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.

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:

http://coicoalition.blogspot.com/

and Patti's own Policy blog at:

http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/policyblog

Over 140,000 people call for United Nations to protect, promote and support breastfeeding and appropriate information

The UN Secretary General, Ban KI-moon, is today announcing a worldwide campaign to save the lives of 16 million mothers and children over the next five years and a fund of US$40 billion to help achieve this goal. See The Guardian.

This is wonderful news - and we should perhaps not be too surprised to find that Nestlé, a company with a long record of abusing women and child rights, is trying to muscle in on the initiative to try to distract attention from its on-going aggressive marketing of baby milks in breach of international standards and other much-criticised practices.

Far too many mothers and children die from preventable causes. While we welcome the new United Nations initiative, we should also remember that there are far cheaper, but politically more difficult, steps that can be taken to reduce unnecessary child deaths: implementing and enforcing existing measures adopted by the United Nations. Over 140,000 people have signed a rolling petition calling for policy makers to take action to protect, promote and support breastfeeding, with over 3,000 addressing a specific message to the Secretary General over the last three days. See the ONE MILLION CAMPAIGN.

In the area of infant feeding, the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes is helping to save lives in many countries, but many more have yet to implement it and the subsequent, relevant Resolutions of the World Health Assembly. These international minimum standards aim to protect breastfeeding and ensure breastmilk substitutes are used safely when necessary and companies are called on to abide by them independently of government action, but do not do so.

Worse still, the United Nations Global Compact, a voluntary initiative intended to improve the behaviour of transnational corporations, has been found to be complicit in working with companies such as Nestlé to allow violations of the Code and Resolutions to continue: it accepts Nestlé funding to promote the initiative and posts on its website Nestlé's PR materials claiming the company abides by the Code and Resolution, but refuses to investigate reports of egregious violations of the Global Compact Principles registered under the initiatives Integrity Measures. There are also concerns that corporations will be using the UN Secretary General's new initiative as a way to improve their images, while continuing to abuse human rights.

A few weeks ago, the Secretary General's Office worked in 'collaboration' (to use the word in a report on the World Health Organisation site) with the International Business Leaders Forum at 'a special meeting to explore ways the private sector can contribute to supporting the Global Strategy for Women’s and Children’s Health'. According to the report, 'Best practices from a range of industry sectors and companies were showcased', with Nestlé one of the companies there with something to show and tell - though not, presumably, it's latest baby milk strategy of claiming its breastmilk substitutes 'protect' babies when it knows babies who are not breastfed are more likely to become sick and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die.

The report concludes: 'A number of companies are already looking seriously at how they might respond to the Global Strategy, and identify commitments, which will be announced to the public during the UN Millennium Develop Goals (MDG) Summit on 22 September 2010 in New York and in the months to come.'

However, when Baby Milk Action contacted the Secretary General's Office, we were informed that only governments are involved in the Global Strategy launch. Is the Secretary General wary of appearing publicly too close to Nestlé, one of the four most boycotted companies on the planet over its pushing of baby milk in breach of international marketing standards adopted by the World Health Assembly, part of the UN system?

The Global Strategy for Women's and Children's Health follows on the Global Strategy for Infant and Young Child Feeding, which has proved to be an invaluable tool for improving breastfeeding rates, that could prevent 1.3 million under-5 deaths in the 42 countries where most under-5 deaths occur. A World Health Organisation (WHO)/Lancet study found that improving breastfeeding rates could save more lives than universal provision of safe water, adequate sanitation and childhood vaccines. This strategy and the adoption of the International Code and Resolutions is the UN at its best: bringing policy makers together from around the world to coordinate action that helps to save lives.

In turning these initiatives into reality, people on the ground have come up against the baby food industry. As industry analysts Euromonitor state in their report on the state of the baby food industry in 2008: “The industry is fighting a rearguard action against regulation on a country-by-country basis."

Part of Nestlé's strategy is to try to 'partner' with the United Nations. Earlier this year, Nestlé was a patron sponsor of a UN Global Compact event in New York, despite Baby Milk Action and other Nestlé Critics having registered an official complaint with the UN Global Compact Office over Nestlé's egregious violations of the Global Compact Principles and its bringing the initiative into disrepute. The Global Compact Office refused to investigate the case, citing lack of resources or mandate. In a telling comment, it stated:

"Of course, abuses of the 10 Principles do occur; however we believe that such abuses only indicate that it is important for the company to remain in the Compact and learn from its mistakes."

In my view, the UN Global Compact is worse than useless because it provides public relations cover to Nestlé and other companies violating human rights by posting their reports and taking part in joint events, while refusing to investigate complaints.

If the Secretary General is being courted by Nestlé and others who want to be seen as playing a part in the new Global Strategy for Women's and Children's Health - and Bill Gates is cited as a speaker by the Guardian - then what hope is there for poorly resourced citizens' groups such as Baby Milk Action and our partners having our legitimate concerns addressed?

I'll sum up with a quote that can be used by journalists, citing Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator, Baby Milk Action:

"In our complaint to the UN Global Compact Office, we focused in on Nestlé latest global marketing strategy where it is claiming its baby milk 'protects' babies and is 'the new "Gold Standard" in infant nutrition'. Nestlé also refuses to provide information on known risks of formula feeding to parents who use its products and the simple steps that can reduce these risks. As Nestlé knows, babies fed on breastmilk substitutes are more likely to become ill than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. Such marketing strategies are not only clear violations of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, Nestlé has been told they violate specific national regulations and has been emailed by thousands of people calling on it to immediately stop these practices. Nestlé continues to defend them. While Nestlé continues to put its own profits before the health and well-being of babies, the UN should not only be investigating it for violating the Code and the Global Compact Principles, it should be closing the door on executives who want to be seen as partners. It is welcome that the new Global Strategy for Women's and Children's Health stresses the importance of breastfeeding, but we should remember that promotion and support of breastfeeding and accurate, independent information is undermined if protection is not also put in place."

