle-rcslt.html

Nestlé has even tried to use its cheque book to bring Nelson Mandela into its fold, offering half a million pounds just for a photo-opportunity. Nestlé persuaded Lord Richard Attenborough to put the offer to former President Mandela. The Nelson Mandela Children's Fund rejected the sum. i.Africa reported:

"In a statement it [Mandela's Children's Fund] reiterated the position it took in 2000 regarding a donation Nestle proposed to the Fund. In July 2000 the Fund was approached by Nestle, to contribute towards its Aids Orphan Appeal, a theme it had adopted for Mandela's birthday celebration with the children in that year

"However given the Nestle debacle in relation to HIV/Aids infected mothers and their campaign on promoting formula milk as opposed to breast milk and the disadvantages they put out publicly regarding breast feeding, the Nelson Mandela Children's Fund declined the donation.""

Nestlé's Chairman has been open in saying that the company only supports good causes if it benefits shareholders. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/03/nestle-generosity-to-good-causes.html

Nestlé is no doubt pleased that Mr. Levitt has parroted its PR about its baby food marketing following his trip, refused our offer to meet and ignored the evidence we have sent to him. I don't know the source of the Private Eye report on the alleged consultancy agreement, and would not wish to doubt Mr. Levitt's word, but it certainly reflects the way Nestlé works.

Updates and Campaign blog available on our new-look site

2010-02-19T11:04:00.004Z

Our new-look website is gradually taking over from our present site. The present site will remain as an archive.

You can now find Update 42 on the new site at:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/update/update42

There will be a duplicate of this campaign blog on the new site. This is the first entry! See:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog

New-style email alerts - sign up now and tell us what you think

2010-02-15T17:14:00.005Z

Here's a new innovation: html email alerts. I'm just sending the first one out.

You can subscribe to alerts and view the online archive, including the first html alert, at:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/emailalerts

Take a look and click on the link telling me if you like it or not.

This is a screenshot of it (note that clicking the links on this won't work)

If you are not on our email alert list, you can sign up via our new-look website that is coming online section by section (our old site will continue while we make the switch over and as an archive.

Boycott Nestlé leaflet for Fairtrade Fortnight

2010-02-12T12:41:00.007Z

Fairtrade Fortnight is taking place from 22 February to 7 March. If you would like to support this, you can find out more at:

http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/

As you may know, Nestlé has gained Fairtrade certification for 4-finger KitKat. There are 6,000 farmers benefiting, gaining about an extra £400,000 per year from the Fairtrade premium. Nesté's has already received global publicity for this sum, which is a fraction of the price of its curent £43 million Nescafé UK advertising campaign. But much of the coverage is undeserved as Fairtrade KitKat involves just 1% of the cocoa Nestlé purchases while it is criticised for failing to deliver on its promise to end child slavery in the supply chain for the rest by 2006.

http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2010/01/fairtrade-kitkat-launch.html

You can find a simple leaflet with facts that Nestlé executives do not want you to know about Nestlé and cocoa - and its pushing of baby milk. Why not download it, print it back-to-back to make A5 copies and use them on your Fairtrade stall if you are having one, or give to friends.

http://www.babymilkaction.org/pdfs/nestlefairtrade0210.pdf

Nestlé is the worst of the baby food companies. As it boasts about the new Fairtrade logo added to KitKat, we are campaigning to force it to remove new logos from its infant formula that claims this 'protects' babies - it does not, babies fed on it are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, are more likely to die.

Nestlé is not only trying to improve its image by promoting its Fairtrade KitKat, it is about to embark on a multi-million pound campaign in cyberspace. See:

http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2010/02/nestle-launches-cyberwar.html

Nestlé is one of the world's four most boycotted companies because people like you spread the word. This is why Nestlé is stepping up its spending on trying to improve its image. And this is why we need your help more than ever - with the financial crisis we have lost some members and had to cut staff hours. By becoming a member, sending a donation or buying something from our online shop, you help to keep us operating. See:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/

The more we can do, the more cases of aggressive pushing of formula we can stop (by Nestlé and other companies) and the more laws we can bring in and defend (there are over 70 countries now with laws). The more people support the boycott, the more Nestlé has to spend trying to counter it, which tips the balance towards it actually making the changes required to bring its practices into line with the marketing requirements adopted by the World Health Assembly. Join those sending messages to Nestlé about its 'protect' logos and eventually it will drop them as it has with many of the other strategies we have exposed. See:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemjuly09.html

So if you can, please click here. We don't need the millions Nestlé spends to have an impact. Membership starts at just £7 and every member makes a big difference.

Nestlé plans offensive in cyberspace to 'counter criticism'

2010-02-06T14:07:00.026Z

Nestle has an abysmal image. According to PR Week: "Nestle received a 'positivity' score in social media of just 12 out of 100 in an audit by Yomego Social Media Reputation." Is it responding by agreeing to our four-point plan for ending the boycott over its baby food marketing? No. It's hiring more PR experts.

