I am Campaigns and Networking Coordinator at Baby Milk Action, which monitors the baby food industry. Our aim is to protect breastfeeding and babies fed on formula from practices that put profits before health. This is a daily look behind the scenes of the work of Baby Milk Action, including the boycott of Nestlé (the worst of the baby food companies), which we promote in the UK. See the Baby Milk Action website if you are unfamiliar with our work.
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.'
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.
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.
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
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).
Nestle-Free Week is a time for for people who boycott Nestlé over the way it pushes baby milk to do more to promote the boycott - and for those who don't boycott to give it a go.
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."
Questions are being asked about the influence Nestle is using to gain support from the Department of Trade and politicians who are facing an election next year.
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."
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
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.
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:
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.
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:
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?
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.
It has been a busy month for Nestlé as it tries to remake the world in its own image. It culminated in Nestlé announcing "The first comprehensive nutrition system for babies", a machine that squirts out milk into feeding bottles for new borns. How on earth has the human race survived without there being a way to provide nutrition to its young? In Nestlé's world, the past is prelude and the fact that babies were once nurtured by milk produced by their mothers' bodies is to be consigned to our primitive past it seems. Nestlé, Good Grief! (Click here for the ringtone).
In the old days, people sometimes talked of the mother-baby pair. Once breastfeeding was established - which sometimes required a little guidance as breastfeeding became an increasingly lost art - the mother would produce milk in response to cues from her child and it would change during the day and over time, tailored to the needs of the child. Milk was available on demand, at the right temperature. In Nestlé’s brave new world, it says of its BabyNes machine:
"The composition of the six consecutive formulas meets the evolving nutritional needs in the first three years of life: four formulas in the first year, and one formula for each of the following two years. The customised composition of these products is tailored to suit the growth pattern in early life and the baby’s changing nutritional needs, while taking into account the steady introduction of solid food into the infant’s diet."
The language has been appropriated. The machine produces milk 'tailored' to the baby we are to believe. Human milk is a living substance and not only adapts in its nutritional content, it is truly tailored to the needs of the baby as the mother’s body produces protective factors in response to infections in the environment, a medicine that is essential for reducing risk of infections. Without breastmilk babies are more likely to become sick and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die.
Nestlé further extols the virtues of its magical machine thus:
"The single-serve portions are sealed in capsules, used in the proprietary BabyNes machine, which recognises each capsule and prepares the bottle with precisely the right dosage and temperature, at the push of a button, in less than one minute. The BabyNes machine combines state-of-the-art technology with the utmost safety and convenience, and ensures a hygienic, quick and easy bottle preparation."
So we are to believe BabyNes knows how to produce precisely the right dosage. Yet it is a false picture. A breastfed baby takes as much as it needs, not so easy to do when a plastic nipple is held in its mouth, no matter how precisely the volume in it has been decreed by the Nestlé machine.
Most misleading of all is to describe the machine's output as hygienic. The water used to make the formula is not boiled, just filtered. The World Health Organisation recommends all water be boiled, even bottled water. The capsules contain powder, and as they are sealed might appear to offer sterile certainty, but powdered formula is itself not sterile and may contain harmful pathogens such as Salmonella and Enterobacter Sakazakii. Nestlé knows this well as it has had to recall thousands of tins of formula in the past after such contamination has been found in its powder. The US Food and Drug Adminstration has cited a study of tins on the market that found 14% contained Enterobacter Sakazakii, which in rare cases can lead to fatal illness, though there are simple steps to reduce the risks - steps Nestlé’s machine seems not to take.
It was the death of a child in Belgium fed on contaminated Nestlé formula in 2002 that was a catalyst for a World Health Organisation investigation leading to its recommendations on reconstituting powdered formula. This includes reconstituting formula with water above 70 degrees Celsius to kill any harmful bacteria, then cooling the formula. Nestlé says its machine mixes feed in one minute without boiling the water.
