Letters that took 12 years to write

In the end it all seems so simple.

The UK Food Standards Authority has written to baby food companies pointing out to them that the UK law prohibits all claims on infant formula labels except those listed in an annex to the law. Trading Standards Officers have been contacted with a reminder of what the 1995 law allows and does not allow.

Companies are now busily changing their labels and advertising campaigns to avoid prosecution and fines. The crackdown has been a long time coming. Why did it take 12 years for the authorities to take action? And what was the role of Baby Milk Action campaigns and your support? I will explain.

The message sent to Trading Standards Officers by their umbrella body LACORS (Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services) states in part:

---Quote begins
Some examples of claims which are therefore non-compliant with Regulations 13 (3) of the UK Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations 1995 are given below:

* Omega 3 LCPs for development
* Nucleotides help growth and the immune system
* Beta-carotene helps the immune system
* Prebiotics supporting baby’s natural defences
* Closer than ever to breastmilk

Home Authority and Enforcement Officers will wish to take this guidance into account when advising businesses.
----quote ends

This means the companies have to change their labels with immediate effect. Though existing labels are illegal, Trading Standards will allow them to work through the distribution system, which could see them on the shelves still for a year or more.

I have written in the past how health claims are a gold mine for companies and why regulation and independent information are essential for mothers to be able to make an informed decision. Nobody can make a mother feel guilty if she makes the best decision for herself and her child based on accurate and independent information - whatever her decision may be. If she was misled as to the claimed benefits of infant formula, then again she should not feel guilty, but angry at companies that broke the law and authorities who let them get away with it. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2006/10/health-claims-goldmine.html

Here are a couple of examples of illegal labels that will now need to change.






The companies have apparently accepted that they need to change. This is a testament to the authority of Trading Standards in the UK and the respect with which they are treated. In the Philippines where the Department of Health updated regulations last year, the industry took it to court and has succeeded in having the regulation suspended. It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court in the Philippines will back the Department of Health in the same way we would expect the UK courts to back the authority of Trading Standards here. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/03/industry-block-on-philippines.html

We are delighted that we can now say the UK is an example to the world for taking action over health claims on infant formula labels and promotion. Of course, there is still much that needs to be done to bring UK regulations into line with the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant Resolutions of the World Health Assembly. UK law is being reviewed this year and we will be working for the necessary changes.

But in the meantime we recognise and welcome the importance of the action taken by the authorities. A Department of Health survey published in 2005 found that 34% of women believed that infant formula is the same or almost the same as breastfeeding. So the removal of these claims is an important step to ensure they receive accurate and independent information. See Myths stop women giving babies the best start in life.

So why did it take 12 years for the authorities to take action in the UK? A good question. The Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations were adopted in 1995. Baby Milk Action campaigned as they were being drafted for them to be brought into line with the Code and Resolutions and received the backing of all UK health worker organisations. The Labour Party was in opposition at that time, led by Tony Blair, and opposed the adoption of the law in its weak form.

We were particularly concerned that the law only restricts promotion of infant formula to the general public. There are no restrictions on the promotion of follow-on milks.

Regarding claims on labels and advertising, however, the law was clear. Regulation 13 (3) referred to in the new guidance note, states:

---Quote begins
13. (3) The labelling of an infant formula shall include a claim concerning the composition of the product only when—

(a) the claim is listed in column 1 of Schedule 4, and is expressed in the terms there set out; and

(b) the condition specified in column 2 of that Schedule in relation to the relevant claim made in column 1 is satisfied.
---quote ends

This derives from an European Directive (91/321/EEC) which contains similar wording and annex of permitted claims. As the new guidance note to Trading Standards Officer explains “The claims listed in Annex IV relate to: adapted protein; low sodium; sucrose free; lactose only; iron enriched and reduction of risk to allergy to milk proteins which may include terms referring to reduced allergen or reduced antigen properties.”

You’ll note in 13 (3) it states that claims can ONLY be included when the claim is listed in the schedule, and is expressed in the terms set out.

So as we say in colloquial English it should have been bleeding obvious that any other claims were illegal. However, companies argued the law was unclear and, perhaps fearing an expensive legal battle through the courts, Trading Standards Officers did not take action as an increasing number of claims were rolled out in re-launch after re-launch of formula labels.

The restrictions on claims in the labelling is specifically referenced by the article on advertising, which states:

---Quote begins
Restrictions on advertising of infant formulae
17.—(1) No person shall publish or display any advertisement for an infant formula—

(b) which does not comply with the requirements, prohibitions and restrictions relating to labelling contained in regulations 13(1)(h), (2) and (3) and 15.
---quote ends

There it is, very clear in black and white, advertising – which could only be directed to health workers or through the health care system – has to comply with 13 (3).

The law was adopted in 1995. As we always say, laws in themselves are not enough because the baby food industry will push to the limit of what they are permitted to do and beyond. Laws need to be monitored and enforced. Although it should not have been necessary it has taken 12 years of monitoring and campaigning to prompt this enforcement action.

Here are some highlights of the efforts made by Baby Milk Action and partners and landmarks along the way. This is not definitive, just a few of the things that immediately come to my mind.

1995: Law adopted despite widespread opposition from health associations, mother support groups and the Labour Party, led by Tony Blair.

1997: Baby Milk Action convenes the Baby Feeding Law Group to campaign for the law to be brought into line with the Code and Resolutions. Tony Blair becomes Prime Minister.

1997 onwards: Briefing papers produced on shortcomings of the law and need for improved enforcement. Meetings with officials and media work takes place.

2002: Following submissions by Baby Milk Action, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child calls on the UK Government to implement the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes.

2003: Baby Feeding Law Group website launched. Monitoring forms enable members of the public to report violations to BFLG (for processing by Baby Milk Action) and enforcement authorities. Wyeth SMA is successfully prosecuted by Birmingham Trading Standards for a ‘cynical and deliberate breach’ of the ban on infant formula advertising. Baby Milk Action materials are cited in the court case and we bring news of the prosecution to the wider world.

2004: A grant from the King’s Fund enables Baby Milk Action to run a training day with UNICEF’s Legal Officer for policy makers and partners and to train a team of monitors. Baby Milk Action works with partners in the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) to launch a global monitoring report at the UK House of Commons during National Breastfeeding Awareness Week (May) with a UK specific briefing paper Look What They’re Doing in the UK. An Early Day Motion tabled by Lynne Jones MP gains cross-party support calling for action at UK and international level. In October, the Government launches its public health white paper Choosing Health, promising action to strengthen UK law and the European Union Directive from which it derives.

2005: The European Commission consults on re-drafting the EU Directive. The BFLG monitoring results and briefings encourage the UK Government to take a strong line in calling for the Directive to be brought closer into line with World Health Assembly measures, for example including a ban on promotion of all breastmilk substitutes, not just infant formula.

