Nestlé Critics website exposes abuse of trade union rights in the Philippines

Information from trade unionists in the Philippines has been posted on the Nestlé Critics website today. See:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=36&Itemid=73

This relates to a long-running dispute, where Nestlé has refused to abide by Supreme Court rulings calling for it to negotiate with the trade union on retirement benefits. The dispute has been running for 7 years. During that time, Nestlé has boasted of its support for the UN Global Compact. Principle 3 of this voluntary initiative states that: "Businesses should uphold the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining."

Nestlé does not do so, even when ordered by the courts that it should.

Those who went on strike for their rights have been dismissed and they complain that: "The lawful, peaceful picket at Nestlé’s Cabuyao factory is sometimes violently dispersed the police and military, measures Nestlé has encouraged and been fully complicit with."

Two trade union leaders have been assassinated. In 2006 I interviewed the General Secretary of one of the trade unions, to highlight these concerns at a time when Nestlé was invited to hold a reception at the UK Trade Union Congress (TUC) and Labour Party Conference. You can listen to the interview at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press20sept06.html

Ironically one of the unions that hosted Nestlé, the GMB, soon after was complaining about Nestlé failure to consult adequately before laying off workers in York. While not showing solidarity with colleagues in the Philippines when it joined with Nestlé in a champagne reception at the TUC, it said: "In particular, GMB will seek to invoke the agreement with our international IUF trade union colleagues in Nestlé to prevent job losses."

The International Union of Foodworkers very strongly condemns Nestlé activities in the Philippines and elsewhere. In fact, the IUF has a site dedicated to Nestlé:
http://www.nestlewatch.org/

The Philippines is a dangerous place to be seen to oppose powerful vested interests. In 2006 when the pharmaceutical companies were taking the government to court to try to have baby food regulations struck down, and Nestlé was calling for the country heads of UNICEF and WHO to be removed for supporting the measures, the Assistant Solicitor General Nestor J. Ballocillo and his son were shot dead.

I was surprised - and shocked - at the suggestion that this murder may have been linked to the 'Milk Code' case. According to the Philippines Daily Inquirer, see text and link at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press14dec06.html

---
Solicitor General Antonio Eduardo Nachura said that the killing of Ballocillo—as well as his son Benedict—may have something to do with the expropriation of the controversial Ninoy Aquino International Airport terminal 3 (Naia 3) and the Milk Code case that the elder Ballocillo was handling.
---

When officials and trade union leaders are assassinated, when corporations ignore rulings from the courts, those who suffer need the rest of the world to pay attention. I hope that by raising these issues here, additional people will hear their pleas.

Sometimes it is suggested that the boycott of Nestlé that Baby Milk Action is a threat to Nestlé employees, but my view is that they have far more to fear from Nestlé management when it comes to job security and workers' rights.

ONE MILLION CAMPAIGN buttons and banner advertisement

Here are a couple of buttons you can add to your blog or website, as I have done on the right here. On blogger, just login to your blog, go to the layout and add a picture gadget. For the link, put http://www.onemillioncampaign.org/ and add a suitable extra message if you want.




There is also a banner advertisement that you can add to your site. Here is how it looks on the Baby Milk Action site:


To add the banner, simply follow the instructions you find at:
http://www.onemillioncampaign.org/

You will find other resources in the aptly named 'resources' section of the site. Also see other blog entries here tagged "ONE MILLION CAMPAIGN".

Campaigners appeal in Nestlé spying case. Nestlé appeals in abuse of power in the coffee industry case.

IBFAN figures in the report passed by a spy to her control at Nestlé, a former MI6 officer. The spy had infiltrated the Swiss group, ATTAC, which was developing a book looking at different aspects of Nestlé malpractice. I attended the launch of that book to speak on the baby milk issue in 2004. So I've been interested to follow the case from a distance. Today there is a report saying that a Swiss Judge has thrown the case out on the grounds that it is not against the law for corporations to spy on people! See:
http://genevalunch.com/2009/02/13/attacs-case-against-nestle-dropped-by-judge/

It is ironic if the courts accept a corporation can pass someone off as a campaigner to infiltrate an organisation and gather sensitive and confidential information. When the Nestlé Critics website was being launched last year, Nestlé's lawyers wrote to Baby Milk Action threatening legal action on the absurd basis that the site was "passing off" as a company site, despite the text making it clear it was an analysis of Nestlé's claims, with a prominent link to Nestlé's own site for information from the company. The metadata, which appears in search engine listings, also made it clear it was a site with information from Nestlé's critics. See:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=55&Itemid=1

Nestlé demanded we hand the original domain name (nestlesa.org) over to it, which we refused to do, as it has already been published and we had reasonable grounds to suspect Nestlé might put something on the domain "passing off" as a campaign site to dupe campaigners into sharing information, just as its spy had done.

So on the one hand Nestlé thinks it is fine to infiltrate organisations with a spy, but thinks it is outrageous that an organisation should have a domain with the Nestlé name in it, less someone visit it looking for information on the company. The court has sided with Nestlé on the spy. We have heard no more from the lawyers about the domain name.

ATTAC Switzerland is appealing against the Judge's decision.

Coincidently, today we learn that Nestlé is also going to court to appeal a decision, in this case in Greece. Greece's competition watchdog has levied of EUR29 million fine against Nestlé. According to the AFP news agency, the company said, "We deem this decision unfair and reject the charges". The Greek authorities accused "Nestle of taking steps to shoulder out other coffee providers in its deals with supermarkets, restaurants and distributors."

Aggressive marketing practices from Nestlé are all too well known for those of us monitoring its behaviour in the baby food industry. This is also the company that misled George Clooney over its baby food marketing practices to persuade him to appear in Nespresso advertisements. See our briefing at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press31jan09.html

And it ran a national advertising campaign in the UK portraying it as having a positive impact on coffee farmers when it launched a Fairtrade-certified brand, neglecting to say that the Fairtrade brand only involved 0.1% of the coffee farmers dependent on the company and that it had been strongly criticised for its negative impact on the other 99.9%. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/yqsanswered/yqanestle07.html

It will be interesting to see who gets furtherst with their appeal: ATTAC Switzerland or Nestlé.

