I gather Dr. Miriam Stoppard is contacting Heads of Midwifery at UK hospitals requesting information on breastfeeding rates.
I am contacting her for further information about this study and any possible links with Nestlé, which is currently trying to break into the mass UK formula market through forming closer links with health workers.
Earlier this year, Dr. Stoppard invited health journalists to visit Nestlé HQ in Switzerland on an all-expenses-paid trip. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/02/nestle-panic-miriam-stoppard.html
If you have been contacted and would like to be kept informed, please let me know.
Showing posts with label Nestle boycott. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nestle boycott. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Nestlé driving down standards in South Africa and the world
As you are likely to have seen from our May press release, after three attempts we finally received the South African Advertising Standards Authority ruling from Nestlé regarding its shelf talkers. Nestlé promoted its Nan infant formula with signs on the shelves highlighting the 'new' version of the product, which has logos on the labels (which were pictured) saying it 'protects'. In reality infants fed on the formula are more likely to become sick than breastfed children and, in conditions of poverty often encountered in South Africa, to die.
We ask Nestlé to substantiate its claim that the shelf talkers had been cleared as a search did not bring it up on the ASA website and neither Nestlé nor the ASA provided it to us when asked.
The ruling can be downloaded from our website and I have now had time to produce an analysis of Nestlé's response, which can be read at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEMresponses/CEMRapril08.html
While the ruling does indeed reject the complaint about the shelf talkers, it contradicts the position of the South African Department of Health, which says it is usually consulted on such issues and was not in this case.
You can read full details on the website, but one aspect that I want to highlight here is the fact that the complaint about Nestlé's promotion was brought by the Infant Feeding Association.
The Infant Feeding Association was formed at the end of 2003, when the South African government was last considering regulations for the marketing of baby foods. It argued that: "The legislation would infringe on the manufacturers' right to freedom of speech and mothers' rights to information". See:
http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=129&fArticleId=303940
The aim of the legislation and the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant Resolutions of the World Health Assembly from which it derives actually aims to protect breastfeeding and to ensure that formula is used safely when necessary. The aim is not to stop mothers receiving information, but stop misinformation.
Nestlé argued that its shelf talkers were providing information and the ASA agreed: "The material does not fall within any of the restrictions mentioned in Clause 1.3.2, nor does it contain anything which might be considered to be "sales phraseology". It simply shows pictures of the "OLD" and "NEW" packaging in a factual and informative manner. It isn't likely to induce sales to consumers, but is intended to inform existing customers that the product is now available in new packaging."
However, we support the Department of Health view that shelf talkers should not be permitted.
The shelf talkers are intended to draw attention to the formula. If Nestlé's concern was simply to make it clear the new formula was equivalent to the old, this could have been done on the label. The strategy was to suggest a 'new' formula, offering to 'protect' (a claim highlighted on the labels shown on the shelf talker), was on the market.
Nestlé stressed in a letter to Baby Milk Action that the complaint was brought by a competitor, not the Department of Health. But it is, in fact, more serious than that. The complaint was brought by the industry body as a whole.
The ruling states: "The complainant submitted, in essence, that the campaign goes beyond informing consumers of a change in packaging by drawing much attention to the brand. This contravenes both the World Health Organisation (WHO) Code and the Code of Advertising Practice, which [sic] practices used to induce sales directly to the consumer at retail level" [I presume it should read 'prohibits practices']
It is significant that both the baby food industry and the Department of Health are critical of Nestlé's promotion.
While we can perhaps take some comfort that some in the Infant Feeding Association are attempting to maintain standards, it is disappointing that the self-regulatory Advertising Standards Authority found for Nestlé as this threatens to drive down standards. If the industry body cannot stop Nestlé from what it views as a violation of the Code, then the worry is they will feel compelled to follow Nestlé's poor example. That is exactly what happened in the US when Nestlé broke a voluntary advertising ban.
The last global monitoring report revealed that the NUMICO companies (Nutricia, Milupa and Cow&Gate) - now owned by Danone - are becoming worse in their violations as they try to compete with Nestlé in Asia.
Nestlé, the largest company in the market, is the cruz of the problem. When we are able to stop Nestlé from driving down standards it can bring substantial benefits.
We ask Nestlé to substantiate its claim that the shelf talkers had been cleared as a search did not bring it up on the ASA website and neither Nestlé nor the ASA provided it to us when asked.
The ruling can be downloaded from our website and I have now had time to produce an analysis of Nestlé's response, which can be read at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEMresponses/CEMRapril08.html
While the ruling does indeed reject the complaint about the shelf talkers, it contradicts the position of the South African Department of Health, which says it is usually consulted on such issues and was not in this case.
You can read full details on the website, but one aspect that I want to highlight here is the fact that the complaint about Nestlé's promotion was brought by the Infant Feeding Association.
The Infant Feeding Association was formed at the end of 2003, when the South African government was last considering regulations for the marketing of baby foods. It argued that: "The legislation would infringe on the manufacturers' right to freedom of speech and mothers' rights to information". See:
http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=129&fArticleId=303940
The aim of the legislation and the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant Resolutions of the World Health Assembly from which it derives actually aims to protect breastfeeding and to ensure that formula is used safely when necessary. The aim is not to stop mothers receiving information, but stop misinformation.
Nestlé argued that its shelf talkers were providing information and the ASA agreed: "The material does not fall within any of the restrictions mentioned in Clause 1.3.2, nor does it contain anything which might be considered to be "sales phraseology". It simply shows pictures of the "OLD" and "NEW" packaging in a factual and informative manner. It isn't likely to induce sales to consumers, but is intended to inform existing customers that the product is now available in new packaging."
However, we support the Department of Health view that shelf talkers should not be permitted.
The shelf talkers are intended to draw attention to the formula. If Nestlé's concern was simply to make it clear the new formula was equivalent to the old, this could have been done on the label. The strategy was to suggest a 'new' formula, offering to 'protect' (a claim highlighted on the labels shown on the shelf talker), was on the market.
Nestlé stressed in a letter to Baby Milk Action that the complaint was brought by a competitor, not the Department of Health. But it is, in fact, more serious than that. The complaint was brought by the industry body as a whole.
The ruling states: "The complainant submitted, in essence, that the campaign goes beyond informing consumers of a change in packaging by drawing much attention to the brand. This contravenes both the World Health Organisation (WHO) Code and the Code of Advertising Practice, which [sic] practices used to induce sales directly to the consumer at retail level" [I presume it should read 'prohibits practices']
It is significant that both the baby food industry and the Department of Health are critical of Nestlé's promotion.
While we can perhaps take some comfort that some in the Infant Feeding Association are attempting to maintain standards, it is disappointing that the self-regulatory Advertising Standards Authority found for Nestlé as this threatens to drive down standards. If the industry body cannot stop Nestlé from what it views as a violation of the Code, then the worry is they will feel compelled to follow Nestlé's poor example. That is exactly what happened in the US when Nestlé broke a voluntary advertising ban.
The last global monitoring report revealed that the NUMICO companies (Nutricia, Milupa and Cow&Gate) - now owned by Danone - are becoming worse in their violations as they try to compete with Nestlé in Asia.
Nestlé, the largest company in the market, is the cruz of the problem. When we are able to stop Nestlé from driving down standards it can bring substantial benefits.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Books including information on Nestlé available from Baby Milk Action
Someone posted a comment on an earlier blog entry asking if there are any books about Nestlé.
We have a variety in our on-line Virtual Shop that deal with Nestlé specifically or in the broader context of the campaign.