2006: Monitoring results are presented at a meeting at the House of Commons during National Breastfeeding Awareness Week and another Early Day Motion from Lynne Jones MP gains cross-party support calling for action at UK and international level in what is the 25th anniversary of the adoption of the Code. The Directive is finalised, but few of the UK Government’s demands have been included. However, there is scope to strengthen UK law further and prohibit the promotion of all breastmilk substitutes. Baby Milk Action proposes a meeting with enforcement authorities as revising the law will take at least a year, during which currently illegal practices will continue and presents evidence of aggressive marketing, including illegal infant formula promotions in supermarkets and use of health claims.

2007: Revised guidance is issued to Trading Standards Officers and baby food companies and supermarkets contacted by the authorities. In statements to the media, baby food companies indicate they will change their infant formula labels. It is unlikely there will be any change to follow-on formula labels or advertising that is not explicitly for infant formula until the law changes.

We will continue to monitor the companies with the help of supporters. The picture below from Tesco shows that in March 2007 it was still running illegal promotions on infant formula, in these case offering double clubcard points for Hipp Organic infant formula (which has a cartoon on the label in breach of the Code and Resolutions).


The question now is, will Trading Standards take the next step and prosecute supermarkets for recurring illegal promotion? And does the government have the political will to stand up to baby food industry pressure and bring the UK law into line with the Code and Resolutions?

Baby Milk Action will certainly continue working with our partners for the protection infants and mothers deserve.

If you are pleased that idealising claims will no longer be allowed on infant formula labels and advertising, then join us in celebrating by becoming a member of Baby Milk Action, sending a donation or buying something from our on-line Virtual Shop.

It might seem so simple when authorities send letters to companies or the required words are written into the law, but it is not simple. It takes years of campaigning effort in the face of lobbying from some of the world’s most powerful corporations. Without your support we won't be here.

Click here.

First podcast marks crackdown on UK baby food industry

Well folks, as threatened, I have started a podcast.

And what a momentous day on which to start! With a major victory in the campaign to protect infants and mothers in the UK - the authorities have just declared that current infant formula labels with their prominent health claims are illegal. That's right, illegal. Baby food companies are busy re-designing as I speak or they will face prosecution and fines.

Soon labels will no longer have claims like: 'closer to breastmilk', 'supporting a baby's natural immune system', 'helps brain and eye development' etc. Since 1995 such claims have been illegal, but it has taken 12 years of monitoring and campaigning to prompt this action from the authorities.

Phew. I told you we have to be prepared for the long haul!

Tomorrow I will say more about how the campaign finally made this breakthrough and its implications. We are now proud to be able to say the UK is setting an example for the world!

The intention of the podcast is to provide an audio presentation of the preceeding week's blogs - slightly derailed in this first episode by the breaking news.

You can hear the blog via the Baby Milk Action website or by subscribing using the iTunes service. For details, see:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/podcasts/podcastsindex.html

Watch for news coverage of the crackdown on the UK baby food industry. See our press release at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press12march07.html

Industry block on Philippines regulations upheld - for now

There is some good news and bad news from the Philippines. Readers of this blog will know that for the past few months we have been supporting partners there as baby food marketing regulations come under attack from the industry.

The good news is that the case now has such a profile that the latest developments have received widespread coverage in the Philippines. In fact, the headline writers now only have to refer to the 'Milk Code case'.

The bad news is that the Supreme Court has refused to lift its block on the regulations coming into force. Last year it refused the industry's request for a block, but reversed the decision just days after the US Chamber of Commerce wrote to the President of the Philippines threatening investment in the country.

In a decision this week, the Supreme Court has refused a request from the Government that the block be lifted. Here is the report from the Philippines Daily Inquirer, the paper which put your messages of support on the front page last year.

---Daily Inquirer 9 March 2007

Drug firms score in Milk Code case

By Leila B. Salaverria

The temporary and indefinite ban against the implementation of the revised rules of the Milk Code, which would regulate the marketing of infants formula, stays after the Supreme Court has denied an urgent motion to have it lifted.

In a Feb. 27 resolution, the high tribunal denied for lack of merit the motion filed by the Office of the Solicitor General on behalf of the Department of Health to lift the temporary restraining order.

The TRO, handed down in August 2006, will be in force until the court issues further orders.

The high court also deferred action on the OSG's motion to set the case for oral arguments, saying it would wait for a reply from the Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines (PHAP).

The PHAP, a group of companies that manufacture or distribute health and nutritional products, went to the high court to stop the implementation of the revised implementing rules and regulations (RIRR) of the Milk Code, saying the DOH did not have the power to change the rules.

The PHAP protested the new rule that band the advertising, promotion or sponsorship, or marketing materials and activities for breast milk substitutes intended for infants and children up to two years old, which it said went beyond the Milk Code's provisions.

It also said the RIR prohibited the free flow of information about the nutritional content of infant formula and prevented the spread of knowledge on proper infant feeding.
----ends

I hope you are not getting bored with this on-going battle to defend the regulations, infant health and mother's rights. This stream of small victories and set-backs before a definitive decision is part and parcel of what we do. Even when regulations are introduced they have to be defended, monitored and enforced. When the industry wins and weakens legislation or successfully pushes for voluntary codes of conduct, we have to keep on campaigning.

Latest news is the court will accept oral arguments in a hearing on 12 April. More delay in which the aggressive marketing as exposed on our website will continue. See our action sheet for information on how you can help if you have not already:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemnov06.html

International solidarity on International Women's Day

It is fitting that today I have received pictures from colleagues in the Philippines who demonstrated outside the offices of baby food transnational corporations in February.

Mothers who had been misled by idealising advertising joined the demonstration with their children. They had believed the claims that formula feeding would boost intelligence and were dismayed when their infants became sick to learn that formula is inferior to breastmilk.

How could they not know and how could health professionals let them do it? we are sometimes asked. Well, in the UK companies also aggressively market their products with health claims and 34% of mothers here believe that formula is the same or almost the same as breastfeeding, according to a Department of Health survey (see past blogs). We have been campaigning from since the 1995 law was introduced in the UK for more stringent regulation and enforcement. How much longer will we have to continue campaigning?

So we well understand the frustration of our colleagues in the Philippines as they see infants and mothers misinformed and suffering as a result.

Here are the pictures.






Giving up and calling it a day is not an option. One day mothers and infants in the Philippines, the UK and all other countries will be protected. We have succeeded in many countries and will succeed everywhere eventually. That is my message for today.

Baby Milk Action Radio - coming soon?

Here is an idea. Baby Milk Action radio.

Baby Milk Action keeps on the cutting edge of technology. Well, sort of. We also keep our website purposely low-tech because many of our readers are in developing countries, possibly still using 386 computers or older (remember those) which can't run super whizzy browsers. Coupled with dialup connections and limited connection time, we need something that will download quickly and display correctly (let us know when we have failed in this).

At the same time, we want new ways to reach people and to ensure those with disabilities can access our information. Here again our low tech sites help with page readers for the blind, and we try to follow best practice in making them work with this (again let us know when we fail).

My proposed innovation is a weekly podcast, rounding up the previous week's blogs and maybe even giving a little extra information and insight. As you know from this page, I am an engineer, so love stuff like this. My thinking is I could do a recording at the weekend to post on Monday morning. If there is interest I could even put this out as a broadcast for you to hear with your on-line radio player and take questions at the end of it live in the studio (my desk).