For images of Nestlé's latest promotions and a quick form for emailing Nestlé, see:

http://info.babymilkaction.org/emailnestle

Baby Milk Action Update 42 newsletter

You can download our latest newsletter as a pdf file by clicking here:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/pdfs/update42.pdf

Here's the overview of what is in the newsletter - and our stop press news that after 7 years of campaigning we have finally prompted the formula companies to warn people on the labels of their products that powdered formula is not sterile and so steps to reduce the risks of possible contamination with bacteria should be followed.

Also in the newsletter: It was 30 years ago that six citizen’s groups, including a member of the Baby Milk Action Coalition, formed the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN). A celebration in Geneva (pg 3) recalled how this came about and honoured the many people who gave pivotal support to its aims.

After celebrating the successes and the many lives the campaign has undoubtedly saved, IBFAN Europe’s conference focused on planning and training to meet the latest challenges. As industry analysts have stated: “The industry is fighting a rearguard action against regulation on a country-by-country basis.” (pg 6) In the UK the industry has been winning. The UK has some of the lowest breastfeeding rates in Europe and, with the help of the European Commission, the industry is successfully blocking implementation of the International Code, despite every health worker and mother support organisation, the Government’s own advisors and enforcement bodies calling for stronger measures. A draft report of an ‘Independent Review’ of the 2007 Regulations shows that the Independent Review Panel has wasted public money asking the wrong question (“Are babies under six months being fed follow-on formula by mistake instead of infant formula?”) rather than examining whether the regulations are fulfilling their stated purpose of protecting breastfeeding. We examine how the Government has got it so wrong and what needs to be done to protect infant health, and ensure that all mothers - those who breastfeed and those who use formula - do so on the basis of truly independent information (pgs 9 - 10).

At an international level we look at the policy changes in the USA that are coming in under the new administration (pg 7). We also examine how UN Business ‘partnerships’ are influencing health policies and threatening food security. Under the banner of ‘enlightened self interest’ and ‘wellness’ the industry is now on ‘a noble cause’ and is fuelling a craze for branded fortified foods with health and nutrition claims - a key marketing strategy for ‘adding value.’ (pgs 8 & 17) We examine the weaknesses in European process for authorising claims. Our position on formula is that if an ingredient is necessary to reduce its shortcomings, it should be a requirement for all formula, without claims being made. (pg 12) Through the Baby Feeding Law Group we are helping to close loopholes in the marketing regulations in the Philippines (pg 15).

Worryingly, Nestlé launched a new strategy at its AGM, claiming its formula ‘protects’ babies (pg 19) - it doesn’t, babies fed on it are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies, and in conditions of poverty, they are more likely to die. The boycott is part of our strategy to force Nestlé to respect the marketing standards (pg 19 - 23). We invite you to send a message to Nestlé and help us stop Nestlé’s ‘protect’ claims. Campaigns like this really work as our latest victory in the UK demonstrates.

Safer formula campaign victory: Finally! In 2002 the tragic death of a five-dayold child in Belgium highlighted that powdered formula is not sterile and may contain harmful bacteria, such as Enterobacter Sakazakii. Simple steps reduce the risks, but companies refused to warn parents or update their labels - until now. After seven years of campaigning, new warnings that powdered formula is not sterile have started to appear on SMA, Cow & Gate, Aptamil, Nurture and Hipp branded formula in the UK. The instructions and health claims are still not right - but it’s progress!

Interview on Nestlé's UN Global Compact cover up

I recently gave an interview to a Sheffield Live! radio station as part of an international student initiative in the build up to the next G8 summit. This has appeared on various websites, where you can listen to in online, including:

http://www.canstream.co.uk/sheffieldlive/index.php?id=16726

This included an exclusive on the launch of our report: Nestlé's UN Global Compact cover up. This report exposes how Nestlé breaches human rights and environmental standards and the strategies it uses to divert criticism. Amongst these is using the UN voluntary Corporate Social Responsibility initiative, the Global Compact, to portray its impact as wholly beneficial. We and colleagues who contribute to the Nestlé Critics site have lodged a formal complaint calling for Nestlé to be expelled from the initiative. See our press release for information at:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press17june09.html

It is possible to download the report from the above link.

April Fool: the American Academy of Pediatrics is not really cutting its links with formula companies

Did you see the apparent press release from the American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) stating that the US body would no longer accept sponsorship from the infant formula industry? Did you notice the date was April 1st - April fools' day?

The fact is that the AAP, which has been criticised in the past for sponsored events and materials, is not cutting its links with the industry. The bogus press release which the hoaxer attributed to the President of the AAP stated: "Further, I would like to apologize for our past mistakes involving the> breastfeeding advertisement campaign and allowing the maker of Similac> infant formula to print its corporate logo on the cover of a special edition> of the academy's book on breastfeeding."