Breaking the Rules, Stretching the Rules 2007 profiles Nestlé and the other main formula companies with examples of how they have been found to be pushing formula in breach of World Health Assembly marketing requirements. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/publications01.html#btr07
Fighting and old battle in a new world is a publication from 2005 tracing the history of the campaign and is written by someone who was there at the formation of the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), Annelies Allain. She went on to set up the International Code Documentation Centre, which coordinates IBFAN's global monitoring projects. It is available at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/publications01.html#oldandnew
The Politics of Breastfeeding is written by Gabrielle Palmer, who has also been involved in the campaign since the first boycott and was involved with Baby Milk Action at the beginning. This book has opened the eyes of many people and motivated them to take action. It is fully updated and orders are being taken. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/publications02.html#politics
Using international tools to stop corporate malpractice - does it work? is a 2004 publication that I edited. It includes cases studies from 5 countries where experts commissioned by IBFAN examined the history of infant feeding and efforts to stop baby food companies pushing formula and undermining breastfeeding. In some countries these efforts worked, in others not. In every case the industry was trying to undermine strong regulations. You can download the report, or purchase a printed copy at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/publications01.html#checks
Global Obligations for the Right to Food, edited by Professor George Kent, uses existing human rights commitments to argue that governments have a collective responsibility to deliver the right to food. I have contributed a chapter on holding corporations accountable, which takes Nestlé as its main cases study, not only with regard to baby food marketing, but other harmful aspects of its business, such as exploitation of water resources.
Each chapter makes recommendations for action by governments and others. I'm exploring some of the wider implications on my personal global justice blog.
The book is available to order at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/publications02.html#gorf
For other publications on infant feeding see:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/publications00.html
We have a variety in our on-line Virtual Shop that deal with Nestlé specifically or in the broader context of the campaign.
Breaking the Rules, Stretching the Rules 2007 profiles Nestlé and the other main formula companies with examples of how they have been found to be pushing formula in breach of World Health Assembly marketing requirements. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/publications01.html#btr07
Fighting and old battle in a new world is a publication from 2005 tracing the history of the campaign and is written by someone who was there at the formation of the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), Annelies Allain. She went on to set up the International Code Documentation Centre, which coordinates IBFAN's global monitoring projects. It is available at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/publications01.html#oldandnew
The Politics of Breastfeeding is written by Gabrielle Palmer, who has also been involved in the campaign since the first boycott and was involved with Baby Milk Action at the beginning. This book has opened the eyes of many people and motivated them to take action. It is fully updated and orders are being taken. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/publications02.html#politics
Using international tools to stop corporate malpractice - does it work? is a 2004 publication that I edited. It includes cases studies from 5 countries where experts commissioned by IBFAN examined the history of infant feeding and efforts to stop baby food companies pushing formula and undermining breastfeeding. In some countries these efforts worked, in others not. In every case the industry was trying to undermine strong regulations. You can download the report, or purchase a printed copy at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/publications01.html#checks
Global Obligations for the Right to Food, edited by Professor George Kent, uses existing human rights commitments to argue that governments have a collective responsibility to deliver the right to food. I have contributed a chapter on holding corporations accountable, which takes Nestlé as its main cases study, not only with regard to baby food marketing, but other harmful aspects of its business, such as exploitation of water resources.
Each chapter makes recommendations for action by governments and others. I'm exploring some of the wider implications on my personal global justice blog.
The book is available to order at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/publications02.html#gorf
For other publications on infant feeding see:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/publications00.html
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Nestlé sponsors Govnet Conference on obesity
I've written recently about sponsorship and conflicts of interest. An forthcoming example that several people have alerted us to is Nestlé apparently sponsoring a government conference. I say apparently because although the name of the organiser, Govnet, may give the impression it is official, it is not. There are to be government speakers at the event, however, including Sir Liam Donaldson, the government's Chief Medical Officer, and people from the Department of Health. Nestlé's 'Chief Medical Officer' is also a speaker.
The event goes under the title: "Health weight, Healthy lives". See:
http://www.govnet.co.uk/health/
Nestlé's profits are at serious risk if regulations are brought in regarding the marketing and composition of processed foods. That's not my opinion, its the opinion of UBS Warburg investment bank. In a report in 2002 the bank estimated that 46% of Nestlé income is from 'less healthy foods'.
Such concerns prompted then Chief Executive Officer, Peter Brabeck Letmathé, to embark on rebranding the company as a 'Fitness, Health and Wellness' company. Part of his strategy has been to advocate voluntary action by companies instead of regulation and to involve the company in as many PR opportunities where it sits alongside those charged with tackling the obesity epidemic as possible.
Hence it is a 'major sponsor' of this event by Govnet.
Last year it sponsored a fringe meeting at the Labour Party Conference on obesity. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/09/nestle-labour-party.html
Our concerns are not only about Nestlé's efforts to undermine regulations aimed at tackling obesity. Nestlé is attempting to break into the UK formula market at present. We exposed some of its recent tactics in our monitoring report for the Baby Feeding Law Group in May. At these meetings it is not only gaining access to those who are responsible for making decisions on regulation, it is paying the bill.
If health campaigners want to be present to raise concerns about Nestlé, they, by contrast, have to pay just to sit in the audience. Or alternatively they can gather outside with some leaflets and placards. Contact me if you are interested in coming along on Tuesday 8 July at the Queen Elizabeth Conference Centre, Westminster. Registration is from 8:40 to 9:20.
For details of how to get there see:
http://www.govnet.co.uk/health/getting_there.php
You can also try to influence the policy makers by completing the government's consultation on commercial promotion to children. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/07/children-advertising-uk.html
The event goes under the title: "Health weight, Healthy lives". See:
http://www.govnet.co.uk/health/
Nestlé's profits are at serious risk if regulations are brought in regarding the marketing and composition of processed foods. That's not my opinion, its the opinion of UBS Warburg investment bank. In a report in 2002 the bank estimated that 46% of Nestlé income is from 'less healthy foods'.
Such concerns prompted then Chief Executive Officer, Peter Brabeck Letmathé, to embark on rebranding the company as a 'Fitness, Health and Wellness' company. Part of his strategy has been to advocate voluntary action by companies instead of regulation and to involve the company in as many PR opportunities where it sits alongside those charged with tackling the obesity epidemic as possible.
Hence it is a 'major sponsor' of this event by Govnet.
Last year it sponsored a fringe meeting at the Labour Party Conference on obesity. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/09/nestle-labour-party.html
Our concerns are not only about Nestlé's efforts to undermine regulations aimed at tackling obesity. Nestlé is attempting to break into the UK formula market at present. We exposed some of its recent tactics in our monitoring report for the Baby Feeding Law Group in May. At these meetings it is not only gaining access to those who are responsible for making decisions on regulation, it is paying the bill.
If health campaigners want to be present to raise concerns about Nestlé, they, by contrast, have to pay just to sit in the audience. Or alternatively they can gather outside with some leaflets and placards. Contact me if you are interested in coming along on Tuesday 8 July at the Queen Elizabeth Conference Centre, Westminster. Registration is from 8:40 to 9:20.
For details of how to get there see:
http://www.govnet.co.uk/health/getting_there.php
You can also try to influence the policy makers by completing the government's consultation on commercial promotion to children. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/07/children-advertising-uk.html
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
The impact of advertising on children - UK government asks for views
The UK Government is consulting on advertising and promotion to children. You can easily give your views through an on-line process that just takes a few minutes. Adults and children can participate. See:
DfES page (parents)
DfEs page (children and young people)
The deadline is 13 July.