What do you think? Would you listen in at say noon on Mondays? Would you download a podcast?

Would you want me to get a webcam so I can stick the whole thing on Youtube? I'm not particularly keen on the video idea, not through modesty, but because to do an audio only version as well I'd need to strip audio out of the recording and convert it to mp3 or have two programmes running and have to upload two sets of files. Suddenly a fun project could become a lot of work and eat into my work time.

But let me know. We rely on you to spread the word about the campaign and to keep us informed of what is going on out there. Would this help you?

International Women's Day - 8 March

It is International Women's Day on 8 March. The World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action, of which Baby Milk Action is a member, has issued the following press release.

BREASTFEEDING IN THE CONTEXT OF ‘ENDING IMPUNITY FOR
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND GIRLS’

Penang, March 2, 2007- Discrimination and violence against women and the girl child can affect breastfeeding at various points in the life of a female from infancy to old age. Recognizing the inconsistencies and violence that the girl child and women face every day, World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action (WABA) supports and endorses the International Women’s Day theme of ‘Ending impunity for violence against Women and Girls.’ International Women’s Day will be celebrated the world over on 8th March, a date designated by the UN since 1975.

The causes and risk factors of violence against women and the responsibilities of the state were clearly enunciated by the Secretary General in the UN Study of 9 October 2006. He noted that violence against women is rooted in structural relationships of inequality between women and men and is not confined to a specific culture, region or country or to particular groups of women within a society. Physical, sexual, psychological and economic forms of violence against women can take place in an intimate relationship, in the family, in the community, within a State set-up, and during and after armed conflicts.

Regarding breastfeeding, violence manifests itself beginning with exclusion through to physical and psychological violence and abuse. As an infant, the girl child may receive inadequate nutrition due to preference for sons, which can lead a mother to cut short the breastfeeding time for her baby girl due to familial and societal pressures, in the hope of quickly starting a new pregnancy that might result in a boy. Additionally, where son preference is strong, girls who have older sisters are more likely to be neglected than boys who have older brothers. Such practices deny the girl-child adequate nutrition and the right to exclusive breastfeeding for six months and complementary feeding up to two years and beyond, which is the global recommendation for infant and young child feeding.

Further, attitudes towards the breast have been shaped by patriarchal constructions of sexuality and have led to harmful practices such as breast augmentation through cosmetic surgery or “breast ironing” as practiced in Cameroon. Community attitudes can affect a girl’s self esteem, her understanding of her body, her self-image and how her family, friends and community treat her as a person, often limiting her choice in living a full and active life. When sexually abusive behaviour is directed towards her breasts, a girl may develop a life-long aversion to touch, which can affect her decision to breastfeed and be close to her baby when she becomes a new mother.

Violence and discrimination against women by family, workplace or State do not stop because a woman is pregnant or is a new mother. Such experiences cause deep stress and anxiety which can affect a mother’s ability to breastfeed her baby. Prolonged stress can lead to abnormally high or low levels of the hormone cortisol in mothers, which can result in suppressed or delayed milk production. Another barrier to breastfeeding that a woman may encounter is her partner’s view that her breasts “belong” to him and not to her or to their baby. A common form of abuse is for a workplace to make no accommodation for mothers’ right to breastfeed, expecting mothers to work long hours without regard to their health or the health of their children. Where competition for jobs is keen, factories and businesses may feel they have impunity to deny paid maternity leave and breastfeeding breaks to mothers, to fire women who become pregnant, or even to discriminate in hiring women at all.

Taking into consideration the impact of the different forms of violence on the health of girls and women and women’s choice to breastfeed their infants, WABA calls for a multi-pronged approach involving the State, civil society, the community and the family. States cannot afford to behave with impunity towards perpetrators of violence against women and girls, for otherwise it gives the message that it is acceptable or normal to deny justice to women. In doing so, they also reinforce the prevailing structural inequalities that face women and girls every day. States must therefore make concrete efforts to secure gender equality and protect women’s human rights. They must effectively bridge gaps between international standards and national laws, policies and practices. They must unflinchingly redress violence against women and must exercise leadership towards ending violence against women.

Civil society must engage meaningfully with the State and the community to influence family choices in how they treat women and the girl child. As a community we must care for our young people and make informed efforts towards educating both girls and boys about key life experiences such as birthing, breastfeeding and sexuality.

Family members can do simple things for mothers, for instance tell her she is doing a good job as a mother, refrain from using violent and abusive words to her, do household chores while she breastfeeds the baby in a relaxed state of mind.

WABA reiterates its own position that women have the right to breastfeed as enshrined in the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and that all forms of violence against women affect breastfeeding. Gender equity is therefore basic to the breastfeeding movement.

References:

Ending Violence against Women: From words to action Study of the Secretary General. 9 October 2006

A statement from the UN Breastfeeding Advocacy Team. 2007.

Coffee chain seeks alternatives to Nestlé

I spotted this sign at the AMT coffee kiosk at London King's Cross railway station last week.

It's a sign about the removal of Nestlé Kit Kat chocolate bars.

AMT sells only Fairtrade coffee.

Nestlé has launched its own Fair Trade coffee in some of the countries where the boycott is particularly strong (UK, Ireland and Sweden so far) as part of a public relations strategy to try to improve its appalling image. For how Nestlé is using its one and only Fairtrade product during the current Fairtrade fortnight see:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/03/nestl-fairtrade-whitewash-2007.html

AMT says it decided to remove Nestlé Kit Kat from its coffee bars 'in response to customer demand'. It is seeking an alternative that fits with its support for Fairtrade.

One way to promote the boycott is to fill in customer comment cards where Nestlé products are sold or send messages via company websites. And when companies do look for alternatives, as AMT has done, send a message of congratulation.

When it comes to Nescafé, the principal target of the boycott, we have small cards which you can leave at places if you don't want to raise the boycott with the management. This has a space for you to write in your preferred brand. Available in our on-line Virtual Shop. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/boycott.html#nothanks

Nestlé Fairtrade whitewash 2007

We are in the middle of Fairtrade fortnight. As I wrote at the start of the week, Nestlé has one token Fairtrade product which it uses to try to improve its image while continuing with corporate malpractice. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/02/nestl-offensive-in-fair-trade-fortnight.html

An example of Nestlé's use of the Fairtrade mark in its PR campaign is the advertisement shown below, kindly sent in by a supporter this week.

Click here for a larger version

The advertisement is headed ‘Coffee with a conscience’ and includes this text:

---extract begins
Behind every cup of coffee there’s a story – and the story of Nescafé Partners’ Blend is one of hope

A quick lesson in coffee growing

The problem for coffee producers has always been that their livelihood is directly linked to the coffee bean price on the world’s markets. If that price drops (as it has in recent years) the growers, and their families, suffer. And should the coffee crop fail for any reason, they’ve nothing to fall back on.
---extract ends

But, ta da, Nestlé is there to help with its Partners' Blend initiative.