Send a message to Nestlé over child slavery in its cocoa supply chain

One of the other issues concerning malpractice by Nestlé is its failure to act on child slavery in its cocoa supply chain. You can find an overview of this issue and links to further information on the Nestlé Critics website:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/

The International Labor Rights Forum has just issued a update on its campaign in this area and while Nestlé is targeted alongside Mars and Hershey, it comes in for special criticism. You can find the full report at:
http://www.laborrights.org/stop-child-labor/cocoa-campaign/resources/1942

Here is the introduction and an extract on Nestlé:

---
The major US chocolate companies signed an agreement in 2001 (called the Harkin-Engel Protocol) committing to ensuring that they were not purchasing cocoa beans harvested by the worst forms of child labor, but in 2009, children continue to work in West African cocoa farms. Many of the major chocolate companies have joined together in industry associations to respond to the criticism and these bitter companies have all been leaders in the failed industry efforts to improve labor conditions in their supply chains. For a full analysis of the failures of chocolate companies to implement of the Harkin-Engel Protocol, please visit:
http://www.laborrights.org/stop-child-labor/cocoa-campaign/resources/1552.

You can send e-mails to Hershey, M&M/Mars and Nestlé here:
http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/chocolate.

Nestlé (which owns Haagen-Dazs [IN NORTH AMERICA])

Even within the closed ranks of the chocolate industry behind the curtain of the Protocol, we’ve heard that Nestlé is the lowest common denominator. Nestlé has never responded with anything more than form letters to any requests for information by ILRF or any of our allies; in its form letters, Nestlé simply points to its ‘engagement’ with the Protocol.

As many of our supporters know, since 2005 we have particularly targeted Nestlé for its failure to reform its cocoa supply chain, and the choice was not random. Unlike other chocolate manufacturers, Nestlé directly sources cocoa from West Africa and has direct control over its supply chain and knowledge of the farms from which it sources. Nestlé has greater power to act than perhaps any other player in this industry and is therefore our top choice target for action. While Nestlé has joined Mars in the UTZ Certified program, we continue to put pressure on the company to improve conditions for cocoa farmers and encourage concerned consumers to send Nestlé a letter here:
http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/Nestle08.
---extract ends

Resources for the ONE MILLION CAMPAIGN in support of a woman's right to breastfeed

The ONE MILLION CAMPAIGN in support of a woman's right to breastfeed her child is underway after being launched yesterday. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2009/02/one-million-campaign.html

You can see the total number of people who have signed up by visiting the ONE MILLION CAMPAIGN website. If you have not yet signed yourself, you can do so here:
http://www.onemillioncampaign.org/en/Details_Petitions.aspx

You will also find useful resources on the site, such as the posters and book mark shown below and leaflets.




Download the pdfs of these images to print in the 'resources' section at:
http://www.onemillioncampaign.org/en/Details_Petitions.aspx

A group has been launched on facebook, so if you are a member, you can send an invite to your friends to join the group for news on the petition and other aspects of the campaign. See:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=50360141389

If MySpace is your preference, there is a group at:
http://groups.myspace.com/onemillioncampaign

If you are a member of other social networking groups and would like to recommend a group be created there, please let me know.

ONE MILLION CAMPAIGN in support of a woman's right to breastfeed her child

The following message comes from colleagues in India, where this campaign is officially launched today. Please do visit the petition page.

----
Over the past six months we all have witnessed the most shocking tainted milk scandal that killed six infants and sickened nearly 300,000 more. These babies, well below 3 years, were fed milk powder contaminated with melamine, an industrial chemical used in fertilisers and plastic production. Imagine if the babies were not fed powder milk and in fact were fed on their mother’s milk. They could be saved from this unnecessary catastrophe.

Add your name to the ONE MILLION CAMPAIGN - NO MORE MILK SCANDALS! SUPPORT WOMEN TO BREASTFEED to stop the push towards feeding babies with milk formula, as well as demand support to women to breastfeed. Click here to sign the petition http://www.onemillioncampaign.org/en/Details_Petitions.aspx

Growing scientific evidence points out how vital breastfeeding is to infant survival with health. Women are being forced to stop breastfeeding and give their babies milk formulas because they lack support to breastfeed, whether at the time of birth in family or institutions, or when they are at work, and more importantly due to increasing commercial push to milk formula feeding. Potential disasters are thus waiting to happen across the world.

The problem is HUGE. Around 200 mothers give birth to babies every minute somewhere in the world. They need our support. Out of about 135 million children born annually, only 64 million begin breastfeeding within an hour and 71 million do NOT. About 48 million women are successful in carrying out exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months, and 87 million are NOT.
Click to sign the petition
http://www.onemillioncampaign.org/en/Details_Petitions.aspx
to demand support for women to breastfeed.

Most people think of breastfeeding as something that happens between the woman and her child: that this decision is in the personal domain. However, several factors affect women's ability to breastfeed successfully: traditions, myths, status in the family and society, work load, confidence in her body and sexuality, economic needs, labour laws, domestic and workplace violence and harassment, availability of support services, advertising by commercial baby food manufacturers, and so on. These factors do not allow millions of women across the world to breastfeed their babies optimally.

How we respond to this crisis will shape the lives of our children – our future.

Today, public concern alone can prevent potential milk scandals – public action to respond to the needs of women to enable them to give the best possible food to their babies. We need to Act NOW !

Join the ONE MILLION CAMPAIGN - NO MORE MILK CANDALS! SUPPORT WOMEN TO BREASTFEED.
Click to sign the petition
http://www.onemillioncampaign.org/en/Details_Petitions.aspx

The petition demanding support to women will be presented to the world leaders, at the World Health Assembly in May 2009. Your collective voices will put pressure on the leaders to prevent unnecessary deaths of children, to ensure that every woman in every part of the world is enabled to breastfeed successfully.

Be a connector

Forward this message to all your friends, your networks, and your family, and let us raise a voice our leaders cannot ignore.

With hope and determination to change the world.
Arun and Team ONE MILLION CAMPAIGN

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ONE MILLION CAMPAIGN Support Women to Breastfeed is a campaign of the World Breastfeeding Movement with just one mission - to mobilize public opinion through one million signatures, demanding support to women to breastfeed.

ONE MILLION CAMPAIGN Support Women to Breastfeed brings together people of all ages from all walks of life to generate the support women need to breastfeed successfully. Through participating in the Movement's campaigns, petitions to local, national and international policy makers, discussions groups, evidence-based information sharing, and actions at every level, you can focus national and global attention on the several challenges to successful breastfeeding and help to resolve them. read more

The Team

The ONE MILLION CAMPAIGN team assists the members of the World Breastfeeding Movement family to identify issues that pose a challenge to successful breastfeeding, and develop national, regional and international campaigns around them. The team works through a secretariat in New Delhi, India, and international coordinators for different regions.

