Contaminated baby milk is not just a Chinese problem

I wrote on Monday about the tragedy in China where over a thousand babies have become ill and two have died because of contamination in the milk used to make the formula, produced by a New Zealand/Chinese company. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/09/china-formula-deaths.html

One of the things that struck me as odd in some of the coverage is that aspersions are being cast on Chinese goods as a whole. Nestlé recalled formula after a child died in Belgium, but the headlines weren't criticising Swiss goods (and Nestlé didn't recall the formula everywhere, because the order from the European Food Standards Agency didn't extend to Switzerland).

The contamination in that case was Enterobacter Sakazakii. Powdered formula is not sterile and contamination is worryingly common, though deaths are fortunately rare and the steps to reduce risks are straightforward. Unfortunately Nestlé and other formula companies continue to refuse to provide this information to parents on labels, instead boasting (in Nestlé's case) that its formula 'protects'. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/07/nestle-driving-standards-down.html

The International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) - we are the UK member - tracks product recalls as a service of its contaminants working group. See:
http://www.ibfan.org/site2005/Pages/article.php?art_id=85&iui=1

For example, the Austrian Agency for Health & Food Safety tested products on 11 July 07 and found the following contaminated with Enterobacter Sakazakii:

• HIPP Hypoallergene Anfangsnahrung HA1 (Starter Formula HA1)
• Milupa Pre Aptamil HA
• Wyeth Babylove Dauermilch

Other recalls in 2008 are a recall of Natur and Confort formula in Spain found to be contaminated with Salmonella Enterica and Nestlé's formula in South Africa which had excessive levels of copper, iron and zinc due to a mixing error.

It is the nature of mass produced food products that manufacturing errors will occur. Baby Milk Action and our partners in the Baby Feeding Law Group have been calling for the UK government to have a better system for monitoring cases of contamination and receiving reports of concerns. IBFAN works for this globally.

With present technology at least, it is the nature of powdered formula that it is not sterile and may be contaminated with harmful pathogens such as Enterobacter Sakazakii and Salmonella.

This is the double risk of formula over breastfeeding. Formula is not only more likely to introduce infections to vulnerable infants, it denies them the protective factors of breastmilk. While it is an essential product and saves lives in certain circumstances, these risks should be appreciated.

This Danone television advertisement for Cow & Gate formula which the UK Advertising Standards Authority is currently considering not only hides these risks, but misleads mothers into believing the formula provides protection.



While the media will often seize on reports of chemical residues being found in breastmilk, sensationalist reports that put some mothers off breastfeeding, miss the fact that more significant passing of chemicals from mother to baby happens in the womb and breastfeeding - with breastmilk from the same 'contaminated' mother - is the most effective way to reduce that chemical load. IBFAN's working group on residues in breastmilk has additional information. See:
http://www.ibfan.org/site2005/Pages/list2.php?parent=4&cat_id=121&iui=1

Formula deaths in China are no reason for Western gloating

You have probably seen coverage of the contaminated formula in China. This is from the Boston Herald:
http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view/2008_09_15_Tainted_formula_again_raises_concerns_about_Chinese_products/

---
So far, 1,253 babies have become ill from tainted baby formula manufactured by the Sanlu Group, and 340 of them are in the hospital, with 53 of them in serious condition, Health Ministry spokesman Ma Xiaowei said in a news conference. He acknowledged that two infants died in Gansu Province, a poor, dusty region in the nation’s arid northwest.
---

The contamination is believed to be melamine and it is suggested that some dairy farmers have added this to milk so it gives a higher protein reading in quality tests, but it is harmful.

Obviously the formula needs to be tracked and recalled as quickly as possible, the affected infants cared for and compensation provided and better controls put in place.

But there are aspects of the reporting of this story that strike me as both odd and symptomatic of how much of the media views developing countries and infant feeding.

Firstly, it is undeniably a tragedy that so many infants have become sick and two have died. The deaths are due to the formula not coming up to quality standards. But many, many more babies die every year and many, many more become sick because formula does not come up to the standard of breastmilk. In 2006/2007 we were campaigning in support of our partners in the Philippines where the World Health Organisation says that 60,000 infants die every year due to inappropriate feeding and was calling for stronger controls on the marketing of formula. Interesting the media in this story was an uphill struggle. It took petitions, demonstrations and the involvement of some campaigning journalists to bring this tragedy to a wider audience. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippines-saving-lives.html

Secondly, this story provides the media with an opportunity to attack 'inferior' Chinese industry. The Boston Herald story is headlined: "Tainted formula again raises concerns about Chinese products".

When a child died in Belgium after being fed with Nestlé formula contaminated with Enterobacter Sakazakii there was fairly widespread media coverage - this was a western baby after all - but I don't remember any headlines about concern over Swiss products. Or even Nestlé products specifically - and hardly a year goes by when it does not recall formula somewhere in the world due to quality problems. Earlier this year, for example, its formula was recalled in South Africa. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/03/letter-to-brabeck.html

In South Africa Nestlé promotes its formula as providing 'protection' to babies - despite the Department of Health saying such claims breach labelling laws. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/07/nestle-driving-standards-down.html

It seems to me there is a sub-text in the western media at least, running down producers from other countries in favour of western companies.

Yet, read beyond the headline in the Boston Herald and you find that the Chinese company that made the formula is owned 43% by Fonterra, a New Zealand company. It was the discovery of the problem in New Zealand that led to the alert in China.

Consider a little further why there is a growth in formula use in China. It is undergoing rapid industrialisation and urbanisation, but that does not have to mean the fall in breastfeeding rates that is being experienced. Part of the cultural change is prompted by western companies. For example, Nutricia, now owned by Danone, promoted its 'Kissing my Baby' formula in China in 2004 with this gift CD with children's music, exposed by our partners in the International Code Documentation Centre.


