You can now find my campaign blog on the Baby Milk Action site at:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog
http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog
Saturday, August 10, 2013
Tuesday, April 09, 2013
Danone rationing formula and Nestlé discounts
Campaigners are pointing to new aggressive baby milk marketing practices in the UK as a sign of increased competition with Nestlé entering the UK market, where Danone is currently the largest company.
Nestlé and Danone are respectively the world's biggest and second-biggest manufacturers of breastmilk substitutes. They have been engaged in an increasingly aggressive marketing war, particularly in Asia, since Danone purchased the NUMICO brand in 2007 (Nutricia, Milupa, Aptamil, Cow & Gate etc).
This marketing war has now reached the UK following Nestlé's takeover of Pfizer Nutrition/Wyeth in 2012, manufacture of the SMA brand. Both Danone and Nestlé have launched new strategies to promote their products - the former gaining media coverage by claiming individuals in the UK are buying up formula to send to China thus causing a shortage in the UK, the latter taking advantage of any formula panic buying by putting its follow-on formula on prominent price promotion to increase sales. Nestlé has told the BBC: 'We do not have any evidence of bulk purchase of SMA for export.'
Further details and analysis on the Baby Milk Action press release at:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease09apr13
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
WHO regrets PAHO linking with Nestle
As Reuters reported on 19 October 2012, the Pan American Health Organisation (PAHO) has linked with various junk food companies, including Nestlé.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) has today released a statement distancing itself from the decision to accept money from the food and beverage industry, a decision it describes as "unfortunate".
Moves in 2011 by the WHO Director General to set up a multi-stakeholder public health forum were opposed by Member States and public interest organisations such as Baby Milk Action and the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), leading to WHO to take a clearer stand on conflicts of interest.
WHO's statement on PAHO's link to Nestlé and other companies states:
Nestlé systematically undermines public health messages by, for example, claiming its formula 'protects' babies, when babies fed on formula are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty more likely to die (example below, Nestlé advertising Nan formula on television in Armenia in 2011). It also refuses to bring instructions on preparing formula into line with WHO guidance, so denying parents information on how to reduce the risks from the possible intrinsic contamination of powdered infant formula, which is not a sterile product.
Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator at Baby Milk Action said:
Baby Milk Action helped to set up the Conflicts of Interest (COI) Coalition and invites other concerned organisation to endorse the statement calling on public interest organisations to put the public interest first and maintain their independence from the corporate sector. See:
http://coicoalition.blogspot.co.uk/
The intervention by Patti Rundall, Policy Director of Baby Milk Action, at the World Health Organisation Executive Board meeting in 2011 regarding the proposed multi-stakeholder forum, which has since died a natural death, raises some of the key issues about conflicts of interest with particular reference to infant feeding. See:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/policyblog/speeches
The World Health Organisation (WHO) has today released a statement distancing itself from the decision to accept money from the food and beverage industry, a decision it describes as "unfortunate".
Moves in 2011 by the WHO Director General to set up a multi-stakeholder public health forum were opposed by Member States and public interest organisations such as Baby Milk Action and the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), leading to WHO to take a clearer stand on conflicts of interest.
WHO's statement on PAHO's link to Nestlé and other companies states:
The World Health Organization (WHO) recognizes the importance of working with the private sector. However since part of our work involves setting norms, standards and guidelines for public health, we have very strict guidelines for accepting money from the private sector.
WHO does not accept funds from the food and beverage industry for its noncommunicable diseases work.
It is unfortunate that the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO-WHO) has accepted money from the food and beverage industry.
PAHO - while it is a WHO regional office for the Americas – is, unlike the other regional offices, also the health agency of the Organization of American States. Therefore in some areas, PAHO has its own operating guidelines. Not all PAHO guidelines are aligned with WHO. One such area is collaboration with the private sector.
Nestlé systematically undermines public health messages by, for example, claiming its formula 'protects' babies, when babies fed on formula are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty more likely to die (example below, Nestlé advertising Nan formula on television in Armenia in 2011). It also refuses to bring instructions on preparing formula into line with WHO guidance, so denying parents information on how to reduce the risks from the possible intrinsic contamination of powdered infant formula, which is not a sterile product.
Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator at Baby Milk Action said:
"It is welcome that WHO has come out against PAHO linking with the food and beverage industry. Nestlé is desparate to undermine controls on its marketing practices, which contribute to the unnecessary death and suffering of infants around the world and to the global rise in obesity and non-communicable diseases. As I speak, it is attempting to undermine strong baby milk regulations introduced in the Philippines. Nestlé invests heavily in trying to promote itself as a "health, nutrition and wellness" company to distract from its unethical marketing of baby milks and the high sugar, salt and fat content of many of its junk foods. It also attempts to sponsor civil society organisations, health workers, government programmes and UN initiatives to neutralise them as critics or regulators and to gain kudos by association. Governments should govern and corporations should follow the rules. It is very welcome that WHO Member States rejected a proposal last year to set up a multi-stakeholder forum that the same junk food companies were clamouring to be part of.
http://coicoalition.blogspot.co.uk/
The intervention by Patti Rundall, Policy Director of Baby Milk Action, at the World Health Organisation Executive Board meeting in 2011 regarding the proposed multi-stakeholder forum, which has since died a natural death, raises some of the key issues about conflicts of interest with particular reference to infant feeding. See:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/policyblog/speeches
Monday, November 05, 2012
Hipp on BBC Radio 4 You and Yours - ignoring safety guidance on making up formula
A representative of the Hipp baby food company was interviewed on BBC Radio 4 You and Yours programme on 5 November 2012, together with Dr. Helen Crawley of the First Steps Nutrition Trust (click here to listen again).
The discussion was about the refusal of Hipp to provide correct guidance on how to reconstitute its powdered infant formula. The facts, as Dr. Crawley explained, are clear. The Department of Health confirmed its guidance had not changed, despite Hipp claiming in the programme that it had been given permission to flout the guidance.
Powdered formula is not sterile and may contain harmful pathogens, such as cronobacter sakazakii (previously known as enterobacter sakazakii) and salmonella. Although studies have found contamination levels as high as 14% of tins (research cited by the US Food and Drugs Administation), ill effects are very rare, but can included meningitis and death.
The risks can be reduced by killing the bacteria by reconstituting the formula with water above 70 deg. C. In practice this temperature can be achieved by boiling a full kettle and allowing it to cool, but for no more than 30 minutes. The formula should then be allowed to cool to a safe temperature before feeding. The following resources provide this information:
It comes down to its own profits and marketing campaigns. Hipp's current advertising and promotion is based on so-called probiotics added to its formula. There is no proven benefit of adding probiotics to formula, despite the impression given by Hipp in advertising such as that shown below (left, advertising to health workers, exposed on Baby Milk Action's Campaign for Ethical Marketing action sheet September 2012).
The First Steps Nutrition Trust guide to Infant Milks in the UK was updated in November 2012 to include information on Hipp's new probiotic formula and states:
A few clinical trials have shown health benefits for specific bacterial strains, however, on the strength of a review of randomised control trials in healthy term infants, the ESPGHAN (European Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition) Committee on Nutrition have found that there is too much uncertainty to draw any reliable conclusions on the efficacy of probiotics in infant milks. They did not recommend their routine use in formula milks for infants.
Water hot enough to kill harmful pathogens will also kill the probiotic bacteria and this is the reason Hipp is trying to hide the risks and ignore the safety guidance.
However, in doing so, Hipp is showing its contempt for the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations (2007), adopted by the four countries of the UK. The Guidance Notes from the Food Standards Agency that accompany the Regulations and "shows how the regulations should be interpreted" is also very clear:
• All equipment used for feeding and preparing feed must be thoroughly cleaned and sterilised before use, and bottles should be made up fresh for each feed, as storing made-up formula milk may increase the chance of a baby becoming ill.
25. Further advice about the preparation and storage of formula can be found at the website below: http://www.breastfeeding.nhs.uk/en/materialforclients/index.asp (advice to consumers) http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Healthcare/Maternity/Maternalandinfantnutrition/DH_ 4123674 (advice to health professionals)
The links mentioned in the Guidance Notes take you to the Department of Health booklet on formula feeding mentioned above, which states:
Bacteria in infant formula
Even when tins and packets of powdered infant formula are sealed, they can sometimes contain bacteria such as Cronobacter sakazakii (formerly know as Enterobacter sakazakii) and more rarely Salmonella. Although these bacteria are very rare, the infections they cause can be life-threatening.
To reduce the risk of infection, make up each feed as your baby needs it, using boiled water at a temperature of 70oC or above. Water at this temperature will kill any harmful bacteria that may be present.
Unfortunately, the regulatory authorities in the UK are not acting to enforce the regulations.