ONE MILLION CAMPAIGN has been initiated by International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), winner of the '1998 Right Livelihood Award'. IBFAN has more than 200 public interest groups working around the world to improve infant feeding practices and save lives of infants and young children. IBFAN works for the universal and full implementation of 'International Code of Marketing of Breast milk Substitutes and subsequent relevant World Health Assembly (WHA) resolutions.

Guardian Diary reports on Nestlé misleading George Clooney

The Guardian has picked up on the launching of our esposé showing how Nestlé misled George Clooney about its baby food marketing practices. See today's Guardian Diary at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/06/guardian-diary-clooney

The article reports: "The company insists that it adheres to the highest ethical standards and has been straight with Clooney in all respects."

They really don't care what they say!

Nestlé told Mr. Clooney that he could ignore Baby Milk Action’s evidence of ongoing pushing of baby milks, which undermines breastfeeding and harms infant health, on the grounds the Methodist Church had decided it was okay to invest. What it didn’t tell him was the rationale of the Church’s Central Finance Board:

“[The Joint Advisory Committee on the Ethics in Investment – JACEI] acknowledges and respects the work of organisations such as Baby Milk Action in highlighting the scandal of inappropriate marketing of breast milk substitutes. The way in which the CFB responds to such activities is to engage with company managements and seek change from within. These approaches should be seen as complementary strategies working to achieve a common aim.”

The Methodist Conference took the view:

“JACEI acknowledges the continuing concern with regard to some aspects of Nestlé’s interpretation of the International Code, the implementation of company guidelines and the transparency of the procedures for monitoring compliance. These concerns may cause some through conscience to maintain a consumer boycott of Nestlé products.”

Nestlé also gave Mr. Clooney an article written by a midwife and colleagues who had enjoyed an all-expenses-paid trip to Nestlé’s Swiss HQ. It neglected to mention that the lead author had worked with Nestlé prior to the visit or that Baby Milk Action was given a substantial right-to-reply to the article in the British Journal of Midwifery to highlight factual errors and misuse of references. Of course, Nestlé didn’t give Mr. Clooney our right-to-reply along with the article.

Nestlé is the worst of the baby food companies, not only in the way it puts its own profits before infant health and mothers’ rights, but in the dishonest means it uses to try to divert criticism. Mr. Clooney would be correct to feel he has been taken for a ride by Nestlé. Although he has not responded to our past communications, we hope he will look at the new exposé of Nestlé’s false claims, which is available to the public on our website, and take appropriate action. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press31jan09.html

Source documents regarding the Methodist Church are available via:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/yqsanswered/yqanestle08.html

Analysis of the British Journal of Midwifery article is available at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/yqsanswered/yqanestle09.html

Nestlé manipulation in the spotlight: celebrities, spying and re-writing its own Wikipedia page

We launched a new briefing paper on Nestlé last week in Zurich, alongside campaigners concerned ab out Nestlé's trade union busting activities in Colombia and spying in Switzerland. You can download it from our press release about the event at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press31jan09.html

The spying case relates to Nestlé hiring someone through the Securitas company to pass themselves of as an activist to infiltrate Attac Switzerland, which was preparing a book on Nestlé malpractice. The spy passed information to a former MI6 officer working for Nestlé. The foreward to the Attac book was written by Susan George, who commented last year:
http://schweiz.attac.org/Statement-from-Susan-George

---Statement from Susan George

I had the honour of writing the preface to the book Attac contre l’Empire Nestlé, and as such I would like to provide the following statement as I am unable to attend the press conference on June 13.

From the time I began following Nestlé’s activities in the 1970s, I have known it as a corporation that does not take criticism and will go to any length to force its point of view and, whenever possible, cover up unfavourable findings. I am not familiar with the applicable Swiss law in this case, but I do know that Switzerland is a democratic country and that this time, Nestlé has gone too far. If the espionage carried out by Nestlé against members of Attac Vaud, including violations of their homes and private lives, is considered “legal,” then no one is safe any longer. If Nestlé can infiltrate citizens’ groups with impunity and monitor their activities that are entirely licit and non-violent, as if it were a State infiltrating a terrorist cell, then social scientists will no longer have the right to work, journalists will no longer be able to carry out investigations in the way the courageous Temps Présent team did. No one will be allowed to criticize transnational corporations or defend human, labour and environmental rights. If such espionage is “legal,” then citizens can no longer act freely, and a new type of soft corporatist fascism also becomes “legal,” put in place not by a government or a political movement but by transnational corporations using private police, that feel they can get away with anything because of their economic power.

As the writer of the preface to Attac Vaud’s book Attac Contre L’Empire Nestlé, I imagine I was spied on just like my colleagues. Consequently, I ask to be to associated with any judicial and/or other action that Attac Vaud and Attac Switzerland may decide to undertake against Nestlé, and I express my full solidarity with them at this difficult time, as well as with the Temps Présent team. I am also certain that the Swiss people will judge the abject behaviour of Nestlé appropriately.

Susan George
Author, honorary president of Attac France

---statement ends

The spying case was one of those in a vote organised by the Berne Declaration, known as the Public Eye Awards, to coincide with the World Economic Forum. You can find full details of the nomination at:
http://www.publiceye.ch/en/f63000018.html

Nestlé did not win on this occasion, though it was an overwhelming winner of a past public vote on corporate malpractice when we nominated it. Here's the nomination document (in English) on the German page for the award:
http://www.evb.ch/p3316.html

And there is this graph, which shows how overwhelming was Nestlé's victory and its shame:
http://www.evb.ch/en/p25003346.html

"Many people from all over the world voted on the “Public Eye” website for the most blatant case of corporate irresponsibility. The clear winner and thus laureate of the Public’s Award is Nestlé. The Swiss food and beverages company is criticised for labour conflicts in Colombia and for its aggressive marketing methods for baby food, which jeopardize breastfeeding."

While we work to expose Nestlé malpractice, the company has staff trying to cover it up. The misleading and recruiting of George Clooney to relay the company's claims is one example. The spying is another.