This was a reference to a past controversy, as reported in the Abott Ross entry in Breaking the Rules, Stretching the Rules 2004, produced by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) International Code Documentation Centre:
http://www.ibfan.org/site2005/Pages/article.php?art_id=302&iui=1

---Extract begins
This same strategy [of image transfer] was used for a well-known breastfeeding book published in 2002 by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP); Abbott bought 300,000 copies and added the Rosco bear to the cover. Mothers and doctors who receive a free copy, get a double message. Does it promote breastfeeding or Similac? The chairman of the AAP breastfeeding committee called it “Thievery”. But AAP makes a profit and agreed to sell Abbott another 300,000 copies in 2003. Abbott has continously nurtured close ties with the AAP by giving grants for its awards and donating at least $500,000 towards AAP’s operating budget. The company also contributes to the $1 million renewable grant to the AAP by several formula manufacturers. Little wonder that AAP came to the companies’ aid when they felt a 2003 US government campaign to promote breastfeeding was too hard-hitting on the risks of formula feeding. The campaign has now been watered down.
---extract ends

The hoax press release ended: "Again, I can cannot express enough regret and can assure you that the AAP will immediately seek compliance with the WHO Code and will promote the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative."

The issues of sponsorship and conflicts of interest are addressed by the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant Resolutions of the World Health Assembly, calling for care over links with commercial enterprises.

The hoax was sent by a doctor to the Lactnet discussion group. AAP's lawyers have called for past postings, from an identified doctor, to be removed after apparently being contacted by members of the public about the change in policy.

So to be clear, the policy has not changed. The AAP has yet to be persuaded to comply with WHA Resolutions on conflicts of interest, including the latest to deal with this WHA 58.32 from 2005, which calls for action to: "ensure that financial support and other incentives for programmes and health professionals working in infant and young-child health do not create conflicts of interest."

SNP pledges action on companies promoting complementary foods for use at too young an age

In 1994 the World Health Assembly adopted a Resolution stating that complementary feeding should be fostered from about 6 months of age. Exclusive breastfeeding is recommended until 6 months of age, followed by continued breastfeeding with the introduction of complementary foods.

Yet here we are fifteen years later and you will see that the public health advice is routinely undermined by companies promoting complementary foods for use from 4 months of age or even less. The advantage for companies is that at a younger age, babies will need more processed food, like purés, than if allowed to start taking complementary foods at the age which is natural to them (baby-led weaning is a concept that is growing in popularity).

And if companies can entice parents to use their purés, then they gradually move them along the supermarket shelf to the foods labelled for older babies. Allow babies to taking solids when they are ready at six months of age and they can eat home prepared foods alongside the family (subject to some care over salt levels, for example). Six months is not set in concrete - it is a general recommendation.

The evidence base for the health benefits (as well as cost savings) of not introducing complementary foods too early has grown steadily. Today, Alyn Smith, a Member of the European Parliament for the Scottish National Party has announced his is taking up the case is Europe. The article posted on the SNP site explains why and what he aims to achieve at:
http://www.snp.org/node/14952

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

Companies see profits in melamine contamination worries

The scandal of formula and other products contaminated with melamine in China, which resulted in 4 deaths and 54,000 babies hospitalized, was seen as a 'rather positive' situation for Nestlé by Chairman, Peter Brabeck-Letmathé, as he claimed Nestlé products were free of melamine. However, Nestlé was claiming that tests had shown none of its products were contaminated despite one whole milk product being on the contaminated list. Nestlé didn't link to the test results in its press release, but we did in our report posted to the Nestlé Critics website. See:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=56&Itemid=1

Nestlé is not the only company trying to cash in on the crisis by portraying itself as a 'safe' alternative. The International Code Documentation Centre has issued a legal briefing which examines the approach taken by Abbott in three different countries. These range from providing information onn which products are clear to full-on promotion of brands. The different approaches depend on the level of implementation of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes. This limits companies to providing scientific and factual information to health workers who are given responsibility for advising parents.

As ICDC states in its briefing, available at:
http://www.ibfan.org/site2005/abm/paginas/articles/arch_art/299-14.pdf

---quote begins
Companies misbehave depending on what they can get away with !!

Following the Sanlu melamine-in-milk scandal in China which resulted in 4 deaths and more than 54,000 babies falling ill, baby food companies took out expensive ads in major dailies and public places to assure parents in Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia of the safety and quality of their products. How they go about it depends on the national measures which are in force.

• In Hong Kong where the International Code has not been implemented at all, the Abbott Ross ad is so promotional it amounts to a Code violation.

• In Singapore, where there is an industry-led voluntary Code, the ad is slightly more restrained but is still very promotional.

• In Malaysia, where a stronger voluntary Code is actively overseen by the government, the ad is reduced to little more than bare information.

These ads show how the Code is a useful tool in protecting breastfeeding when implemented carefully at country level.
---quote ends

The Code, which companies are supposed to abide by independently of government measures, limits companies to providing scientific and factual information to health workers who are given responsibility for advising parents. Authorities can provide this information, such as on the website of the Hong Kong Government's Food and Environmental Health Department, where Nestlé's contaminated milk is listed alongside a list of products that were found to be uncontaminated.

Find out more about the melamine scandal in our Update 41 newsletter, now available online at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/update/update41.html

Latest victory gets us nowhere

This is a recurring story. Brazil has one of the most effective systems regulating baby food marketing and breastfeeding rates have increased markedly over the past 20 years - median duration has gone from less than three months to ten months. Rates had declined drastically after Nestle entered Brazil a century ago. Now the main concerns are targeting of health workers and the promotion of whole milks, which are used by a high proportion of poor mothers who don't breastfeed instead of infant formula. We have exposed how Nestlé promotes its Nido whole milk in the infant feeding sections of pharmacies and supermarkets, a practice it refuses to stop, arguing it is not against the regulations. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/yqsanswered/yqanestle03.html

Whole milks do require a warning that they should not be used for infant feeding. Repeatedly this has been challenged in the Congress and Senate by representatives allied to the dairy industry. It is pretty disgraceful that the desire for profits is so great that the industry is prepared to pursue sales through misuse of the product. The text has already been weakened slightly, with the heading "Ministry of Health Warning" changed to "Ministry of Health Information" - you may have supported our campaign last year which persuaded the Senate to reverse this change, only for the Congress to reinstate it. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemapril07.html

Over the past few months the issue has come up again, with a move to weaken the text further still, if not remove it altogether. Our partners in the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) Brazil asked for letters of support that could be used by representatives in the Congress to oppose the dairy industry's politicians. IBFAN groups from around the world sent letters. I wrote on behalf of Baby Milk Action. You can find the letters here:
http://www.ibfan.org.br/falaibfan/index.php

The good news is that on 29 October the move to weaken the text further was defeated!