The Government is under pressure from campaigners to prohibit the advertising of foods to children and has gone some way along this path. Baby Milk Action support the Children's Food Campaign, run by Sustain. See:
http://www.sustainweb.org/childrensfoodcampaign/
Although in the survey there seems to be a focus on television and magazine advertising aimed at children, companies such as Nestlé have found other ways to promote confectionary and cereals (which are often high in salt and sugar) to children.
For example, Nestlé attempts to co-opt teachers into promoting cereal through its 'box tops for education' scheme. If children bring in the tops of Nestlé cereals the school receives some money. Many schools have refused to take part, some writing to all parents explaining why, because of support for the boycott over the company's marketing of baby foods as well as on health grounds. We have a campaign pack if you or your children are targeted in this way. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/campaignpacks.html#boxtop
A new initiative from Nestlé targeting children, is its 'Go free' campaign. Again this promotes confectionary and cereals.
Such initiative are not only about boosting sales of these products, they are also aimed at undermining the boycott and trying to improve Nestlé's appalling image. When Nestlé was told by the UK Advertising Standards Authority not to repeat the untrue claim that it markets infant formula 'ethically and responsibly', made in an anti-boycott advertisement, a Public Relations expert suggested that Nestlé should try to store up a 'reservoir of good will' by putting money into initiatives aimed at children. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/03/nestle-generosity-to-good-causes.html
Baby Milk Action is also concerned about the impact of advertising and promotion of formula. In the UK television advertisements suggest that formula protects against infection, for example. Children as much as adults have a right to accurate and independent information on infant feeding. The International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant Resolutions of the World Health Assembly aim to ensure that commercial promotion is stopped and limits companies to providing scientific and factual information to health workers. Following action by a Baby Milk Action supporter (and now director), Julie Dyball, the Department of Education and Skills agreed to introduce the Code and Resolutions as an item in the curriculum, so at least children are aware of its existance (it would be good to hear from children if this is working). See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/update/update34.html#10
We have produced an education pack with resources for teachers on unpacking public relations. The pack, which can be purchased or accessed on line, has exercises using materials produced by companies and campaign organisations to understand the reasons why messages are presented as they are. It is called 'Seeing through the Spin'. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/publications01.html#spin
So there is a lot that can be done to ensure that children are not subject to inappropriate commercial messages. To give your views on what you would like to see the UK government doing, see:
DfES page (parents)
DfEs page (children and young people)
The deadline is 13 July.
Personally I rather like chocolate and am not against eating it. But as with baby milk, calling for appropriate marketing is not the same as saying a product should not be sold.
DfES page (parents)
DfEs page (children and young people)
The deadline is 13 July.
The Government is under pressure from campaigners to prohibit the advertising of foods to children and has gone some way along this path. Baby Milk Action support the Children's Food Campaign, run by Sustain. See:
http://www.sustainweb.org/childrensfoodcampaign/
Although in the survey there seems to be a focus on television and magazine advertising aimed at children, companies such as Nestlé have found other ways to promote confectionary and cereals (which are often high in salt and sugar) to children.
For example, Nestlé attempts to co-opt teachers into promoting cereal through its 'box tops for education' scheme. If children bring in the tops of Nestlé cereals the school receives some money. Many schools have refused to take part, some writing to all parents explaining why, because of support for the boycott over the company's marketing of baby foods as well as on health grounds. We have a campaign pack if you or your children are targeted in this way. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/campaignpacks.html#boxtop
A new initiative from Nestlé targeting children, is its 'Go free' campaign. Again this promotes confectionary and cereals.
Such initiative are not only about boosting sales of these products, they are also aimed at undermining the boycott and trying to improve Nestlé's appalling image. When Nestlé was told by the UK Advertising Standards Authority not to repeat the untrue claim that it markets infant formula 'ethically and responsibly', made in an anti-boycott advertisement, a Public Relations expert suggested that Nestlé should try to store up a 'reservoir of good will' by putting money into initiatives aimed at children. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/03/nestle-generosity-to-good-causes.html
Baby Milk Action is also concerned about the impact of advertising and promotion of formula. In the UK television advertisements suggest that formula protects against infection, for example. Children as much as adults have a right to accurate and independent information on infant feeding. The International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant Resolutions of the World Health Assembly aim to ensure that commercial promotion is stopped and limits companies to providing scientific and factual information to health workers. Following action by a Baby Milk Action supporter (and now director), Julie Dyball, the Department of Education and Skills agreed to introduce the Code and Resolutions as an item in the curriculum, so at least children are aware of its existance (it would be good to hear from children if this is working). See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/update/update34.html#10
We have produced an education pack with resources for teachers on unpacking public relations. The pack, which can be purchased or accessed on line, has exercises using materials produced by companies and campaign organisations to understand the reasons why messages are presented as they are. It is called 'Seeing through the Spin'. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/publications01.html#spin
So there is a lot that can be done to ensure that children are not subject to inappropriate commercial messages. To give your views on what you would like to see the UK government doing, see:
DfES page (parents)
DfEs page (children and young people)
The deadline is 13 July.
Personally I rather like chocolate and am not against eating it. But as with baby milk, calling for appropriate marketing is not the same as saying a product should not be sold.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Breastfeeding experts quit at Canadian hospital over Nestlé 'wine-and-dine' event
I wrote recently about baby food company sponsorship and concerns over conflicts of interest. The World Health Assembly has adopted Resolutions calling for care in this area. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/06/sponsored-events.html
An example of company sponsorship and its fallout comes from Canada. It was reported last week that Renee Hefti-Graham and Linda Good both quit their jobs as breastfeeding experts at Burnaby General Hospital this month after: "an invitation circulated through the hospital's e-mail system to a Nestlé-sponsored "wine-and-dine" event to be held June 12."
You might think that a 'wine-and-dine' event is designed to attract health workers and put them in a sympathetic mood for the company reps. to pitch to them. Not at all, it seems. According to the report on Canada.com: "Company spokeswoman Catherine O'Brien said yesterday that the formula maker is not in violation of the WHO code because the event was created solely to provide 'science-based information.'"
The same story is repeated around the world. In our recent campaign in support of the Philippines, we exposed Nestlé giving gifts to health workers and labelling its formula with claims about it aiding the development of intelligence and vision. Independent analysis by the Cochrane library shows such claims (about LCPs) are not supported by the evidence. So much for 'science-based information' from Nestlé.
In India, where the law prohibits baby food companies sponsoring health-worker events, Nestlé still tries to get away with it, showing how the importance Nestlé puts on ingratiating itself with people seen as independent my mothers. For example, in 2006 it it sponsored a music night for medical graduates at BRD Medical College, Gorakhpur. Presumably a 'science-based' music night? As professional associations are refusing baby-food-company sponsorship (the Indian Paediatric Association did so long before the law came in), Nestlé has taken to holding its own events and trying to persuade paediatricians to attend. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemsept06.html#2
The breastfeeding experts resigned in Canada as they felt they did not have support from their boss, according to the report: "She doesn't understand the issues," said Hefti-Graham. "She called [the materials I brought her] propaganda . . . and I've been working in this field for 20 years. I cannot work with a manager who tells me that the information I give her is propaganda."
It is a strange world where wining and dining can end up being portrayed as providing 'science-based information' and information from breastfeeding experts as propaganda. But it is the world in which we live, which is why the care over conflicts of interest suggested by the World Health Assembly is so important. And so, sometimes, is taking a stand.