As Baby Milk Action also recently reported, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is also failing to protect babies and their families in the UK when it comes to misleading claims made in advertisements. For example, it refuses to even investigate advertisments like that shown above. See our 24 October 2012 press release.
What can you do?
The discussion was about the refusal of Hipp to provide correct guidance on how to reconstitute its powdered infant formula. The facts, as Dr. Crawley explained, are clear. The Department of Health confirmed its guidance had not changed, despite Hipp claiming in the programme that it had been given permission to flout the guidance.
Powdered formula is not sterile and may contain harmful pathogens, such as cronobacter sakazakii (previously known as enterobacter sakazakii) and salmonella. Although studies have found contamination levels as high as 14% of tins (research cited by the US Food and Drugs Administation), ill effects are very rare, but can included meningitis and death.The risks can be reduced by killing the bacteria by reconstituting the formula with water above 70 deg. C. In practice this temperature can be achieved by boiling a full kettle and allowing it to cool, but for no more than 30 minutes. The formula should then be allowed to cool to a safe temperature before feeding. The following resources provide this information:
The Department of Health Guide to Bottle Feeding booklet includes the instructions - click here.
A clear leaflet to follow if you are using formula (Hipp or any other) or advising parents, can be downloaded from the Department of Health - click here.
The World Health Organisation Guidelines for the safe preparation, storage and handling of powdered infant formula are also clear about using water above 70 deg. C. Its report includes background information on the risks and the reasons for the guidance - click here.
Baby Milk Action produced the Infant Formula Explained DVD on behalf of the Baby Feeding Law Group (consisting of leading UK health professional and mother support groups), which includes a short film for parents on how to reconstitute powdered formula correctly to reduce the risks - click here.
Despite the clear guidance for parents from the Department of Health and WHO, Hipp told Radio 4 that the guidance is unclear.
Why is Hipp putting babies at risk by telling people to use water at a lower temperature on its labels?
It comes down to its own profits and marketing campaigns. Hipp's current advertising and promotion is based on so-called probiotics added to its formula. There is no proven benefit of adding probiotics to formula, despite the impression given by Hipp in advertising such as that shown below (left, advertising to health workers, exposed on Baby Milk Action's Campaign for Ethical Marketing action sheet September 2012).
The First Steps Nutrition Trust guide to Infant Milks in the UK was updated in November 2012 to include information on Hipp's new probiotic formula and states:
A few clinical trials have shown health benefits for specific bacterial strains, however, on the strength of a review of randomised control trials in healthy term infants, the ESPGHAN (European Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition) Committee on Nutrition have found that there is too much uncertainty to draw any reliable conclusions on the efficacy of probiotics in infant milks. They did not recommend their routine use in formula milks for infants.
Water hot enough to kill harmful pathogens will also kill the probiotic bacteria and this is the reason Hipp is trying to hide the risks and ignore the safety guidance.
However, in doing so, Hipp is showing its contempt for the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations (2007), adopted by the four countries of the UK. The Guidance Notes from the Food Standards Agency that accompany the Regulations and "shows how the regulations should be interpreted" is also very clear:
Labelling relating to the preparation, storage and disposal of infant formula and follow-on formula
24. Regulation 17 (1)(d) and 18(1)(d) require that instructions are provided for appropriate preparation, storage and disposal of the product. The Agency recommends that these instructions should include information noting that:
• Powdered infant formulae and follow-on formulae are not sterile, and as such can contain harmful bacteria. It is therefore important to be very careful when preparing formula to reduce the risks. Boiled tap water (not bottled water) cooled for no more than 30 minutes should be used to prepare infant feeds.
• All equipment used for feeding and preparing feed must be thoroughly cleaned and sterilised before use, and bottles should be made up fresh for each feed, as storing made-up formula milk may increase the chance of a baby becoming ill.
25. Further advice about the preparation and storage of formula can be found at the website below: http://www.breastfeeding.nhs.uk/en/materialforclients/index.asp (advice to consumers) http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Healthcare/Maternity/Maternalandinfantnutrition/DH_ 4123674 (advice to health professionals)
Bacteria in infant formula
Even when tins and packets of powdered infant formula are sealed, they can sometimes contain bacteria such as Cronobacter sakazakii (formerly know as Enterobacter sakazakii) and more rarely Salmonella. Although these bacteria are very rare, the infections they cause can be life-threatening.
To reduce the risk of infection, make up each feed as your baby needs it, using boiled water at a temperature of 70oC or above. Water at this temperature will kill any harmful bacteria that may be present.
As Baby Milk Action also recently reported, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is also failing to protect babies and their families in the UK when it comes to misleading claims made in advertisements. For example, it refuses to even investigate advertisments like that shown above. See our 24 October 2012 press release.
What can you do?
- Direct people using formula to the above guidance so they know how to prepare it correctly.
- Join Baby Milk Action (or send gift membership to a friend or collague).
- Support our Campaign for Ethical Marketing.
- Report examples of questionable promotion to the Baby Feeding Law Group monitoring project, which Baby Milk Action coordinates - click here.
Sunday, November 04, 2012
A message of thanks from Philippines campaigners
During International Nestle-Free Week 2012 (29 October - 4 November) people have been sending messages to Nestle about its systematic violations of baby milk marketing rules and signing a petition of solidarity with the people of the Philippines. A message of thanks has just been received from campaigners in the Philippines (see below).
Above: Gloria joined the successful campaign with her son Miguel in 2007. Mothers and babies need your help again. Please sign the petition of solidarity. This is helping bring attention to this issue - see, for example, this report in the Philippines on 23 October 2012.
In the Philippines Nestle is leading an attempt to bring in a new law to replace regulations introduced in 2007 to stop companies advertising baby milks and targeting pregnant women and new mothers. Campaigners in the Philippines call it Nestle's Monster Bill. The Philippines Department of Health, UNICEF and WHO said in September:
"The draft House Bill... aims to support multinational companies while damaging the Filipino society: families, the mothers and children."
On 4 September 2012, Baby Milk Action received the following message from MOM CARE - Movement Opposing Milk Code Amendments and Revision, the new name from the Breastfeeding Consortium in the Philippines.
"Thank you for your commitment to the campaign.
Thank you for your kindheartedness.
Nestle never sleeps and greedy Nestle will never stop amassing profits from the poor people in the Philippines who have large families as their consumers.
Nestle leads IPNAP a conglomerate of Nestle-Wyeth, Mead Johnson, Abbott and Fonterra multinational milk companies who dangle gifts of any sorts especially to the lawmakers/lawbreakers in Philippine Congress to weaken the Milk Code law and replace with a pro-Nestle vested interest Monster Bill. Now, it is election time for politicians and the big question how much influence peddling was contributed to the election money bag?
Recently, IPNAP's government ally the Department of Trade and Industry was on the news last week "DTI bucks the amendment Bill in the name of informed choice for lactating mothers". DTI mimics Nestle stand. Nestle style is to sow confusion by letting the Department of Health and DTI fight each other. DOH issued a media statement with UNICEF and WHO, "ban babymilk ads till 36 months old" IPNAP and DTI chorused, "ban babymilk ads till 6 months old" thereafter free wheeling promo lies.
We call on our global partners to defend breastfeeding vigilantly because Nestle creeps in every legislative process to wreck breastfeeding initiatives in every country. Nestle masquerade as pro-breastfeeding but in truth undermines it by pushing policymakers to make a law that will favor their economic interest and not the consumers.
They bleed the consumers to illness, poverty and death.
Playing with national legislation is their new trick in Vietnam, Kenya, Hongkong, Philippines etc.
Keep Nestle away from your home, away from your life, away from your generation's future.
It is not good food, good life as Nestle promise, it is in fact Bad life after all."
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Comment on UNICEF breastfeeding report: Preventing disease and saving resources
UNICEF has published a report today called: "Preventing Disease and Saving Resources: the potential contribution of increasing breastfeeding rates in the UK".
UNICEF'S press release states: "The report findings show that for just five illnesses, moderate increases in breastfeeding would translate into cost savings for the NHS of £40 million and tens of thousands of fewer hospital admissions and GP consultations."
See:
http://www.unicef.org.uk/BabyFriendly/News-and-Research/News/Breastfeeding-could-save-the-NHS-millions/
Here's a quick response from me, Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator at Baby Milk Action:
The following advertisements all appeared in the same health worker journal showing how each of the companies claims its formula is closer to breastmilk than the other brands. They cannot all be telling the truth. Unfortunately, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) refuses to investigate advertising in health journals. When Baby Milk Action has brought complaints about follow-on formula advertising to the public, the ASA has ruled against the claims that Aptamil and SMA are the best formulas. The claims do not stand up to scrutiny. Baby milk companies have shown they cannot be trusted to provide accurate information to parents or health workers. See: http://info.babymilkaction.org/cem/cemsep12
The Government has known about the health and financial impact for years of course. For example, in 2006 the National Institute for Clinical Excellence costed the savings to the NHS from a modest increase in breastfeeding rates (a 10% increase in initiation) and found many thousands of babies would not suffer illness and millions would be saved.