This is dishonest, because only 0.1% of the coffee farmers dependent on Nestlé are involved in Partners' Blend. Over 3 million are not and they have suffered as Nestlé and the other companies in the oligarchy of processors have forced down prices. Nestlé has also fuelled the problem of over-production, which also drives down prices, by, for example, encouraging farmers in China to move into coffee. It is also accused of buying coffee grown illegally in a nature reserve in Indonesia.

We registered a complaint with the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) over Nestlé’s mass advertising campaign last year. Then too, Nestlé suggested its new initiative was helping to address the crisis in the coffee industry.

Then, as now, the advertisements said virtually nothing about the actual coffee ostensibly being promoted. There was no comment on its flavour, where it could be bought, how much it cost. The ASA rejected our complaint, while refusing to include in its ruling the key figures on how few farmers are involved in Partners’ Blend coffee. They said they had been supplied with this information by Nestlé, but didn’t include it in the ruling, even though it is in the public domain. Including this highly relevant information would have discredited the ruling. We reported the case to the ASA ombudsman, hoping this would prompt a revision, but he said he could not comment on the ruling, only that they had followed the correct procedure in conducting the investigation.

The only recourse left would be seeking a judicial review. This would cost time and money and we judged it to be inappropriate to use either to pursue the case further. Every day we have to make judgement calls on what to put our time to. We had done enough to ensure reports of Nestlé’s Fairtrade coffee included information on its baby food marketing malpractice and the boycott. This went some way to undo the damage the award of the mark had caused. Pursuing a judicial review to further expose the injustice to coffee farmers was outside our issue.

Unfortunately advocacy organisations that had campaigned on the coffee issue in the past had either moved on to other campaigns, or were cautiously welcoming the fact that Nestlé had made a move into Fairtrade. Just a few organisations spoke out to say the mark should not have been awarded for such little commitment from Nestlé. For example, Equal Exchange's co-director, Rob Everts, said at the time:

"We understand what it takes to commit to more equitable relationships with small coffee farmers. We have long recommended that for large corporations the Fair Trade starting point should be 5% of their total imports. Given Nestlé's dismal track record on many fronts in the developing world, they have an even steeper credibility hill to climb than most, and should in fact begin even higher than 5%. Large companies tend to subsidize their modest Fair Trade purchases by paying farmers much lower prices on the rest of their coffee imports."

We were only informed by the Fairtrade Foundation about the award late in the day, two years after discussions had begun and when the announcement was imminent. Our view was that Nestlé would use the award just as it is doing - to try to improve its image, divert criticism and undermine the boycott, so damaging our campaign. We also advised that giving the mark for so little would give Nestlé what it wanted - a PR tool - without requiring a significant change in practices.

Are we to believe Nestlé has been converted and will soon be buying all of its coffee through the Fairtrade scheme, or even 5% of its coffee? I think not, as it can run mass advertising campaigns having been given the mark for buying just 0.02%. My experience tells me that Nestlé has all it needs for its PR purposes so expect little more. Any improvement in the lot of the 3 million farmers outside the scheme will only come through concerted campaigning - or regulatory systems. Some of those who are more experienced about Fairtrade than I think differently, of course, at least in the UK. Some organisations, such as the Italian Fairtrade organisation opposed giving the award.

After we reported Nestlé to the ASA last year, we did take some comfort from the fact that Nestlé changed later advertisements to refer to the coffee product more than Nestlé being the salvation for coffee farmers.

But this year, Nestlé has reverted to boasting of how it is helping to save farmers. It should not really fall to Baby Milk Action's to set the record straight and campaign on behalf of coffee farmers. We can speak out only to the extent it furthers our aims.

For example, church and university groups did invite us to participate in debates with Nestlé during Fairtrade fortnight. We accepted as we could raise awareness of the baby milk issue and the boycott. Nestlé refused to debate. Why? Because it knows it has lost all past debates and would lose again. See my blog on Nestlé's change in policy on debating at:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/01/nestl-transparency-and-its-refusal-to.html

For resources to expose Nestlé's use of the Fairtrade mark, see:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/02/nestl-offensive-in-fair-trade-fortnight.html

And please do keep sending examples of Nestlé's use of the mark.

Industry campaign 'misleading, deceptive, and malicious in intent'

The press release from the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food is being picked up by media around the world. See yesterday's blog here:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/02/un-rapporteur-appalled-about.html

It is really satisfying when a campaign moves on from Baby Milk Action and its partners saying 'please, please take a look at what is going on here', to people saying to us 'have you seen this shocking news report!' or even, 'could you run a campaign on this?'

It is the quantum leap in awareness we have been aiming for on the Philippines campaign.

Yesterday I received an email from India about the case, an email sent to a list of people, mainly in Asia. The industry has not been able to keep a lid on the scandal. Now it is out there and will increasingly take on a life of its own as the media, development organisations, policy makers and others conduct their own investigations and exposés.

We ask our supporters to help us with media monitoring and send in links and cuttings of reports they think of relevance to our work. We used to have a cuttings service, but with funding shortfalls, that was one of the expenditures we had to end. Google media pulls in some things, but interested supporters pick up far more of relevance. Sometimes we may already be aware of an article, because we assisted the journalist in some way, in which case it is good to know it is reaching people. Often, we will not be aware, because the story has taken life and others are investigating.

It is great to have been notified of the following reports yesterday, picking up on the Special Rapporteur's press release. The strong position taken by Jean Ziegler is greatly appreciated by all who have been working on this case.

Here are some choice quotes from some of the reports:

http://www.ap-foodtechnology.com/news/ng.asp?n=74621-nestle-philippines-infant-milkun

---extract
A UN expert has slammed a Filipino advertising campaign for breast milk substitutes as "misleading, deceptive, and malicious in intent."

Jean Ziegler this week criticized the campaign by the Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Association of the Philippines - which represents the infant milk industry - for manipulating findings by a number of health organizations to benefit its profits.

He also revealed his concern that companies may be distorting health claims linked to the product.

The attack is likely to increase pressure on authorities in the country to tighten legislation on health claims being made by food processors, following growing concerns that they may be misleading and potentially damaging to consumer health.
---ends

http://www.shanghaidaily.com/sp/article/2007/200702/20070228/article_307378.htm

---extract
A UN expert criticized "deceptive" advertising in connection with sales of breast milk substitutes.

Aggressive marketing practices by milk companies were misleading the public by claiming that breast-feeding cannot be done by a majority of women and that their products raise healthy, smart and happy babies, said Jean Ziegler, a world body food specialist.

Newspaper ads by the Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Association of the Philippines are "misleading, deceptive and malicious in intent," he said.

The statement issued by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva said the ads "manipulate data emanating from the UN specialized agencies, such as WHO and UNICEF," as well as the Philippine Health Department, "with the sole purpose to protect the milk companies' huge profits, regardless of the best interest of Filipino mothers and children."
---extract ends

Significantly, reports have gone out on the Associated Press newswire service, which makes it far easier for the Philippines media to pick it up, than if risking the ire of advertisers by putting their own journalists onto the case.