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/06/sponsored-events.html
An example of company sponsorship and its fallout comes from Canada. It was reported last week that Renee Hefti-Graham and Linda Good both quit their jobs as breastfeeding experts at Burnaby General Hospital this month after: "an invitation circulated through the hospital's e-mail system to a Nestlé-sponsored "wine-and-dine" event to be held June 12."
You might think that a 'wine-and-dine' event is designed to attract health workers and put them in a sympathetic mood for the company reps. to pitch to them. Not at all, it seems. According to the report on Canada.com: "Company spokeswoman Catherine O'Brien said yesterday that the formula maker is not in violation of the WHO code because the event was created solely to provide 'science-based information.'"
The same story is repeated around the world. In our recent campaign in support of the Philippines, we exposed Nestlé giving gifts to health workers and labelling its formula with claims about it aiding the development of intelligence and vision. Independent analysis by the Cochrane library shows such claims (about LCPs) are not supported by the evidence. So much for 'science-based information' from Nestlé.
In India, where the law prohibits baby food companies sponsoring health-worker events, Nestlé still tries to get away with it, showing how the importance Nestlé puts on ingratiating itself with people seen as independent my mothers. For example, in 2006 it it sponsored a music night for medical graduates at BRD Medical College, Gorakhpur. Presumably a 'science-based' music night? As professional associations are refusing baby-food-company sponsorship (the Indian Paediatric Association did so long before the law came in), Nestlé has taken to holding its own events and trying to persuade paediatricians to attend. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemsept06.html#2
The breastfeeding experts resigned in Canada as they felt they did not have support from their boss, according to the report: "She doesn't understand the issues," said Hefti-Graham. "She called [the materials I brought her] propaganda . . . and I've been working in this field for 20 years. I cannot work with a manager who tells me that the information I give her is propaganda."
It is a strange world where wining and dining can end up being portrayed as providing 'science-based information' and information from breastfeeding experts as propaganda. But it is the world in which we live, which is why the care over conflicts of interest suggested by the World Health Assembly is so important. And so, sometimes, is taking a stand.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Acting locally has a global impact
Why turn out to the demonstrate or leaflet against Nestlé malpractice? You meet other campaign supporters, you have fun, you learn about the latest with the campaign, you inform people who see the demonstration or take a leaflet and you have an impact that echoes around the world. All of which combines to keep the boycott in the public eye, keeps the pressure on Nestlé, helps to force changes in marketing policies and practices and encourages governments to stand up to company pressure and introduce enforced legislation.
Here is an example of this working in practice with an article on a South Korean news website tody. If you visit this site you will see a picture from the demonstration at Nestlé (UK) HQ last year:
http://www.ohmynews.com/NWS_Web/view/at_pg.aspx?CNTN_CD=A0000934335&PAGE_CD
It is in Korean and is about the impact of western governments and corporations on food policy and apparently has already received tens of thousands of visits on its first day.
So help spread the word around the world by acting locally!
We are currently planning for International Nestlé-Free Week which in 2008 will be around the 4 October. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/06/nestle-free-week-october-08.html
Here is an example of this working in practice with an article on a South Korean news website tody. If you visit this site you will see a picture from the demonstration at Nestlé (UK) HQ last year:
http://www.ohmynews.com/NWS_Web/view/at_pg.aspx?CNTN_CD=A0000934335&PAGE_CD
It is in Korean and is about the impact of western governments and corporations on food policy and apparently has already received tens of thousands of visits on its first day.
So help spread the word around the world by acting locally!
We are currently planning for International Nestlé-Free Week which in 2008 will be around the 4 October. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/06/nestle-free-week-october-08.html
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Planning for Nestle free week - 4 October 2008
Nestlé-Free Week will take place around the 4 October 2008.
This marks the 20th anniversary of the launch of the current boycott by Action for Corporate Accountability in the United States over the companies aggressive marketing of baby foods. Babies who are not breastfed are more likely to become sick and, in conditions of poverty, to die.
According to UNICEF: "Improved breastfeeding practices and reduction of artificial feeding could save an estimated 1.5 million children a year."
Nestlé failed to live up to an agreement reached in 1984 which ended an earlier boycott. Nestlé had promised to abide by the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1981 as a result of the first boycott.
Baby Milk Action launched the boycott in the UK in 1989, but will also be marking the 20th anniversary in the first week of October 2008. Groups in 20 countries have launched boycott and it has supporters in many other countries. An independent survey in 2005 found Nestlé to be one of the four most boycotted companies on the planet, something Nestlé finally admitted in 2007. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press6july07.html
Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator at Baby Milk Action, said:
"The boycott has forced some important policy changes on Nestlé and we are able to stop specific cases of aggressive baby milk marketing thanks to public pressure, but the latest monitoring shows that Nestlé still thinks it can get away with breaking the World Health Assembly rules in many countries. In parallel to the boycott we have had a lot of success in bringing the Assembly measures into national laws and where these are enforced malpractice is stopped, showing companies can comply when compelled to do so. The boycott keeps this issue in the public eye and the pressure on Nestlé, the worst of the baby food companies."
Monitoring conducted by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) profiles the main baby food companies. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/publications01.html#btr07
Nestlé has consistently been found to be the worst of the baby food companies. Boycott coordinators have put a four-point plan to Nestlé aimed at saving infant lives and ultimately ending the boycott. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/boycott/boyct4pointplan.html
Danone, which recently bought the NUMICO companies (Nutricia, Milupa and Cow and Gate) is becoming an increasing concern as it tries to compete with Nestlé in Asian markets. Danone told Baby Milk Action earlier this year that it is conducting a 'root and branch review' of NUMICO operations since the takeover and the situation is being monitored to see whether changes will be made without consumer pressure.
People interested in planning for local action can visit Baby Milk Action's websitew for support and resources. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/boycott/nestlefree.html
The joint statement from Nestlé and the International Nestlé Boycott Committee on the end of the first boycott on 4 October 1984 can be downloaded from:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/yqsanswered/yqanestle09.html#boycott
Coverage of the relaunch of the boycott on 4 October 1988 in the United States can be found in contemporary reports in the New Internationalist and the New York Times.
Note the US group included American Home Products (now part of Wyeth) in its boycott call. The boycott internationally has focused on Nestlé as global monitoring finds it to be the worst of the companies.
This marks the 20th anniversary of the launch of the current boycott by Action for Corporate Accountability in the United States over the companies aggressive marketing of baby foods. Babies who are not breastfed are more likely to become sick and, in conditions of poverty, to die.
According to UNICEF: "Improved breastfeeding practices and reduction of artificial feeding could save an estimated 1.5 million children a year."
Nestlé failed to live up to an agreement reached in 1984 which ended an earlier boycott. Nestlé had promised to abide by the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1981 as a result of the first boycott.
Baby Milk Action launched the boycott in the UK in 1989, but will also be marking the 20th anniversary in the first week of October 2008. Groups in 20 countries have launched boycott and it has supporters in many other countries. An independent survey in 2005 found Nestlé to be one of the four most boycotted companies on the planet, something Nestlé finally admitted in 2007. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press6july07.html
Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator at Baby Milk Action, said:
"The boycott has forced some important policy changes on Nestlé and we are able to stop specific cases of aggressive baby milk marketing thanks to public pressure, but the latest monitoring shows that Nestlé still thinks it can get away with breaking the World Health Assembly rules in many countries. In parallel to the boycott we have had a lot of success in bringing the Assembly measures into national laws and where these are enforced malpractice is stopped, showing companies can comply when compelled to do so. The boycott keeps this issue in the public eye and the pressure on Nestlé, the worst of the baby food companies."
