The Politics of Breastfeeding - pre-order for October

The Politics of Breastfeeding is a book that has motivated many people to campaign to stop baby food companies aggressively marketing their products. It is an interesting and entertaining look at the history of breastfeeding and the culture that provides or denies support to mothers.

It was written by Gabrielle Palmer, a founder member of Baby Milk Action back in the days when it was set up by health and development groups and known as the Baby Milk Action Coalition. Gay, who qualified as a nutritionist and has worked for UNICEF, remains very active in working to protect infant health and mothers' rights, as a trainer, author and very popular speaker.

The great news is that The Politics of Breastfeeding has been updated and will be available in October.


We are taking pre-orders in our on-line Virtual Shop. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/publications02.html#politics

To help Baby Milk Action, Gay has agreed to sign a limited number of copies. We are offering these on a first come, first served basis for people who add a donation of at least £10 to their order to go towards our work.

When you read the book you will likely be angry at the way companies have and continue to put their own profits before health and the poor response to this from many governments. Campaigners have achieved a great deal to stop aggressive marketing practices and we can do more with your help, both financial and spreading the word. So please do order a copy of this book and, if you can, make a donation.

Brazilian breastfeeding conference and 1,600 mothers breastfeeding

I wrote yesterday about sponsorship of events on infant care and the need to be wary of conflicts of interest.

Baby Milk Action accepts no funding from commercial organisations. The International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), to which we belong, has a policy members sign up to of accepting no funding from organisations with a commercial interest in how infants are fed, covering formula and bottle and teat companies as well as pump companies (that is pumps for expressing breastmilk). Pump companies are sometimes bottle companies as well, but even if not and even if code compliant, they have a commercial interest in how infants are fed. IBFAN wants no financial motives ascribed to its work to protect and promote breastfeeding. Our concern is infant health.

Pump companies are also controversial as their presence as a sponsor or exhibitor implies endorsement of pumps, whereas there are many breastfeeding counsellors who prefer to promote hand expression.

Last month I attended the Brazilian National Breastfeeding Conference in Belém, Para, a state in the north of the country which covers part of the Amazon delta. The location was chosen by IBFAN Brazil to strengthen the work of the network there and other breastfeeding support activities. The conference included the First Amazonian Human Milk Bank Conference, with training sessions for staff from milk banks, for example.

There were many sponsors for the event. With it being IBFAN Brazil I didn't have to concern myself about who they might be. At other events I have been caught out, with the surprise presence of a company like Tommee Tippee, for example, which is particularly aggressive in promoting feeding bottles.

So who were the sponsors? Well, as with all sponsors they appear prominently on conferencce publicity, such as the backdrop here at the closing ceremony where I am doing my impression of someone who speaks Portuguese.

(Picture copyright protected - ENAM closing ceremony)

Main sponsors were the state government and health authority, with support from the federal government, UNICEF, educational and health establishments, professional associations (including the baby friendly fire workers - representative sitting in the middle), the non-profit small business development agency (SEBRAE) and the state oil company (Petrobras).

Exhibitors were a variety of health organisations, educational establishments and crafts people.

Participants had to pay and with 2,700 registering, much more than budgeted, it was announced that there was a positive balance to go to future events (the next national conference will be in São Paulo).

There was media coverage of the conference and the event that kicked it off. This was billed as 1,000 women breastfeeding on the banks of the Guajara River. On the day 1,600 mothers actually turned up.

(Picture copyright controlled - Dr. Sonia and Mike de Oliveira Brady)

Here is a report on a Brazilian website with a picture.

(If you are interested in some pictures and thoughts on my day trip into the Amazon delta, take a look at my personal blog).

World Breastfeeding Week 2008

Here's a message I've just received about World Breastfeeding Week and a way you can draw attention to any event you are planning.

---
Announcing the World Breastfeeding Week (WBW) 2008 Virtual Torch Run

WABA is pleased to announce the launch of the WBW 2008 Virtual Torch Run.

A virtual torch will be lighted up on the world map for every pledge that WABA receives for a WBW activity planned all around the world.

The WBW 2008 Virtual Torch Run is taking place now on the WBW website www.worldbreastfeedingweek.org.

All you need to do is to complete the pledge form attached and submit it to WABA and a virtual torch will be lighted up for you.

Please forward this news to as many people as you know and let us all participate in this virtual torch run for breastfeeding.

WBW 2008 Mother Support : Going for the Gold

Let the celebrations begin!!!!

Best wishes,

Julianna Lim Abdullah
International WBW Coordinator
WABA

P.S. Whilst WBW is officially celebrated from 1-8 August annually, there are many countries which celebrate during the months of October and November. To take part in the WBW Virtual Torch Run, all that matters is that you are celebrating WBW in the year of 2008.