A third comes from analysis of the Wikipedia website. This has entries on different subjects which anyone can edit. Editing wars can sometimes result, particularly on contentious topics.

Now there is a site that tracks who is doing the editing and this has detected how Nestlé has removed contentious entries from pages relating to the company. This has found what it describes as possible 'conflict of interest' edits on the following issues:

• Cricisism of Nestlé’s business practices,
• Baby milk marketing,
• Legal action against Ethiopian government,
  
• Genetically modified organisms,
  
• Nestlé Purina in Venezuela.

You can run the search yourself on the Wikiscanner website:
http://katrina.cs.caltech.edu/erenrich_rnd345/scanner_final/

Having attended the Nestlé shareholder meeting and heard the shareholders hissing and booing whenever a speaker raised concerns about Nestlé practices, I can well believe that investors think the management is doing a good job with its aggressive practices and protecting its financial interests by using celebrities for two-step communication, spying and re-writing history. Profit comes before all else for them.
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/04/glimpse-of-nestls-soul.html

So perhaps we should not be surprised to see as Susan George says, that Nestlé, "will go to any length to force its point of view and, whenever possible, cover up unfavourable findings."

Part of our role is to help others understand this. The Nestlé Critics website is a resource to help with this and contributions from experts on different aspects of Nestlé malpractice are welcome.
http://www.nestlecritics.org/

The truth about British Midwives and George Clooney

I wrote last time about how Nestlé misled George Clooney by suggesting our claims of baby food marketing malpractice are wrong because the Methodist Church has invested inn Nestlé. In truth, the Methodist Church Central Finance Board (CFB) has praised : "the work of organisations such as Baby Milk Action in highlighting the scandal of inappropriate marketing of breast milk substitutes." And stated: "The way in which the CFB responds to such activities is to engage with company managements and seek change from within."

Nestlé is trying to undermine marketing controls on the multi-billion pound baby milk market by attempting to discredit its critics. Mr. Clooney has become part of its strategy as his office has relayed the Nestlé spin and not the full story. The spin also ignores the fact that the Church Conference stated that 'engagement' and boycotting Nestlé can be viewed as parallel strategies. (We have no problem in talking to Nestlé, but we did warn the Church Central Finance Board that investing would backfire as Nestlé would misrepresent it. Our warning was ignored, but has been proved right).

Another way in which Nestlé misled Mr. Clooney - which again has been relayed by his office - is to state: "British midwives visited Nestlé in 2005 on a fact finding mission and reported a dissonance between their prior perceptions and what they observed in actual Nestlé culture, ethics, policies and hard evidence."

The implication is that 'British midwives' are on Nestlé side of the disagreement. But the facts are that the midwife on the trip was Chris Sidgwick, who wrote a highly flawed article published in the British Journal of Midwifery (included in the briefing to Mr. Clooney). So flawed is the article, in fact, that Baby Milk Action was given a substantial right to reply. Nestlé neglects to include this with the article. You can read our analysis of the article at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/yqsanswered/yqanestle09.html

Aside from the journal’s peer-review process being called into question as misuse of references by the article authors was missed, the British Journal of Midwifery recently gained further notoriety for violating the International Code by distributing a free 2009 calendar promoting a brand of formula from a Nestlé competitor (Aptamil, produced by Danone).

The ‘fact finding mission’ referred to in the Nestlé briefing was, in fact, an all expenses-paid trip to Nestlé’s HQ in Vevey, Switzerland. Chris Sidgwick concluded the article by calling on midwives to accept Nestlé sponsorship. She had earlier worked with Nestlé in launching a video at the Royal College of Midwives Conference. Such materials have to have the authorisation of the Secretary of State for Health, which Nestlé had not obtained. So the launch was against the law - enforcement authorities had to remind Nestlé in 2008 that it requires this authorisation.
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/09/nestle-breastfeeding-video.html

Chris Sidgwick, as readers of this blog will know, is funded by Nestlé to run training days targeting health workers. The main speaker at events in 2008 works for Nestlé, but this was not mentioned in the publicity. The links are strong. The speaker, Zelda Wilson, is thanked in the British Journal of Midwifery article for arranging the paid trip to Nestlé Headquarters.
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/04/nestle-uk-strategy.html

Chris Sidgwick and Zelda Wilson also work with Nestlé’s PR firm, Webber Shandwick, in lobbying students to drop their support for the boycott.

Let us hope that Mr. Clooney will look beyond Nestlé's claim about the views of ‘British Midwives’. Let us also hope he will inform those who he has inadvertantly misled in defending his links to the company the facts of the matter.

How Nestlé misled - and recruited - George Clooney

Today Baby Milk Action joined other campaigning organisations in Zurich, Switzerland, at 'The Other Davos meeting'. While business and political leaders were together at the World Economic Forum, the organisations were shining the spotlight on aspects of Nestlé's malpractice, such as trade union busting activities in Colombia, spying on campaigners in Switzerland and aggressive marketing of baby foods.

You can find out more about the event here:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press31jan09.html

One of the things we raised, is the way Nestlé has misled George Clooney about its baby food marketing activities and recruited the actor, known for his humanitarian work, to defend the company using Nestlé's dishonest claims. You can download a new report on this from the link given above.

In a Nestlé briefing that Mr. Clooney's office has provided to those questioning his appearing in Nestlé Nespresso advertisements, there are various claims, which we expose in a new briefing, launched today. We have appealed to Mr. Clooney to reconsider his defence of Nestlé and review the information we have already sent to him.

One example shows the depths of Nestlé's dishonesty. In the briefing Mr. Clooney has been persuaded to distribute, it claims:

---Extract from Nestlé's George Clooney briefing

In June 2006 the Joint Advisory Committee on the Ethics of Investment (JACEI) of the Methodist Church stated that there is “no compelling justifi cation” against investment in Nestlé on the basis of its involvement with breast milk substitutes. Further, the Annual Report of the Central Finance Board of the Methodist Church stated that it had become a shareholder (of Nestlé) in the past year.
---extract ends

The Methodist Church Central Finance Board statement on Nestlé explains why it invested:

---Extract from Church statement

JACEI [the Joint Advisory Committee on the Ethics in Investment] acknowledges and respects the work of organisations such as Baby Milk Action in highlighting the scandal of inappropriate marketing of breast milk substitutes. The way in which the CFB responds to such activities is to engage with company managements and seek change from within. These approaches should be seen as complementary strategies working to achieve a common aim.
---extract ends

Prior to the investment, the 2006 Methodist Conference adopted texts that suggested ‘engagement’ and the ‘boycott’ go hand in hand:

---Extract from Conference text

JACEI acknowledges the continuing concern with regard to some aspects of Nestlé’s interpretation of the International Code, the implementation of company guidelines and the transparency of the procedures for monitoring compliance. These concerns may cause some through conscience to maintain a consumer boycott of Nestlé products.
---extract ends

You can find the full story and source documents at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/yqsanswered/yqanestle08.html

So George Clooney was misled by Nestlé. Church investment is intended to press the company to stop malpractice. It is not, as Nestlé wants people to believe, a reward for good behaviour. Indeed, the Methodist Church Conference stated that it sees ‘engagement’ and the ‘boycott’ as complementary strategies.