Monitoring conducted by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) profiles the main baby food companies. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/publications01.html#btr07
Nestlé has consistently been found to be the worst of the baby food companies. Boycott coordinators have put a four-point plan to Nestlé aimed at saving infant lives and ultimately ending the boycott. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/boycott/boyct4pointplan.html
Danone, which recently bought the NUMICO companies (Nutricia, Milupa and Cow and Gate) is becoming an increasing concern as it tries to compete with Nestlé in Asian markets. Danone told Baby Milk Action earlier this year that it is conducting a 'root and branch review' of NUMICO operations since the takeover and the situation is being monitored to see whether changes will be made without consumer pressure.
People interested in planning for local action can visit Baby Milk Action's websitew for support and resources. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/boycott/nestlefree.html
The joint statement from Nestlé and the International Nestlé Boycott Committee on the end of the first boycott on 4 October 1984 can be downloaded from:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/yqsanswered/yqanestle09.html#boycott
Coverage of the relaunch of the boycott on 4 October 1988 in the United States can be found in contemporary reports in the New Internationalist and the New York Times.
Note the US group included American Home Products (now part of Wyeth) in its boycott call. The boycott internationally has focused on Nestlé as global monitoring finds it to be the worst of the companies.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Two weeks to put Nestle in the Corporate Hall of Shame
There are just two weeks left to put Nestlé in the Corporate Hall of Shame, promoted by Corporate Accountability International.
Their main focus is on Nestlé's bottled water business - they are also running a campaign specifically on this - but address other cases of corporate malpractice, such as Nestlé's baby food marketing.
You can vote here:
http://www.stopcorporateabuse.org/cms/page1669.cfm
You can vote for three companies so check out some of the others while you are there.
Their main focus is on Nestlé's bottled water business - they are also running a campaign specifically on this - but address other cases of corporate malpractice, such as Nestlé's baby food marketing.
You can vote here:
http://www.stopcorporateabuse.org/cms/page1669.cfm
You can vote for three companies so check out some of the others while you are there.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Ethical Corporation Magazine's analysis of Nestlé Shared Value report
Ethical Corporation Magazine, that most pro-company PR of publications, has taken rather surprising exception to Nestlé's Shared Value report in an article today. See:
http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=5964
There is good reason to do so, as our press release at the time of the report launch set out. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press4march08.html
Ethical Corporation highlights to lack of objective targets regarding Nestlé's undertakings, ambiguity over whether it plans to develop them or is relying on historic performance and:
"Another gaping hole concerns transparency on Nestlé’s management of human rights and labour issues in its supply chain. While Nestlé claims a total of 3,400 supplier audits in 2007, it does not publish audit results or include any specifics on actions taken in the event of non-compliance. A search of Nestlé’s website yields no additional information. Given that Nestlé does not operate any of its own commercial farming activities, this seems a significant oversight."
We have repeatedly asked Nestlé for audits it claims to produce on its baby food marketing practices and have also written to the Nestlé Ombudsman on this issue, but received no reply. An overview of an audit does appear in the Shared Value report and is extremely flawed, for example using Nestlé Instructions as its starting point rather than the World Health Assembly marketing requirements. As we have exposed on our Campaign for Ethical Marketing action sheet, Nestlé violates its own weaker measures as well as the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant Resolutions of the Assembly.
Yet Ethical Corporation is worryingly impressed by the baby food marketing audits and accepts at face value the claim the audits are against the Assembly measures stating: "As could be expected given past controversy, Nestlé rounds out the discussion with a nod to breastfeeding and a description of how the company is monitoring its compliance with the World Health Organisation International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes. Nestlé makes a portion of these audit results available online, showing a clear record with no violations."
Which does highlight the flaw with the whole voluntary Corporate Social Responsibility approach. When claims are not woolly, they may be bogus. This is why campaigns such as the UK CORE campaign are calling for obligatory reporting standards for which a named director is legally responsible, in the same way as financial reporting has to be rigorous.
Suggestions in my contribution to the book Global Obligations for the Right to Food examine how this can be achieved at a global level for when national safeguards are ineffective.
http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=5964
There is good reason to do so, as our press release at the time of the report launch set out. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press4march08.html
Ethical Corporation highlights to lack of objective targets regarding Nestlé's undertakings, ambiguity over whether it plans to develop them or is relying on historic performance and:
"Another gaping hole concerns transparency on Nestlé’s management of human rights and labour issues in its supply chain. While Nestlé claims a total of 3,400 supplier audits in 2007, it does not publish audit results or include any specifics on actions taken in the event of non-compliance. A search of Nestlé’s website yields no additional information. Given that Nestlé does not operate any of its own commercial farming activities, this seems a significant oversight."
We have repeatedly asked Nestlé for audits it claims to produce on its baby food marketing practices and have also written to the Nestlé Ombudsman on this issue, but received no reply. An overview of an audit does appear in the Shared Value report and is extremely flawed, for example using Nestlé Instructions as its starting point rather than the World Health Assembly marketing requirements. As we have exposed on our Campaign for Ethical Marketing action sheet, Nestlé violates its own weaker measures as well as the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant Resolutions of the Assembly.
Yet Ethical Corporation is worryingly impressed by the baby food marketing audits and accepts at face value the claim the audits are against the Assembly measures stating: "As could be expected given past controversy, Nestlé rounds out the discussion with a nod to breastfeeding and a description of how the company is monitoring its compliance with the World Health Organisation International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes. Nestlé makes a portion of these audit results available online, showing a clear record with no violations."
Which does highlight the flaw with the whole voluntary Corporate Social Responsibility approach. When claims are not woolly, they may be bogus. This is why campaigns such as the UK CORE campaign are calling for obligatory reporting standards for which a named director is legally responsible, in the same way as financial reporting has to be rigorous.
Suggestions in my contribution to the book Global Obligations for the Right to Food examine how this can be achieved at a global level for when national safeguards are ineffective.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, June 06, 2008
The Queen's Shredded Wheat
The Food Magazine (issue 81) has highlighted that the British Royal Family have awarded their coats of arms to some questionable companies. You can access the magazine for a fee here:
http://www.foodcomm.org.uk/
Here is a report picking up on the story in the UK Daily Telegraph.
On the list of companies with a royal warrant is our friend Nestlé and Nestlé Purina. You can search the directory at:
http://www.royalwarrant.org/DirectorySQL.asp
Companies become eligible : "By supplying products or services on a regular basis to: The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh or The Prince of Wales – for not less than five years. Suppliers to The Prince of Wales also have to demonstrate that they have a sustainable environmental policy and action plan."
So does this mean that Her Majesty The Queen eats shredded wheat or gives the corgis winalot? No. The Telegraph reports a Buckingham Palace spokesman saying: "Royal Warrants are a mark of recognition that a trade organisation has supplied the Royal household to its satisfaction. It doesn't necessarily mean that that particular product [bearing the coat of arms] has been used by the Queen."
It may be worth sending a message to the Queen's office asking if it would not be possible to apply some sort of ethical criteria, perhaps following ethical investment indices, such as FTSE4Good - Nestlé does not meet the policy nor the practice criteria to be listed due to its lack of respect for the World Health Assembly marketing requirements for baby foods.