World Environment Day: Infant feeding and climate change

Today is World Environment Day.

Colleagues in the Malta Breastfeeding Foundation have producted a power point show on infant feeding and the environment. You can download it (about 1 MByte) by clicking:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/pdf/mbfwed08.pps

It looks at the resources used to produce formula compared to breastfeeding. Though it contains some figures on methane production from dairy cows, the rest of the production chain has not yet been quantified. Baby Milk Action has been trying to raise money to do this. We suggested in the Baby Feeding Law Group report submitted to the UK government consultation on its formula marketing regulations that it try to calculate the environmental benefit and cost savings of its proposed weak regulations in comparison with implementing the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant World Health Assembly Resolutions (we were able to provide in our submission information on health benefits and associated savings from those). The government did not do so.

Brazil's implementation of the Code and Resolutions and promotion and support of breastfeeding has seen the median breastfeeding duration increase from less than 3 months to 10 months. That is a significant amount of formula and bottled not produced and transported and feeds made up. If other countries followed Brazil's example, the impact may be significant. We would like to commission someone to do the calculations. If you are interesed in helping to fund this or have the expertise, please let me know.

I would also be interested in feedback on the power point show. It is addressed to mothers, rather than policy makers. What do you think of this approach?

Reality check at the Brazilian National Breastfeeding Conference

Today I am due to speak at Brazil's National Breastfeeding Conference about breastfeeding and corporations. As you can imagine I will be talking about the importance of the baby food marketing regulations adopted by the World Health Assembly, the results of monitoring that show these are being systematically broken where there are not enforced regulations and what we can do to change the situation.

I find these meetings refreshing, depressing, challenging and energising.

Refreshing because I have to spend far too much of my time trying to convince people there is a problem of aggressive baby food marketing that needs to be addressed, rather than mobilizing those who are already convinced. With companies such as Nestlé denying any wrong doing and using a wide range of strategies to persuade people it can sometimes be difficult. I call Nestlé strategy 'mid-point bias'. It relies on people thinking the truth must lie somewhere between its position and that of health advocates, such as Baby Milk Action. Nestlé has no qualms about being outright dishonest about its activities, whereas we stick to the truth (and if we couldn't stand by what we say about Nestlé then we would have been sued into bankruptcy long ago). So Nestlé moves the mod-point away from the reality. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2006/10/mid-point-bias.html

So the refreshing aspect of these meetings is I am with people who are familiar with what Nestlé and the other companies are doing, because it is part of their daily reality. Our focus is what needs to be done.

The opening address last night from Jean Pierre Allain was recalling the efforts that were made to implement the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes in Brazil - he was an advisor to the process. The industry tried to weaken the regulations, with Nestlé taking the lead and trying to undermine these, including through its financial support to the Paediatric Association. The regulations did come into force 20 years ago, though not as strongly as health advocates wanted. It has taken two revisions to make them as strong as they are today.

The Brazilian campaign is particularly strong, with members of the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) coordinating training and monitoring activities across the country. IBFAN Brazil organises the National Breastfeeding Conference every two years and attracts typically over 1,000 participants and a strong programme of national and international experts. I feel very priviliged to be one of them.

I have written previously about how strong the regulations are here. The type of aggressive marketing we see in many other countries does not happen in Brazil. Here concerns are about warning labels on whole milks. We helped with a campaign last year as the industry tried to weaken the wording of the 'Ministry of Health Warning' on labels of whole milk, saying it should not be used for infant feeding. This has been changed to say 'Ministry of Health Information'. Viewed against strategies such as Nestlé's advertising of formula on the shelves in supermarkets in South Africa and it claims on labels that formula provides 'protection', this concern may seem much less serious.

But speaking to a Brazilian colleague, I realised once again why it is such a concern here. And this is where it gets depressing. The concern in many parts of Brazil, particularly the poorer parts, is not that parents are using formula rather than breastfeeding, because many cannot afford formula. It is that they are using unsuitable products such as whole milks and, mentioned time and time again, Nestlé Ninho powdered milk in particular, which is promoted for feeding young children with all sorts of claims of the benefits it will bring.

We have a campaign trying to stop Nestlé promoting Ninho in the infant feeding sections of pharmacies and supermarkets. Nestlé's response is that whole milk is not infant formula so there are not breaking any rules by promoting it in this way! Ninho is typically a third of the price of the infant formula on the shelf next to it and research has shown that in poor communities mothers who bottle feed are more likely to use milks like this than formula. Here is a picture I took in a pharmacy a few years ago, which is on our site at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/yqsanswered/yqanestle03.html


These practices continue and people here have to deal with the consequences.

They also want help in stopping them.

I am here in part to talk about the Nestlé boycott because it is seen by Brazilian campaigners as a particularly powerful support for their work in defence of infant health. The fact that Nestlé is one of the most boycotted companies on the planet makes it a little easier to counter its well-resourced lobbying.