Nestlé relies on people not looking too closely at its activities. It relies on the fact that people find it difficult to believe that a household name should be so calculatingly dishonest in how it presents information.

Our challeng to bring the evidence to people's attention so that can see they have been misled and act accordingly.

When to trust and when to anti-trust?

In the past the baby food industry has claimed that companies are unable to cooperate to stop violations of the baby food marketing requirements due to anti-trust legislation. This is an excuse as these measures are basically intended to stop companies forming cartels to protect their financial interests.

As I've noted here a few times, Nestlé has been accused of price-fixing in its confectionery business on three continents. While those investigations are running, let me flag up another example of the double standard, where cooperation between companies is taking place for gain.

The two leading forces in the baby food industry, Nestlé and Danone (which bought NUMICO, owner of Nutricia, Milupa and Cow & Gate brands over a year ago), are working together to defend their bottled water interests.

PR Week reported last September:
http://www.prweek.com/uk/search/article/844044/Bottled-water-firms-unite/

---extract begins

Nestle Waters, Danone and Highland Spring have joined together to launch a new association to lobby on behalf of the bottled water industry.

The Natural Hydration Council (NHC) was launched this week to research and promote the environmental, health and other sustainable benefits of natural bottled water.

The new group aims to provide information and advice for the Government, researchers, the industry, media and the public about the economic and social value and impact of bottled water. This will include lobbying politicians and the Government about the benefits of drinking bottled water. The NHC will also be looking for a PR agency to help support its 2009 activity.

---extract ends

Nestlé, in particular, wishes to be seen environmentally friendly when it comes to water use. While it claims it has cut back on consumption at factories, it is also criticised for the harmful effect of its water bottling activities. Information can be found on the Nestlé Critics website:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/

So the fact is that companies do work together to protect business interests. So why not in agreeing to abide by World Health Assembly marketing requirements for baby foods? There the opposite is the case, with competition between companies - led by Nestlé - driving down standards:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/07/nestle-driving-standards-down.html

In a properly functioning market, surely things should work the other way around? Companies agree to uphold minimum standards, while competing on other aspects of business.

One of the aims of the United Nations Global Compact, which Nestlé claims to support, is to do business in accordance with Global Compact principles, which means respecting human rights. As we will be explaining at a meeting in Zurich tomorrow, Nestlé uses the Global Compact for public relations purposes, while breaching the principles.

We are speaking alongside other experts on Nestlé malpractice, such as its trade union busting and spying activities. Find out more at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press30jan09.html

Nestle promises to change bear brand logo - but what about whole milk marketing?

In Update 41 we reported on a study in the British Medical Journal about Nestlé's marketing of coffee creamer in Laos with a bear logo. The newsletter is sent to members and can be accessed on our website (click here to join Baby Milk Action). See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/update/update41c.html#16

The research found that mothers were using the coffee creamer as a breastmilk substitute, being misled by the logo which appears to show a bear breastfeeding. This logo undermines the message that the product should not be used for infant feeding.

Nestlé has responded to the research in a letter published in the BMJ and a correspondence with the researchers has resulted. Nestlé at first refused to change the logo, while claiming to be concerned about inappropriate use of products such as this. Yesterday it said it would remove the baby bear.

Seeing its claim to be concerned about inappropriate use of products, prompted me to post the following today:

---
It is interesting to read Nestlé's Roland Stieger (BMJ 2009;338:b196) state that Nestlé: "is very concerned that mothers in poor countries feed infants with inappropriate breast milk substitutes." Mr. Stiegler claims that Nestlé takes steps to reduce such inappropriate use. My experience suggests otherwise. Rather, it seems Nestlé seeks to gain sales from inappropriate use of products bought by mothers who cannot afford infant formula.

A stark example of this appeared in one of Nestlé's own audit reports, its Sustainability Review, launched in 2002. This shows 'auditors' standing in front of a 'baby food' section in a retail outlet, ostensibly checking the labels of formula. Behind them on the shelves, Nestlé's whole milk can be clearly seen alongside the formula.

Whole milk is totally unsuitable for infant feeding. Nestlé Nido (Ninho in Brazil) is typically a third of the price of infant formula and it is known that in some settings poor mothers who do not breastfeed, for whatever reason, are more likely to use powdered whole milk rather than formula.

Yet around the world Nestlé continues to promote whole milk alongside infant formula in pharmacies and supermarkets. The fact that this goes on under the noses of its 'auditors' is stark proof that this is deliberate policy. Whole milk can be viewed as a complementary food and World Health Assembly Resolution 49.15 requires: "that complementary foods are not marketed for or used in ways that undermine exclusive and sustained breast-feeding." Placing it with formula with the implication it can be used for infant feeding breaches this Resolution.

Aside from displays in retail outlets, we have found promotional materials, such as this 2003 calendar in the Dominican Repulic.

More recent examples, can be found in our 'Gallery of Shame' at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/yqsanswered/yqanestle03.html

When this was raised with Nestlé, it claimed: "Nido whole milk is not promoted at all as a breastmilk substitute." And: "Unfortunately, Baby Milk Action continues to attempt to apply the WHO Code to products which are not marketed as breast-milk substitutes, in contradiction to the WHO Code itself."

Full text at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEMresponses/CEMRaprjune02.html#2

Yet if, as Mr. Stiegler claims, Nestlé: "is very concerned that mothers in poor countries feed infants with inappropriate breast milk substitutes" surely it would not try to excuse the practice, but would remove Nido and Ninho from the infant feeding section as a precaution, knowing that it is used as a breastmilk substitute. There is no legitimate reason for it being placed there.