Now this shows the need to be eternally vigilant because the industry does not give up. It also shows that campaigning works.

But it also illustrates the difficulty that we and our partners face in protecting infant health.

An international mobilization was necessary to protect mothers and babies. Without this effort, the industry would have won, inappropriate use of whole milk would likely have become even more common and infants would have become sick and some died due to the greed of the milk companies. But we won, meaning the situation is unchanged - the warnings remain as an important step in stopping inappropriate use of whole milk.

Now when we try to fundraise for our work we have a problem because most funders are not focused on tackling root causes of problems. It is hard to raise money for enforcing the baby food marketing requirements, because money is directed at treating babies once they are sick or at interventions that deal with mothers and babies directly.

It is harder still to raise money for the action we have to take to stop the industry weakening the measures already won. Funders like targets and to see them met. In this particular case, there is no progress. We have simply stopped something bad from happening.

It is a tribute to everyone involved in the campaign that we are not only able to stop the extremely-well-resourced industry from weakening measures, but on many fronts are achieving new, stronger regulations and having them enforced. The support from members of the public, both financially and in sending letters, is vital for this.

Donations can be made at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/donation.html

Do we need a World TNC Regulatory Authority?

As companies grow ever larger it becomes harder for governments to regulate them. If a company misbehaves in a country, the government may be reluctant to act. Nestlé threatened to pull out of Zimbabwe if it introduced strong regulations on the marketing of baby foods. When the Philippines was introducing regulations, the US Chamber of Commerce threatened the President with disinvestment.

At the same time, the home country of a company is often reluctant to act because of the contribution a company makes to its economy - and unethical companies that break the rules may make a bigger contribution than those that are forced to abide by the rules. Often there is a double standard where companies are allowed to get away with behaviour abroad that is unacceptable at home. An example of double standards from last week was the claims Nestlé makes for Maggi Noodles in Bangladesh that was ruled as unacceptable in the UK. We campaigned in the past over Nestlé's objection to labelling products in Sri Lanka in three languages, while it uses three languages on labels in Switzerland.

In theory there are minimum standards. Companies are called on to abide by the World Health Assembly marketing requirements independently of government measures, but they do not do so. Where there is independently monitored and enforced regulations or pressure from campaigns such as the Nestlé boycott companies can be forced to comply, showing it is not impossible to do so, but where national measures are not in place or not enforced there is currently no way to hold corporations to account.

As a member of a Task Force of the UN System Standing Committee on Nutrition I contributed a chapter to a book on 'Global Obligations for the Right to Food' about holding corporations to account. This draws on my experience dealing with Nestlé and other companies and argues that there needs to be an international regulatory framework for when national measures fail. The book is available at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/publications02.html#gorf

We are building alliances to promote regulatory frameworks in place of the voluntary UN Global Compact system, which has no monitoring or enforcement system.

As part of this process I have submitted a summary of the proposals from my chapter for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy, an international campaign where people vote on the action they want to see taken on global problems. Speaking in my personal capacity, I am particularly fond of the Simultaneous Policy approach, because of its focus on solutions. The campaign does not protest against current action by government, nor is it calling for changes existing policy as such. Both of these approaches are important. The Simultaneous Policy has a parallel approach, promoting an international democratic discussion on what policies people wish to see implemented to address global problems. In other contexts these aspirations are often drastically curtailed by what is possible, what powerful vested interests will tolerate. In the Simultaneous Policy the focus in on the policies we would like to see implemented if we, the people, could decide, if there was a global democratic space where we had a voice. It aims to create that democratic space.

Politicians are simply asked to pledge to implement these policies alongside other governments - and an increasing number are doing so, including in the UK. The theory is that it is easy for politicians to say they will do something if other countries will do so too (such as properlty regulating transnational corporations), partly because simultaneous implementation removes the fear of putting the country at a competitive disadvantage and partly because they may think it will never happen. If politicians are also asked to sign during elections and see votes in it, that's another incentive. Those signing up to the Simultaneous Policy campaign (which is free) are asked to either give a preference at elections to candidates, within reason, who make this pledge, or to encourage their preferred candidate to make it. When there are sufficient politicians who have made the pledge it would become government policy, so building to the day when there are enough governments. On that day the Simultaneous Policy would be ready, with solutions to global problems that have the backing of people around the world.

That's the theory.

At the same time the discussion of policies itself is important for raising awareness and encouraging implementation of them - or aspects of them - through other means. Accordingly I've summarised aspects of the proposal in the Global Obligations to the Right to Food book and submitted this as a call for a World Transnational Corporation Regulatory Authority.

Annual voting on policies is currently taking place until 1 November. Proposals that receive high levels of support are given space in campaign publications and at public meetings, which will be a good way to promote this proposal to a wider audience. You can find out more about this campaign, the proposal for a World Transnational Corporation Regulatory Authority and how to vote on this and other proposals on my personal, dedicated blog at:

http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/10/vote-world-tnc-regulation.html

Or if you wish to vote and explore proposals put forward by others, go to:
http://www.simpol.org/en/main/Policyvote08.htm

For a briefing on the shortcomings with the UN Global Compact system see the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) site at:
http://www.ibfan.org/site2005/Pages/article.php?iui=1&art_id=127&goto_news=1

Three things to do on World Food Day 2008

Today is World Food Day.