I'll be showing the newspaper cutting of the action being taken on the Scottish Parliament mentioned here last week. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/05/express-boycott-article.html

That solidarity makes a real difference to people, as do the letter writing campaigns, exposés and everything else we, and you, do.

Which I find very energising.

Brazil is a success story in that breastfeeding rates have increased markedly over the past 20 years thanks to the marketing regulations and parallel efforts to promote and support breastfeeding. The median breastfeeding duration has gone from 3 months to 10 months.

It hasn't been easy and there are still challenges. There is a new attack on the baby food marketing regulations I am hearing about and to which we have to respond. I know now I'll have the energy to do it!

European Union may act over corporate lobbying

Today PR Week is reporting of possible action by the European Union for greater transparency on businesses lobbying it.

Baby Milk Action is given some of the credit for this. See:
http://www.prweek.com/uk/home/article/809247/FRONT-PAGE-Brussels-decision-lobbying-month/

---extract

The move follows intensive campaigning by health interest group Baby Milk Action, which alleges that food giant Nestlé has taken advantage of unclear lobbying and marketing codes to ‘sweet talk policy makers'.

‘Governments are too heavily influenced by Nestlé,' said Baby Milk Action policy director Patti Rundall.

In the UK, Nestlé is acc­used of targeting the Government with ‘sponsorship and free trips', to promote its powdered baby milk formula. Nestlé denied this. A spokeswoman said: ‘We are totally committed to the protection and promotion of breastfeeding.'

However, Nestlé was this week discovered to have paid for a trip to South Africa by Labour MP Rosie Cooper.
---

That discovery was reported by the Independent on Sunday, as I mentioned yesterday. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/05/nestle-uk-government.html

It remains to be seen whether the European Union will introduce measures such as logging the contacts they have with business lobbyists.

A watchdog campaigning organisation, called Corporate European Observatory (CEO), tracks the influence of companies such as Nestlé on policy makers at the EU. See:
http://www.corporateeurope.org/

Bill Gates nutrition initiative draws criticism from Indian health campaigners

I wrote yesterday about concerns in India that funds allocated for improving childhood nutrition are being spent on processed foods. At the same time people have been protesting about the activities of a nutrition programme backed by Microsoft billionaire, Bill Gates. This is new on the IBFAN website.


People call Upon GAIN to leave India and Government of India to regulate PPPs

A joint action group constituted by 33 persons including individual experts, pediatricians, public health experts, representatives from 19 national organisations working in public interest in health, development, gender, education and nutrition sector made strong voice and protest to GAIN for sparing India from the hands of multinational consumer and food companies to which GAIN is a promising market builder.

The group staged a silent protest using placards at the site of GAIN initiated meeting to call for an India Alliance for Infant and young child nutrition (IYCN) on 15^th April in Delhi.

The group submitted a pretest note to the GAIN representative in India and also interacted with the participants who were invited at the meeting and offered to answer any questions if they have while using their right to protest in the interest of people of India reeling with poverty, lack of food and lack of support to women who nurture the future of India.

Two members of the protest group also participated in the meeting and raised the points of ‘conflicts of interest’ while entering into any partnership.

Participants met immediately after the meeting and decided to work together for future action on these issues.

Contact for more information:
Dr Arun Gupta 9911176306
arun@ibfanasia.org
Vandana Prasad 9891552425
Mira Shiva 9810582028

Click here for media coverage.

IBFAN critical of Indian child nutrition scheme providing processed food

An article in Thaindian news yesterday highlights concerns of health advocates, including our colleagues in the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN).

The government allocates funds for food for children attending day care centres under the Integrated Child Development Service, but the small amount of money is being used to buy processed food rather than local food in some states in a link with private business.

"With such a low allocation, packaged food cannot provide required nutrition. We should go for hot cooked food from available local products,” said Arun Gupta, a member of the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), the report states. See:
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/health/give-cooked-meals-not-packaged-food-at-anganwadis-experts_10040863.html

Some other states are using locally sourced food.

When in Brazil a couple of years ago, I investigated the school food programme there, which is held up as a model for the world. Locally sourced food is provided to a menu developed by a nutritionist. Expenditure and performance is overseen by elected councils, which include representatives of parents. Any journalists interested in further information are welcome to contact me.

I will say more about the attempts to use nutrition schemes to promote processed foods in future. Sometimes they are used as an attempt to industrialize the whole feeding process, so undermining breastfeeding.

Help South Africa to stop Nestlé and others pushing formula

The South African Department of Health is consulting on new regulations for the marketing of baby foods.

The are implementing the marketing standards adopted by the World Health Assembly since 1981. Companies are called on to abide by these independently of government measures, but they don't, as the recent blogs on Nestlé's infant formula advertising and labeling shows.