Baby Milk Action recently produced on behalf of the Baby Feeding Law Group called Infant Formula Explained to show how to prepare a bottle in line with this guidance - necessary because companies are reluctant to tell parents that powdered formula is not sterile and how to reduce the risks. We have asked Nestlé many times to bring its warnings and instructions into line, and it has refused. Now we know part of the reason why: its machine has been under development for six years and if it acknowledged that formula should be prepared with water above 70 degrees, it would have had to go back to the drawing board.
Instead a potentially dangerous method of preparing formula is being touted as offering the "utmost safety".
In the world of marketing, of course, everything is always new and improved.
Last year we exposed Nestlé claiming the formula in its tins was 'The new "Gold Standard" in infant nutrition', another attempt to appropriate the language of breastfeeding, long described as the "Gold Standard". After thousands of emails from boycott supporters, Nestlé said it had discontinued the leaflet - after attempting to argue that the 'Gold' referred to the colour of the formula labels.
The withdrawal of the leaflets was one of four actions highlighted by Nestlé in its response to the Breaking the Rules, Stretching the Rules 2010 monitoring report which profiles the practices of 22 formula and feeding bottle companies with examples of violations from 46 countries.
The report contains page after page of examples of Nestlé materials showing how the company systematically violates the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant Resolutions of the World Health Assembly. Earlier this month I joined Annelies Allain from the International Code Documentation Centre to present the report in Geneva prior to the World Health Assembly (you can watch the film below).
While promising action on just four of these examples - including the ‘Gold Standard’ leaflet - Nestlé defended the rest of the 130 violations it counted in the report.
So Nestlé intends to continue with 97% of the violations exposed.
In Nestlé's brave new world this open contempt for the marketing requirements adopted by the world's highest health policy setting body - which repeated its call last year for companies to meet their responsibilities - is turned on its head. Nestlé cites the fact that it decided only four violations were valid as proof it is doing little wrong - whereas in reality this shows it is doing virtually nothing to put things right (Danone, by contrast, said action it has taken would stop 50% of the violations in its profile and it promised to make other changes such as removing the Immunofortis claims from its formula labels).
Nestlé continues with marketing strategies such as claiming its formula 'protects' babies, with colourful logos on labels and promotion to health workers and mothers. This is despite acknowledging to Baby Milk Action in our ongoing correspondence that actually there is 'no proven benefit' from adding highlighted ingredients such as DHA to formula. Nestlé's argument is that it refers to the benefits of DHA in breastmilk, not in its formula - though whether parents who are drawn in by the logos appreciate this sophistry is debatable.
Where Nestlé does make changes it is either because legislation gives it no choice, or because of campaign pressure. Although Nestlé prefers to invest in diverting criticism, when executives judge bad publicity is fuelling the boycott to too great a degree, or it is bombarded with messages, then it changes policies and practices. Even though Nestlé is one of the four most boycotted companies on the planet, further pressure is needed.
To this end some of us gathered at Nestlé (UK) HQ last Saturday to record some campaign clips that will be available soon. You can already download a Nestlé, Good Grief! jingle as a ringtone - click here.
The boycott means that even in some of the reporting about BabyNes, journalists are questioning Nestlé on violations of the Code.
How Nestlé responds is illuminating. Nestlé told Nutraingredients:
"We have the industry’s toughest system in place to enforce WHO Code compliance. Indeed, we are the only infant formula manufacturer listed by FTSE4Good, the London Stock Exchange’s Ethical Index.”
The first statement is demonstrably false given the systematic way Nestlé violates the Code. The second statement ignores the fact that in order for Nestlé to be listed by FTSE4Good, FTSE changed the criteria. Systematically violating the Code on the ground is not an obstacle to being listed and FTSE has not yet conducted any evaluation of Nestlé marketing practices. In Nestlé's brave new world something becomes true just because Nestlé says it is true and FTSE decided to believe Nestlé rather than monitoring evidence when Nestlé said it had put policies and systems in place to stop violations.
Nestlé is promoting its new BabyNes product with a press release, news conference and postings on its website and in social media. However, all forms of promotion of breastmilk substitutes are prohibited by the Code and Resolutions.