We joined the campaign, calling on supporters to send message to the Chief Executive. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/compdec04.html#2

In 2005 we campaigned against a strategy launched by Peter Brabeck-Letmathé, Nestlé Chairman and then CEO. He targeted pregnant and lactating women with 'nutrition corners' in supermarkets. These had Nestlé formula for young children and suggested that if mothers wanted to breastfeed they needed to buy expensive supplements. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemdec05.html#1

Inspectors are now reportedly spreading across China to check all formula manufacturers. Let us hope the manufacturers act in response. When the inspectors found excess iodine in Nestlé Neslac formula in 2005, it at first refused to recall the formula. Bad publicity and a consumer boycott caused it to change its mind. The China Daily reported: "Nestle was caught remarkably flat-footed for a multinational firm of its global standing. Many believe it reacted with the speed and alacrity of a sailor drunk on shore leave."

It was to try to recover market share that Mr. Brabeck set up the 'Nutrition Corners' in supermarkets.

In the Belgian case, Nestlé recalled the formula in the European Union following an order from the European Food Standards Agency, but as Switzerland was not covered, it did not recall formula from the same batch there. Nestlé is still refusing to put warnings on its labels that could prevent a repeat of the Belgian case and reduce other illness that may be due to similar contamination. Powdered formula is not sterile, but parents are not warned of this or the simple steps to reduce the risks. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/02/powdered-infant-formula-is-not-sterile.html

So yes, there is good reason to be concerned about the deaths and illness in China and the failing of the New Zealand/Chinese company. We are certainly in favour of more effective regulatory systems.

But it is important not to be taken in by the anti-Chinese headlines. Many, many more children are suffering due to the way transnationals push their products in ways that undermine breastfeeding, companies that are slow to act when their products are even further compromised with contaminants or missing ingredients.

The first choice to count on for infant feeding?

Ho, ho, ho. These marketing people, eh? Legally, in the UK, companies have not been able to claim that their formula is 'closer to breastmilk' or 'closest to breastmilk' since 1995. This didn't stop them though and it took concerted campaigning, monitoring and reporting before the authorities actually cracked down on illegal claims. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/03/letters-that-took-12-years-to-write.html

But the marketing people are ever imaginative. Having removed its 'closer to breastmilk' slogan, Wyeth has changed its SMA logo to incorporate a stylized breastfeeding woman as the M.

Aptamil had the slogan: 'The closest to breastmilk'. The company has now been taken over by Danone and is being a little more imaginative in its approach to bending the law. An advertisement targeting health workers, reveals the strategy. These advertisements now have to carry a more prominent 'Breastfeeding is best for babies' message. But what is the bigger Danone headline: "Why you can count on Aptamil First".

Not first, in terms of before breastmilk, they didn't mean that at all. Aptamil First is the name of the formula, so it is all completely innocent.



Although the text of the advertisement and the label of the formula do then include terms that are not permitted by the UK law, such as 'prebiotics' and 'immunofortis' idealizing claims. The labels has an idealizing image of a bear, that should not be permitted. The labels do not warn that powdered formula is not sterile and the simple steps required to reduce the risks. And so on.

So still a long way to go to persuade the enforcement authorities to act and the government review panel to strengthen the law.

You can help by making a donation to our UK project at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/donation.html#bflg

Or through the Latch.On website. Many thanks for the donations so far there, we have nearly half way to reaching the target that will enable us to publish and publicise a report containing the evidence posted to this blog over the past few days, and more. See:
http://www.latchon.org/projects.htm?mode=view&rid=10071

Wyeth increases SMA formula promotion following new marketing law's introduction

I wrote yesterday of the evidence we have sent to the UK government panel reviewing the effectiveness of the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations that were introduced after a long consultation process which ignored most of the recommendations of health experts and the governments own advisors. Instead the government followed the line of the industry to do the minimum possible in revising a law that was already failing, full of loopholes and poorly enforced.

The report we are seeking funds to publish, shows that the updated law is little better. Yesterday I presented some of the evidence, concerning the promotional campaign launched by Heinz for its Nurture formula. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/09/heinz-contempt-law.html

An indication of how contemptuous the baby food companies are of the law is that Wyeth/SMA is INCREASING the amount it spends on promoting formula. In addition to its current £ 3 million advertising campaign, it has been seeking a marketing firm for targeting mothers directly. This was reported in Campaign magazine at the end of May. See:
http://www.brandrepublic.com/Campaign/News/812866/SMA-Nutrition-kicks-off-DM-agency-hunt/

Wyeth is already pretty expert at targeting mothers with its SMA formula brand. In a recent magazine promotion, to be highlighted in our report if we can publish it, Wyeth offered mothers a toweling 'hoody' if they signed up to be bombarded with information from the company.

Such gifts are prohibited by the World Health Assembly marketing requirements. Events the weak UK law prohibits gifts with the brand names of infant formula, which is what SMA is. The evidence has been sent to Trading Standards, so we will follow up on whether any action is taken.

Heinz demonstrates its contempt for parents, facts and the law with its 'Nurture' formula launch

If you are in the UK you may have witnessed the strategy that Heinz has used for launching and promoting its new Nurture infant formula. It is positioning this as closer to breastmilk (something it reportedly claims explicitly on its telephone 'carelines') to justify a massive price increase of typically £3 per tin. This price hike is a betrayal of its past promotional message of 'committed to low prices':
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/07/heinz-farleys-betrayal.html

Heinz is neither committed to low prices, nor to telling the truth about its formula or respecting the law. If you believed the advertising campaign you would think formula feeding protects babies. That's the message of a television advertisement:


It's in the new slogan for the formula too:


"New Nurture helps nourish, protect and develop you baby."

the voice over to the television advertisment states: "As it grows, a baby needs a special combination of nutrients to sustain the incredible growth in its brain, body and immune system. To provide for those three essential aspects of growth Heinz created new Nurture an advanced complete follow-on formula to help nourish, protect and develop your baby."