Royal Warrants are actually awarded by the Lord Chamberlain of the Royal Household.
The Queen does know something of this issue. Our Policy Director, Patti Rundall, had a brief moment to explain our work to Her Majesty when she was invited to Buckingham Palace to receive a medal for 'services to infant nutrition' in the Millenium Honours List.
http://www.foodcomm.org.uk/
Here is a report picking up on the story in the UK Daily Telegraph.
On the list of companies with a royal warrant is our friend Nestlé and Nestlé Purina. You can search the directory at:
http://www.royalwarrant.org/DirectorySQL.asp
Companies become eligible : "By supplying products or services on a regular basis to: The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh or The Prince of Wales – for not less than five years. Suppliers to The Prince of Wales also have to demonstrate that they have a sustainable environmental policy and action plan."
So does this mean that Her Majesty The Queen eats shredded wheat or gives the corgis winalot? No. The Telegraph reports a Buckingham Palace spokesman saying: "Royal Warrants are a mark of recognition that a trade organisation has supplied the Royal household to its satisfaction. It doesn't necessarily mean that that particular product [bearing the coat of arms] has been used by the Queen."
It may be worth sending a message to the Queen's office asking if it would not be possible to apply some sort of ethical criteria, perhaps following ethical investment indices, such as FTSE4Good - Nestlé does not meet the policy nor the practice criteria to be listed due to its lack of respect for the World Health Assembly marketing requirements for baby foods.
Royal Warrants are actually awarded by the Lord Chamberlain of the Royal Household.
The Queen does know something of this issue. Our Policy Director, Patti Rundall, had a brief moment to explain our work to Her Majesty when she was invited to Buckingham Palace to receive a medal for 'services to infant nutrition' in the Millenium Honours List.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
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!
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!
Monday, May 19, 2008
Scottish boycott campaign and Nestlé demos
As our press release on the boycott demonstrations on Saturday mentioned, a member of the Scottish Parliament, Elaine Smith MSP, introduced a motion calling for a re-think of contracts awarded to Nestlé to supply bottled water.
According to a report in the Scottish Sunday Express (18 May) some of the 5 councils known to have contracts, worth a reported £ 5 million, are starting to do so. Indeed, one has responded to complaints about the supplier and already switched. We have seen previously that if a council assumes responsibility to provide bottled water and significant numbers of people object to it being sourced from Nestlé, the council has legitimate grounds to switch suppliers.
Here is the cutting from the paper (click on it for larger version):
As I said in my quote, used by the paper: "We are very grateful to the efforts of supporters of the boycott to keep Nestlé malpractice in the public eye. It makes a real difference to our work and that of our partners around the world, particularly when Nestlé is using its cheque book and connections to try to undermine the marketing standards introduced to regulate baby food marketing practices and protect infant health. "
Many thanks to everyone who went out leafleting. Please do send us pictures. Thanks to Jean Rowe for these from the demonstration at Nestlé (UK) HQ in Croydon.
According to a report in the Scottish Sunday Express (18 May) some of the 5 councils known to have contracts, worth a reported £ 5 million, are starting to do so. Indeed, one has responded to complaints about the supplier and already switched. We have seen previously that if a council assumes responsibility to provide bottled water and significant numbers of people object to it being sourced from Nestlé, the council has legitimate grounds to switch suppliers.
Here is the cutting from the paper (click on it for larger version):
As I said in my quote, used by the paper: "We are very grateful to the efforts of supporters of the boycott to keep Nestlé malpractice in the public eye. It makes a real difference to our work and that of our partners around the world, particularly when Nestlé is using its cheque book and connections to try to undermine the marketing standards introduced to regulate baby food marketing practices and protect infant health. "
Many thanks to everyone who went out leafleting. Please do send us pictures. Thanks to Jean Rowe for these from the demonstration at Nestlé (UK) HQ in Croydon.
Friday, May 16, 2008
No to Nestlé in the Scottish Parliament and at UK demonstrations
Today I have put out a press release about a 'No to Nestlé' campaign launched in the Scottish Parliament by Elaine Smith MSP, who is concerned about contracts for bottled water being awarded to the company. If you are in Scotland then why not ask your representative to sign Elaine's motion.
The press release also flags up the demonstrations taking place at Nestlé's UK HQ tomorrow and Body Shop outlets (Nestlé part owns Body Shop). You can download a file to make your own leaflets if you haven't ordered from Baby Milk Action. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/action/demo08.html
You can find the press release, with a quote and briefing document from Elaine Smith MSP, at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press17may08.html
The press release also flags up the demonstrations taking place at Nestlé's UK HQ tomorrow and Body Shop outlets (Nestlé part owns Body Shop). You can download a file to make your own leaflets if you haven't ordered from Baby Milk Action. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/action/demo08.html
You can find the press release, with a quote and briefing document from Elaine Smith MSP, at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press17may08.html
Thursday, May 15, 2008
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
---
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/
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.'
---
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/
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Nestle links to UK Department of Health
Firstly, many thanks to everyone who sent birthday wishes last week!
While having a kind of break, there were still things going on, not least because this is National Breastfeeding Awareness Week in the UK. There was a conference in London which Baby Milk Action attended on Monday. More about that later.
In the build up there was an article in the Independent on Sunday concerning the Members of Parliament that Nestlé took to South Africa in February. Regular readers of this blog will know that one of them, Tom Levitt MP, has since launched a campaign defending Nestlé practices in the country, which comes at a very sensitive time as the South African government is looking to strengthen regulations. It turns out one of the other MPs on the all-expenses-paid trip represents a UK Department of Health minister in Parliament. The Independent led on this in its article Breast vs bottle: the new battleground.
This opens: "Efforts to encourage more women to breastfeed are being threatened by "aggressive" lobbying directed at the Government by the baby milk manufacturing industry, campaigners warned yesterday. The powdered milk manufacturer Nestlé has forged formal links with the Department of Health and took a ministerial aide on an all-expenses-paid trip to South Africa, The Independent on Sunday has discovered."
There is a quote from me: "Time and again we see Nestlé trying to ingratiate itself with health workers and policymakers through gifts, free trips, sponsorship and so-called partnerships. Surely the Government should not look to companies to fund and organise trips such as this. If there is a legitimate public interest in fact-finding in South Africa, it should be publicly funded."
The article did present the issue as 'Breast v. Bottle', missing the point that we are working to protect breastfeeding and babies fed on formula. The introduction to a discussion board accompanying the article similarly missed the point, stating:
"The government is considering calls to ban the big baby milk firms from promoting follow-on formula. But companies like Nestle are mounting fierce lobbying campaigns targeting the Department of Health as well as mums. Should Nestle be allowed to advertise and mums make their own minds up? Or should Nestle be reined in so the government can promote the message that breast is best?"
I commented as follows. See:
http://ios.typepad.com/ios/2008/05/the-battle-of-t.html
While having a kind of break, there were still things going on, not least because this is National Breastfeeding Awareness Week in the UK. There was a conference in London which Baby Milk Action attended on Monday. More about that later.
In the build up there was an article in the Independent on Sunday concerning the Members of Parliament that Nestlé took to South Africa in February. Regular readers of this blog will know that one of them, Tom Levitt MP, has since launched a campaign defending Nestlé practices in the country, which comes at a very sensitive time as the South African government is looking to strengthen regulations. It turns out one of the other MPs on the all-expenses-paid trip represents a UK Department of Health minister in Parliament. The Independent led on this in its article Breast vs bottle: the new battleground.