----

You can follow the correspondence at:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/337/sep09_2/a1379

In Nestlé's latest posting on 27 January 2009, it says it will change the bear brand logo, so, if true, that is an important result. Let us see if it will change its policy on marketing of whole milks.

Looking back on 2008 and forward to 2009

And so here we are in 2009 and it's time to fire up this blog after a bit of a New Year break.

Last year was as eventful as ever and sets the scene for what is to come. 2008 opened with us going to the High Court in London to help the UK government in defending the new Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations. Though we disliked the regulations for being little better than those they replaced, the baby food industry was trying to undermine them further and ultimately succeeded in doing so, winning a delay in labeling requirements. Our position had been company's labels are currently illegal, so they should be withdrawn in any case.
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/02/uk-court-case-over.html

Companies contempt for the rule of law in the UK was further demonstrated when Heinz launched its new 'Nurture' range of formulas, using health claims that had been illegal since 1995 and continue to be illegal.
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/07/heinz-farleys-betrayal.html

In May we began producing regular monitoring reports to submit to the government review panel investigating the effectiveness of the law. The reports profile the main companies, expose practices that we believe violate the regulations and explain what enforcement authorities have - or have not - done to hold them to account.
http://www.babyfeedinglawgroup.org.uk/monitoring.html

We are grateful for the public donations that go towards the monitoring project, as we have no other funding for it, essential though it is. The monitoring evidence was submitted to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child which, in October, called for the UK government to implement the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and commented in its report on the UK that: "aggressive promotion of breastmilk substitutes remains common."
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/10/crc-condemns-uk.html

In the wider world, we saw a UK Member of Parliament defending Nestlé after an all-expenses-paid trip to South Africa. Tom Levitt MP attacked the boycott, claiming Nestlé misbehaviour was decades in the past. We contacted him regarding the malpractice he missed while on his jolly to South Africa, including advertising of infant formula in supermarkets and prohibited health claims on labels. These strategies were not only criticised by the Department of Health, but Nestlé competitors reported it to the Advertising Standards Authority in a ultimately unsuccessful attempt at stopping what they saw as a clear breach of the marketing requirements. So Nestlé endangers infant health to boost its profits, while driving down standards for the industry as a whole. It is shameful that a Member of the UK Parliament supports them in this. While we have provided information to Mr. Levitt MP and requested a meeting, we have still not received a reply from him.
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/07/nestle-driving-standards-down.html

We campaigned in support of stronger regulations in South Africa, which have still not been finalised. We joined with partners in successfully defending Brazil's strong regulations - an important victory, but one that stops us moving backwards, rather than gaining anything extra. Such is the nature of some of our work, something that is difficult to raise funds for.
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/11/another-victory.html

Nestlé used a variety of other strategies to try to divert criticism of its practices. In March it launched a report with the UN Global Compact office. This is an unmonitored and unenforced scheme introduced by Kofi Anan, when Secretary General of the UN, as an alternative to regulatory systems. Nestlé uses it for Public Relations purposes, the report it produced having important omissions and factual inaccuracies.
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/03/shared-value-exposed.html

Nestlé gained a new Chief Executive Officer in April, Mr. Paul Bulcke. We sent him a letter of welcome and put the four-point plan to him for saving infant lives and ultimately ending the boycott. He rejected it.
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/04/welcome-mr-bulcke.html

In the Scottish Parliament a 'No to Nestlé' campaign was launched, which has seen some local authorities to switch to alternative suppliers.
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/05/no-to-nestle.html

Campaigners in Switzerland embarked on legal action against Nestlé after it was revealed that Nestlé had hired someone to pass off as an activist to infiltrate the group to gather sensitive and confidential information. The spy's reports included information on the baby milk campaign. The spy was run by a former MI6 agent employed by Nestlé.
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/08/nestle-swiss-spy.html

In August it was revealed that not only is Nestlé one of the world's most boycotted companies, it is one of the world's most criticised.
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/08/nestle-most-critized.html

For International Nestlé-Free Week in October, a new website was launched as a portal to information from experts concerned about Nestlé practices. Nestlé lawyers threatened Baby Milk Action with legal action over the site and demanded the domain name be handed to Nestlé just days before the launch. We refused, concerned at Nestlé's history of 'passing off' as activists to gain sensitive information and suspicious of what it may put on the site. The launch went ahead as the Nestlé Critics website.
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/10/nestle-free-week-launch.html

In the UK, Nestlé pulled out of the Children's Book Prize, after a winner refused to accept Nestlé's money.
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/01/demise-nestle-prize.html

Nestlé also continued with its efforts to break into the UK formula market, recruiting Dr. Miriam Stoppard, alongside Nestlé cheerleader, midwife Chris Sidgwick. Trading Standards confirmed that a Nestlé video Chris Sidgwick launched for midwives was being distributed in breach of regulations.
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/09/nestle-breastfeeding-video.html

It was a 'reporting year' at the World Health Assembly - every two years the Director General makes a report on progress in implementing the marketing requirements. This only looks at government action on legislation, not company's responsibility to abide by the requirements independently of government action. That aspect of monitoring has to be done by us with our partners in the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN). We attended the Assembly and called for renewed enforcement action and other steps to address current concerns.
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/06/wha6148.html

We continue to take the lead in strategic thinking on holding corporations accountable, drawing on our experience to argue for international regulatory systems. Personally I am proposing there be a World TNC Regulatory Authority.
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/10/world-tnc-regulatory-authority.html

Towards the end of the year, the scandal of melamine contaminated formula in China emerged. We reminded people how Fonterra/Sanlu, the company at the centre of the scandal, had been pushing formula for years in breach of marketing standards. We analysed claim and counter claim regarding levels of contamination and showed that Nestlé's claim that its milk products were unaffected was untrue, as one was on the contaminated list, though at lower levels than the Sanlu products.
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/12/cashing-in-melamine.html

The year of 2009 began with yet another emergency, this time in Gaza, where formula has been sent by well-meaning, but ill-informed, people. This puts lives at risk, as I reported in March with information on a UN meeting on infant feeding in emergencies. We put out similar warnings in response to disasters in Burma and China.
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/03/formula-donations-diarrhoea.html

This is just some of the things going on in 2008.