Heinz plays very strongly on the idea that infants fed on the formula will be protected. But, formula does not provide what is essential as infants fed on formula are more likely to suffer from short and long-term illness. They are more likely to be hospitalised with gastroentiritis. They are also at risk from possible intrinsic contamination as Heinz has not given the necessary information on reducing this risk. Powdered formula is not sterile, but no doubt the marketing people thought that telling parents this and how to reduce the risks might tarnish the idea that the formula 'protects'. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/02/powdered-infant-formula-is-not-sterile.html

In advertising health workers, Heinz makes many other claims for the benefits of the formula, including implying it is an intervention for use when babies are constipated.

On the labels Heinz adds claims about ingredients, including the illegal claim about 'prebiotics'. Heinz has already been warned before that this is not on the permitted list, but will the authorities do anything to hold the company to account?


We have reported the television advertisement to the Advertising Standards Authority. Please let us know when and where you see the advertisement. You can also report it yourself. Find out details at:
http://www.babyfeedinglawgroup.org.uk/monitoring.html

But from our past experience of the ASA and the regulatory framework in general, little is likely to be done. Why? Because the label of the formula as shown in the screen shot of the advertisement is orange. The UK framework is really that useless.

This the range of formulas, as promoted on the website given in the television advertisement, which parents are expected to visit for further information:

The orange label is for a follow-on formula. Other labels are for infant formula. Infant formula cannot be advertised, but follow-on formula can. So show an orange label and slip through this gaping hole in the law.

It doesn't matter that parents won't make the connection. Indeed, from past experience, the enforcement officers may not even be able to tell what formula is being advertised, but if Heinz tells them it is follow-on formula, then they say they can do nothing. That was exactly what happened when we reported a past Heinz/Farley's advertisement, which appeared on the Discovery Health channel.

After our complaint was rejected we requested information from Ofcom (the responsible for television advertising) using the Freedom of Information Action. This is what we found in the correspondence between officials:

Hillingdon Environmental Health (the home authority for Heinz) to Ofcom saying:

“I was unable to work out the precise product pictured in the video footage.”

Ofcom’s investigator agreed:

“I don’t know what product appears in the credits as no information is given on the pack shot. Discovery have told us that the product was follow-on formula.”

We have sent this information to the review panel that is looking at the effectiveness of the Regulations. We have been calling for years that all formula advertising be advertised, in line with the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1981.

One of the things brought into the Guidance Notes issued this year that accompany the Regulations was an attempt to stop the permitted promotion of follow-on formula being used to promote infant formula. This calls for infant formula and follow-on formula to be separated in retail outlets and for follow-on formula promotion to be kept separate from infant formula. This is not happening in pracice. Heinz has produced shelf talkers, ostensibly for follow-on formula, which are being displayed like in this example from Boots:

The formulas on the left are infant formula. So no separation of formula types and follow-on promotion with the formula.

Is anything likely to be done?

The signs are not good as the Trading Standards Home Authority responded to point-of-sale promotion for Wyeth/SMA formula (shown in our May 2008 monitoring report) by stating:

"It may not comply with good practice in the guidance notes, but it does not infringe the 2007 Regulations. Therefore enforcement action cannot be taken."

The Baby Feeding Law Group was assured by the government that the Guidance Notes would be enforced. Now it seems they are beeing taken as 'good practice' and no action will be taken.

This is the situation we face in the UK and it is only by exposing it that we can hope of making progress in closing the loopholes. The above case, the recent strategies and the action (or lack of it) by authorities are something we wish to publish in a monitoring report, but for this we need funding. At present we have no funding for UK work. Indeed, this blog fell silent these past few days because I was working on putting the report together to send to the review panel, alongside a second job and other Baby Milk Action work (which is funded). In a very real sense, funding means staff hours, better publications and a more effective campaign. I don't mind giving time voluntarily - I have always done so and we rely on volunteer supporters to help with monitoring. But there are only so many hours in the day. If we have funding, they can be put to this work. Similar strategies are used around the world, so what we expose in the UK and the monitoring systems we have and are developing, is useful globally.

Donations to the BFLG monitoring project can be made through our on-line Virtual Shop at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/donation.html#bflg

Alternatively, particularly if in the US, donations can be made via the Latch.On website at:
http://www.latchon.org/projects.htm?mode=view&rid=10071

New UK formula marketing regulations prompt MORE advertising, not less

The UK Government has convened a panel to review the effectiveness of the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations which have been updated and came into force (except for some provisions) earlier this year. We submitted a monitoring report to the panel in May and hope to submit further reports (we are seeking funds and donations for this work). You can see the monitoring report, and submit examples of companies pushing formula in the UK, via:
http://www.babyfeedinglawgroup.org.uk/monitoring.html

We sent the last report to the Trading Standards offices responsible for enforcing the regulations on each company. As I wrote yesterday, the home authority for Nestlé has told it it needs authorisation from the Department of Health for a video it is distributing, which is a small sign of progress. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/09/nestle-breastfeeding-video.html

On the whole, however, as the monitoring shows, companies are getting away with promoting formula as if it was confectionery or shampoo, rather than a nutritional medicine. As long as they stick the words 'follow-on' somewhere in the advertisement they escape through loopholes in the law. They can also target mothers directly with apparent immunity. This is because the Government ignored the recommendations from health advocates and its own expert advisers when revising the law. The review panel provides another chance for the law to be brought at least a little closer towards the World Health Assembly marketing requirements for baby foods which the companies should be abiding by independently of government measures.

The report we prepared for the Baby Feeding Law Group, a coalition of UK health worker and mother support groups, sets out what the government needed to do and the benefits this would have brought to infant health and the economy. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/publications01.html#bflgsubmission

How serious are the consequencies of the Government failing to act on our recommendations and those of its own advisers, is demonstrated by a simple fact: the introduction of the law is leading to MORE promotion not less. The evidence comes not only from our monitoring, but from the fact that Wyeth, producer of SMA formula, is not only maintaining its £ 3 million advertising budget, but seeking a new deal for direct marketing its formula to mothers.