It is our recurring experience that governments come under pressure from industry to weaken legislation. So please do spend a couple of minutes sending a message of support. All you need to do is give your name and email, modify our suggested message as you see fit and click the button. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemapril08.html

Be a part of the action. A similar campaign helped to neutralise industry pressure on the Philippines government and Supreme Court last year. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/update/update40b.html#philippines

Our campaign sheet also has an action on the new UK law.

Lancet article on protecting infant health in the Philippines

The new issue of the Lancet has an article about the struggle to protect infants and mothers from the aggressive marketing practices and lobbying pressure of the baby food industry.

It is written by Rene R Raya, Action for Economic Reforms, which describes itself as "an independent policy research and advocacy group. In the past 5 years, Action for Economic Reforms received grants from: Christian Aid, Oxfam, WHO, Frederich Ebert Stiftung, and the EU."

The article begins:

---extract begins
Scientists and policy makers have declared, urged, and exhorted countries to exert every effort to increase breastfeeding rates. 25 years of scientific evidence have accrued since the signing of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes in 1981, as illustrated by the Lancet Child Survival series in 2003 and many declarations, agreements, and resolutions adopted at World Health Assemblies and WHO/UNICEF meetings. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has warned that powdered infant-formula is not a sterile product.

In the Philippines, breastfeeding advocates welcomed the long-awaited ruling of the Supreme Court, which lifted on Oct 9, 2007, and with few changes, the temporary restraining order on the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (RIRR) of the Milk Code (1986). While the ruling did not support a total ban on advertising of breastmilk substitutes, it affirmed most of the provisions of the RIRR, including the right of the Department of Health to regulate and decide on: advertising materials; expansion of the coverage of the Milk Code to infants beyond 12 months; new labelling requirements stating that infant-formula may contain patho genic microorganisms and other health warnings; and prohibition of all health and nutrition claims for products within the scope of the Milk Code.
---extract ends

Here's the summary of industry pressure against the regulations as in the Lancet:

---extract begins
The ruling concluded nearly 3 years of legal battle that started with the strengthening of the implementation of the Milk Code in response to the rapid decline of breastfeeding. In the last quarter of 2004, the Department of Health crafted a national plan and updated the RIRR to align it with international standards. This effort met opposition from the industry, which mounted pressure against the Secretary of Health and his undersecretaries through meetings. The industry warned the US Embassy in Manila and the US regional trade attaché that the RIRR would negatively affect trade. The International Infant Formula Council wrote to UNICEF to complain about UNICEF activities in the Philippines that promoted breastfeeding. Industry representatives prompted congressional hearings and extracted the RIRR from the Committee on Health to the Committee on Trade. They wrote letters to Congress and the President of the Republic.
---extract ends

Your messages of solidarity with the Philippines showed the world was watching and helped to put the issue on the front pages in the Philippines and into the media around the world.

For my reminder of what it took to defend the regulations see my blog:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippines-saving-lives.html

Eventually the Supreme Court ruled in favour of protecting health over commercial interests, stating: "The framers of the constitution were well aware that trade must be subjected to some form of regulation for the public good. Public interest must be upheld over business interests".

You can access the Lancet article at:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS014067360860358X/fulltext

You will have to take out a free registration to access it.

Now the regulations need to be enforced. An independent committee is tasked with authorising all materials before they are used.

They are regulating a well-resourced sector. According to the Lancet article: "Nearly $100 million is spent annually on the advertising of breastmilk substitutes, which is about half the annual budget for the Department of Health."

Nestle launches 'shared value' report as malpractice is exposed.

This is the latest email alert (sent out using the Mass Mailer I wrote about yesterday):

On Monday Nestlé launched its 'shared value' report boasting of its "positive impact on millions of people across the world." Our press release about this is included below: "Campaigners criticise Nestlé shared value report as PR whitewash to divert attention from malpractice."

[Not included here - see it on our website:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press4march08.html]

The report includes claims that Nestlé markets baby milk responsibly. It comes as we launch our March Campaign for Ethical Marketing action sheet, exposing Nestlé's systematic violation of international marketing standards around the world as well as the weaker Nestlé Instructions the company promotes as its policy. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemmarch08.html

For example, Nestlé claims not to advertise or promote infant formula, yet partners in South Africa have asked us to help stop Nestlé promoting its 'new improved' formula in supermarkets. You can view Nestle's shelf talkers on the site. We are asking people to send a message to Nestlé new Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Paul Bulcke, who is due to take over from Mr. Brabeck in April (Mr. Brabeck will continue as Chairman).

Mr. Brabeck rejected the four-point plan put to him to save infant lives and ultimately end the boycott. It remains to be seen if Mr. Bulcke will change policy.