See PR Week (3 February 2010): Nestle Briefs Agencies For Online Charm Offensive To Counter Criticism.

---extracts

Nestle is embarking on an emergency online PR campaign to restore its reputation amid sustained criticism on the internet.

The world's largest foods company is ramping up its efforts to monitor online opinion, including looking for an agency to handle its worldwide 'buzz' monitoring.

The action comes as Nestle continues to encounter vociferous online opposition on a range of issues, from traditional concerns about its formula milk, to newer attacks on its digital marketing efforts.

[...]

Nestle received a 'positivity' score in social media of just 12 out of 100 in an audit by Yomego Social Media Reputation. Kraft scored 32.

The research firm analysed Nestle over three months. The low score is driven by anti-Nestle sentiment on blogs and Twitter.

Nestle's social media 'noise' level scored a relatively high 68. Rival Coca-Cola has a 'noise' score of 92.

---extracts end

Nestlé is one of the world's most boycotted companies according to its Global Public Affairs Manager Dr. Gayle Crozier Willi. It has been embarrassed to find information about its human rights abuses and other concerns divulged and talked about on the internet.

The internet advertising company ad.ly claimed last month that Nestlé is amongst the companies paying celebrities US$10,000 a time to post positive tweets on Twitter, according to Gossip.net. See:

http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2010/01/nestle-celebrity-tweets.html

In 2008 Nestlé attempted to hi-jack the Nestlé Critics site just days before its launch with a legal action claiming ownership of the domain name. The launch went ahead with a different domain name, but the original, which had already been publicised, was retained for 6 months so people had the opportunity to update their bookmarks. It was not handed over to Nestlé on the grounds it might attempt to undermine the launch by posting bogus information on the domain - not so paranoid when you consider that Nestlé has been exposed for employing a former MI6 officer to run a spying operation infiltrating Swiss campaign groups.

http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/09/nestle-hi-jack-attempt.html

Nestlé subsequently launched a 500-page legal action for the domain name. As it had not bothered to answer our letter regarding decision to use a different domain name for the launch, this was seen as an attempt at harassment. It was also a waste of shareholder money as we had no need of the domain name after the successful launch of the new address.

The Nestlé Critics site serves as a portal for various campaigns on Nestlé malpractice:

http://www.nestlecritics.org/

The groups involved in the Nestlé Critics site have filed cases with the UN Global Compact calling for Nestlé to be excluded from this voluntary corporate social responsibility initiative for egregious violations and bringing it into disrepute. A exposé of Nestlé is one of the most popular downloads on our site. The case is ongoing. See:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press17june09.html

Nestlé has arranged in the past for misinformation on its activities to be placed in the media by inviting journalists on all-expenses-paid trips to its head office in Switzerland. In 2008 it recruited Dr. Miriam Stoppard, a well-known media doctor, to make the invitation. See:

http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/02/nestle-panic-miriam-stoppard.html

Then last year, Nestlé tried to influence parenting bloggers in the US by flying 20 of them to a 5-star hotel in California and setting up a tweet channel on Twitter for them to relate their experiences. This became a fully-fledged PR disaster for the company as people raised questions on the tweet channel about Nestlé malpractice and some of the bloggers invited questions to put to Nestlé executives. Briefly Nestlé appeared on the channel to try to take control, but left after an hour. Baby Milk Action had become aware of the event through traffic to our sites and offered to take part in a tweet debate with Nestlé, which was ignored.

Nestlé did respond to a blogger who had written an open letter to the attendees calling on them to reconsider, but the responses were so transparently dishonest that they added to the anger in cyberspace and led to a spontaneous Halloween boycott in the US, boosting International Nestlé-Free Week, which Baby Milk Action promotes at that time.

http://www.phdinparenting.com/2009/10/03/follow-up-questions-for-nestle/

Nestlé's PR disaster fuelled many blogs and entered the mainstream media with, for example, an article in the LA Times:

http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2009/11/latimes-nestle-twitter-disaster.html

There are already tools for corporations to check their reputations in cyberspace and we find some are used to track our sites. See:

http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2009/10/corporate-trolls-and-spies.html

Nestlé's move comes as it also attempts to improve its image by certifying 4-bar KitKat chocolate in the UK as Fairtrade, providing another focus for exposing Nestlé malpractice. Only 1% of Nestlé's cocoa purchase is involved and it is criticised for failing to deliver on a promise to end child slavery in its cocoa supply chain by 2006.

The addition of the Fairtrade mark to KitKat may bring Nestlé some good publicity, but it has also apparently damaged the credibility of the Fairtrade mark:

http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2009/12/nestle-damages-fairtrade-mark.html

Whoever wins Nestlé's PR contract will have a lot to do. Please let us know if you see signs of their activity.