For Baby Milk Action it was a particularly difficult year as we had to cut staff hours even further. For me this means that, while trying to do as much as I can unpaid, I do sometimes have to take on freelance work to make ends meet. Hopefully the situation will improve - we live in hope - but it may be in 2009 this is not quite a daily blog. Apologies for that.

John Lewis violating children's rights with breach of baby bottle marketing standards

Lot's of people have been contacting us about the John Lewis Baby feeding advisors promoting Avent feeding bottles in stores in the UK.

If you went along, reports of what you were told and scans of materials you may have received (or pop copies in the post) are most welcome. Report using the forms at:
http://www.babyfeedinglawgroup.org.uk/monitoring.html

This is a blatant violation of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes.
http://www.ibfan.org/site2005/Pages/article.php?art_id=52&iui=1#2

Article 2: The Code applies to the marketing, and practices related thereto, of the following products: ... feeding bottles and teats.

http://www.ibfan.org/site2005/Pages/article.php?art_id=52&iui=1#5

Article 5. The general public and mothers

5.1 There should be no advertising or other form of promotion to the general public of products within the scope of this Code.

5.2 Manufacturers and distributors should not provide, directly or indirectly, to pregnant women, mothers or members of their families, samples of products within the scope of this Code.

5.3 In conformity with paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article, there should be no point-of-sale advertising, giving of samples, or any other promotion device to induce sales directly to the consumer at the retail level, such as special displays, discount coupons, premiums, special sales, loss leaders and tie-in sales, for products within the scope of this Code....

5.5 Marketing personnel, in their business capacity, should not seek direct or indirect contact of any kind with pregnant women or with mothers of infants and young children.
---

We are discussing with the authorities what action can be taken. There is a problem in the UK, however. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child explained it in October 2008 when it's report on the UK stated it: "is concerned that implementation of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes continues to be inadequate and that aggressive promotion of breastmilk substitutes remains common."

Marketing regulations for bottles and teats are less than inadequate, they are not included in the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations, which the government points to as its implementation of the Code.

The feeding bottle promotion is being done along Avent breastpumps, but there is reason to be seriously concerned at the message the John Lewis Baby feeding advisors will be giving out. This is what they say on the John Lewis website : "There’s been a lot of talk, and quite a bit of controversy, about which is best for baby - breast or bottle."

If the advisors have not even read the 'breastfeeding is best for babies' message on formula or the reasons for it, what can be expected of them?

Certainly all mothers need support and information, but company representatives with a vested interest in selling products are not the best people to be targeting mothers.

Please let us know your experience if you went to an event in what was billed as 'Avent Feeding Awareness Week' or are able to go this weekend.

Happy new year?

I have a bit of a break from blogging over Christmas and New Year, but I thought I would make a post to wish everyone a happy new year and review the past year of blogs.

Except I will leave that for another day as we are reminded every day on the news that it is not a happy new year for some, particularly in Gaza and Israel at the present time.

So, instead, here are two related thoughts.

Firstly, please don't send formula to Gaza! We have this every time there is an emergency. People collect formula to send. We had to remind people at the time of the Asian Tsunami in 2004 that this is harmful in both the short and long term.

In the short term, donated formula is rarely distributed properly. Some mothers end up using it, thinking it is necessary rather than breastfeeding. They and those caring for orphans or separated children usually find donated milk is labelled in a language they don't understand.

In fact, if formula is labelled in the wrong language it is actually illegal to export it from the UK, including as a donation. We had to resort to invoking the law in the case of the Tsunami. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press13jan05.html

All the same, formula found its way to places like Sri Lanka. The Health Minister of Sri Lanka is quoted in a briefing paper from the Emergency Nutrition Network (of which we are members), released to raise awareness of the dangers of formula to Gaza.

This is what the Health Minister had to say:

---quote begins
Although Sri Lanka is a country with a high exclusive breastfeeding rate, there was a myth among mothers about the inability to produce enough breastmilk when under stress. A major problem was the distribution of infant formula and feeding bottles by donors and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), without the appropriate controls, to breastfeeding mothers. Donors acted emotionally withoutany scientific basis, disregarding the dangers of artificial feeding in disasters. Additionally the mass media was very keen on feeding babies so made a public appeal to supply artificial milk and feeding bottles. The Ministry of Health faced many challenges to ensure that breastfeeding mothers continued to do so and did not swap to unsustainable and potentially dangerous infant formula.

Statement from the Sri Lankan Ministry of Health after the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami
---quote ends

You can download the briefing at:
http://www.ennonline.net/pool/files/ife/ife-media-flyer-final(1).pdf

Long-term effects can be devastating and last a decade. After the Armenian earthquake in 1988, breastfeeding rates fell from 64% to 20%. My colleague, Susanna Harutyunyan was interviewed in the Armenia Weekly about this and said: "During the early 1990s Armenia was provided with infant formula as humanitarian aid, and the availability of free infant formula was one of the most obvious reasons for the dramatic decrease in breastfeeding."

You can listen to an interview I conducted with Susanna at the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) Europen meeting in 2006 in our broadcasts section:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/ram/ibfaneurope06.html

At the time of the Kosovo crisis when many refugees moved into Albania, our partners there in the IBFAN set up baby friendly corners. Mothers experiencing problems with lactation were helped to relactate. Babies that needed to be bottle fed, where fed in a separate area with locally sourced formula, labelled in the correct language, and prepared hygienically.

The Emergency Nutrition Network has training manuals for field staff working in emergency situations, which can be found at:
http://www.ennonline.net/

Please support the Emergency Nutrition Network, or if you want to send a donation that will go to humanitarian relief efforts in Gaza, you might like to send them to UNRWA (UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East). See:
http://www.un.org/unrwa/emergency/donation/emergency_activities.html

Secondly, I don't want to discuss the politics of what is happening in Gaza here, but I don't think think wishing peace and security for all should be contentious. The Avaaz campaign is calling for action from the international community to help achieve that. You can find out more and sign the petition if you wish at:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/gaza_time_for_peace/

Mass protest over Facebook policy on breastfeeding photos gains media attention

There has been a petition on the Facebook social networking site for over a year protesting about the removal of breastfeeding photos. I posted some of the images from our breastfeeding calendar in solidarity.