Marketing Magazine reports (30 May 2008):
http://www.brandrepublic.com/Campaign/News/812866/SMA-Nutrition-kicks-off-DM-agency-hunt/

---extract ends

LONDON - SMA Nutrition, the baby milk formula brand, is on the hunt for an agency to handle its direct marketing account.

The Wyeth-owned breast milk supplement has approached a number of undisclosed agencies with a view to holding chemistry meetings later this week. The pitch is being overseen by the AAR.

According to an SMA spokeswoman, the company plans to shortlist 20 agencies for the brief, with a result expected in July.

Publicis, which secured the £3 million SMA advertising account in April last year, is not affected by the review.

The successful agency will promote the formula in the wake of impending plans to implement a European directive limiting the approved health claims formula brands can make and preventing them advertising directly to parents.

---extract ends

If only it were true that the UK implementation of the Directive prevented them advertising directly to parents. This is what the World Health Assembly measures require, as they give health workers responsibility for advising parents and providing objective, independent information.

The UK could have prohibited the advertising of follow-on formula (so closing the loophole mentioned above) if it had wished to do so. Other European countries have done so. But it followed the industry plea to do the minimum possible so advertising continues and direct targeting of pregnant women is set to increase. Indeed, Wyeth is already stepping up activity in this area, with leaflets such as this one, found in a health centre, which encourages mothers to contact Wyeth for information on infant care and promotes the SMA formula brand name.

Nestlé video distributed in the UK in breach of the law - for three years and counting

A few years ago, Chris Sidgwick (known to readers of this blog for a highly inaccurate article on Nestlé and attempts to persuade health workers to accept Nestlé sponsorship) launched a video at the Royal College of Midwives Conference, ostensibly on breastfeeding. At the same time she suggested midwives 'review' their position on the boycott so they could make use of Nestlé sponsorship.

We raised at the time the fact that under UK law such items should only be produced and distributed with the written authority of the Secretary of State for Health. We questioned whether this had been obtained. We raised this again in our May 2008 UK monitoring report when reporting on efforts by Chris Sidgwick, Dr. Miriam Stoppard (television health expert) and Zelda Wilson (Nestlé Nutritionist) to further target UK health workers on behalf of Nestlé.

This prompted a response from the home authority for Nestlé which we hope to include in the next monitoring report if we are able to raise funds for its production. Our UK work is unfunded and we need donations for this. You can donate by going to:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/donation.html#bflg

If you prefer (if you are in the US, for example) you also have the option of making a donation through the LatchOn website at:
http://www.latchon.org/projects.htm?mode=view&rid=10071

Here is an update on the monitoring project I've posted to the LatchOn site:

---
We are hoping to produce a new monitoring report with these funds updating developments since one produced in May 2008. With the money from this project we would be able to print the new report.

There is little action from the enforcement authorities, something we need to highlight to the government's review panel. One piece of good news is that action has been taken over Nestlé distributing a video - ostensibly about breastfeeding - to health workers. The enforcement authority responded to the May report saying: "The video was sent to the Department of Health in 2005, but you are correct in stating that formal approval was never given. I have now written to the company stating that they need to obtain approval from the DOH."

So it is good that the authority backs our view that approval is needed, but a concern that three years after launching a video without that approval, Nestlé is simply being asked to try again. With the help of this project we may be able to improve the situation so when companies break the law, they are actually compelled to stop doing so.
---

Former MI6 agent ran Nestlé spy operation

Swiss campaigners posted the following message on this blog and will be adding updates to the 'Nestlé's Actions' website. Nestlé's actions speak louder than its words. See:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/

For more on the spy story and how this impacted on Baby Milk Action see:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/07/nestle-spies.html

---Posted comments begins

NESTLE INFILTRATES AN NGO IN SWITZERLAND

On 12 June 2008, the very serious Swiss investigative reporters tv revealed that Nestlé paid Securitas,one of Switzerland's largest security firms, to plant a woman in a group of attac switzerland (my group) from the summer of 2003 until the summer of 2004. We were making conference and editing a book about Nestlé.

As a co-author she had complete access to the group's documentation and to all Attac's email contacts around the world, including information on union members in Colombia fighting for workers-rights in Nestle plants. Such information is potentially dangerous in the wrong hands; in the past people have been killed just for being active organizers especially in Colombia. Her regular reports and memos (physical descriptions, (political orientations, job.) about us and our activities, contacts were handed over to Nestlé, especially to the head of security of Nestle. The infiltrator met him at least one time. The name of the head of security of Nestlé is John Hedley, who in the past was working in the British secret services, the MI6.

We had a first audience in tribunal last week.

More of 150 newspapers (in Switzerland, Germany, Austria and France) have been writing papers on the matter.
http://www.suisse.attac.org/fr

Nestlé and trade unionist concerns in Japan

Experts on Nestlé's treatment of trade unionists in Japan have added information to the new 'Nestlé Critics' website:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/

Be the change and help to change Nestlé and the world!

We are approaching International Nestlé-Free Week, which this year marks the 20th anniversary of the launch of the current boycott, on 4 October. In the UK children will be returning to school next month (September). Investigating Nestlé and thinking about Nestlé-Free Week and how to make change in the world, may be an interesting activity in the remaining days of the holiday and coming weeks.

The week is an opportunity to change our own behaviour and influence those around us, with the aim of changing Nestlé. Nestlé is the worst of the companies when it comes to pushing baby milk. It uses tactics that break standards agreed collectively by Health Ministries at the World Health Assembly and which undermine breastfeeding, so increasing the risk of sickness in babies, which, in poor settings, mean those babies are more likely to die.

According to the World Health Organisation, 1.5 million babies die around the world every year because they are not breastfed. Nestlé is the worst of the baby food companies and drives down standards for other companies. For example, when Nestlé ran a campaign advertising its formula in South African supermarkets at the end of 2007, the other baby food companies complained and the Department of Health said it was against such strategies. Yet Nestlé says it will continue to advertise its formula with claims that it 'protects' babies, even though it knows babies fed on it are more likely to become ill than babies who are breastfed. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/07/nestle-driving-standards-down.html

Nestlé is a very big and powerful company. It cares more about making money for its shareholders than it cares about the lives of babies and their families. So what can we do?