As UNICEF points out, the National Infant Feeding Survey tells us that 90% of mothers who stopped breastfeeding their babies by the time they were 6 weeks old wanted to breastfeed for longer. With greater support, many would have been able to do so, fewer babies would have become sick or even died and there would have been cost savings.
It is not just about support, of course. Breastfeeding is the normal way to feed a child. Denying a child breastmilk and giving it an alternative type of milk, even one processed to the best of current knowledge, is inevitably not going to be as beneficial. Breastmilk is a living substance and is a continuation of the nurture a mother has provided to her child through the placenta.
Formula is sometimes described a fourth best after breastfeeding, the mother's expressed breastmilk and donor breastmilk. Formula can save lives when breastmilk is unavailable either from the mother or donors, but modified cow's milk will always have limitations. In the UK, composition of formula is closely regulated so that those on the market have the ingredients known to be necessary. As scientific knowledge changes, the regulations are updated to change the composition. Mothers who do not breastfeed, or carers without access to breastmilk, can base their choice on their baby's preference and/or cost. Every company tries to claim its formula is better than the other brands, but this is marketing hype designed to inflate prices.
So aside from the short and long-term health impacts, financially the public is suffering a double whammy. As more tax money goes to paying for the care of babies who are not breastfed, parents who use formula are paying over the odds as prices are inflated to pay for the multi-million pound marketing campaigns run by the baby milk companies.
Based on figures from dairy farmers, the proportion of the selling price of formula that goes towards promotion and profit is between 53% and 80%. That means parents who use formula for 12 months are paying anything between about £231 and £884 towards promotion and profit. See:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog310712
The latest marketing strategy of the baby milk companies is to claim they are friends of breastfeeding, wanting to offer advice and support to mothers. Danone claims that 3,000 mothers are signing up to its Cow & Gate branded baby club every week.
We have seen that companies have ostensibly given up on the first 6 months period, promoting their follow-on milk for use after breastfeeding for six months. This follows campaigns exposing their misleading claims and public health messages about the importance of breastfeeding. But companies ignore the fact that it is exclusive breastfeeding that is recommended for 6 months, with breastfeeding continuing beyond this age with the introduction of complementary foods. Companies also break the UK Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations (2007) and associated Guidance Notes by using the same brand names for follow-on milks and infant formula for use from birth and making the brand the focus of the advertising. See examples in the Baby Feeding Law Group monitoring project:
http://www.babyfeedinglawgroup.org.uk/reports/bflgreports
Involving baby milk companies in breastfeeding promotion is like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop. We receive complaints about the outrageous emails mothers have received from companies. For example, Pfizer/Wyeth has promoted its SMA brand in an email headed: "How is feeding going?". It then plants seeds of doubt about breastfeeding:
Although purporting to offer supportive advice, it highlights negatives:
Wyeth suggests people contact their midwife or public health nurse, "or call the SMA Careline".
After all that comes the closing punch: "Thinking of bottle feeding?" This is accompanied by an advertisement for SMA infant formula (which it is illegal to advertise) and the idealising claim (also prohibited) boasting the formula has "a new fat blend closer to that of breast milk".
The information that babies fed on the formula are more likely to become sick, be hospitalised and cost the NHS money treat is missing. As is the fact that these email marketing campaigns, the Careline, the cuddly toys, free gifts, free lunches for health workers and so on all go onto the price of formula.
What do parents really need? A free bear from Danone branded with its Aptamil formula name and logo (left) paid for by premiums on the price of formula - or accurate independent information on infant feeding from the health care system, no company promotion and cheaper formula?
Not for nothing are mothers supporting Baby Milk Action's "No promotion, cheaper formula" campaign. It doesn't matter if they are breastfeeding or using formula.
Everyone benefits by stopping baby milk company promotion:
http://www.change.org/petitions/baby-milk-companies-no-promotion-cheaper-formula
So why doesn't the Government act?
Why didn't it act in 2006 when the law was last revised and all health professional organisations, mother support groups and its own Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition called on it to prohibit company advertising, promotion and claims?
Why does it ignore the repeated calls from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child to implement the internationally agreed minimum marketing standards, which companies should already be abiding by in the UK?
These are very good questions. Ask your Member of Parliament.
UNICEF'S press release states: "The report findings show that for just five illnesses, moderate increases in breastfeeding would translate into cost savings for the NHS of £40 million and tens of thousands of fewer hospital admissions and GP consultations."
See:
http://www.unicef.org.uk/BabyFriendly/News-and-Research/News/Breastfeeding-could-save-the-NHS-millions/
Here's a quick response from me, Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator at Baby Milk Action:
"This report is very welcome. The finding that babies who are not breastfed are more likely to become ill and require hospital and other medical treatment is neither surprising or new. The big question is will the present Government act when others have failed to do so in the past? Unfortunately, the current administration has taken steps backwards by, for example, scrapping the Infant Feeding Coordinator posts at the Department of Health despite these being one of the initiatives included in the Global Strategy on Infant and Young Child Feeding, which the UK claims to support. Some of the countries that have followed the strategy, including prohibiting the promotion of breastmilk substitutes in line with internationally agreed minimum marketing standards, have seen marked increases in breastfeeding rates, Brazil being a particularly good example. Of course, in parts of the world without the same level of health service support babies who are not breastfed are not only more likely to become ill, but more likely to die.
"Stopping baby milk company promotion has to be part of the public health policy response to this unnecessary illness and suffering. That is not to say that mothers who use formula should be made to feel guilty for doing so. Formula should be available for those who need it and everyone benefits if there is accurate independent information on infant feeding, instead of promotion from baby milk companies with a vested interest in selling their products. Don't forget, the millions companies spend on their promotion campaigns ultimately goes onto the price they charge for formula."
The following advertisements all appeared in the same health worker journal showing how each of the companies claims its formula is closer to breastmilk than the other brands. They cannot all be telling the truth. Unfortunately, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) refuses to investigate advertising in health journals. When Baby Milk Action has brought complaints about follow-on formula advertising to the public, the ASA has ruled against the claims that Aptamil and SMA are the best formulas. The claims do not stand up to scrutiny. Baby milk companies have shown they cannot be trusted to provide accurate information to parents or health workers. See: http://info.babymilkaction.org/cem/cemsep12
The Government has known about the health and financial impact for years of course. For example, in 2006 the National Institute for Clinical Excellence costed the savings to the NHS from a modest increase in breastfeeding rates (a 10% increase in initiation) and found many thousands of babies would not suffer illness and millions would be saved.
As UNICEF points out, the National Infant Feeding Survey tells us that 90% of mothers who stopped breastfeeding their babies by the time they were 6 weeks old wanted to breastfeed for longer. With greater support, many would have been able to do so, fewer babies would have become sick or even died and there would have been cost savings.
It is not just about support, of course. Breastfeeding is the normal way to feed a child. Denying a child breastmilk and giving it an alternative type of milk, even one processed to the best of current knowledge, is inevitably not going to be as beneficial. Breastmilk is a living substance and is a continuation of the nurture a mother has provided to her child through the placenta.
Formula is sometimes described a fourth best after breastfeeding, the mother's expressed breastmilk and donor breastmilk. Formula can save lives when breastmilk is unavailable either from the mother or donors, but modified cow's milk will always have limitations. In the UK, composition of formula is closely regulated so that those on the market have the ingredients known to be necessary. As scientific knowledge changes, the regulations are updated to change the composition. Mothers who do not breastfeed, or carers without access to breastmilk, can base their choice on their baby's preference and/or cost. Every company tries to claim its formula is better than the other brands, but this is marketing hype designed to inflate prices.
So aside from the short and long-term health impacts, financially the public is suffering a double whammy. As more tax money goes to paying for the care of babies who are not breastfed, parents who use formula are paying over the odds as prices are inflated to pay for the multi-million pound marketing campaigns run by the baby milk companies.
Based on figures from dairy farmers, the proportion of the selling price of formula that goes towards promotion and profit is between 53% and 80%. That means parents who use formula for 12 months are paying anything between about £231 and £884 towards promotion and profit. See:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog310712
The latest marketing strategy of the baby milk companies is to claim they are friends of breastfeeding, wanting to offer advice and support to mothers. Danone claims that 3,000 mothers are signing up to its Cow & Gate branded baby club every week.