Elsewhere, Danone, which recently took over NUMICO (owners of Nutricia, Milupa and Cow & Gate) making it a global player, has announced a root-and-branch review of business practices. You can send a message to Danone welcoming this and asking it to commit to bringing its policies and practices into line with the marketing standards. We have put a similar four-point plan to Danone as that rejected by Nestlé and hope it will act on it, as a US feeding bottle and teat company is doing to become 'Code compliant'.

Mr. Brabeck is now on tour with his report. Let me know of any events so we can alert people to raise concerns about Nestlé practices at the meetings and with leaflets outside. You can download our ten facts leaflet and other resources at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/downloads.html

Contact us if you are in the UK and would like leaflets. There is a forthcoming event organised by Nestlé and the London Business School on 10 March: "Where next for corporate responsibility: Can business make a meaningful impact?" It is taking place at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in London (near Baker Street tube) beginning at 10:15. Contact me if you are interested in coming along.

If you do leaflet at any events, please do follow our leafleting guidelines. Do not cause an obstruction. Move if asked to leave private property (you have a right to be on public property). Offer leaflets, but do not force them on people. If there is to be a big group staging a demonstration, it is a good idea to inform the police beforehand. Please keep us informed of any action you do take and let us know if you need any help.

The link for the action sheet once again is:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemmarch08.html

To sign up for alerts, go to:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/pages/contact.html#contactform

Cut throat competition building a US$20 billion baby food market

There is a new report out analysing the global baby food industry from the financial point of view.

There are extracts on this website:
http://www.emediawire.com/releases/baby_foods_meals/infant_formula/prweb735554.htm

---extract begins
It states: "Global baby foods and infant formula market is projected to witness steady growth through the forecast period and reach US$20.2 billion in sales by 2010. Although US and Europe are the leading markets for baby foods and infant formula products, these developed regions offer little opportunities for growth due to the declining birth rates, static market conditions, and consolidation. As a result, manufacturers are moving towards the more lucrative and populous markets in Asia-Pacific, and are currently focusing their efforts on India and China."

[...]

Companies engaged in production of baby foods face cut throat competition, particularly on the innovation platform. Each company is focused on gaining a competitive edge over rivals by introducing new products into the markets from time to time. Major companies operating in the global market for baby foods and infant formula include Nestle, Numico, Abbott Laboratories, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Gerber, Heinz, Danone, and Hipp. Nestle, Danone, Heinz and Royal Numico. Among these, Nestle is a dominant player with global presence.

Europe represents the leading regional market for baby foods and infant formula products for 2007, capturing more than 30% share of the global sales, as stated by Global Industry Analysts, Inc. However, the large population base in developing regions, particularly India, China and Brazil, is expected to facilitate in shifting the focus of manufacturers to these regions. As a result, Asia-Pacific is projected to emerge as the fastest growing regional market over the 2001-2010 period, driven primarily by the exceptional sales in the Chinese market. Europe would continue to retain its position as the leading baby meals market by 2010, with sales projected to reach US$2.1 billion.

---extract ends

The cut throat competition between companies to grow their market share, results in the type of aggressive marketing practices exposed in the monitoring report produced by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) called Breaking the Rules, Stretching the Rules.

Nestlé comes in for special mention here too, for being the worst of the baby food companies.

We have also seen the efforts of NUMICO, now owned by Danone, to compete with Nestlé in the asian markets has led to more violations coming from its group of companies.

While the portrayal of artificial feeding as modern and helping to develop intelligence is only part of the story, it is no doubt contributing to the declining breastfeeding rates seen in China. For a recent blog on China see:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/08/code-china-australia.html

If you want to see the full financial analysis report you can order it here:
http://www.strategyr.com/Baby_Foods_and_Infant_Formula_Market_Report.asp

It costs US$4450 so I'm not sure we'll get to see a full copy.

The IBFAN report is much more reasonably priced. You can order it here:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/publications01.html#btr07

It costs £25 for non-profit use (not including investment planning) and £75 for profit use.

Some clarity on what is and what is not on our boycott list

Oh dear. I understand someone has linked to a past post of mine about who owns Lansinoh, incorrectly claiming we are calling for a boycott of this nipple cream because it is owned by a feeding bottle company that violates the World Health Assembly marketing requirements for these products.

I don't know how these things happen. The blog is about conflicts of interest in sponsorship of health workers and materials and suggests there needs to thought about the appropriateness of accepting funding from a company that violates the marketing requirements. You can read the blog here:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/10/lansinoh-pigeon.html

How that was read as a call for mothers who use nipple cream to stop doing so is a mystery. If you can shed any light, please let me know.

There is not even a boycott call on Pigeon, the owner of Lansinoh. Its malpractice is targeted by other means, such as the exposé on that earlier blog.