One hundred years ago, Mahatma Gandhi, a young Indian lawyer, travelled to South Africa where he found that Indians were discriminated against. Even though he had a ticket for the first class compartment of the train he took on arriving, he was forced to move to third class just because he was Indian. He decided to oppose this type of treatment through non-violent action which demands that authorities respect the rights of every human to dignity and life. When he returned to India, he worked in the same way for independence, eventually succeeding in this goal. His birthday is 2 October, which is marked as the International Day of Non-Violence. Find out more about Gandhi at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi

Gandhi famously said: "We must be the change we wish to see in the world."



There are many things that you can do in the lead up to International Nestlé-Free Week, during the week and beyond. One of the reasons for having this week is to encourage people who don't currently boycott Nestlé to do so at least for one week. People who just boycott Nescafé coffee - which is the main target of the boycott - can boycott all Nestlé products during this week. We are free to choose how we spend our money. Deciding not to give our money to Nestlé is an easy and non-violent way to show the company we think it should change the way it markets its baby milk.

Here are some ideas for things you can do:

Find out the facts. You can find links to useful information on Baby Milk Action's Nestlé-Free Zone page at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/boycott/nestlefree.html

You can find out about other concerns about Nestlé (things like child slavery on the farms that provide cocoa for its chocolate, the damaging environmental impact of its bottled water, poor treatment of workers) and what Nestlé has to say about these things at:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/

You can ask Baby Milk Action for its latest information pack on Nestlé by going to:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/pages/contact.html#contactform

You can order our campaign pack, which includes a DVD from UNICEF Philippines showing the reality for mothers and babies there as Nestlé and other companies encourage them to bottle feed instead of breastfeed. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/campaignpacks.html

Learn how the campaign is helping to save lives. In the Philippines, the World Health Organisation said 16,000 babies die every year because in inappropriate feeding. After a long campaign, with help from people like you, just last year people in the Philippines succeeded in bringing in stronger rules to stop Nestlé and other companies pushing baby milk, so protecting mothers and babies. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/update/update40b.html#philippines

The boycott puts pressure on Nestlé to change, because Nestlé's main concern is money. It's Chief Executive has promised that the company will become ever bigger, doubling the size of its sales about every 12 years. By deciding to buy products from other companies rather than Nestlé until Nestlé abides by the rules for selling baby milk - and telling Nestlé you are doing this - shows Nestlé that its bad behaviour costs it money. You can find a list of Nestlé products in the UK here:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/pages/products.html

Because of people supporting the boycott, Nestlé can no longer ignore the campaign. It will send you letters and books about what it says it is doing - costing it even more money. Sometimes it will change what it is doing if the pressure is enough. You can send letters to Nestlé about some of the cases that Baby Milk Action is targeting, with the help of partners around the world. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/pages/campaign.html

On the Baby Milk Action website you will find lots more ideas and resources. In the Nestlé-Free Zone you will find links to leaflets and posters, talks and powerpoint presentations, newspaper articles, letter-writing campaigns and much more. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/boycott/nestlefree.html

You can also make your own suggestions and Baby Milk Action will try to help. If you want to design and poster, write an article, make a clip for youtube, anything at all, you can contact Baby Milk Action. We can check the facts are correct if you wish. We can also share your ideas with other people to help them. Just contact us.

Tell your friends about this message so they can also 'be the change'.

You will find updates on this blog as International Nestlé-Free Week approaches. Please do send us your ideas and news of what your are doing.

Baby Milk Action advertisment

This is our new t-shirt, mug and calendar advertisement. Click on it for a larger version. Contact me if you have a publication where we can run a higher resolution version.

Fit to Bust and 2009 breastfeeding calendar offer

Alison Blenkinsop, who wrote the words to the song in the youtube clip on yesterday's entry, has put together a book of lyrics and other interesting information called 'Fit to Bust'.


Alison is very generously donating profits from the book to support the work of Baby Milk Action.

The book can be ordered through our on-line Virtual Shop and we are running special promotion for the first people to order the book together with our 2009 breastfeeding calendar, both of which will be available for despatch in September. The first people to order both items will receive a free pack of our humorous breastfeeding postcards. This offer will last as long as it is displayed in our shop.

All you have to do is add both items to your shopping cart and, if the offer was on display at the time, we'll include the postcards absolutely free.

See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/publications03.html#fittobust

Here is the calendar cover:

You can see the 12 full-colour pictures on our website at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/calendarlatest.html

Right to feed a child in public - youtube clip of London celebration and Mother Magazine's petition presentation

Scroll down for a Youtube clip of a gathering in Parliament Square, London, UK on 18 July when Mother Magazine and supporters gathered when presenting a petition on protecting the right to breastfeed in public to 10 Downing Street.

The clip opens with a song with lyrics by Alison Blenkinsop, a long-time Baby Milk Action supporter who has independently produced a book of songs and other humour to help raise funds for the campaign. More on that tomorrow.

This and other celebrations of the right to feed a child in public were prompted by the UK's planned Single Equality Bill. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/07/right-to-feed-baby.html

While politicians have highlighted the added protection they say this gives to a mother's right to breastfeed a child in public, health advocates are concerned that in the Bill the protection extends only to baby of up to 6 months of age. While other protection exists, we argue that this law confuses the issue as some may assume that breastfeeding beyond 6 months is not recommended or that it is fine to stop a mother breastfeeding in public if her baby is 6 months and one day old. Scotland has a clear law explicitly protecting a mothers right to feed her child in public (whether breastfeeding or formula feeding). This too has an unnecessary age specification, but at two years is showing greater respect to the recommendation of exclusive breastfeeding to six months, followed by continued breastfeeding with complementary foods to two years of age and beyond.

Veronika Robinson, Editor of Mother Magazine, explains more in the clip.