The argument continues and a virtual protest was held on the site this week and outside the company's headquarters. See:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=39521488436

This has been picked up by The Guardian today. See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/dec/30/facebook-breastfeeding-ban

Also see Morgan Gallagher's blog and campaign collecting photos at:
http://one-of-those-women.blogspot.com/2008/12/if-facebook-deleted-your-photo.html

The Guardian reports that Facebook has a clear policy on when a breastfeeding photo becomes obscene, quoting Facebook's Barry Schnitt as follows: "Photos containing a fully exposed breast, as defined by showing the nipple or areola, do violate those terms (on obscene, pornographic or sexually explicit material) and may be removed."

However, from Morgan's blog you can see that even 'nipple-free' photos have been deleted.

I've done a nipple hunt on our calendar and it passes the Barry test. You can order it here:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/calendarlatest.html

Our popular poster is borderline on the Barry test, however. You can order that one here:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/posters.html

This one from an earlier calendar would be hit by the ban as Barry would no doubt shout "nipple!"

PLEASE DON'T COPY THIS PICTURE WITHOUT OBTAINING COPYRIGHT APPROVAL FIRST (contact mikebrady@babymilkaction.org):

You can sign the Facebook petition calling for it to revise its policy at:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2517126532

Two awards and an authority rating

News of two awards and something similar.

Firstly, Nestlé has won yet another shaming award. This time it is from a consumer group in Taiwan. The Taipei Times reports:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2008/12/20/2003431591

---
In the private sector, RT Mart, Fonterra and Nestle Taiwan all received the “Very Black Award” — “black” standing for black-hearted products — by the foundation for poor business practices during the melamine scandal.
---

Nestlé had criticised a delisting order from the food safety authorities, claiming the level of melamine in its products was within safe limits. Nestlé did say it would comply with the order, however. For more on the melamine scandal, analysis of the levels found in different products and Nestlé's response see the Nestlé Critics website at:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=56&Itemid=1

Meanwhile in Argentina, our partners in the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) are in the news for a breastfeeding photo compeitition. They received a silver medal from the World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action in a 'marathon' during World Breastfeeding Week for staging the long-running event. See the report at:
http://www.anbariloche.com.ar/noticia.php?nota=6748

Finally, not an award as such, but a reader of this blog has alerted me to a report by someone tracking the reputation of companies at:
http://bacatu.blogspot.com/2008/09/perceptions-of-cow-and-gate.html

This includes the following comments on the authority of blogs that are critical of the aggressive marketing strategies used for Cow & Gate (a brand owned by Danone):
http://bacatu.blogspot.com/2008/09/perceptions-of-cow-and-gate.html

---
Both websites have a greater authority than cowandgate.co.uk measured by how many sites are linking to them and how authoritative those sites are, on average.

• Half Pint Pixie has 233 sites linking to it which are (on average) 240 times more authoritative than that site
  
• Boycott Nestle has 167 / 114
  
• Cow and Gate has just 71 / 60

---

So hurrah for us and raspberries for the misbehaving baby food companies.

Three awards

News of three awards.

Firstly, Nestlé has won yet another shaming award. This time it is from a consumer group in Taiwan. The Taipei Times reports:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2008/12/20/2003431591

---
In the private sector, RT Mart, Fonterra and Nestle Taiwan all received the “Very Black Award” — “black” standing for black-hearted products — by the foundation for poor business practices during the melamine scandal.
---

Nestlé had criticised a delisting order from the food safety authorities, claiming the level of melamine in its products was within safe limits. Nestlé did say it would comply with the order, however. For more on the melamine scandal, analysis of the levels found in different products and Nestlé's response see the Nestlé Critics website at:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=56&Itemid=1

Meanwhile in Argentina, our partners in the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) are in the news for a breastfeeding photo compeitition. They received a silver medal from the World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action in a 'marathon' during World Breastfeeding Week for staging the long-running event. See the report at:
http://www.anbariloche.com.ar/noticia.php?nota=6748

Finally, a reader of this blog has alerted me to a report by someone tracking the reputation of companies at:


This includes the following comments on the authority of blogs that are critical of the aggressive marketing strategies used for Cow & Gate (a brand owned by Danone):
http://bacatu.blogspot.com/2008/09/perceptions-of-cow-and-gate.html

---
Both websites have a greater authority than cowandgate.co.uk measured by how many sites are linking to them and how authoritative those sites are, on average.

• Half Pint Pixie has 233 sites linking to it which are (on average) 240 times more authoritative than that site
  
• Boycott Nestle has 167 / 114
  
• Cow and Gate has just 71 / 60

---

So hurrah for us and raspberries for the misbehaving baby food companies.

Improving the search experience

A couple of search engine issues have been on the work plan for today.

Firstly we have a new search engine feature on the Baby Milk Action website. This not only searches that site, but the IBFAN website and the Nestlé Critics website. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/

I did try including this blog in the searches, but it pulled up irrelevant pages in my tests, due to the archive links that appear on the right. Until I find a solution (suggestions welcome), the blog will have to be searched separately.

Also on search engines, we had an issue with pages from the old IBFAN site appearing in search engine listings. People visiting that site might think corporate malpractice and the campaign to protect infant health stopped in 2005. So I've added re-directions to the new site. Personally I hate it when I follow an old link and it just takes me to the home page or a 'page not found' message. So I've tried to be a bit more user friendly and the re-directions take you to the actual page on the new site, or at least the relevant index.

Let me know what you think of these two developments.

Who is setting the global health agenda?

We have a new addition to our on-line Virtual Shop.

It is called Global Health Watch 2 and is an alternative world health report. Our Policy Director, Patti Rundall, contributed to the section on infant feeding.

If you are concerned about the corporate takeover of the health agenda it is a particularly relevant read. Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, is pumping large sums of money into initiatives such as GAIN, which is operating in the field of infant nutrition. GAIN has companies such as Danone on the board. Danone is a major violator of the World Health Assembly marketing requirements, more so since its takeover of the Nutricia, Milupa and Cow & Gate brands. We have asked Danone's Chief Executive to indicate the company will bring policies and practices into line with the WHA marketing requirements and he refuses to give this undertaking.

GAIN is pursuing the promotion of processed foods for addressing micronutrient malnutrition in developing countries. Critics suggest it is more beneficial, cost effective and respectful of indigenous cultures to promote more balanced use of local foods. But with the sums being pumped into GAIN and the involvement of transnational corporations there is a danger that the public health debate is being distorted.

You can find the book and lots more information about it (including a flier) at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/publications02.html#globalhwatch2