This opens: "Efforts to encourage more women to breastfeed are being threatened by "aggressive" lobbying directed at the Government by the baby milk manufacturing industry, campaigners warned yesterday. The powdered milk manufacturer Nestlé has forged formal links with the Department of Health and took a ministerial aide on an all-expenses-paid trip to South Africa, The Independent on Sunday has discovered."
There is a quote from me: "Time and again we see Nestlé trying to ingratiate itself with health workers and policymakers through gifts, free trips, sponsorship and so-called partnerships. Surely the Government should not look to companies to fund and organise trips such as this. If there is a legitimate public interest in fact-finding in South Africa, it should be publicly funded."
The article did present the issue as 'Breast v. Bottle', missing the point that we are working to protect breastfeeding and babies fed on formula. The introduction to a discussion board accompanying the article similarly missed the point, stating:
"The government is considering calls to ban the big baby milk firms from promoting follow-on formula. But companies like Nestle are mounting fierce lobbying campaigns targeting the Department of Health as well as mums. Should Nestle be allowed to advertise and mums make their own minds up? Or should Nestle be reined in so the government can promote the message that breast is best?"
I commented as follows. See:
http://ios.typepad.com/ios/2008/05/the-battle-of-t.html
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Nestle UK demo Saturday 17 May 2008
As highlighted in our last newsletter, the annual demonstration at Nestlé (UK) HQ in Croydon will take place on 17 May 2008 from 11:00 to 12:00.
This marks the anniversary of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1981. Nestlé violates the Code more than any other company, which is why it is the target of the boycott.
You can find out more on our website and also find ideas of what to do if you can't make it to Croydon. You can let us know you are coming via a form on the site, or just turn up on the day. Also if you fancy leafleting somewhere else, such as a Body Shop outlet (Nestlé owns 28.8% of L'Oreal, the owner of Body Shop). See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/action/demo08.html
We had thought of holding International Nestlé-Free Week during the same week, but it did not prove suitable for some of the other countries that mark this week. It will instead be held in the week ending 4 October, to mark the 20th anniversary of the launch of the boycott, which is the best supported in the UK. Nestlé is now one of the four most boycotted companies on the planet. For more information on the boycott and the impact it has in stopping Nestlé malpractice see:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/boycott/nestlefree.html
The 17 May comes at the end of UK National Breastfeeding Awareness Week. I'll write more about some of the events taking place during the week tomorrow.
This marks the anniversary of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1981. Nestlé violates the Code more than any other company, which is why it is the target of the boycott.
You can find out more on our website and also find ideas of what to do if you can't make it to Croydon. You can let us know you are coming via a form on the site, or just turn up on the day. Also if you fancy leafleting somewhere else, such as a Body Shop outlet (Nestlé owns 28.8% of L'Oreal, the owner of Body Shop). See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/action/demo08.html
We had thought of holding International Nestlé-Free Week during the same week, but it did not prove suitable for some of the other countries that mark this week. It will instead be held in the week ending 4 October, to mark the 20th anniversary of the launch of the boycott, which is the best supported in the UK. Nestlé is now one of the four most boycotted companies on the planet. For more information on the boycott and the impact it has in stopping Nestlé malpractice see:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/boycott/nestlefree.html
The 17 May comes at the end of UK National Breastfeeding Awareness Week. I'll write more about some of the events taking place during the week tomorrow.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
The next step in Nestle's plan for entering UK hospitals
As I wrote here last month, Nestlé has a strategy to enter the UK formula market, where it currently only sells specialised formulas. For some time it has been working with a midwife called Chris Sidgwick to attack the boycott, which is the best-supported consumer action in the UK, and to encourage midwives to accept Nestlé-sponsored materials on infant feeding and bring them into UK hospitals.
In 2006 Chris went on an all-expenses-paid trip to Nestlé (HQ) in Vevey, Switzerland, organised by Nestlé Nutritionist, Zelda Wilson. This led to an article in the British Journal of Midwifery portrayed as an objective view of the boycott and Nestlé baby food marketing practices. The article contained multiple errors, including misrepresenting information from its primary source document. So widespread were the errors that Baby Milk Action was granted a substantial right to reply. Unfortunately, Nestlé now distributes the article without this. You can read our full analysis of the article, with links to many original supporting documents from the history of the campaign, at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/yqsanswered/yqanestle09.html
The article suggests: "Nestlé have financial and education resources available which would improve services to women and, as a result of fact finding, we see no reason not to tap into those resources at a time when most Trusts and educational establishments have very limited funds available."
Chris Sidgwick and Zelda Wilson came to our attention again earlier this year as they were part of a team of 5 that briefed stuudents at Sheffield University, calling for the student union to drop the boycott. Also in the team were people from Webber Shandwick, Nestlé's crisis management PR company.
Then we found Chris involved with Dr. Miriam Stoppard inviting health journalists to Vevey in February, no doubt hoping to generate more misleading articles about Nestlé practices. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/02/nestle-panic-miriam-stoppard.html
Now comes the next part of the strategy. Chris is billing herself as a 'Midwifery Advisor' and inviting people to a 'study day with a difference'. This is with a familiar name: "Zelda Wilson a State Registered Dietician specialising in human interaction and behaviour."
In the small print it states that the organiser: "HCP is sponsored by an exclusive grant from Nestlé Science and Education Services."
It promises: "INSIGHT and an opportunity to NETWORK".
I wonder if the networking will include more free trips from Nestlé for midwives in the hope that they too will start working for Nestlé's cause in opposing the boycott and getting its materials onto maternity wards.
As Zelda Wilson has admitted in her capacity as Nestlé Nutritionist, its Nestlé-branded materials for hospitals are intended: "to keep the company name and products in people's mind." See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemmarch08.html#1
In 2006 Chris went on an all-expenses-paid trip to Nestlé (HQ) in Vevey, Switzerland, organised by Nestlé Nutritionist, Zelda Wilson. This led to an article in the British Journal of Midwifery portrayed as an objective view of the boycott and Nestlé baby food marketing practices. The article contained multiple errors, including misrepresenting information from its primary source document. So widespread were the errors that Baby Milk Action was granted a substantial right to reply. Unfortunately, Nestlé now distributes the article without this. You can read our full analysis of the article, with links to many original supporting documents from the history of the campaign, at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/yqsanswered/yqanestle09.html
The article suggests: "Nestlé have financial and education resources available which would improve services to women and, as a result of fact finding, we see no reason not to tap into those resources at a time when most Trusts and educational establishments have very limited funds available."
Chris Sidgwick and Zelda Wilson came to our attention again earlier this year as they were part of a team of 5 that briefed stuudents at Sheffield University, calling for the student union to drop the boycott. Also in the team were people from Webber Shandwick, Nestlé's crisis management PR company.
Then we found Chris involved with Dr. Miriam Stoppard inviting health journalists to Vevey in February, no doubt hoping to generate more misleading articles about Nestlé practices. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/02/nestle-panic-miriam-stoppard.html
Now comes the next part of the strategy. Chris is billing herself as a 'Midwifery Advisor' and inviting people to a 'study day with a difference'. This is with a familiar name: "Zelda Wilson a State Registered Dietician specialising in human interaction and behaviour."
In the small print it states that the organiser: "HCP is sponsored by an exclusive grant from Nestlé Science and Education Services."
It promises: "INSIGHT and an opportunity to NETWORK".
I wonder if the networking will include more free trips from Nestlé for midwives in the hope that they too will start working for Nestlé's cause in opposing the boycott and getting its materials onto maternity wards.