One of the media outlets to do so is Sun.Star
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/net/2007/02/28/.deceptive.ads.for.infant.formula.appall.un.expert.html

---extract
Last July, the Philippine health department introduced strict regulations that included a ban on advertising and promotion of milk substitutes for children up to 2 years, with an absolute ban on false health and nutritional claims.

Milk companies, represented by PHAP, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the new regulations constituted restraint on freedom of trade. The court granted a temporary restraining order last August that is still in effect.

Ziegler said he supports the Philippine government's position to regulate promotion of milk substitutes, and said he was counting on Filipinos and international organizations to oppose "manipulative and deceptive tactics of milk companies."
---extract ends

We have a list of organisations that have signed our petition of support for the Philippines Government. All are welcome to do so. We presented a card with these to the Philippines Ambassador in London last year. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press8dec06.html

This includes quotes from Christian Aid, Oxfam, the UK National Childbirth Trust, celebrities and politicians.

We are tracking media coverage on our original campaign launch press release. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press9nov06.html

UN Rapporteur 'appalled' about Philippines case

The International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) is on the cutting-edge of holding some of the world's largest and most powerful transnational corporations to account. Our work on human rights and infant feeding comes to mind with a damning statement issued by the UN Rapporteur on the Right to Food about the Philippines case.

We are proud to be the UK member of IBFAN. Part of the reason for IBFAN's success in stopping malpractice and saving infant lives, is because evaluating our strategies is built into how we operate. While continuing with what we know to work, we also look to innovate and use new opportunities. We need to learn and adapt, because the industry we are seeking to regulate adapts and, at present, is fundamentally opposed to changing its practices unless compelled to do so. It puts its own profits first.

We have not achieved total success in all countries partly because of resource limitations, but mainly because of the nature of the baby food industry and its leading players, particularly Nestlé. See my past blog for a reminder at:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2006/10/long-haul.html

An opportunity that IBFAN has been an innovator in spotting and utilising, is the human rights approach to protecting infant and young child health. Our partner in Switzerland, the Geneva Infant Feeding Association (GIFA), has led the way in using the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). GIFA supports national IBFAN groups in including infant feeding issues in the civil society reports - the so-called "alternative reports", that go to the Committee overseeing the Convention. Every year the Committee reviews approximately 27 countries; each signatory country is reviewed every five years. All countries in the world, with the exception of the USA and Somalia, have ratified the CRC and therefore are reviewed by the CRC Committee.

Baby Milk Action has followed GIFA's guidance, submitting comments to the reports prepared by Save the Children. As a direct result, in 2002 the Committee called on the UK Government to implement the baby food marketing requirements in legislation. Current laws are far too narrow and weak. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/02/hard-sell-formula-for-underming.html

We have since built stronger links with human rights bodies ourselves and included a human rights approach in our campaigning. I was delighted to be able to report on the letter sent by the UN Rapporteur on the Right to Food sent to the Philippines UN representative last year. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/01/philippines-gains-backing-of-un-human.html

The strong comments in support of the Philippines Government have now been reiterated in a press release on the UN Human Rights Commission website, which I include below. This could be critically important.

Thanks to campaigning action, the Philippines Government now knows it is not alone in facing the pressure from the baby food industry and the US Chamber of Commerce. It knows that whatever the industry may tell it, its efforts to implement World Health Assembly marketing requirements are not unreasonable. Indeed, they are required by its human rights obligations.

Importantly for us, our partners on the ground - health workers, mothers and their families - who began this campaign of defending the regulations - see their efforts paying off. This is now an issue of global concern. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/02/misled-mothers-in-philippines-protest.html

It remains to be seen if this, and events still to come, will be sufficient to save the regulations introduced by the Philippines Governments. What you can be sure of is IBFAN will evaluate what happens carefully, to learn for the next time. Unfortunately, it is certain there will be a next time. This is the voice of experience talking.

Here is the UN press release. See:
http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/3035D668F9E92329C125728F00294A69?opendocument

---

UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR APPALLED WITH THE DECEPTIVE TACTICS OF MILK COMPANIES IN THE PHILIPPINES

xxxxxxxxxx

26 February 2007

Jean Ziegler, the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, issued the following statement today. Ziegler is an independent expert appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council.

The Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Mr. Jean Ziegler, is deeply concerned about the current media campaign supporting breastmilk substitutes, organized by the Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Association of the Philippines (PHAP). This commercial campaign, appearing in some of the Philippines's top newspapers is, according to the Special Rapporteur, misleading, deceptive, and malicious in intent.

Mr. Ziegler is concerned that the content of this campaign's materials manipulate data emanating from UN specialized agencies such as WHO and UNICEF, as well as the Filipino Department of Health, with the sole purpose to protect the milk companies' huge profits, regardless of the best interest of Filipino mothers and children. He also expressed his disappointment on the irresponsible and unethical behavior of some medical practitioners and organizations, which have lent themselves to support these companies' selfish interest. The aggressive marketing practices by milk companies contribute to misleading the public by claiming that breastfeeding can not be done by a majority of women and that their products raise healthy, smart, and happy babies.

In 2003 the WHO estimated that 16,000 children under the age of 5 died in the Philippines as a result of improper feeding practices including infant formula. Today, only 16 per cent of children at four to five months of age are exclusively breastfed and 13% of infants are not breastfed at all.

In July 2006, after several years of consultation with industry and community groups, UNICEF and the WHO, the Filipino Department of Health introduced strict regulations in order to implement the 1986 Milk Code. The new regulation includes a ban on the advertising and promotion of milk substitutes for children up to two years old, with an absolute ban on false health and nutritional claims. However, represented by PHAP, the milk companies, appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that the new regulation to implement the Milk Code constituted a restraint on freedom of trade. As a result, the Supreme Court granted a temporary restraining order that is still in effect to date.

The Special Rapporteur reiterates his support to the Government's stand in relation to the regulation to implement the Milk Code and counts on the wisdom of the Filipinos and international organizations to oppose the manipulative and deceptive tactics of milk companies who are guided by their interests and profits. He urges the companies to acknowledge their social corporate responsibility and to take all necessary measures to review their marketing practices related to breast milk substitutes. The Special Rapporteur also appeals to medical practitioners to abide by the ethical rules required by their profession.
---

Nestlé offensive in Fair Trade fortnight

Fair Trade fortnight has just begun.

Last year I was interviewed around this time for a BBC Money Programme special on Fair Trade and the controversy over Nestlé being awarded a Fairtrade mark for its Partners' Blend brand of coffee. This was an opportunity to raise the boycott and its baby food marketing malpractice.

From our experience we were also able to predict how Nestlé would use the award to try to undermine the boycott and generally divert attention of its shameful business practices.

So it proved, with a mass media advertising campaign in which the company used its one and only Fair Trade product to suggest it was taking the initiative on improving the lives of coffee farmers. Yet only 0.1% of farmers dependent on Nestlé were involved in the product and the rest suffer downward pressure on prices because of the aggressive trading practices of Nestlé and the rest of the oligarchy of coffee processors.