We have seen that companies have ostensibly given up on the first 6 months period, promoting their follow-on milk for use after breastfeeding for six months. This follows campaigns exposing their misleading claims and public health messages about the importance of breastfeeding. But companies ignore the fact that it is exclusive breastfeeding that is recommended for 6 months, with breastfeeding continuing beyond this age with the introduction of complementary foods. Companies also break the UK Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations (2007) and associated Guidance Notes by using the same brand names for follow-on milks and infant formula for use from birth and making the brand the focus of the advertising. See examples in the Baby Feeding Law Group monitoring project:
http://www.babyfeedinglawgroup.org.uk/reports/bflgreports
Involving baby milk companies in breastfeeding promotion is like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop. We receive complaints about the outrageous emails mothers have received from companies. For example, Pfizer/Wyeth has promoted its SMA brand in an email headed: "How is feeding going?". It then plants seeds of doubt about breastfeeding:
"If you’re breastfeeding, do you sometimes wonder if your baby is getting enough milk?"
Although purporting to offer supportive advice, it highlights negatives:
"Feeling sore? .... If the pain continues or your nipples start to crack or bleed...."
Wyeth suggests people contact their midwife or public health nurse, "or call the SMA Careline".
After all that comes the closing punch: "Thinking of bottle feeding?" This is accompanied by an advertisement for SMA infant formula (which it is illegal to advertise) and the idealising claim (also prohibited) boasting the formula has "a new fat blend closer to that of breast milk".
The information that babies fed on the formula are more likely to become sick, be hospitalised and cost the NHS money treat is missing. As is the fact that these email marketing campaigns, the Careline, the cuddly toys, free gifts, free lunches for health workers and so on all go onto the price of formula.
What do parents really need? A free bear from Danone branded with its Aptamil formula name and logo (left) paid for by premiums on the price of formula - or accurate independent information on infant feeding from the health care system, no company promotion and cheaper formula?
Not for nothing are mothers supporting Baby Milk Action's "No promotion, cheaper formula" campaign. It doesn't matter if they are breastfeeding or using formula.
Everyone benefits by stopping baby milk company promotion:
http://www.change.org/petitions/baby-milk-companies-no-promotion-cheaper-formula
So why doesn't the Government act?
Why didn't it act in 2006 when the law was last revised and all health professional organisations, mother support groups and its own Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition called on it to prohibit company advertising, promotion and claims?
Why does it ignore the repeated calls from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child to implement the internationally agreed minimum marketing standards, which companies should already be abiding by in the UK?
These are very good questions. Ask your Member of Parliament.
Tuesday, October 09, 2012
Infant Sleep Information Source
The September 2012 issue of Breastfeeding Briefs from the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) is on the theme of "Sleeping with the baby". It is guest edited by Dr Helen Ball who has researched and written extensively on this theme.
Dr Ball explains:
You can download the issue of Breastfeeding Briefs below from the IBFAN site (where you will also find past issues) - click here.
There is information for health workers and resources for parents and carers on the ISIS site:
http://www.isisonline.org.uk/
Dr Ball explains:
Over the past year, my colleague Dr Charlotte Russell and I have been working with several organisations in the UK (La Leche League, National Childbirth Trust, UNICEF Baby Friendly Initiative) to produce an infant sleep information website (ISIS) that aims to inform parents and health care providers about the research evidence available on where and how babies sleep (www.isisonline.org.uk). This editorial will summarise some of the issues we discuss on the site, and consider how the latest research is informing parents and healthcare providers.The editorial is a fascinating overview of questions relating to co-sleeping, possible positive and negative impacts on breastfeeding and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and the latest evidence and advice.
You can download the issue of Breastfeeding Briefs below from the IBFAN site (where you will also find past issues) - click here.
There is information for health workers and resources for parents and carers on the ISIS site:
http://www.isisonline.org.uk/
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Formula advertising in the British Journal of Midwifery
The British Journal of Midwifery has published a letter from Baby Milk Action after a member of its editorial board defended accepting infant formula advertising, which has been criticised by readers. Professor Lewis suggested that concerns about such advertising are due to "enmity and distrust" and suggested the priority should be on "resolving differences".
My letter is reproduced below.
In the guest editorial "Breast is best but choice is paramount" published in BJM 20(6), Prof. Lewis suggests that "concern and conflict must at some point give way to careful consideration, cooperation and hopefully, conciliation", but then attacks Baby Milk Action with bogus arguments. Indeed, the title of the editorial and its suggestion that stopping advertising restricts choice or denies information is itself bogus. Advertising, branded free gifts and branded competitions are not providing information, they are strategies designed to sell products.
The article states: "there is little evidence that Baby Milk Action are willing to acknowledge any positive changes within the food and infant feeding industry and against such enmity and distrust all future opportunities for an alliance and attainment of our wider aspirations for improved infant feeding is likely to founder."
Baby Milk Action, which works to protect the right of all pregnant women and mothers to accurate, independent information, does acknowledge positive changes. For example, we welcomed Danone’s statement that it had taken action to stop 50% of the violations of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant Resolutions of the World Health Assembly in the last global monitoring report produced by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN). We continue to communicate with Danone over ongoing systematic violations and it recently agreed to stop distributing materials in the health care system targeted at parents. While we publicly welcome these steps, we will continue to call for full compliance with the International Code and Resolutions, and for Danone to stop targeting health workers and parents in violation of these measures.
We are also in ongoing communication with Nestlé. Nestlé executives agreed to act on only 3% of violations (four out of 130) in the last monitoring report. I attended the Nestlé shareholder meeting this year and began by welcoming the fact that Nestlé had dropped a claim that one of its formula milks is "The new 'gold standard' in infant nutrition" after we campaigned on this. However, Nestlé continues to be the worst of the companies in terms of the scale and scope of violations and also takes the lead in opposing or undermining implementation of the Code and Resolutions in legislation. It is for this reason that it is the target of a boycott. The article refers to FTSE4Good without mentioning that Nestlé was only included in this ethical listing because the relevant criteria were weakened in September 2010 as no companies are complying with the previous criteria and FTSE wanted to bring some onto the list.
Article 7.2 of the Code states: "Information provided by manufacturers and distributors to health professionals regarding products within the scope of this Code should be restricted to scientific and factual matters". Formula advertising self-evidently does not provide scientific and factual information.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld complains about formula advertising to the public, but refuses to consider complaints about advertising in professional journals on the grounds they should self-regulate. It is welcome to learn that there are health workers calling on the BJM to stop accepting formula advertising. This does not prohibit proper peer-reviewed scientific articles on formula appearing.
There is much more that could be said, but to finish, the article argues that various actors are "caught up on the particulars of the Code rather than finding a resolution for our differences." It is entirely sensible to expect companies to abide by these internationally agreed minimum standards for marketing of nutritional products for the most vulnerable people on the planet - babies. Putting priority on "resolving differences" with baby food companies, which in the BJM case coincidently involves profiting financially from the relationship, does a disservice to babies, their carers and readers of the BJM.
Yours sincerely,
Mike Brady
Campaigns and Networking Coordinator
Baby Milk Action
In a further response, Professor Lewis comments: "The ASA... accepts that adverts in healthcare journals are aimed at professionals who should be capable of considering the information and making up their own minds as to it benefits or disadvantage to the ways in which they practice – Baby Milk Action rather sadly, does not credit midwives with that capacity."
So if I understand this argument correctly, the British Journal of Midwifery abdicates its editorial responsibility and justifies pocketing money from baby food companies for publishing misleading advertising on the grounds that it is the responsibility of midwives to disregard it. To which I can only think, surely that's no way to run a journal.
Take a look at our September 2012 Campaign for Ethical Marketing to see how companies target healthworkers. And please let us know if you find Danone's leaflets in health facilities anywhere in the world.
My letter is reproduced below.
In the guest editorial "Breast is best but choice is paramount" published in BJM 20(6), Prof. Lewis suggests that "concern and conflict must at some point give way to careful consideration, cooperation and hopefully, conciliation", but then attacks Baby Milk Action with bogus arguments. Indeed, the title of the editorial and its suggestion that stopping advertising restricts choice or denies information is itself bogus. Advertising, branded free gifts and branded competitions are not providing information, they are strategies designed to sell products.
The article states: "there is little evidence that Baby Milk Action are willing to acknowledge any positive changes within the food and infant feeding industry and against such enmity and distrust all future opportunities for an alliance and attainment of our wider aspirations for improved infant feeding is likely to founder."
Baby Milk Action, which works to protect the right of all pregnant women and mothers to accurate, independent information, does acknowledge positive changes. For example, we welcomed Danone’s statement that it had taken action to stop 50% of the violations of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant Resolutions of the World Health Assembly in the last global monitoring report produced by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN). We continue to communicate with Danone over ongoing systematic violations and it recently agreed to stop distributing materials in the health care system targeted at parents. While we publicly welcome these steps, we will continue to call for full compliance with the International Code and Resolutions, and for Danone to stop targeting health workers and parents in violation of these measures.