Here are three things to do to celebrate.

1) Order our 2009 breastfeeding calendar - there can be no food more locally produced and tailored to the needs of the recipient than breastmilk. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/calendarlatest.html

2) Visit the Nestlé Critics website to find out about concerns over the practices of the World's Largest Food Company (tm). This is the website Nestlé tried to hi-jack in advance of International Nestlé-Free Week last week. Use resources on the Baby Milk Action website to promote Nestlé-Free zones. The Nestlé Critics website is:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/

3) Order the book Global Obligations for the Right to Food in Baby Milk Action's on-line Virtual Shop. This contains ten chapters on action that can and should be taken to protect and deliver the right to food. My chapter is based on experiences holding the baby food companies to account and proposes action at the international level for cases where national measures fail. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/publications02.html#gorf

I am promoting these proposals both at United Nations level and to other campaigning organisations. The Simultaneous Policy campaign is currently running a vote on policies that have been put forward for inclusion in its package of measures for addressing global problems. See my personal blog for information on how I am promoting the proposals there.

Enterobacter Sakazakii found in Sanlu formula in China

I wrote recently here about the worryingly common occurrence of formula being contaminated. While the case of melamine in formula in China, apparently originating from milk supplies, is particularly serious, other contamination has resulted in deaths and the general inferiority of formula leads to increased risk of short and long-term illness and health disadvantages. Around the world 1.5 million babies die every year due to inappropriate feeding.

A case in point, is contamination of powdered formula with Enterobacter Sakazakii. A Belgian child was killed by such contamination in Nestlé formula in 2001 - and Nestlé still refuses to warn parents of this risk. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/09/china-formula-deaths.html

According to a new report, the Fronterra/Sanlu milk in China has also tested positive for Enterobacter Sakazakii. See:
http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/china/bacteria-found-sanlu-milk-4671.html

Fronterra/Sanlu has been pushing formula in ways that breach international marketing standards, as have European countries, such as Swiss Nestlé and Dutch Nutricia (now owned by Danone). See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/09/fonterra-sanlu-scandal.html

Nestle and other chocolate companies failing to act on plan to end child slavery

A couple of years ago I interviewed Bama Athreya, Director of the International Labour Rights Forum (ILRF) regarding Nestlé and child slavery. The interviewed occurred as Nestlé was refusing to participate in a meeting in the United States regarding its failure to meet commitments to a US Senate plan, called the Harkin-Engel Protocol. At the same time Nestlé was sponsoring a meeting at the UK Labour Party Conference about its commitment to ending child slavery. So in the UK it was trying to look good by buying itself a platform, but in the US was refusing to explain why its actions did not meet its words. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press28sept06.html

Now ILRF has produced a report, analysing what has happened since the Senate plan was introduced in 2001. Its press release is included below. A more detailed briefing is available at:
http://www.laborrights.org/stop-child-labor/cocoa-campaign/resources/1552

Rather than engaging with government initiatives, the industry has promoted its own 'standards' and used these to claim great progress. Claims which do not stand up to scrutiny. This once again demonstrates the importance of independent monitoring of internationally-agree standards (as we have with the baby food marketing requirements). In the book Global Obligations for the Right to Food I discuss some of the ways to better hold corporations to account.

---ILRF press release
Cocoa Industry Fails to Deliver on July 1, 2008 Child Labor Commitments
ILRF Releases New Analysis of Industry’s Failure to Eliminate Child Labor

The chocolate industry has failed to provide consumers with a reasonable assurance that the chocolate they buy was made without exploited and trafficked child labor. Major chocolate companies signed what is referred to as the Harkin-Engel Protocol in 2001, promising to eliminate the worst forms of child labor from their supply chains, after media stories emerged depicting the widespread use of forced child labor and trafficking on West African cocoa farms. After failing to meet their July 1, 2005 commitments, the Protocol was weakened and extended to July 1, 2008. Once again, the industry has missed the deadline.

Bama Athreya, Executive Director of the International Labor Rights Forum, said, “The major chocolate companies are not able to prove the elimination of exploited child labor in their cocoa supply, nor show concrete improvements in West African farmers’ lives. Consumers cannot be assured today that their favorite chocolate candies are made without abusive child labor.”

In a new report issued today, titled “The Cocoa Protocol: Success or Failure,” the International Labor Rights Forum presented the following findings:

• The original intent of the ‘protocol’ has not been achieved, and consumers today have no more assurance than they did eight years ago that trafficked or exploited child labor was not used in the production of their chocolate;

• Industry is making false claims regarding certification;

• Industry may be assigning itself too much credit for activities that may in any case have resulted from bilateral and multilateral government engagement;

• ‘Verification’ has been rendered irrelevant by the fact that the process supported by industry no longer bears any relation to supply chain monitoring or certification;

• Industry-supported programs have not been properly evaluated and therefore the actual impacts of such programs are unknown;

• Industry has not adequately defined what it considers remediation;

• Reports from West Africa point to the continued use of the worst forms of child labor as well as trafficking of children.

The report presents the following recommendations*:

• Companies should establish traceability within their own supply chain to the farm or cooperative level;

• Companies should work through existing initiatives (for example, Fair Trade, Utz Certified and Rainforest Alliance) to develop stronger methodologies for labor standards monitoring and link these systems directly to the government processes with an incentive/sanction system;

• Companies should ensure that their own operations and their supply chains adhere to internationally established codes of practice, including the ILO Tripartite Declaration for Multinational Enterprises and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Corporations;

• The US Government should cease to protect the interests of chocolate companies and instead invest in funding multilateral initiatives through the ILO-IPEC program and through funding for the Education for All initiative, and should support revenue transparency in the cocoa sector.