Nutrition, worms, measles and malaria

I have been re-reading Michael Latham's chapter in Global Obligations for the Right to Food about tackling the curse of worms, measles and malaria. Professor Latham recommends governments to take a Resolution to the World Health Assembly calling for a strategic program for tackling these three illnesses.

Professor Latham, like the rest of us who contributed chapters to Global Obligations for the Right to Food, makes the case that governments have obligations under existing human rights conventions to take collective action to deliver and protect the right to food. Promoting, protecting and supporting breastfeeding is part of the measures he highlights for improving child short and long-term health.

He also argues that relieving hunger, encompasses relieving malnutrition and that is not only achieved by providing more food, but ending endemic parasites and illnesses that compromise nutrition.

I don't want to reiterate everything that is in his chapter - you really should buy the book - but the three principal concerns (worms, measles and malaria) are embarrassingly cheap to address. Embarrassing, because governments with the resources are failing to do so. They are not only failing in their human rights and moral obligations, they are, in some respects costing themselves unnecessary expenditure.

Worms, parasites in the intestines that may affect organs such as the lungs, infect probably 2 billion people. Cambodia's de-worming programme cost US$ 0.06 per child.

There are about 50 million cases of measles every year, with about 1 million deaths. Immunization can have significant impact. "Six southern African countries that recorded 60,000 measles cases in 1996 reduced this to 117 cases in 2000". While national governments should be taking this action, where they cannot, the support of the international community is vital, argues Professor Latham, and will save them money if a concerted global campaign wipes out measles.

He writes: "It cost the United States US$ 124 million a year to keep itself free of smallpox for the twenty-five years prior to when smallpox was eradicated in 1978. Thus the US$32 million that the United States invested in the global Smallpox Eradication Program was recouped in about three months once smallpox vaccinations could be discontinued."

It is estimated that there are 1200 million cases of malaria every year, resulting in 1.5 million deaths annually. Impregnated bed nets are seen as an effective way to greatly reduce this toll. A net costs typically just US$ 3, but many people in poor countries cannot afford them. Malaria is so widespread that its impact is far greater than counted in deaths. Lost schools days, days of work and unmet potential can also be counted.

Governments have signed up to the human rights instruments, that include the right to health as well as the right to food, and the Millennium Development Goals, but are failing to meet the obligations that arise from these.

Find out more by buying Global Obligations for the Right to Food from Baby Milk Action's on-line Virtual Shop.

A closer look at promoting CSR in Eastern Europe

Ethical Corporation are running a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) event in Prague. See:
http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=6035

I have posted the following comment to their news item on it (Nestlé has a confirmed speaker at the event, though this is not specifically mentioned in the above link):

---
Participants would do well to look at how CSR is abused and brought into disrepute by some of its leading proponents, such as Nestlé.

Nestlé produces many reports on its activities, particularly those that are subject to most criticism, such as its marketing of baby foods and exploitation of water resources. Analysis shows they do not stand up to the evidence.

So-called independent audits of them, by Bureau Veritas for example, are similarly shown to be flawed. On baby food, Bureau Veritas uses Nestlé's much criticised, restricted interpretation of international marketing standards and when it investigated Nestlé's water exploitation in Brazil was apparently unaware that the company had been taken to court by the Public Prosecutor.

It is hardly surprising that many question whether CSR is anything more than Public Relations to divert criticism. See:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/

George Clooney and Daley Thompson in the media for their embarrassing links to Nestle

The Nestlé boycott strikes again, bringing Nestlé's baby food marketing malpractice to a national and international audience.

On Sunday the Observer newspaper in the UK ran a piece about letters sent to George Clooney by campaigners (including Baby Milk Action) wanting to inform him about Nestlé's dodgy business practices. Mr. Clooney had been tetchy when questioned at the Venice Film Festival (the boycott is big in Italy) about the conflict between his campaigning on behalf of Darfur and film roles exposing corporate malpractice on the one hand and his appearance in Nestlé advertisements for Nespresso on the other. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/09/george-clooney-coverage.html

We have still had no response from Mr. Clooney, but his office did send a standard Nestlé briefing with misinformation about its practices, citing GES and the Methodist Church.

For the Observer report, which also refers to actress Emma Thompson raising the issue, see:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2008/aug/03/4

Meanwhile over in the Times, Olympic Gold Medallist was being asked about his decision to appear in advertisements for Nestlé. See:
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/diet_and_fitness/article4442569.ece

Here is an extract:

---Extract begins
Thompson is being unveiled as the ambassador for Nestlé's Go Free scheme, in which you can swap empty cereal boxes and sweet wrappers for sports-activity vouchers. Aside from the odd health paradox of encouraging kids to munch sugar in order to get fit, there's also the open-sore question of Nestlé's long opposed practice of pushing baby-milk powder at mothers in developing nations. But more of that later.

[...later...]

His involvement with Nestlé surely won't assist his rehabilitation with the British Olympic regime. Doesn't he fear being vilified by protesters such as the Baby Milk Action Group? “That's a good question,” he says, looking rather uninterested. “I don't know anything about that.” Well. So I explain how a broad alliance of global groups has spent the past decade publicly protesting at Nestlé's marketing of baby-milk formula in developing countries, flouting a World Health Organisation ban on the practice. “It sounds like her department,” says Thompson, glancing to the Nestlé PR woman sitting at his elbow.

She explains that the baby-milk arm of Nestlé is a “separate corporate entity” from the food part of Nestlé (including Rowntree's sweets, Nesquik and Golden Nuggets), which runs the sports awards, so that people really shouldn't mix up issues affecting the two. During this exchange, Thompson nervously scoffs a complimentary tube of Fruit Pastilles. “Well, I'm with Rowntree's anyway,” he laughs.
---extract ends

I'm not sure if it is more shameful for Nestlé PR to try to argue that its baby-milk arm is separate corporate entity than trying to divert attention by citing the fact the Methodist Church is an investor without revealing that the Church bought shares to (so it believes) better put pressure on Nestlé to stop its aggressive marketing practices (the Methodist Conference took the view that 'engagement' and the boycott could be seen as complementary strategies).