We are also in ongoing communication with Nestlé. Nestlé executives agreed to act on only 3% of violations (four out of 130) in the last monitoring report. I attended the Nestlé shareholder meeting this year and began by welcoming the fact that Nestlé had dropped a claim that one of its formula milks is "The new 'gold standard' in infant nutrition" after we campaigned on this. However, Nestlé continues to be the worst of the companies in terms of the scale and scope of violations and also takes the lead in opposing or undermining implementation of the Code and Resolutions in legislation. It is for this reason that it is the target of a boycott. The article refers to FTSE4Good without mentioning that Nestlé was only included in this ethical listing because the relevant criteria were weakened in September 2010 as no companies are complying with the previous criteria and FTSE wanted to bring some onto the list.
Article 7.2 of the Code states: "Information provided by manufacturers and distributors to health professionals regarding products within the scope of this Code should be restricted to scientific and factual matters". Formula advertising self-evidently does not provide scientific and factual information.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld complains about formula advertising to the public, but refuses to consider complaints about advertising in professional journals on the grounds they should self-regulate. It is welcome to learn that there are health workers calling on the BJM to stop accepting formula advertising. This does not prohibit proper peer-reviewed scientific articles on formula appearing.
There is much more that could be said, but to finish, the article argues that various actors are "caught up on the particulars of the Code rather than finding a resolution for our differences." It is entirely sensible to expect companies to abide by these internationally agreed minimum standards for marketing of nutritional products for the most vulnerable people on the planet - babies. Putting priority on "resolving differences" with baby food companies, which in the BJM case coincidently involves profiting financially from the relationship, does a disservice to babies, their carers and readers of the BJM.
Yours sincerely,
Mike Brady
Campaigns and Networking Coordinator
Baby Milk Action
In a further response, Professor Lewis comments: "The ASA... accepts that adverts in healthcare journals are aimed at professionals who should be capable of considering the information and making up their own minds as to it benefits or disadvantage to the ways in which they practice – Baby Milk Action rather sadly, does not credit midwives with that capacity."
So if I understand this argument correctly, the British Journal of Midwifery abdicates its editorial responsibility and justifies pocketing money from baby food companies for publishing misleading advertising on the grounds that it is the responsibility of midwives to disregard it. To which I can only think, surely that's no way to run a journal.
Take a look at our September 2012 Campaign for Ethical Marketing to see how companies target healthworkers. And please let us know if you find Danone's leaflets in health facilities anywhere in the world.
Tuesday, August 07, 2012
Rachel's Dairy added to Nestlé boycott list
Rachel's Dairy has been added to the Nestlé boycott list as it is now owned by Lactalais Nestlé Chilled Dairy (LNCD).
Lactalis purchased Rachel's Dairy in August 2010. In May 2012, the organic yoghurt and dairy product company, was moved into LNCD, which is a joint venture with Nestlé. Lactalis owns 60% of LNCD and Nestlé 40%.
Nestlé puts its own profits before health as it pushes its baby foods using strategies that violate internationally agreed marketing standards and is found to be the worst of the companies in terms of scale and scope of its violations. The boycott helps to force changes in Nestlé practices by raising awareness of Nestlé practices and giving it a financial reason to change.
Nestlé is one of the four most boycotted companies on the planet, according to GMI Poll. Wholefood shops and other retailers are now delisting Rachel's Dairy.
While this will impact on Nestlé profits, it is LNCD that is threatening jobs at Rachel's Dairy as Lactalis moves the business into the joint venture. Lactalis told the BBC in May 2012: "These changes will strengthen and help sustain Rachel's success for the future, and secure the long term business relationships with local farmers and the area." See: Jobs under threat at Aberystwyth dairy firm Rachel's
Lactalis purchased Rachel's Dairy in August 2010. In May 2012, the organic yoghurt and dairy product company, was moved into LNCD, which is a joint venture with Nestlé. Lactalis owns 60% of LNCD and Nestlé 40%.
Nestlé puts its own profits before health as it pushes its baby foods using strategies that violate internationally agreed marketing standards and is found to be the worst of the companies in terms of scale and scope of its violations. The boycott helps to force changes in Nestlé practices by raising awareness of Nestlé practices and giving it a financial reason to change.
Nestlé is one of the four most boycotted companies on the planet, according to GMI Poll. Wholefood shops and other retailers are now delisting Rachel's Dairy.
While this will impact on Nestlé profits, it is LNCD that is threatening jobs at Rachel's Dairy as Lactalis moves the business into the joint venture. Lactalis told the BBC in May 2012: "These changes will strengthen and help sustain Rachel's success for the future, and secure the long term business relationships with local farmers and the area." See: Jobs under threat at Aberystwyth dairy firm Rachel's
Friday, August 03, 2012
SMA formula pricing
Wyeth is embarking on yet another national advertising campaign for its SMA formula.
This must be costing millions of pounds - a bill ultimately paid by those who buy formula.
The subvert below made me think about how much mark up there is on formula.
Companies won't reveal the breakdown of their costs, so the calculation below is based on speculation.
A 250 ml bottle of Wyeth's new SMA ready-to-feed formula costs 89 pence.
The dairy farmer will have received less than 7 pence for the milk (according to Farmers for Action farmers currently receive 27 pence per litre for milk from processors - click here).
Changing the fat content, pasteurising, packaging and distributing whole milk costs about 3 pence for 250 ml (Farmers for Action figures suggest 27 pence processing costs for 2.3 litres). Let's speculate and say that changing the protein content, adding vitamins, extracts from algae (LCPs) and other additives triples the processing costs of formula milk compared with whole milk. That would be 9 pence for 250 ml. This would make the total cost of the milk and production 16 pence per 250 ml.
The remaining 73 pence of the 89 pence selling price will be split between company and retailer profit and the costs of marketing, including advertising campaigns, baby clubs, "carelines", events for health workers, and other promotion.
Although marketing figures are hard to come by, it is known that Wyeth awarded a contract for £2 million to a PR agency in 2008 for targeting pregnant women, new mothers and health workers. In 2012 it must surely have already spent far more than this, having run two national billboard advertising and mass media campaigns by the end of July and planned the SMA Baby Know How roadshow to launch its new formula packaging (which was cancelled following protests).
Wyeth already has a criminal conviction for breaking advertising regulations and complaints have been upheld by the Advertising Standards Authority. Its Self-serving Marketing Activities benefit no-one and inflate prices through the costs of these and by positioning the product with misleading, idealising claims.
All formulas on the UK market have to comply with composition regulations and optional ingredients (which have been added to most formulas) have no proven benefit, so there is no health advantage from buying more expensive formula.
Formula is said to have the highest profit margins of any product on the supermarket shelves. For example, New Zealand’s Economic Development Minister Gerry Brownlee stated in October 2010: "A kilo of infant formula is worth ten times the value of a kilo of milk powder, so it’s obvious which product New Zealand should be selling."
These are obviously rough calculations, but not for nothing are hundreds of people signing the 'No promotion - Cheaper formula' petition on Change.org at:
http://www.change.org/petitions/baby-milk-companies-no-promotion-cheaper-formula
If you can help improve this calculation, please contact Baby Milk Action.
This must be costing millions of pounds - a bill ultimately paid by those who buy formula.
The subvert below made me think about how much mark up there is on formula.
Companies won't reveal the breakdown of their costs, so the calculation below is based on speculation.
A 250 ml bottle of Wyeth's new SMA ready-to-feed formula costs 89 pence.
The dairy farmer will have received less than 7 pence for the milk (according to Farmers for Action farmers currently receive 27 pence per litre for milk from processors - click here).
Changing the fat content, pasteurising, packaging and distributing whole milk costs about 3 pence for 250 ml (Farmers for Action figures suggest 27 pence processing costs for 2.3 litres). Let's speculate and say that changing the protein content, adding vitamins, extracts from algae (LCPs) and other additives triples the processing costs of formula milk compared with whole milk. That would be 9 pence for 250 ml. This would make the total cost of the milk and production 16 pence per 250 ml.
The remaining 73 pence of the 89 pence selling price will be split between company and retailer profit and the costs of marketing, including advertising campaigns, baby clubs, "carelines", events for health workers, and other promotion.
Although marketing figures are hard to come by, it is known that Wyeth awarded a contract for £2 million to a PR agency in 2008 for targeting pregnant women, new mothers and health workers. In 2012 it must surely have already spent far more than this, having run two national billboard advertising and mass media campaigns by the end of July and planned the SMA Baby Know How roadshow to launch its new formula packaging (which was cancelled following protests).