For our analysis of the situation, comments from other organisations and our monitoring of how Nestlé has used the Fair Trade mark in its PR campaigns, see the Your Questions Answered entry on our website at
http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/yqsanswered/yqanestle07.html

It is also worth remembering that Nestlé is in court in the US over child slavery in its cocoa supply chain. Nestlé has the possibility of buying cocoa through the Fair Trade system in Ivory Coast, but refuses to do so, meaning certified farms are having to sell on the open market, where Nestlé picks up the cocoa at a lower price. You can hear a sound bite and full interview with Bama Athreya of the International Labor Rights Fund at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/ram/ilrf06/childslavery06.html

Sure enough Nestlé is on the offensive again this year. And this is your opportunity to expose Nestlé baby food marketing malpractice and promote the boycott, while also supporting genuine Fair Trade companies.

We have a special version of our 'Ten Facts' leaflet which includes the Fair Trade issue. This is easy to photocopy and can be downloaded by clicking
http://www.babymilkaction.org/pdfs/factsfairtrade0906.pdf

Look out for opportunities to contact the media, too. I have just sent an email to the news desk of the Saga radio station in response to it teaming up with Nestlé.

You can send your own message, via this site:
https://www.saga.co.uk/secure/1057fm/competition.asp?id=243

This is what I said:

---
How absurd that you have teamed up with Nestlé to promote Fair Trade Fortnight. This is the most boycotted company in the UK over its unethical baby milk marketing and this is an attempt by Nestlé to undermine the boycott. This is a company that has just one product out of 8,500 that is Fair Trade. It's Partners' Blend coffee involves just 0.1% of the coffee farmers dependent on Nestlé - the rest see their incomes cut as Nestlé and the oligarch of coffee processors force prices down. Nestlé is in court in the US over child slavery in its cocoa supply chain - its defence is that child slavery is not a crime against humanity so it should not be taken to court. Find out more on the Baby Milk Action website http://www.babymilkaction.org/ and support genuine Fair Trade companies, not those who are trying to divert attention from their shameful business practices.
---

Please keep Baby Milk Action informed of any other Nestlé PR initiatives you come across, using our contact form.

Breastfeeding censored by Myspace

News reaches me of a campaign by a mother on Myspace who had a breastfeeding picture removed from her site by the moderators.

They said: “We can't have certain kinds of pics (nude/sexually suggestive photos, violent images, etc.) on the site. Our site is an all-ages site, and we have users as young as 14, so all images must be PG rated. If you continue to violate our policies, we may be forced to remove your account.”

Before we get too irate, let’s note that it is brilliant that Myspace takes its duty of care for children seriously in vetting all images posted on the site. With the site so popular there must be a great deal to check and their checking system may not show the picture in context. So this standard email could have been fired off with a knee-jerk click (if such a thing exists), by a busy employee who saw some bare flesh.

Let’s hope so.

My blog appears on the blogger site and Myspace. So here is a little test. Pictures from our 2007 breastfeeding calendar. This is bought by health trusts for display in clinics, as well as supporters and members of the general public, so we can safely say the images are not only PG, but U (universal).

If you want them without the copyright notices, you need to buy our calendar, which is available in our on-line Virtual Shop.

January 2007

February 2007

March 2007

April 2007

May 2007

June 2007

July 2007

August 2007

September 2007

October 2007

November 2007

December 2007

Media studies in the Philippines

Part of the reason our partners in the Philippines call for international help in defending the government’s regulations for the marketing of baby foods, is that it is difficult for journalists there to run stories that are critical of big advertisers.

We have documented how television stations have been threatened in the past with the loss of Nestlé advertising for reporting on concerns over its marketing and referring to the Nestlé boycott.

We have strategies that work to break through the wall of silence. Your messages of support and the celebrity endorsements we have received have made front page stories in the Philippines. A few days ago a demonstration by our partners was also picked up in a national paper. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/02/misled-mothers-in-philippines-protest.html

However, it is an unequal struggle. While it is difficult for campaigners to gain coverage, the baby food companies are simply paying for advertising space arguing that mothers need ‘information’ on infant formula. They gain both coverage that campaigners find difficult to achieve AND give the media another financial reason not to upset them.

One article is addressed to ‘Dear Mothers’ and says breastfeeding is best, but mothers need information on infant formula for when they cannot breastfeed.

(click here for a large version)

The advertisement list includes things like if the mother has a breast or nipple problem or cannot provide enough milk. These are cases where a mother needs independent advice from a health worker or mother-support network, because with support such problems can be overcome. The cause is usually due to poor latch on which a mother can correct with experienced help.

The companies prey on these problems and build up a mothers fears in their ‘information’ materials. As in these advertisements, they present formula as the solution if a mother has difficulties, not support for breastfeeding.

The World Health Assembly International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes gives responsibility for advising parents to health workers and prohibits companies from advertising, other forms of promotion or seeking direct or indirect contact with mothers.

As the companies state in their advertisement, there is a legitimate market for infant formula. There will be times when they are necessary. Marketing restrictions do not stop formula from being sold. They stop the promotion and require labels to have accurate and clear instructions and warnings. This is to benefit all mothers. The argument from the companies is a bogus one, but because they pay for the advertising space, they are given prominence.

In this reality, we must be grateful to the journalists and editors who have given space to the health advocates side of the issue. But for whatever reason, some newspapers have run articles defending formula promotion, even misrepresenting the position of UNICEF.

A paper had to publish a response from the UNICEF Representative in the Philippines last month after running an article claiming ‘UNICEF reports’ cited the Philippines as having breastfeeding rates amongst the highest in the world. A couple of key facts from Dr. Nicholas Alipui:

* 19-20 percent of under 5 deaths or 16,000 deaths in the Philippines could be prevented by appropriate infant and young child feeding.

* The national Demographic Health Survey 2003 shows an increased incidence of diarrhoea among children from 7 percent (1998) to 11 percent (2003) as the exclusive breastfeeding rates in the country declined from 20 percent (1998) to 16.5 percent (2003).

Dr Alipui went on:

“UNICEF supports the Philippines Department of Health’s efforts to strictly control the marketing and promotion of artificial breastmilk substitutes, in conformity with international accepted standards as defined by the World Health Organisation. This is vital in a developing country like the Philippines were excessive glamorization and exaggerated health claims ascribed to artificial breastmilk substitutes induce poor families to abandon the cheapest, safest and healthiest source of nutrition for their young children – breastfeeding.”

Sounds like the sort of thing Baby Milk Action says, doesn’t it? That is because we know what we are talking about. Nestlé and friends may sometimes try to suggest they are only criticised by us - a bunch of activists - but in reality we are simply the outspoken section in a range of health advocates.

As a Non-Governmental Organisation funded by membership and grants from trusts and development organisations, we are answerable only to our members, board of directors and accountants. This gives us the freedom to bring people onto the streets when necessary, to run campaigns such as the Nestlé boycott and to be a little blunter when exposing the shameful practices of companies that put their own profits before infant health. Without political master or corporate partners to worry about upsetting, we can organise letter writing campaigns to support governments and to put pressure on companies. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemnov06.html

But make no mistake. We are not mavericks making unreasonable demands on companies. The strategies we devise are to complement those of the broader health community who may not have the same freedoms.