The Chief Executive of Nestlé, Mr. Paul Bulcke, is responsible for the junk food and sweets as well as the baby milk - they are parts of the same corporation. Nestlé shareholders pocket the profits from all sectors, with little question.

As Mr. Thompson doesn't know anything about the baby milk issue, we hope he will investigate now and consider whether he really does not want to be associated with such a company.

For other aspects of Nestlé malpractice, see:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/

Nestle is one of the world's most criticized companies

Nestlé is one of the top ten most environmentally and socially criticized companies, according to analysis conducted by the company ECOFACT.

This is how ECOFACT describes itself: "ECOFACT is a consulting boutique specialized in the management of environmental, social and reputational risks, mainly in the financial sector. ECOFACT is based in Zurich and leverages a global network of sector and issue specialists."

So it is coming from an industry perspective of how a company's image and, hence, value, is harmed by criticism. This shows the importance of campaigning, because company executives and investors take notice when a financial cost is put on their malpractice.

Nestlé is, of course, the target of an international boycott because independent monitoring finds it to be responsible for more violations of World Health Assembly baby food marketing standards than any other company. It is the largest company in the market and sets trends that drive down standards, as a recent case in South Africa demonstrates.

But Nestlé is not only criticised for its baby food marketing. There are many groups concerned about its business activities, informed by their experience of monitoring its impact on the ground.

To help bring this information together and provide a portal to the various campaigns, we have developed a new website with the theme: "Nestlé's Actions speak louder than its words". Nestlé is a leading exponent of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), which highlights voluntary action as a 'good corporate citizen'. Nestlé brings the concept into disrepute by using 'good works' and bogus claims about its impact in an attempt to divert criticism and undermine calls for binding regulations.

If you are interested in being an author for this website, please contact me. We will be launching it officially later in the year. You can find a preview - and a link to the ECOFACT press announcement - at:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/

World Breastfeeding Week 2008

Today is the start of World Breastfeeding Week, celebrated in many countries around the world and promoted by the World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action. WABA says 120 countries are participating. See:
http://www.worldbreastfeedingweek.org/

Take a look at the site for news of what is happening in your country. If you are organising an event you can join in a virtual torch run, picking up on the Olympics taking place this month. A torch will appear on the WABA world map for every event. You can see the map here:
http://www.worldbreastfeedingweek.org/worldwide.htm

The week is starting to gain more attention in the UK, where our national month is May because August is holiday time. One group in Leeds, Breast Buddies, is inviting people to help it promote breastfeeding by contributing their stories of breastfeeding around the world. See:
http://www.breastbuddies.org/

Baby denied milk for 18 hours at UK detention centre

Every few months it seems there is a scandal at Yarlswood Immigration Detention Centre in the UK over the way a mother and baby are treated.

The latest case concerns a baby who was only allowed water for 18 hours, despite concerted efforts from supporters to provide correctly-prepared formula.

You can support action by contacting Alison Blenkinsop, whose message is reproduced below with her permission. This was taken from:
http://www.nursingmatters.org.uk/statement.html

---Message from Alison Blenkinsop

Baby denied milk for 18 hours ‘not starved’ says head of the UK’s Detention Services, UK Border Agency

On Wednesday 2 July 2008 at about 11pm, I was visiting an online Yahoo! group for breastfeeding supporters. An urgent request had just been posted by Morgan Gallagher, Chair of Nursing Matters, an advocacy organisation for mothers and babies. I could hardly believe what I was reading.

Morgan’s main concerns were as follows.

Baby C (born 27^th March) had been removed to Yarl's Wood Detention Centre in Bedford at the age of eight weeks, with her mother and two siblings aged four and six. Her mother, who had successfully breastfed the older two, had been advised for medical reasons to feed Baby C with formula.

The Department of Health states that infant formula milk should be made up with freshly-boiled water at 70ºC, cooled and given immediately. Any left-over milk should be discarded. (See NHS Direct website). In Yarl’s Wood, powdered formula is locked in an office, and mothers must queue up and sign for it. Making up fresh batches each time is therefore extremely difficult for them. The formula has to be made up before 11pm, and then used from that bottle all night long. No refrigeration is available, and mothers are given bottle-warmers to warm the nighttime feeds made several hours earlier. This poses further health risks.

Baby C suffered repeated bouts of gastro-enteritis after arriving at Yarl's Wood, initially with projectile vomiting. Her mother took her care very seriously, and after being given leaflets by Morgan on safe formula preparation, refused to give the baby feeds which were not freshly prepared. She used anti-bacterial soap given by Morgan to scrub everything that the baby’s bottles came into contact with. The projectile vomiting stopped, but the diarrhoea persisted. This resulted in faltering growth. When C was first detained, her weight had been charted at just under the 98^th percentile. Four weeks later, no growth had occurred, and her weight line was now just above the 75^th percentile – actually a loss of weight from what was expected.

On Monday June 30th, C was taken to Bedford Hospital with a suspected chest infection. She was seen by a paediatrician, who prescribed an elemental, hypo-allergenic formula to address the feeding problems. She returned to Yarl's Wood that evening, with one 500g tin of elemental formula from Bedford Hospital, and a note from the hospital that more would be required.

By the afternoon of Wednesday July 2^nd, the tin of formula was nearly empty. The mother was assured that more would be obtained. At 7.30pm, Morgan received an urgent phone call from a volunteer from Medical Justice, stating that no elemental formula was available at Yarl's Wood. Morgan rang the centre, and was told by the night manager the following:

· there was no elemental formula in the compound

· Yarl's Wood medical team knew it was needed, but had not prescribed it in advance

· the mother had been told by a qualified nurse that the doctor on duty, who was contacted by telephone but who did not examine the baby, had said that the baby should have boiled water with sugar, or Dioralyte rehydration fluid

· no other action would be taken overnight, other than to offer the mother sugar, or Dioralyte.