Wyeth already has a criminal conviction for breaking advertising regulations and complaints have been upheld by the Advertising Standards Authority. Its Self-serving Marketing Activities benefit no-one and inflate prices through the costs of these and by positioning the product with misleading, idealising claims.
All formulas on the UK market have to comply with composition regulations and optional ingredients (which have been added to most formulas) have no proven benefit, so there is no health advantage from buying more expensive formula.
Formula is said to have the highest profit margins of any product on the supermarket shelves. For example, New Zealand’s Economic Development Minister Gerry Brownlee stated in October 2010: "A kilo of infant formula is worth ten times the value of a kilo of milk powder, so it’s obvious which product New Zealand should be selling."
These are obviously rough calculations, but not for nothing are hundreds of people signing the 'No promotion - Cheaper formula' petition on Change.org at:
http://www.change.org/petitions/baby-milk-companies-no-promotion-cheaper-formula
If you can help improve this calculation, please contact Baby Milk Action.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Something nestling in the Baby Milk Action office
Many thanks to supporter Nigel Harrison for creating the MyMeter iPhone app for Baby Milk Action.
This is a fun detector simulator. Watch the film clip to see what it does and how it works.
You can download the app from the app store by clicking here.
You could use it as a fun way to raise the Nestlé boycott.
The beauty of the boycott is wherever you see Nestlé's products, that is an opportunity to talk about the way Nestlé pushes its baby milks in violation of international marketing standards. There is a potted explanation of the boycott below.
If you identify a product from the boycott list, you can use the MyMeter app to simulate detecting it. Then give your friend or colleague one of Baby Milk Action's leaflets or boycott cards. You could download the 'Fight the Nestlé monster' leaflet to use. Take a look at the leaflet for ten key facts that Nestlé executives do not want people to know. See:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/monster
For the 'Fight the Nestlé monster' t-shirts - click here.
The app has lots of other possible applications. You might like to use it with kids to identify the healthy or unhealthy option between different foods. Of course, you control the signal, so you need to know the facts.
Have fun and tell your friends!
Why boycott Nestlé
Nestlé pushes baby milk using strategies that are prohibited by international marketing standards, so undermining breastfeeding. For example, it claims on labels around the world that its formula 'protects' babies, but it knows that babies who are fed on formula are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. According to UNICEF, "Improved breastfeeding practices and reduction of artificial feeding could save an estimated 1.5 million children a year."
Nestlé is the worst of the baby food companies and so is the target of a boycott. The latest global monitoring report from the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) has page after page of examples of Nestlé materials that violate the marketing standards adopted by the World Health Assembly.
Some countries, such as India and Brazil, have introduced strong laws and have proved that companies can comply with the marketing requirements when they are forced to. In India companies have been unable to grow the market and in Brazil breastfeeding rates have increased significantly since violations have been stopped. Where companies think they can get away with it, they put their profits first. The boycott gives the global market leader a financial reason to think again.
Nestlé also endangers babies that are fed on formula by refusing to warn that powdered formula is not sterile and may contain harmful bacteria. It refuses to bring its instructions into line with World Health Organisation Guidelines for reducing risks.
Nestlé's 'protect' logos explained
Spoof marketing guru, Mr. Henry Nastie (really Baby Milk Action's Mike Brady) explains all about Nestlé's protect logos. Apart from the awful accent, everything is true.
This is a fun detector simulator. Watch the film clip to see what it does and how it works.
You can download the app from the app store by clicking here.
You could use it as a fun way to raise the Nestlé boycott.
The beauty of the boycott is wherever you see Nestlé's products, that is an opportunity to talk about the way Nestlé pushes its baby milks in violation of international marketing standards. There is a potted explanation of the boycott below.
If you identify a product from the boycott list, you can use the MyMeter app to simulate detecting it. Then give your friend or colleague one of Baby Milk Action's leaflets or boycott cards. You could download the 'Fight the Nestlé monster' leaflet to use. Take a look at the leaflet for ten key facts that Nestlé executives do not want people to know. See:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/monster
For the 'Fight the Nestlé monster' t-shirts - click here.
The app has lots of other possible applications. You might like to use it with kids to identify the healthy or unhealthy option between different foods. Of course, you control the signal, so you need to know the facts.
Have fun and tell your friends!
Why boycott Nestlé
Nestlé pushes baby milk using strategies that are prohibited by international marketing standards, so undermining breastfeeding. For example, it claims on labels around the world that its formula 'protects' babies, but it knows that babies who are fed on formula are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. According to UNICEF, "Improved breastfeeding practices and reduction of artificial feeding could save an estimated 1.5 million children a year."
Nestlé is the worst of the baby food companies and so is the target of a boycott. The latest global monitoring report from the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) has page after page of examples of Nestlé materials that violate the marketing standards adopted by the World Health Assembly.
Some countries, such as India and Brazil, have introduced strong laws and have proved that companies can comply with the marketing requirements when they are forced to. In India companies have been unable to grow the market and in Brazil breastfeeding rates have increased significantly since violations have been stopped. Where companies think they can get away with it, they put their profits first. The boycott gives the global market leader a financial reason to think again.
Nestlé also endangers babies that are fed on formula by refusing to warn that powdered formula is not sterile and may contain harmful bacteria. It refuses to bring its instructions into line with World Health Organisation Guidelines for reducing risks.
Nestlé's 'protect' logos explained
Spoof marketing guru, Mr. Henry Nastie (really Baby Milk Action's Mike Brady) explains all about Nestlé's protect logos. Apart from the awful accent, everything is true.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Nestlé demonstration - Croydon
11:00 - 12:00 Saturday 19 May 2012
Download the flier with map, car park and travel details - click here
Join the virtual demonstration on Facebook - click here
Nestlé refuses to change its baby milk marketing practices - unless there are protests
Baby Milk Action and our partners around the world have been working for over thirty years to protect mothers, babies and their families from the aggressive marketing practices of the baby food companies.
Today over 60 countries had introduced laws to enforce the marketing standards we helped to bring at the World Health Assembly, the world's highest health policy setting body. However, according to industry analysts Euromonitor: "The industry is fighting a rearguard action against regulation on a country-by-country basis".
We monitor the companies and remind them they have a responsibility to respect the marketing standards even where governments have not yet introduced laws. On 19 April, I attended the Nestlé shareholder meeting in Lausanne, Switzerland, to ask the company's board and the shareholders to respect the marketing standards and to bring its policies and practices into line. One of the concerns is that Nestlé promotes its formula with the claim it "protects" babies. In truth, babies who are fed on formula are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. The clip below from the 2010 demonstration includes and explanation of the logos:
Film clip - Nestle baby milk marketing strategy explained - click here if it is not displayed below.
Mr. Henry Nastie was played by me, Mike Brady of Baby Milk Action. Other people interviewed were campaign supporters who had come to demonstrate at Nestlé (UK) HQ
The response from the Nestlé Chairman, Peter Brabeck-Letmathé, at the shareholder meeting was that it is not for Baby Milk Action to tell him what to do. All we are asking is for Nestlé executives to follow the rules.
We need to keep up the pressure, because pressure works. Recently thousands of people emailed the company to complain about it promoting its formula with the claim it is "The new 'Gold Standard' in infant nutrition". As a result, Nestlé discontinued the leaflet with this claim. However, it is refusing to stop the majority (97%) of the violations in the last global monitoring report.
We are holding a demonstration at Nestlé (UK) HQ in Croydon on Saturday 19 May from 11:00 to 12:00 to say this is just not good enough. Please do come along if you can. You can let us know you are coming by completing our online form - click here.
You might like to wear one of our new "Fight the Nestlé monster". The monster has just grown as it has swallowed Pfizer's infant nutrition business. That means it now owns the SMA brand, which brings it into the UK market. Click here for the t-shirt.
If you can't make it to the demonstration, you can support our other events and campaigns.
Donations are also very welcome and help to keep us operating to hold Nestlé and the rest of the baby food industry to account.
Download the attached leaflet for a map, NCP car parks and other information - click here.
You can scan the OCR code on the leaflet with a smartphone to access the data about the demonstration.
Download the flier with map, car park and travel details - click here
Join the virtual demonstration on Facebook - click here
Nestlé refuses to change its baby milk marketing practices - unless there are protests
Baby Milk Action and our partners around the world have been working for over thirty years to protect mothers, babies and their families from the aggressive marketing practices of the baby food companies.
Today over 60 countries had introduced laws to enforce the marketing standards we helped to bring at the World Health Assembly, the world's highest health policy setting body. However, according to industry analysts Euromonitor: "The industry is fighting a rearguard action against regulation on a country-by-country basis".