Tim Newman of ILRF’s Campaigns Department stated, “Consumers should reward companies with ethical integrity in their supply chains and continue to demand that world’s largest chocolate companies answer the question of how consumers can be assured their chocolate is not produced using exploited child labor.”

*Note: Many of these recommendations are supported by the “Commitment to Ethical Cocoa Sourcing” document which has been endorsed by 60 chocolate companies and organizations.

The full report can be read online here:
http://www.laborrights.org/stop-child-labor/cocoa-campaign/resources/1552

UK Government to be quizzed by UN Committee on its failure to act on formula marketing

As part of our UK campaign we have submitted reports to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. This reviews how well governments are doing on meeting their obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Governments are called every five years to report. A network of Non-Governmental Organisations in the UK has also submitted a report, to which we contributed. We also submitted our own report via our partners, the Geneva Infant Feeding Association, which has been assisting national groups over the years.

The good news is, the Committee has written to the Government on 16 June specifically asking: "Please provide further information on the measures taken to implement the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes.”

With good cause the Government should be shuffling its feet and bowing its head in embarassment.

In 2003, when the UK was last reviewed, the final report called for the UK Government to implement the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, which it had failed to do.

In 2004 the Government introduced a public health white paper saying it would work for stronger regulations at the European Union level and strengthen UK legislation following this.

However, when it comes to present evidence in September the UK has little positive to say about its implementation of the Code. The EU Directive does not include key provisions that health advocactes - and the UK Government - was calling for, such as a prohibition on the advertising of follow-on formula as required by the Code.

The new Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations that came into force this year contain many of the same loopholes as the previous version. The recommendations of health advocates and even the Government's own expert advisors were not followed.

Not only are the regulations weak, they are poorly enforced, as our recent report to Trading Standards shows. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/06/bflg-may-2008.html

You can download the Government's submission from February 2008 and the Committee's request for additional information at:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/crcs49.htm

It is article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child that relates to breastfeeding. I will include the relevant parts of the response below. There is much that is commendable being done in the promotion and support of breastfeeding, which we have welcomed in our own submissions. However, protection is sadly lacking, not only with implementation and enforcement of the Code and subsequent, relevant World Health Assembly Resolutions, but in the protection of a mother's right to breastfeed in public.

Ironically the report includes the following: "The Breastfeeding etc (Scotland) Act 2005 is the first of its kind in the UK, which makes it an offence to stop or prevent a person feeding milk to an infant in a public place where the infant is legally entitled to be. Scotland is one of the few countries in the world to offer such protection in national legislation."

If you read this blog last week you will be struck by the contrast between highlighting the Scottish Act and the apparent plans for lesser measures in the Single Equality Bill. While the Scottish Act protects mothers breastfeeding or formula children up to two years of age in a public place, the Government was saying last year that the Single Equality Bill would protect breastfeeding in public upto one year of age, and more recent reports suggest this will only be for babies up to 6 months of age. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/06/breastfeeding-in-public-six-months.html

There is even a risk that the Single Equality Bill will conflict with and undermine the Scottish Act.

The Committee has a wide range of issues to address over the course of the two-day meeting, but we will do all we can to ensure that the protection, promotion and support of breastfeeding are given adequate attention.

We have no funding for this work, so if you are able you can use the donation buttons on this blog to help. If you can't make a big donation, how about the £3 button for supporting the blog. We keep it free of third-party advertising and your support is much appreciated.

A further call for the Government to implement the Code may combine with the Government's current review of the legislation (to which we are contributing information) to bring in the long-overdue protection for breastfeeding and for babies fed on formula, as many other countries have done.

Here is the key section from the report.

---extract from the UK Government's report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child

Promotion of breastfeeding

336. The UK Government and devolved administrations continue fully to be committed to the promotion of breastfeeding, which is accepted as the best form of nutrition for babies. The Government has adopted the World Health Organisation’s (WHO’s) guidance and recommends exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life, with continued breastfeeding alongside the introduction of complementary feeding.

337. The UK Government has a commitment to increase support for breastfeeding as part of its strategy to reduce health inequalities. The Priorities and Planning Framework 2003-2006 set local targets to increase breastfeeding initiation rates by 2 percentage points per year, focusing particularly on disadvantaged groups. This target has been included in Local Delivery Plans to support the national target on infant mortality for the planning period to 2008.

338. The Department of Health works in partnership with NGOs and other organisations, including UNICEF, to encourage hospitals to implement Baby Friendly Initiative policies. As part of this work, a new leaflet “Off to the best start” is intended to assist health professionals in teaching parents why breastfeeding is the healthiest start. Also, for the first time the Department has launched TV and radio “Filler” advertisements which will continue throughout 2007 and beyond to raise the profile of breastfeeding in England and Wales.

339. The Department of Health support the principles of the International Code for Marketing of Breast-milk substitutes and the relevant WHO resolutions, which are reflected in the European Directive on Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations and in the UK legislation.

340. The European Directive 91/321/EEC on Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula gives individual Member States the power to go further than the Directive in terms of restricting the advertising of infant formulas. It is in this context that the Department of Health has made a commitment in the Choosing Health: making healthier choices easier to review the relevant provisions of the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations (1995), with a view to further restricting the promotion of infant formula.

341. The Department of Health is currently working with Food Standards Agency to look at ways in which the promotion of infant formula milk can be further restricted, through UK Regulations. A consultation on draft Regulations is due to be issued shortly and the final national Regulations will be in force from January 2008.