The regulations we monitor and call for companies to abide by were adopted by the World Health Assembly, made up of the world’s health ministries. The regulations we and our partners in the Philippines are defending, were introduced by the Department of Health (DOH) there. The claims we make are backed by hard evidence and scientific research.

Here is what Dr. Alipui said in his letter to the paper about the Philippines regulations:

“The revised IRR of the Executive Order 51 supported by DOH seeks only to regulate the marketing of breastmilk substitutes. The revised IRR will enable mothers to make informed choices based on accurate and reliable information. Impartial information cannot come from parties that stand to make profit from one choice or another. And if mothers make truly informed choices about the feeding of their children, then nobody can make them feel guilty.”

Our aim is the same at that of UNICEF and the World Health Assembly: to protect infant health and the right of mothers (all mothers) to independent information, through implementing globally agreed marketing standards.

Our petition of support and delegation to the Philippines Embassy in London has helped to get this issue onto the front page of the papers in the Philippines. See past blogs, such as:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2006/11/your-messages-of-support-are-front.html

UNICEF’s response has brought the issue onto the letters page of another paper, attempting to undo the damage caused by a misleading article.

All very well for raising awareness, but meanwhile the industry opens its cheque book and runs full colour advertisements.

So we must continue to call on your help and support our partners, the government and mother and their families in the Philippines. At present the industry has succeeded in having the new marketing regulations suspended. The case continues, even with the assassination of the government lawyer defending the case (by people still unknown). See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2006/12/lawyer-defending-philippines-baby-food.html

This is the reality we face in every case, powerful vested interests defending their profits, regardless of the impact on infant health. It is never easy, but we have won through in other countries and with your support we will win through here. Become a member of Baby Milk Action or send a donation. Or buy something from our shop. Over half our income comes from people doing just that and every penny helps. Also tell people what is really going on. Direct people to this blog and our website http://www.babymilkaction.org/

One hundred mothers demonstrated outside the offices of the baby food companies in the Philippines last week to raise awareness of how they had been misled by company promotion and their infants suffered as a consequence. Some will be bringing legal action for compensation.

If you are a journalist you can cover this story. I wrote about this in my blog on Monday.
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/02/misled-mothers-in-philippines-protest.html

UNICEF Philippines sent the following out yesterday. With a picture.



Photo caption: Philippines mothers protest deceptive marketing of infant formula companies, which leads to at least 16,000 deaths in the country every year.

Copyright: UNICEF/PHI/2007/J Bondoc

Click here for a hi-resolution version.

---UNICEF Philippines press release

In the Philippines, mothers demand truth about infant formula

Over 100 formula feeding mothers and their babies protested in front of infant formula manufacturers’ offices, claiming milk advertisements have deceived them into giving their babies infant formula instead of breastmilk.

“My message to the milk companies is to stop deceiving those who buy infant formula,” says Nadine Sylvano, mother of five children. “They say that their milk is good for children’s brains, will make children healthy, stout and give strong bones. But it’s not true.”

“My breastfed child did not get sick often but this one, almost every month I have to bring her again to the hospital because she is sick again,” Sylvano observed.

When asked why she did not breastfeed her fifth child, Sylvano replies, “Because I did not have milk from my breasts.”

Sylvano’s experience is a common one. According to the National Statistics Office, 31 per cent of mothers in the Philippines do not breastfeed because they believe that they do not have enough milk.

Only 16 per cent of babies four to five months of age are still exclusively breastfeeding.

Even though UNICEF and WHO recommend exclusive breastfeeding in the first six months of life, half of all babies in the Philippines are exclusively breastfed for less than one month.

Aggressive advertising and marketing of infant formula has undermined mothers’ confidence in their ability to nourish their children, claims Innes Fernandez, convenor of Save Babies Coalition.

“They were all cheated, they were all beguiled by all this false advertising, marketing activities that seduce them to buy their formula, believing the testimonials of celebrities so they were always hoping and wishing that they would have healthy babies,” Fernandez adds.

Milk companies aver that they also advocate for breastfeeding but want to give consumers a choice.

“We believe… breastfeeding is best for babies,” says Andrew Santos, Vice-President of Wyeth Philippines. “What we have there are products that if the Mom chooses, or if for some reason she cannot breastfeed, then she is given that on her own decision, to be able to, or the paediatrician especially, to make a choice.”

Fernandez counters, however, that even medical doctors are unable to make an informed choice about infant feeding.

Dr. Lester Lora, who used to manage the maternal and child health programme in the Department of Health, says that even she was not properly informed about breastfeeding.

“During our time, nobody taught us [in medical school] about breastfeeding. Instead, we were taught how to prepare infant formula,” Dr. Lora says.

As a result, she herself fed her three sons infant formula and blames it for their lifelong battles with various diseases, from diabetes to ulcerative colitis.

UNICEF has been supporting the Philippines Department of Health to more strictly enforce the National Milk Code, which regulates the marketing of breastmilk substitutes. However, in 2006, the Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Association of the Philippines, made up of milk companies among others, succeeded in appealing to the Supreme Court for a temporary restraining order on the Code’s revised implementing rules and regulations.

In the meantime, infant formula advertisements continue to make claims of health and cognitive benefits.

“Stop all these false claims,” demands Fernandez.

http://www.unicef.org/philippines/

Hard sell formula for underming breastfeeding in the UK

Yesterday I wrote about the latest monitoring from our partners in the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) in Brazil. Today the focus is on the UK, where legislation is narrow and enforcement weak. In the UK companies can roll out integrated strategies to undermine breastfeeding and generally get away with it.

It falls to Baby Milk Action, our partners in the Baby Feeding Law Group (BFLG) and supporters on the ground to call companies to account in the UK. Today Baby Milk Action has launched a pamphlet on behalf of BFLG explaining company strategies.


While we are perhaps best known for the Nestlé boycott, this is just one part of our range of strategies to protect infant and young child health. All aim towards stopping aggressive marketing by the baby food industry. Monitoring tells us what companies are up to in shops, health centres, on the internet, in targeting mothers. Staff conduct some monitoring themselves, particularly of product labels, but for a broader view of what goes on, supporters are our eyes, ears, documenters and photographers.

The Baby Feeding Law Group website has a monitoring section where members of the public and volunteers we have trained can report details of aggressive marketing. Reports on the site are updated periodically, showing how the baby food companies and retailers are violating the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant Resolutions of the World Health Assembly and even the weaker UK law.

These results have been picked up by the media in the past, as well as being fed into global monitoring snapshots, such as that coordinated by the World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action (WABA) during World Breastfeeding Week in August last year, marking the 25th anniversary of the introduction of the International Code.