Nestlé is singled out for boycott action because it is the worst of the companies when it comes to violating the marketing requirements for baby foods.

But note well, the boycott does not target Nestlé formula, it targets other Nestlé products. In the UK, the primary focus is on Nescafé coffee, though we list all the products from which Nestlé profits - except the formula so boycott supporters can avoid them all if they wish.

The boycott, and all our work holding baby food companies to account, aims to compel companies to abide by the internationally-agreed marketing standards. We have a lot of success in achieving this. The marketing requirements exist to protect breastfeeding AND to ensure breastmilk substitutes are used safely if necessary.

So if the boycott is an effective campaigning strategy and is helping to save lives, why don't we include Nestlé formula on the boycott list? Because there may be times when Nestlé formula is all that is available for a child that has to be fed on formula and our primary concern is the well-being of children.

However much Nestlé tries to give a different impression, we are not calling for formula to be banned or boycotted, just for it to be marketed appropriately, which means in line with international standards.

Consolidation in the baby food industry

The baby food industry is consolidating, creating every more powerful companies.

Last year Nestlé took over Gerber baby foods. Danone took over NUMICO (makers of Nutricia, Milupa and Cow & Gate brands).

Now Mead Johnson is being put up for sale by Bristol Myers Squibb and Nestlé and Danone are rumoured to be in the market for it. See this report in the Financial Times.

More on this later.

That's it for 2007

There will be a break with the blog until early in the new year.

There has been a lot going on during 2007. Two highlights for me are the contrasting fortunes of mothers and babies in the Philippines and in the UK.

In the Philippines campaigners supported the Department of Health in facing down the power of the baby food companies and the US Chamber of Commerce. In October we welcomed significant new controls on the marketing of baby foods following a ruling of the Supreme Court, which lifted a restraining order on Department of Health regulations.

There is a report rounding up some of the actions taking place around the world in our Update 40 newsletter. You can download this at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/update/update40.html

Meanwhile in the UK the government received unanimous support from health professional bodies, mother support groups and other health advocates for stronger measures here. The Baby Feeding Law Group report Protecting breastfeeding - Protecting babies fed on formula called for implementation of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant Resolutions, which the government claims to support and which many other countries have already introduced in legislation.

In the UK, however, the government has followed the industry line of introducing only minimal changes to the legislation. It has not even introduced the measures called for by its own advisors, the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition and LACORS (the umbrella body for Trading Standards officers who will have to try to enforce the regulations).

It was a disappointing end to the year, particularly as 2007 began with us welcoming a crackdown by UK authorities on illegal health claims on labels. After 12 years of campaigning, since the 1995 regulations were introduced, our monitoring evidence had finally been heeded and companies were called on to change their labels.

Unfortunately there has been no visible follow through on the crackdown as new labels have been introduced that continue to use health claims not on the list permitted by the law. As a result the latest IBFAN (International Baby Food Action Network) report, Breaking the Rules, Stretching the Rules 2007, shows the UK in a very poor light, as an apparent test bed for new idealizing marketing strategies.

In 2008 we will continue to campaign for stronger regulations in the UK and no doubt will have to work to defend and encourage enforcement of the regulations in the Philippines and other countries.

The Breaking the Rules report shows that while companies develop their tactics, the strategy remains the same: undermining breastfeeding to increase sales of formula and misadvising parents who do use formula as companies do not want to be honest about the risks and how to reduce them lest they put people off their products.

Nestlé is shown to continue widespread and systematic violations of the marketing requirements using strategies that it is defending publicly, demonstrating continued pressure from the boycott is essential as it can cause the market leader to back down.

In a significant development, Nestlé's Global Public Affairs Manager admitted that Nestlé is 'widely boycotted'. Beforehand Nestlé's Chief Executive Officer, Peter Brabeck-Letmathé, had dismissed the findings of independent surveys to claim the boycott had little support. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press6july07.html

Nestlé sets trends others follow. NUMICO is trying to compete with Nestlé, particularly in Asian markets, and we have seen an increase in violations from it, to the point where it is rivalling Nestlé. With the takeove of NUMICO by Danone, IBFAN will put a similar plan to it as that already put to Nestlé: accept the validity of the marketing requirements and bring policies and practices into line or face consumer action.

So we can expect 2008 to be as busy as 2007. Some things will have got better in some parts of the world. In some places things are worse. One thing is certain, without this campaign and your support many more babies would suffer needless suffering and even death than is currently the case.

Have a good break if you are getting one and see you next year!

Politicians listening in Gambia

While health workers and campaigners in the UK are trying to get the Secretary for State for Health to take notice of recommendations for protecting breastfeeding and protecting babies on formula, news from The Gambia suggests our colleagues are treated very differently.