As Zelda Wilson has admitted in her capacity as Nestlé Nutritionist, its Nestlé-branded materials for hospitals are intended: "to keep the company name and products in people's mind." See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemmarch08.html#1
Monday, April 28, 2008
Mr. Levitt's pro-Nestle campaign
As I mentioned recently, we have prepared a briefing responding to the pro-Nestlé campaign launched by Tom Levitt MP, who went on a Nestlé-funded trip to South Africa in February and continues to defend Nestlé's advertising and labeling of infant formula there despite the fact the South African Department of Health has said it is non-compliant and asked Nestlé to change its practices.
We still have no response from Mr. Levitt, despite sending him the briefing and asking, once againn, for a meeting.
His efforts to defend Nestlé and his acceptance of Nestlé hospitality and free tickets to Wimbledon tennis competiton, sees him making comments that not even Nestlé makes.
In dismissing the documentary evidence of malpractice collated by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), Mr. Levitt's campaign materials state of the Breaking the Rules 2004 report: "Mr. Levitt says of the Breaking the Rules report 2004, produced by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN):
“200 accusations were laid against Nestlé for breaking the marketing code in a 2004 [sic]. And so they were: but 199 were disproved by independent bodies and the other one had been corrected two years previously.”
This is not only untrue, it contradicts what Nestlé itself says. Nestlé dismisses the violations, but does not claim they were disproved by independent bodies.
This is Nestlé’s statement about the report, published in Mr. Levitt’s local paper in correspondence relating to his column defending Nestlé: “it is important to point out that our analysis of IBFAN's previous report in 2004 found that of the 200 allegations it contained only one was an actual violation and this had been corrected by Nestlé in 2002, two years before the report was published.”
So Nestlé refers to its own analysis, but Mr. Levitt MP relates this as coming from "independent bodies."
The fact is that IBFAN provided details about the violations in the report at Nestlé’s request as it claimed it could not investigate where it had placed its own advertisements or the leaflets and other materials documented without additional information. After providing the information nothing more was heard from Nestlé on the subject.
An earlier report did prompt an independent investigation. Twenty seven academic, development and church organisations formed the Interagency Group on Breastfeeding Monitoring to investigate marketing practices after Nestlé similarly dismissed an earlier report (they are produced about every three years). The Group published Cracking the Code in 1997 and reported ‘systematic’ violations by Nestlé and other companies. Commenting at the time UNICEF stated that IBFAN’s monitoring was ‘vindicated’. While this investigation was 11 years ago, the types of violations are similar to those reported in the 2004 Breaking the Rules report and the latest edition published in November 2007.
In 1999 the UK Advertising Standards Authority ruled against Nestlé’s claim in an anti-boycott advertisement that it markets infant formula ‘ethically and responsibly’ after conducting a two-year investigation. Nestlé was warned not to repeat this and other statements. While it does not do so in advertisements, it continues to make similar statements in its public relations materials and elsewhere, over which the ASA has no power to act.
Mr. Levitt’s claim that Nestlé malpractice is form ’30 or 40 years ago’ disregards all of this evidence, including up to around the time he claims he was investigating in South Africa.
Our briefing paper is available at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemapril08.html
We still have no response from Mr. Levitt, despite sending him the briefing and asking, once againn, for a meeting.
His efforts to defend Nestlé and his acceptance of Nestlé hospitality and free tickets to Wimbledon tennis competiton, sees him making comments that not even Nestlé makes.
In dismissing the documentary evidence of malpractice collated by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), Mr. Levitt's campaign materials state of the Breaking the Rules 2004 report: "Mr. Levitt says of the Breaking the Rules report 2004, produced by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN):
“200 accusations were laid against Nestlé for breaking the marketing code in a 2004 [sic]. And so they were: but 199 were disproved by independent bodies and the other one had been corrected two years previously.”
This is not only untrue, it contradicts what Nestlé itself says. Nestlé dismisses the violations, but does not claim they were disproved by independent bodies.
This is Nestlé’s statement about the report, published in Mr. Levitt’s local paper in correspondence relating to his column defending Nestlé: “it is important to point out that our analysis of IBFAN's previous report in 2004 found that of the 200 allegations it contained only one was an actual violation and this had been corrected by Nestlé in 2002, two years before the report was published.”
So Nestlé refers to its own analysis, but Mr. Levitt MP relates this as coming from "independent bodies."
The fact is that IBFAN provided details about the violations in the report at Nestlé’s request as it claimed it could not investigate where it had placed its own advertisements or the leaflets and other materials documented without additional information. After providing the information nothing more was heard from Nestlé on the subject.
An earlier report did prompt an independent investigation. Twenty seven academic, development and church organisations formed the Interagency Group on Breastfeeding Monitoring to investigate marketing practices after Nestlé similarly dismissed an earlier report (they are produced about every three years). The Group published Cracking the Code in 1997 and reported ‘systematic’ violations by Nestlé and other companies. Commenting at the time UNICEF stated that IBFAN’s monitoring was ‘vindicated’. While this investigation was 11 years ago, the types of violations are similar to those reported in the 2004 Breaking the Rules report and the latest edition published in November 2007.
In 1999 the UK Advertising Standards Authority ruled against Nestlé’s claim in an anti-boycott advertisement that it markets infant formula ‘ethically and responsibly’ after conducting a two-year investigation. Nestlé was warned not to repeat this and other statements. While it does not do so in advertisements, it continues to make similar statements in its public relations materials and elsewhere, over which the ASA has no power to act.
Mr. Levitt’s claim that Nestlé malpractice is form ’30 or 40 years ago’ disregards all of this evidence, including up to around the time he claims he was investigating in South Africa.
Our briefing paper is available at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemapril08.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
---comment on Indy discussion board
This question is a little misleading. Health advocates such as Baby Milk Action have been calling for government action to protect breastfeeding AND to protect babies fed on formula. So-called 'information' provided by companies is always idealizing and often inaccurate. For example, companies boast of the benefits of LCPs and prebiotics in formula, yet independent analysis of the research by bodies such as the respected Cochrane Library finds the claims are not supported. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2006/10/health-claims-goldmine.html
Companies are fighting against requirements that they warn parents who do use powdered formula that it is not sterile and the simple steps that can be followed to reduce the risks from possible intrinsic contamination with harmful bacteria.
For parents to be able to make up their own mind they need accurate, independent information, not company propaganda.
A good illustration of the issue and the dangers of Nestle-funded trips, is the situation in South Africa. One of the MPs on that trip, Tom Levitt MP, has launched a campaign attempting to persuade people Nestle follows high standards in its marketing of infant formula and is defending the company's advertising and labelling in South Africa. This is despite the fact that the Department of Health in South Africa has said Nestle's claims for its NAN infant formula break national labeling laws:
"statements such as "optimal physical and mental development", "activate your baby's immune defences" and "strengthen your baby's natural defences" as indicated on the labels are just some examples of prohibited statements on NAN 1 and 2".
Babies fed on formula are denied the protection from infection provided by breastmilk and so more likely to become sick and in conditions of poverty more likely to die. Those that are fed with formula would be less at risk if Nestle brought warnings and instructions into line with those called for by the World Health Assembly.
The South African government is currently trying to introduce strengthened regulations and it is a disgrace that Tom Levitt, who has also enjoyed free tickets to Wimbledon tennis competition from Nestle, is undermining their efforts. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/04/what-south-africa-says.html
We have requested a meeting with Mr. Levitt many times, so far without success.