We have run letter-writing campaigns where supporters have called on companies to fulfil their obligations under the UK law and the Code and Resolutions. This has prompted a few minor changes, but generally the responses, when they have come, have shown how contemptuous of the measures companies are. This is useful for re-enforcing our case that the Code and Resolutions need to be introduced into legislation. See, for example,
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2006/12/uk-supermarkets-are-useless-at-abiding.html

In its public health white paper in 2004 the Government agreed to review the law and to work for the strengthening of the EU Directive from which it derives. This didn’t happen by chance. It came from campaigns we have run with our partners, our denouncing the lack of action to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, which called in 2002 for the Code to be implemented in the UK, from events at the House of Commons and from our supporters contacting their Members of Parliament and Ministers.

We now look forward to the review of the law. The monitoring evidence is an essential part of the campaign to show how the Code and Resolutions are being violated and how the law needs to be strengthened. I wish to thank all our supporters once again for submitting evidence. We have a range of reports and events planned for the coming months. First up, is this short pamphlet showing as starkly as we can the integrated strategy used by the baby food industry in the UK.

It is just 4 pages and so easy to digest. We aim to shock people into realising that while the companies claim they are simply providing information to those who ask for it, there is really a well thought out campaign to persuade women to look to the companies for advice on infant care, after which they are bombarded with formula brand names and promotional messages.

This starts even before the child is born. With the offer of prizes for signing up to company information services. Emails and mailshots then follow. Women are encouraged to call the company ‘careline’ or order leaflets and videos. One company has even targeted mothers when they go to the registry office to register the birth of their children.

Health workers are offered prizes to support the ‘carelines’. The pamphlet shows the credit-card-sized cards one company sent to health workers to give to mothers. Companies also send information materials to health workers with dubious claims about the advantages of their products and encourage them to order leaflets to pass on to mothers. To get closer to health workers they are invited to study days branded with formula names.

Mothers are then bombarded with promotional materials, through email, direct mail, advertising, at leisure facilities, health centres and crèches. ‘I’m thinking of getting a t-shirt made’, says one piece of direct mail we picture. ‘Danger! Sore boobs!’ At the bottom of this message is the formula brand name.


Companies will carry right on with these strategies and others still to be invented, until the law changes. Even then, the law will need enforcing. The current weak law is poorly enforced, as we explain in the pamphlet. Supermarkets repeat illegal promotion of infant formula with apparent impunity. Baby food companies run de facto advertisements for infant formula and the authorities are not even prepared to investigate. See
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2006/11/one-cheer-for-advertising-standards.html

Not only is breastfeeding undermined, but mothers who decide to use formula receive misleading information and are not made aware of the risks of formula feeding or all the action that can be taken to reduce them.

So, download the pamphlet and direct people to the website to take a copy themselves. The link is:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press22feb07.html

We will have printed copies available in due course.

Our UK campaign is an essential part of our work. Infants at home deserve protection too, even if the sickness arising from artificial feeding is unlikely to lead to death as in poor settings.

In the past we had a Health Campaigns Coordinator to focus specifically on the UK situation, but due to funding cut backs our employed team of 3 has to fit in work on this issue alongside supporting overseas partners, promoting the boycott and achieving systemic changes at international level - such as at Codex Alimentarius - where far-reaching improvements are won, see
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2006/10/food-code-and-queen.html

Donations to help with this work are always welcome. Donations can be made via our on-line shop. Or please consider becoming a member.

With our funding tight, any amount makes a difference and will enable us to have a bigger impact. There will, of course, also be the opportunity to take part directly in the campaign. And please do keep on monitoring.

By the end of the year I hope much of the aggressive marketing exposed in the pamphlet will be illegal so that breastfeeding is not undermined and so that mothers who do use formula have accurate information and clearer instructions on how to reduce risks.

Then I will write a blog explaining how the meetings, demonstrations, comments on draft regulations, letter writing campaigns and the monitoring helped to bring this about for the benefit of our children. This is how lives are saved, sickness reduced.

Making Brazil's law work

Oh, for the problems of Brazil when it comes to baby food marketing.

I have written previously about Brazil’s exemplary legislation implementing the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant Resolutions of the World Health Assembly. See
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2006/12/brazil-example-to-world.html

As said then, violations that happen elsewhere in the world, do not happen in Brazil, showing that companies can comply when compelled to do so.

Key in this, is that companies do have to be compelled. In Brazil, the regulations are monitored by the government’s health inspectorate (ANVISA) and the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN). The latest IBFAN results have just been referenced in an article published by the Institute in Defence of the Consumer (IDEC).

They do find violations, but of a whole different order to what is seen in other countries. The UK, for example, is put to shame. Here companies advertise breastmilk substitutes with impunity, exploiting weak laws which allow the advertising of follow-on milks and the brand names used for infant formula. Supermarkets in the UK repeatedly run illegal promotions for infant formula and receive warnings without being prosecuted. See
http://www.babyfeedinglawgroup.org.uk/

So what happens in Brazil?

I have just received an article on monitoring conducted by IBFAN, published in the IDEC magazine in December 2006. You can download it here (it is in Portuguese).

It is headed ‘IBFAN detects irregularities’. These relate to the labelling of products, principally whole milks and foods for young children without age of use displayed and/or required ‘Government Health Warnings’.

The type of idealizing images and texts seen elsewhere are not a problem in Brazil. For example, you don’t find infant formula labels boasting of ‘brain building blocks’ like Nestlé markets in the Philippines (click here). Famously, Gerber does not use its baby logo on feeding bottles in Brazil, while continuing to do so elsewhere in the world.

ANVISA began systematic monitoring in 2006 and also reports finding irregularities on labels (click here for a report in Portuguese).

The other type of problem found in Brazil is the targeting of mothers. Not with company representatives in supermarkets, like we get in the UK. Not with leaflets and television advertising in doctors surgeries pushing product brand names, which are also commonplace here. But websites directed at mothers. In Brazil it is illegal for companies to produce or sponsor information on infant feeding. This responsibility is given to health workers. Information on feeding young children over one year of age, has to contain specific information.

The report states that companies including Nestlé, Gerber and Mead Johnson were found to be breaking this requirement. Nestlé, perhaps wary of this further fuelling the boycott, said it would make changes. Gerber and Mead Johnson are challenging the report. The exposé in Brazil (and our publicising it) will help to keep up the pressure on them to change. The inclusion of Gerber owners, Novartis, in the FTSE4Good listing is due to be reviewed shortly and we have forwarded the report of violations in Brazil. Gerber said it would change practices to comply with the FTSE4Good criteria and was admitted on that basis. The clock is ticking and if it does not change its practices it will be expelled from the list. See
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2006/11/waiting-to-applaud.html

In Brazil breastfeeding rates are increasing year on year. This happens not only because the Code and Resolutions have been implemented in legislation, but because campaigners and now government authorities are monitoring the regulations. And must continue doing so to ensure full compliance. Without an end to aggressive marketing, efforts to promote and support breastfeeding are undermined.

Brazil is an example to the world.

Let us hope as the UK law is revised during 2007 our government will learn a few lessons. Tomorrow we will be launching a monitoring report ourselves, exposing the strategies used by the baby food industry in the UK to undermine breastfeeding.