Yesterday I reported how the Minister responsible for the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations in the UK, Alan Johnson MP, had totally missed the point in a webchat when he was questioned on why the proposed revision to the regulations do not bring them into line with international standards adopted by the World Health Assmbly and introduced in many other countries. Mr Johnson said there had been a consultation on strengthening the regulations and these would be presented to Parliament shortly. It is these very bad proposals he was being asked about. Even his own advisors have recommended stronger action.

So to the Gambia where I have just seen a news report about the National Nutrition Agency working with our partners in the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) to brief parliamentarians on the importance of the marketing requirements and programmes to support parents. In The Gambia exclusive breastfeeding rates have increased markedly between 1990 and 2007 according to the permanent secretary of the Vice-President's office. See:
http://www.thepoint.gm/National%20Stories1492.htm

Let us hope the UK will learn from the practices and experiences of The Gambia in this area.

Spotlight on rule breakers in Indonesia on Al Jazeera

Here is a recent news report that has just come to my attention, from Al Jazeera about the aggressive marketing of baby formula, with a focus on Indonesia.

This includes an Indonesian-specific version of the Breaking the Rules monitoring report. There is also special mention of how the first Nestlé boycott that ran till 1984 brought in international marketing standards for breastmilk substitutes. The boycott was relaunched as Nestlé did not keep its promise to abide by these measures.



You can find more on the global report, Breaking the Rules, Stretching the Rules 2007, at:
http://www.ibfan.org/site2005/Pages/article.php?art_id=525&iui=1

Here's an example from the Nestlé profile.

Other examples include promotions on formula to retailers, hosital sign boards sponsored by Nestlé and idealizing cereal promotion (included in the Stretching the Rules section).

There are profiles on most of the other companies mentioned in the Al Jazeera report as well.

Nestlé has already come out fighting in response to the Breaking the Rules report, over the example of it branding babies in China I mentioned last week. It has indicated it will continue the practice. More on that shortly.

Global report shames UK for lack of follow through on health claims crackdown

Now to the UK's shameful performance. I wrote yesterday about the new monitoring report from the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) which shows that Nesté continues widespread, systematic violations of the World Health Assembly marketing requirements for baby foods. Though the boycott has been instrumental in closing down some practices, such as promoting complementary foods from too early an age in many countries, new strategies have emerged, particularly the medicalisation of infant feeding and promotion of formula with idealizing health claims.

The good news is that some countries are taking action. The Philippines, thanks to an international campaign of support, is prohibiting health claims such as Nestlé's 'brain building blocks' boast about ingredients in its Nestogen infant formula.

Earlier this year the UK was applauded around the world for cracking down on health claims on labels of infant formula in the UK. There was international publicity for the move by the Food Standards Agency to finally enforce the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations 1995 which only allow claims specified in the law to be used, if certain conditions are satisfied. We recognised the letters that the FSA sent to the companies reminding them of the law introduced 12 years before, as a significant advance. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press12march07.html

But as I have tracked on this blog and we have reported in our newsletter, companies may have changed labels as a result, but they continue to use claims that are not on the permitted list and are getting away with it.

The Breaking the Rules, Stretching the Rules 2007 report acknowledges the action by the UK authorities, but notes that the new labels produced by the likes of Wyeth/SMA and NUMICO (owner of Milupa and Cow & Gate) are, in some ways, worse. Indeed, the profile on Wyeth highlights the new SMA labels in the UK as particularly scandalous. See:
http://www.ibfan.org/site2005/Pages/article.php?art_id=510&iui=1

Click on the image for a larger version if you cannot read its message: "From bad to worse".

Now it may well be that action will be taken over this label by the enforcement authorities. We have certainly complained vociferously about the way Wyeth and other companies have demonstrated their contempt for the regulations. But the wheels turn slowly and 9 months on from the launch of these labels onto the market, no visible action has been taken. My view is the companies should be prosecuted.

It does not bode well for the proposed new regulations which the government is suggesting will be made to work through 'robust guidelines' if companies can show contempt for the existing legislation and get away with it.

The Baby Feeding Law Group report Protecting breastfeeding - Protecting babies fed on formula, submitted to the government consultation stressed that clear implementation of the World Health Assembly marketing requirements in binding legislation is needed, not narrower measures in guidelines. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/publications01.html#bflgsubmission

The UK was applauded at the beginning of the year for the crackdown on health claims. The lack of follow through has led to it being shamed in a global report that suggests companies have been permitted to go from bad to worse.

The world will continue to watch to see whether the government will rectify the situation by enforcing existing regulations and strenghtening them to close loopholes.

At the moment the signs do not look good. You can send a message to the Ministers responsible at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemnov07.html

Branded from birth - IBFAN's new monitoring report exposes baby milk marketing trends

Our partners at the International Code Documentation Centre (ICDC) have presented the new International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) monitoring report at a training event for policy makers in Asia.