342. In addition the Healthy Start scheme was rolled out across England, Wales and Scotland in 2006. It provides nutritional support to mothers and infants from low income families. The scheme also provides incentives for mothers to breastfeed as they can obtain, via vouchers, healthier foods such as fruit and vegetables, free of charge.

343. In Scotland, over half of the babies are born in UNICEF baby friendly accredited hospitals, which mean that these hospitals have implemented measures to encourage breastfeeding, as recommended by the WHO. In addition, the Breastfeeding etc (Scotland) Act 2005 is the first of its kind in the UK, which makes it an offence to stop or prevent a person feeding milk to an infant in a public place where the infant is legally entitled to be. Scotland is one of the few countries in the world to offer such protection in national legislation.

344. In Wales, currently 46% of all Welsh births take place in baby friendly hospitals. A Grant Scheme has been established to train breastfeeding peer supporters with a particular focus on young mothers. A Breastfeeding Welcome Scheme has been established to encourage businesses to support breastfeeding mothers.

345. In Northern Ireland, since the development and implementation of the Breastfeeding Strategy there have been significant improvements to breastfeeding support in many hospital and community Trusts. These include the promotion and implementation of the UNICEF UK Baby Friendly Initiative, Sure Start programmes involvement in breastfeeding, and the establishment of breastfeeding support groups and peer support programmes.

346. As a result of the above measures breastfeeding initiation rates have been rising across all socio-economic groupings in the UK - 78% in England, 70% in Scotland, 67% in Wales, and 63% in Northern Ireland. The highest incidences of breastfeeding were found among mothers from managerial and professional occupations, those with the highest educational levels, those aged 30 or over, and among first time mothers. The Infant Feeding Survey 2005 published recently shows that 45% of all mothers in the United Kingdom were breastfeeding exclusively at one week, while 21% were feeding exclusively at six weeks. At six months the proportion of mothers who were breastfeeding exclusively was negligible.
---extract ends

New World Health Assembly Resolution - WHA 61.48

It was the World Health Assembly last week and a working group presented text on Infant and Young Child Nutrition for adoption.

The Assembly:

---
URGES Member States:

(1) to strengthen implementation of the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk
Substitutes and subsequent relevant Health Assembly resolutions by scaling up efforts to
monitor and enforce national measures in order to protect breastfeeding while keeping in mind
the Health Assembly resolutions to avoid conflicts of interest;

(2) to continue action on the Global Strategy for Infant and Young Child Feeding and the
Innocenti Declaration of 2005 on infant and young child feeding and to increase support for
early initiation and exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life, in order to reduce the scourge of malnutrition and its associated high rates of under-five morbidity and mortality;

(3) to implement, through application and wide dissemination, the WHO/FAO guidelines on
safe preparation, storage and handling of powdered infant formula in order to minimize the risk of bacterial infection and, in particular, ensure that the labelling of powdered formula conforms with the standards, guidelines and recommendations of the Codex Alimentarius Commission and taking into account resolution WHA58.32;

(4) to investigate, as a risk-reduction strategy, the possible use and, in accordance with
national regulations, the safe use of donor milk through human milk banks for vulnerable
infants, in particular premature, low-birth-weight and immunocompromised infants, and to
promote appropriate hygienic measures for storage, conservation, and use of human milk;

(5) to take action through food-safety measures, including appropriate regulatory measures,
to reduce the risk of intrinsic contamination of powdered infant formula by Enterobacter
sakazakii and other pathogenic microorganisms during the manufacturing process as well as the risk of contamination during storage, preparation and handling, and monitor the effectiveness of these measures;

---

The UK supported the Resolution, which is hopefully is a good sign as we look to the authorities to take action on the marketing practices exposed in the monitoring report I wrote about yesterday. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/06/bflg-may-2008.html

The full text is available at:
http://www.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/A61/A61_48-en.pdf

This is marked as draft, but I believe it is as adopted. It will be available in due course on the WHO site in various languages.

New law for Saudi Arabia

Tomorrow a new law comes into force in Saudi Arabia implementing the World Health Assembly marketing requirements for baby foods.

According to the website Arab News:

"The law includes 28 articles regarding the marketing of baby milk, food substitutes, baby bottles and pacifiers. It also bans the advertising and the promotion of baby milk and food substitutes, including the offering of free samples at hospitals and clinics."

Free samples and promotional tactics, such as fliers for formula, are amongst the tactics found in monitoring conducted by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) in the Middle East in the past.

European Union may act over corporate lobbying

Today PR Week is reporting of possible action by the European Union for greater transparency on businesses lobbying it.

Baby Milk Action is given some of the credit for this. See:
http://www.prweek.com/uk/home/article/809247/FRONT-PAGE-Brussels-decision-lobbying-month/

---extract

The move follows intensive campaigning by health interest group Baby Milk Action, which alleges that food giant Nestlé has taken advantage of unclear lobbying and marketing codes to ‘sweet talk policy makers'.

‘Governments are too heavily influenced by Nestlé,' said Baby Milk Action policy director Patti Rundall.

In the UK, Nestlé is acc­used of targeting the Government with ‘sponsorship and free trips', to promote its powdered baby milk formula. Nestlé denied this. A spokeswoman said: ‘We are totally committed to the protection and promotion of breastfeeding.'

However, Nestlé was this week discovered to have paid for a trip to South Africa by Labour MP Rosie Cooper.
---

That discovery was reported by the Independent on Sunday, as I mentioned yesterday. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/05/nestle-uk-government.html

It remains to be seen whether the European Union will introduce measures such as logging the contacts they have with business lobbyists.