We monitor the companies and remind them they have a responsibility to respect the marketing standards even where governments have not yet introduced laws. On 19 April, I attended the Nestlé shareholder meeting in Lausanne, Switzerland, to ask the company's board and the shareholders to respect the marketing standards and to bring its policies and practices into line. One of the concerns is that Nestlé promotes its formula with the claim it "protects" babies. In truth, babies who are fed on formula are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. The clip below from the 2010 demonstration includes and explanation of the logos:
Film clip - Nestle baby milk marketing strategy explained - click here if it is not displayed below.
Mr. Henry Nastie was played by me, Mike Brady of Baby Milk Action. Other people interviewed were campaign supporters who had come to demonstrate at Nestlé (UK) HQ
The response from the Nestlé Chairman, Peter Brabeck-Letmathé, at the shareholder meeting was that it is not for Baby Milk Action to tell him what to do. All we are asking is for Nestlé executives to follow the rules.
We need to keep up the pressure, because pressure works. Recently thousands of people emailed the company to complain about it promoting its formula with the claim it is "The new 'Gold Standard' in infant nutrition". As a result, Nestlé discontinued the leaflet with this claim. However, it is refusing to stop the majority (97%) of the violations in the last global monitoring report.
We are holding a demonstration at Nestlé (UK) HQ in Croydon on Saturday 19 May from 11:00 to 12:00 to say this is just not good enough. Please do come along if you can. You can let us know you are coming by completing our online form - click here.
You might like to wear one of our new "Fight the Nestlé monster". The monster has just grown as it has swallowed Pfizer's infant nutrition business. That means it now owns the SMA brand, which brings it into the UK market. Click here for the t-shirt.
If you can't make it to the demonstration, you can support our other events and campaigns.
Donations are also very welcome and help to keep us operating to hold Nestlé and the rest of the baby food industry to account.
Download the attached leaflet for a map, NCP car parks and other information - click here.You can scan the OCR code on the leaflet with a smartphone to access the data about the demonstration.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Latest news
While this blog has been a little quiet recently, a lot has been going on elsewhere.
You can catch up by reading Baby Milk Action's latest Update newsletter and Nestlé Boycott News available on the Baby Milk Action website at:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/update/update44contents
You can catch up by reading Baby Milk Action's latest Update newsletter and Nestlé Boycott News available on the Baby Milk Action website at:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/update/update44contents
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Another nail in the coffin of satire
I was going to include this expression in a press release sent out yesterday, but no-one in the office understood what it meant.
If you have to explain a joke then it isn't very funny. But here goes.
There is a famous (?) observation by the American musical satirist Tom Lehrer. When Henry Kissinger, President Nixon's Secretary of State during the Vietnam War, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973, Lehrer said: "It was at that moment that satire died."
If satire is pushing the real towards the absurd to make a point, he felt "There was nothing more to say after that."
So what put another nail in the coffin of satire?
The Chairman of Nestlé, Peter Brabeck-Letmathé, is (possibly) to be awarded an honorary degree by the University of Alberta for "the preservation, distribution and management of one of humanity’s most vital resources: water."
Nestlé makes much of reducing its water usage in its Public Relations reports. What it is less forthcoming about - and what the award committee either disregarded or were ignorant of - is Nestlé and Mr. Brabeck are rather better known in human rights and environmental circles for their harmful impact on water.
See our press release for further information and an email campaign asking the University of Alberta not to make itself look foolish by giving a degree to Mr. Brabeck:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease10feb12
You could tell them it puts another nail in the coffin of satire, but I guess they might not understand.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Governments should govern, and corporations should follow the rules
The latest edition of SCN News contains an article written by myself and Patti Rundall, our Policy Director, with this title. See page 51 of http://www.unscn.org/files/Publications/SCN_News/SCNNEWS39_10.01_high_def.pdf
SCN is the United Nations System Standing Committee on Nutrition. The theme of the journal is: Nutrition and Business - How to Engage?
There is a trend being followed by some policy makers at UN, government and civil society level to see working in partnership with corporations as the way to achieve goals relating to nutrition and tackling diet-related ill health, such as Non-Communicable Diseases or NCDs. NCDs include things like heart disease (responsible for 29% of global deaths) and diabetes, which are on the increase as more and more people become overweight and obese.
We see it with the baby milk issue and our latest newsletter, Update 44, examines some specific cases where a desire by policy makers to work with corporations (which sometimes includes accepting funding) has led to the rights of mothers and babies being neglected or even undermined. Baby Milk Action engages with companies such as Nestlé and Danone through ongoing correspondence regarding marketing practices that violate international standards. As we report in Update, Nestlé is not so keen to engage with our proposals for substantive meetings to discuss the need for it to make changes to its policies and practices, or even to resolve disagreements over interpretation of the marketing requirements.
The Editorial to SCN News is generally optimistic about working with corporations, stating, for example:
Nutrition and business interests are overlapping more and more. Businesses are increasingly including product and social innovation as well as sustainability into their core corporate strategies and supply chains. Business is also continuously reaching out to new consumers, including the urban and rural poor, exploring emerging markets and engaging with other nutrition stakeholders. While these overlaps create opportunities for cooperation and convergence of interests for achieving food and nutrition security, they also carry controversy, and sometimes cause heated debate, especially on transparency and accountability issues. There are cases of actual or perceived conflicts of interest that undermine such convergence and diminish trust, jeopardizing potentially fruitful initiatives.
The journal presents some cases of initiatives involving business that are deemed to be successful by the authors and also notes: "Millions of farmers and rural entrepreneurs form the bulk of agricultural production and investments. Private businesses, of all sizes, constitute the food supply chain as it evolves from the farm to the fork."
Like several other peer-reviewed articles in the journal, we warn that there is a failure in governance when it comes to nutrition and the industrialised food sector, which involves some of the world's largest transnational corporations.
Before even considering how to engage with business, we argue that policy makers need to understand that executives have a legal obligation to put their shareholders' interest before all others. If executives aren't looking for some advantage in engaging with policy makers, they are failing in this duty. That is not to question the ethics or morality of executives; it is to state what should be obvious. However, talk of win-win solutions sometimes seems to paint too rosy - or naive - a picture of the relationships.
So we set out and describe five key steps for policy makers to take when considering nutrition, health and other issues and the role of the private sector:
1. Understand the problem and the role played by the private sector
2. Determine the appropriate public-interest response
3. Decide the appropriate relationship with the private sector in this context
4. Identify the extent of conflicts of interest, minimise them and manage those that are consid- ered acceptable or unavoidable
5. If deciding to work with the private sector in some way, avoid the language of partnership, define the relationship clearly and ensure that your original objectives do not get subverted.
Read the full article for further details.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Product placement of baby milk in TV programmes is banned
Did you know that it is against the rules for television programmes to accept payment for showing baby milk in television programmes?
The ban is contained in the Ofcom Broadcasting Code.
Ofcom (the independent regulator and competition authority for the UK communication industries) introduced rules regarding product placement in television programmes in February 2011.
Products that cannot be placed in programmes include: "infant formula (baby milk), including follow-on formula". However, Ofcom does point out that some products may appear in programmes because they have been chosen by the producers as props. Companies can be fined for breaking the rules.
You can find the text of rules via the Law section of the Baby Feeding Law Group (BFLG) website and information on how to register a complaint in the Report violations section of the same site. Baby Milk Action coordinates the BFLG monitoring project.
Baby Milk Action submitted comments to the Ofcom and government consultations on the proposals, calling for all baby foods to be included in the ban. Our full submission can be downloaded by clicking here.
Was this useful? Please click here.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
A question for members of the United Reformed Church
We have received shocking news from the United Reformed Church (URC) Secretary for Church and Society.
In July 2010 the URC Assembly renewed its long-running support for the Nestlé boycott until such time as Nestlé stops violating the international baby food marketing requirements.
The Resolution referenced inclusion in the FTSE4Good Index, an ethical investment listing from FTSE, as the criteria for ending support for the boycott.
Nestlé was included in the Index in March 2011 after the FTSE4Good criteria were changed in September 2010 - that is, after the URC Assembly Resolution - to allow companies that violate the marketing requirements into the Index. The stated aim was to weaken the criteria to bring half of the baby food sector into the Index on the grounds this would make it easier to engage with the companies.
Given this development, we expected the matter to go back to the URC Assembly so it could review the Resolution as the situation had changed. Nestlé would not have been included in the Index under the criteria in place at the time of the Resolution. It is not its marketing practices that have changed, but the FTSE4Good criteria.
Instead, URC Church and Society told us the Resolution was binding and had to be implemented as a matter of urgency.
Our press release regarding this shocking news can be found - along with a chronology of events - at:
It is for URC members to decide whether to take any action over this matter - we have to concentrate on assisting our partners in developing countries, particularly as Nestlé will undoubtedly the exploit the URC announcement to undermine efforts to stop its ongoing marketing malpractice.