IBFAN trains policy makers on implementing the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, releveant World Health Assembly Resolutions in legislation. Independently monitored and enforced regulations are necessary to ensure compliance as companies do not fulfill their obligation under Article 11.3 of the Code to abide by its provisions independently.

The new monitoring report, Breaking the Rules, Stretching the Rules 2007, shows the depths to which companies sink where there are no regulations. Nestlé is again leading the way in innovative strategies and, as market leader, sets trends others feel compelled to follow to compete. Here is an example highlighted in the Nestlé profile from China:

It says: "In some hospitals in China, babies are 'branded from birth' with identification tages bearing the Nestlé name and logo."

You may recall our campaign exposing a marketing strategy launched by Nestlé Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, Peter Brabeck-Letmathé, to target 'pregnant and lactating women' in China with 'nutrition corners' in supermarkets. Nestlé's anti-boycott team, led by Beverley Mirando in the UK, attempted to excuse the practice, arguing that only milks for older babies were on display. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEMresponses/CEMRdec05.html#1

These strategies for branding babies as Nestlé babies are to develop what Mr. Brabeck sees as a growth market. We will call on his designated successor, Mr. Paul Bulcke, to accept the four-point plan aimed at saving lives and ultimately ending the boycott, but the signs are not good as he drove growth of infant nutrition products in the Americas and has also cited China and India as the engines for growth in the company. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/09/new-boss-old-boss.html

The good news is that where there are strong regulations, these can be effective at stopping violations. In Brazil median breastfeeding rates have increased from less than 3 months to ten months thanks, in part, to strong regulations. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/09/uk-law-consultation.html

Other good news is that the boycott can force some policy shifts, and was instrumental in persuading Nestlé to change its policy on promoting complementary foods from too early an age - though this does still happen. This was a point I made in the press release issued by our partners. See:
http://www.ibfan.org/site2005/Pages/article.php?iui=1&art_id=525&articulo_id=942

The bad news is, Nestlé continues to systematically violate the Code and Resolutions where it can get away with it, as the report demonstrates.

The other bad news is that NUMICO - parent company of Nutricia, Milupa and Cow & Gate and recently bought by Danone - is trying to capture what it calls 'stomach share' - that is, get its formula into infants instead of that of competitors and breastmilk. This has seen a rise in violations to the point where it is rivalling the market leader, Nestlé.

Nestlé may attempt to give the false impression it has changed itself. This is not the case - rather it has driven the industry to new depths, particularly in Asia. IBFAN will be contacting Danone, the new owners of NUMICO to call on it to change the practices of these companies. The International Nestlé Boycott Committee will consider how to bring consumer pressure to bear on Danone/NUMICO if it does not respond.

We will also continue with the strategies we know achieve change and are ultimately saving lives: keeping Nestlé, the market leader, under pressure from the boycott and working for legislation that compels compliance by all companies with the marketing requirements.

You can read profiles of all the major companies and obtain full monitoring results at:
http://www.ibfan.org/site2005/Pages/article.php?art_id=510&iui=1

Baby Milk Action is arranging to stock printed copies of the report when this is available.

Danone to take over Nutricia, Milupa and Cow & Gate

Some household names are coming together and what it means for infant health and mother's rights is, as yet, unclear.

NUMICO, a Dutch company, owns formula brands Nutricia, Milupa and Cow & Gate. Hence the name.

It is being taken over by Danone, a French company. Known in the UK for its yoghurts. Known to infant health campaigners for violating the baby food marketing requirements in Europe and Francophone Africa in particular.

The deal is worth 12.3 billion euros according to Reuters. See:
http://www.reuters.com/article/mergersNews/idUSPAC00886920071031

According to a report on Forbes, the deal has been cleared by European Competition authorities subject to some divestment. See:
http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2007/10/31/afx4282270.html

"The commission said its decision is conditional upon the divestment of Numico's baby milk and baby drink business in France, Danone's baby meals, baby milk, baby snacks, and baby drink activities in Belgium, and Danone's baby meal and baby snacks activities in The Netherlands."

You can find profiles of the companies in the Breaking the Rules reports produced by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) at:
http://www.ibfan.org/site2005/Pages/article.php?art_id=298&iui=1

A survey in West Africa published in the British Medical Journal found Danone to be responsible for more labelling violations (21) than Nestlé (11) and concluded: "In west Africa manufacturers are violating the code of marketing of breast milk substitutes". See Monitoring compliance with the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes in west Africa: multisite cross sectional survey in Togo and Burkina Faso, BMJ 2003;326:127 at:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/326/7381/127?ijkey=wdTivVGidY5Bo

For past campaigns we have run targeting malpractice by all these companies see the 'codewatch' section of:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/

Globally Nestlé is responsible for more violations than any other company.