A watchdog campaigning organisation, called Corporate European Observatory (CEO), tracks the influence of companies such as Nestlé on policy makers at the EU. See:
http://www.corporateeurope.org/

Infant feeding courses in India

I have received the following announcement from colleagues in India.

Certified Course on “Infant and Young Child Feeding Counselling Specialist”

BPNI/IBFAN Asia is organizing Regional Training Courses on Infant and Young Child Feeding Counseling: A Training Course – The 3 in 1 Course (An Integrated Course on Breastfeeding, Complementary Feeding and Infant Feeding & HIV-Counseling) at, Lucknow, Gwalior, Hindupur, Delhi and Ranchi during April 2008.

Participants who wish to be certified as Infant and young child feeding counselling specialists, should be either doctors or nurses, nutrition or other social or health professionals who are involved in care of mothers and children.

Highlights of the course are:

Duration of the course: 7 days (9 AM to 6 PM.)
Course Fee: Rs. 5,000/- (includes training materials, lunch and tea).
This course will prepare you as specialists who will help mothers to be successful in exclusive breastfeeding, appropriate complementary feeding and help in selecting feeding option for HIV +ve mothers.
You will be able to set up independent IYCF counselling support centers

Training Venues and Dates:

At Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh from 28 April - 4 May 2008
At Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh from 8 - 14 June 2008
At Hindupur, Andhra Pradesh from 17 - 23 June 2008
At Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh from 21 - 27 June 2008
At Delhi from 22 - 28 June 2008
At Ranchi, Jharkhand from 26 September - 2 October 2008

For any query you may contact us at:
National Coordinator
Breastfeeding Promotion Network of India (BPNI)
BP – 33, Pitampura, Delhi – 110034
INDIA
Tel: 011-27343606, 27343608 Tel/Fax: 011-27343606
Email: arun@ibfanasia.org or bpni@bpni.org

How can we stop corporations abusing human rights?

What to do about companies that break national laws and international standards while demonstrating contempt for the systems that are supposed to hold them to account?

This is a question I have tried to address in a chapter on corporate accountability written for a book that has just been published called: "Global Obligations for the Right to Food".


Here's a blurb from the publicity:

---
Global Obligations for the Right to Food
Edited by George Kent

"Global Obligations for the Right to Food offers an in-depth look at the urgent need for global responsibility. In this timely work, George Kent and a group of experts address issues of corporate accountability, children’s right to food, and public access to seeds. As persistent inequalities lead to increasing levels of under nutrition on the one hand, and a growing pandemic of obesity on the other hand, Global Obligations for the Right to Food brings much needed attention to this very complex issue."—

David Clark, Legal Officer Nutrition Section UNICEF, New York

A child may be born into a poor country, but not into a poor world. If global human rights are to be meaningful, they must be universal. Global Obligations for the Right to Food assesses the nature and depth of the global responsibility to ensure adequate food for the world's population.

While governments have primary responsibility for assuring the right to food for people under national jurisdictions, we as a global community all have some responsibilities as well. Global Obligations for the Right to Food explores the various actions that should be taken by governments, non-governmental organizations, and individuals to ensure that all people of the world have access to adequate food.

George Kent is professor of political science at the University of Hawai’i, and the author of several books, including Children in the International Political Economy and Freedom from Want: The Human Right to Adequate Food.

This book was prepared by a Task Force of the Working Group on Nutrition, Ethics, and Human Rights of the United Nations System Standing Committee on Nutrition. The Toda Institute for Global Peace and Policy Research of Tokyo and Honolulu provided financial assistance.

Table of Contents:

Preface by George Kent

• Chapter One: Global Obligations by George Kent

• Chapter Two: Extraterritorial Obligations: A Response to Globalization by Rolf Künnemann and Sandra Ratjen

• Chapter Three: International Legal Dimensions of the Right to Food by Federica Donati and Margret Vidar

• Chapter Four: Holding Corporations Accountable in Relation to the Right to Food by Mike Brady

• Chapter Five: International Legal Obligations for Infants' Right to Food by Arun Gupta

• Chapter Six: Global Action against Worms, Malaria, and Measles by Michael Latham

• Chapter Seven: Public Access to Seeds and the Human Right to Adequate Food by Marc Cohen and Anitha Ramanna

• Chapter Eight: Global Support for School Feeding by S. Vivek

• Chapter Nine: Reflections by George Kent

• Chapter Ten: Recommendations by Mike Brady, Marc Cohen, Federica Donati, Arun Gupta, George Kent, Rolf Künnemann
---

The book is available in Baby Milk Action's on-line Virtual Shop. Click here.

As you might expect, I draw heavily on my experience of the baby food issue and the great advantage we have in this area with the international marketing standards adopted by the World Health Assembly. Yet, as we know only too well, these standards only have an impact when they are implemented and enforced in national measures or backed by consumer campaigns such as the Nestlé boycott. Companies do not follow the voluntarily. They attempt to weaken implementation, promoting codes of conduct instead of legislation, and disrespect those measures that are put in place.

There needs to be enforcement, but pitched against some of the world's most powerful corporations, how is this achieved? Nestlé has been fined for breaking national measures, but has shrugged off the fines as inconsequential.

Governments, particularly those in poorer, developing countries, are under economic pressure to treat corporations favourably and so do not always take the action to protect their citizens that we would hope.

So human rights are abused.

In the chapter I argue that the global community of nations has a collective responsibility to
hold corporations to account and, particularly as transnational corporations grow ever more powerful, has to provide protection when individual nations fail to do so.

The legal basis for this argument using existing human rights norms and other standards is explored along with the practical methods that could be used to hold corporations to account at the global level.

Well worth a read.