I would be interested in the views of URC members, however, particularly those who supported the July 2010 Resolution. Was it the intention of members to end support for the boycott if FTSE weakened the FTSE4Good criteria?
Friday, September 23, 2011
Pressure and persuasion - small acts help to hold big corporations to account
I was pleased to provide information to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) for a briefing it produced on Campaigning and the private sector - click here.
This includes profiles of the campaigning strategies of a range of organisations, including Amnesty International, Greenpeace and Baby Milk Action.
Although it includes in the title the question Persuasion or pressure? these are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, with some corporations it takes pressure to persuade them to act.
However, it is not always necessary to launch a public campaign to force changes. I often take up cases when I receive reports of websites or shops that are violating the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant Resolutions of the World Health Assembly. Sometimes simply informing the people responsible that their bright promotional idea is a violation of the Code and Resolutions - and perhaps even illegal -is often sufficient.
With Nestlé, which we target with the boycott as it is the worst of the baby food companies, we also try persuasion by reminding it of its obligations under the Code and Resolutions. It usually takes an exposure campaign to force changes as it is reluctant to admit to violations. For example, it initially ignored our report about point-of-sale promotion in Africa, but agreed to crack down on the practice after members of the public took up the case (see our Campaign for Ethical Marketing action sheet, July 2009).
Our partners in the International Code Documentation Centre (ICDC) recently reported that a Nestlé lunch for health workers in South Africa was cancelled after they raised concerns with Nestlé Head Office. Although such events are common - and usually defended by Nestlé executives - there were possibly greater sensitivities in this case as the South African authorities are currently considering what action to take to implement the Code and Resolutions. You can read a report from ICDC on the website of the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) - click here.
As the NCVO briefing explains, we use a broad range of strategies to put pressure on companies, but we also work for strategic changes in the regulation of corporations that will provide a level playing field for all companies and back regulations with enforcement methods. This involves working for new Resolutions at the World Health Assembly, to address changes in marketing practices and scientific knowledge, and encouraging governments to implement the Code and Resolutions at the national level in independently monitored and enforced legislation. Achieving legislation is a major activity of ICDC, working with the IBFAN network as a whole. The strategy has been so successful that the industry itself is complaining of 'constraints' in countries such as India where the formula market has barely grown over the last decade, in contrast to China, where there is a weak code of conduct and sales have surged ahead. Industry analysts Euromonitor note (see Update 42): "The industry is fighting a rearguard action against regulation on a country-by-country basis."
That could explain why Nestlé wants to look responsive to complaints in South Africa at present. Its stated policy is to encourage governments to go for voluntary measures to implement the Code and Resolutions - rather than legislation with meaningful sanctions (which in the case of India's exemplary legislation include imprisonment of the Managing Director).
Introducing - and defending - legislation is no easy task. We have reported in the past how it took an international campaign to defend new baby food marketing regulations in the Philippines in 2007 (see Philippines Victory in Update 40). We have recently learned through the exposure of US diplomatic cables by Wikileaks that we not only faced the machinations of the baby food companies and the US Chamber of Commerce threatening to disinvest from the Philippines, the US Government was also putting pressure directly on the Philippines Government to weaken regulations drafted to protect infant health (see ABS-CBNNews report). That the regulations came in largely unscathed despite this pressure is a direct result of campaigning, nationally (including a petition shown left) and internationally (with petitions of support and other action). The main Philippines broadsheet put the campaign on its front page as a result of international concern, quoting a message from someone who had signed Baby Milk Action's petition in its report, showing how individual action can help to save lives on the other side of the world.
Where national measures are lacking or ineffective, we have argued that the global community has a responsibility to act. How this could operate in practice is something I explored in depth in a chapter I wrote for the book Global Obligations for the Right to Food as part of a Task Force of the UN System Standing Committee on Nutrition - click here to order.
At present, the best we have at the international level is the UN Global Compact and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. We have been pursuing complaints about Nestlé human rights abuses under both measures for the past two years and found them to be ineffective and in need of replacement or reform. In the case of the UN Global Compact, it is actually counterproductive as it provides public relations cover for companies by posting their social responsibility reports on the official website without any form of checking. In the case of Nestlé, the Global Compact Office even takes part in joint launch events and accepts Nestlé as a Patron Sponsor of prestige events, such as its 10th anniversary celebrations in New York last year. See our press release: UN Global Compact - 10 years of helping cover up corporate malpractice.
In recent weeks, Baby Milk Action has brought together over 140 citizens groups in the Conflicts of Interest Coalition to ensure that policy making on health issues, such as Non-Communicable Diseases, is pursued in the public interest. It is an uphill struggle as corporations not only have massive lobbying resources, but a revolving door operates between their staff and government and United Nations staff in many areas.
So campaigning continues to be essential: when policy makers fail to hold corporations to account, it falls to us - you and me, together with many other people around the world - to do so.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
The Conflicts of Interest Coalition - protecting health right now in New York
Baby Milk Action recently formed the Conflict of Interest (COI) Coalition, bringing together - so far - over 140 international networks and civil society organisations calling for the United Nations to avoid conflicts of interest as it sets policies on obesity, diabetes and other Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs).
The Coalition represents thousands of non-profit public health advocacy groups around the world.
It is necessary because food corporations such as Nestlé and alcohol companies companies are lobbying to set the rules on tackling the rise in NCDs for which they are partly responsible. Pharmaceutical companies that can also profit from policy decisions are also involved in lobbying. All want to be seen as 'partners' in tackling the problems.
The COI Coalition is calling for there to be a Code of Conduct on relationships so that policies are made in the public interest. While corporate interests can be consulted, they should not be involved in setting the policies or these will inevitably be weakened to protect corporate interests, instead of protecting health.
The corporations are out in force this week at the UN General Assembly where these issues are being discussed. Baby Milk Action's Policy Director, Patti Rundall, is also there, with colleagues in the COI Coalition.
You can follow developments on the new COI Coalition blog at:
and Patti's own Policy blog at:
Friday, July 29, 2011
Department of Health responds to Baby Milk Action email campaign
Over 1,000 people have sent emails to the Secretary of State for Health, Mr. Andrew Lansley, asking the Government to reconsider its decision to scrap its Infant Feeding Coordinator posts and its support for National Breastfeeding Awareness Week. The response from the Department of Health is given below.
It is welcome that the Department of Health recognises the health benefits of breastfeeding and the savings to the National Health Service. However, the Government has not only failed to meet its obligations under the Global Strategy for Infant and Young Child Feeding, which it supported at the World Health Assembly, it is backtracking on action that had been taken.
Please sign the ePetition on the Prime Minister's website calling on the Government to deliver on its infant feeding obligations - click here. Petitions receiving 100,000 signatures will be debated in Parliament.
If you have not signed up to receive email alerts from Baby Milk Action, please do so now to be kept informed of the next steps in this and other campaigns.
Thank you for your email of **** to Andrew Lansley about infant feeding which was forwarded to the Department of Health on ****. I have been asked to reply.
The Department of Health is committed to supporting healthier choices, including breastfeeding, through the ‘Healthy Child Programme’ as set out in the Public Health White Paper ‘Healthy Lives, Healthy People: our strategy for public health in England’.
The Department recognises the evidence-based health benefits of breastfeeding both for the mother and her baby and the savings to the NHS. The Department’s approach is to support all parents and parents-to-be with information to enable them to make an informed choice when deciding how to feed their baby.
Due to reduced budgets this year, the Department was unable to co-ordinate the National Breastfeeding Week and provide free resources for local events. However, support and information is currently available to health professionals and parents via NHS Choices, the National Breastfeeding Helpline, UNICEF UK Baby Friendly Initiative and localpeer support programmes.
At present, the Department is reshaping the whole health and social care system, and looking at how this can work to deliver the best possible health and social care outcomes. Public health will remain a key component in all of this. It is important that organisations working to promote better health engage with all parts of the new health system as it develops to ensure that we make the most of the available evidence on infant feeding to drive the greatest health gains. The Department is also already actively encouraging local groups to nominate representatives from their networks to attend national meetings to continue to share positive practice and information on infant feeding. This will help the Department to ensure continued communication and support to the current infrastructure until the new system is operating.
The Department received a large number of responses to its recent consultation on the White Paper and the associated proposals for a new public health outcomes framework, and for funding and commissioning of public health services in the newly defined system. Responses to the consultation were used to inform ‘Healthy Lives, Healthy People: Next Steps and Way Forward’, which sets out the key elements of the new public health system. This can be accessed at the link below:
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publichealth/Healthyliveshealthypeople/index.htm
Following this publication, the Department of Health will issue a series of policy statements including the final outcomes framework in the autumn.
I hope this information is helpful.
Yours sincerely,
Customer Service Centre
Department of Health
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