At 8.15pm, Morgan told the night staff that she could collect a prescription from Yarl's Wood, obtain formula from an all-night chemist, and return it immediately. This offer was rejected. The reason given was that formula had to be processed through ‘the system’. Instead, the mother was given two boxes of Dioralyte to feed to Baby C through the night.

Morgan’s request on the chat group was for help in protesting about this baby’s treatment. I was appalled by this account, and resolved to do what I could to help.

On the morning of Thursday 3 July I spent two hours on the telephone in an attempt to help address this situation. The responses I had from Yarl’s Wood and Social Services was extremely worrying. I was assured by a Yarl’s Wood manager and social workers that food was not withheld from detainees, yet the baby had still not been fed by late morning. At 1pm, I heard from Morgan that Baby C had at last been given some formula, some 18 hours after her last milk feed.

A few days later, I sent an email to Brian Pollett, Head of Detention Services, asking for an explanation and assurances that such a situation would never be allowed in future.

14^th July

Dear Mr Pollett

I am writing to express my outrage at the treatment of a 3-month old baby, C, currently detained with her mother at Yarl's Wood, overnight on Wednesday 2nd July 2008.

Baby C needed a specialist formula milk, but none was made available from about 7pm on 2nd July to 1pm on 3rd July. Instead, her mother was advised to give rehydration fluids, or water. A letter was sent to a Yarl's Wood visitor by Gillian Foley, Area Manager, Detention Services, to explain how the situation had arisen and been managed. I quote:

'On the advice of the centre doctor, (the baby's mother) was recommended to feed C overnight with boiled water and Dioralyte until the prescription could be filled.'

A 3-month old baby requires milk every few hours, including overnight. A 6 kg bottle-fed baby should have access to around 900 ml of formula in 24 hours. Giving plain water can be dangerous. If a baby needs rehydration fluids, these should not be given in place of milk when the baby is able to take a milk feed. Withholding food from a young baby is extremely distressing to both child and mother, and especially dangerous to one already showing signs of malnutrition; baby C had gained no weight in four weeks of detention.

I am also very concerned that when I was first made aware of these concerns, I was unable to contact anyone at Yarl's Wood directly through the telephone system at 9.45 am on Thursday 3rd. The automated system kept being repeated, so I had to leave messages on various answerphones, unrelated to my query, in the hope of talking with someone. Eventually my call was returned by Mr X, residential Manager, at about 10.30. He told me: 'We do not refuse food to detainees', and claimed that formula was available for baby C. (I omitted to tell Mr Pollett that this manager gave me the name of the mother and child, which I did not know until then, in a blatant breach of confidentiality.) However, the baby was not fed for another 2½ hours after this.

I also rang Bedford Social Services, who told me that they could do nothing about child protection unless the Yarl's Wood staff contacted them first. I was then put in touch with Ms Y, social worker at Yarl's Wood, and she passed me on to her colleague Ms Z. They said they were unaware of this situation, and stated that they would investigate, but claimed that babies were not put at risk in this way at Yarl's Wood. In two hours of telephone calls, I felt I had come up against a brick wall of indifference.

I am writing to various agencies including the NSPCC and the Children's Society about this situation. Baby C's life was put at risk by deliberate starvation. In the UK, we expect that children who are mistreated will be removed to a place of safety. Even domestic animals are protected from negligent owners. It appears that babies under the care of our Government in Yarl's Wood enjoy no such protection.

I believe that you are aware of this situation. I would like to know what is being done to ensure that this appalling treatment is not repeated. I would also like assurances that the current dangerous and criminal neglect of young babies and their mothers at Yarl's Wood, which has been reported by many people and from which this particular incident arose, will be immediately addressed.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

Mrs Alison Blenkinsop RM DipHe IBCLC

Media Liaison, Lactation Consultants of Great Britain

Address/telephone number

On 28^th July, I received a reply from Mr Pollett, in which he stated the following:

---

‘Your assertions of mistreatment of Baby C are without foundation…. I simply cannot agree with the concluding statement of your letter that the care of young babies and their mothers at Yarl's Wood is dangerous and constitutes criminal neglect…. I absolutely reject your allegation that Baby C was deliberately starved.’

---

There are many extremely worrying aspects of detainees’ treatment by the UK Borders Agency. This is just one of them. If you disagree with Mr Pollett’s view of this treatment of Baby C, and wish me to tell him what you think, please contact me with your name, and any professional qualifications you hold, and I will pass on your message.

NB I have permission from Baby C’s mother to discuss her case as appropriate.

Alison Blenkinsop IBCLC, DipHE

International Board Certified Lactation Consultant and midwife

aliblenk AT hotmail.com

www.linkable.biz

(Nursing Matters has facillitated this web page on Ms Blenkinsop’s request. She does not speak for Nursing Matters and her work on this baby’s welfare is being done under her own professional brief. Nursing Matters is more than happy to offer this facility to her in her campaign for justice for Baby C, and her pressing for an undertaking by UK Borders Agency that such an outrage is never allowed to re-occur.)

Arnie terminates transfats in California

If you have read my chapter in the book Global Obligations for the Right to Food - or this blog - then you will have seen the lessons learned from different ways of encouraging companies to reduce the level of transfats in foods. In short, with regulations they do so, with encouragement for voluntary action they, at best, introduce some low-transfat products and market them as healthier, putting the onus on the consumer to choose the healthier option and, most likely, pay extra for the privilege.

Well, Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Governor of California, is taking on the food industry and has signed a law requiring companies to remove transfats from products by 2010.

There is a report here on the BBC website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7526624.stm

This states: "A review by the New England Journal of Medicine in 2006 concluded that there was a strong connection between the consumption of trans-fats and coronary heart disease. It found they boosted "bad" cholesterol levels in the body. The review said that eliminating artificial trans-fats from the food supply could prevent between six and 19% of heart attacks and related deaths each year."

They are used to extend the shelf life of products and have no nutritional benefit.

The move was opposed by the California Restaurant Association according to the BBC.

Thanks to Rob A for posting the link on a comment to an earlier blog here. I really do appreciate people alerting me to information they think may be useful.