If Nestlé tried these tactics in a country that has implemented the Code and Resolutions in legislation it could find itself in court, as Johnson and Johnson did in India in the 1990s for press releasing information about a new feeding bottle. India has exemplary legislation with a sanction of imprisonment for the Managing Director under what is criminal law. Johnson and Johnson apologised and later said it realised it was inappropriate to be marketing feeding bottles in India and discontinued its feeding bottle business. Nestlé has also been taken to court in India, for failing to translate warnings on formula labels. It continues to fight the case and unsuccessfully took the government to court to have the law struck down on the grounds it was infringing its rights.
All this is as nothing to Nestlé's master stroke last week in tyring to usher in its brave new world. Thirty years after the adoption of the International Code, "top government officials" met to discuss "Future Directions in Nutrition, Water, Rural Development". I'm not talking about the World Health Assembly gathering in Geneva, where the world's health ministries discussed these and other issues such as the growing problem of non-communicable diseases caused by the diets promoted by junk food companies such as Nestlé (for that is what much of its food is, despite its attempt to rebrand itself as a Nutrition, Health and Wellness company).
No, the "top government officials" were in Washington at Nestlé's Creating Shared Value Forum. This was not only an attempt by Nestlé to appropriate the language of development, portray itself and its model as beneficial, and set the policy agenda. It was surely also a shot across the bows of the World Health Assembly meeting at the exact same time across the Atlantic, a warning that in Nestlé’s brave new world the world’s highest health policy setting body was close to being irrelevant.
In Geneva the Director General of the World Health Organisation, Margaret Chan, was presenting a report to Member States on funding as WHO's budget is being squeezed. The solution the DG proposed is to bring in business by setting up the World Health Forum. Perhaps with an eye on Nestlé's event in Washington she said this would be a "multi-stakeholder forum" which will "identify future priorities in global health".
Baby Milk Action and its partners in the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) and other organisations raised concerns over conflicts of interest. Corporate Accountability International joined us in delivering a letter to Dr. Chan signed by over 100 organizations and individuals from more than 24 countries.
The same week as Nestlé Creating Shared Value Forum, Save the Children Australia, Oxfam, Care and 13 other Aid agencies working in Laos wrote a letter to Nestlé stating that they will not be applying Nestle's Creating Shared Value Prize because the company's continued marketing of formula "still jeopardizes the health of infants and children in Laos." - Click here.
However, we can expect some organisation to accept Nestlé’s money and Nestlé will publicise this as if it is some kind of development agency.
The campaign against Dr. Chan’s proposed partnership with corporations in a World Health Forum continues. The stated aim of the Forum is to “Improve health outcomes, with WHO meeting the expectations of its Member States and partners”.
Well, we already know what Nestlé expects.
Nestlé wants people to believe that its refusal to act on 97% of the violations of the WHO Code is a good thing and that those experts on the ground who state the company "jeopardizes the health of infants and children" are to be ignored because a FTSE committee sitting in London examining Nestlé’s policy statements and other presentations.
While Nestlé continues to undermine breastfeeding and refuses to warn parents who use formula of the risks, in its brave new world it wants people to believe that thanks to Nestlé the human race has finally been delivered "The first comprehensive nutrition system for babies".
Nestlé opened nominations for its Creating Shared Value prize this February 2011. The company could improve its public image by accepting Baby Milk Action's four-point plan for saving infant lives and ultimately ending the boycott - but instead it is opening its cheque book to try to buy itself some good publicity by co-opting the good reputation of others. However, there is a risk that anyone supporting Nestlé's Creating Shared Value award will find they are dragged down by association with one of the world's four most boycotted companies. And as news breaks in the UK about companies infiltrating environmental groups, we should remember that Nestlé is being pursued through the courts in Switzerland after spying on campaigners there.
Nestlé is 'widely boycotted' according to its Global Public Affairs Manager and ranks poorly in public polls of corporate responsibility (for example, receiving a 'positivity' score in social media of just 12 out of 100 in an audit by Yomego Social Media Reputation, according to PR week). So the company launched the Nestlé Prize in Creating Shared Value in 2009 which "seeks to encourage and reward innovative approaches to the problems of nutrition, water, and rural development." A request for nominations is being publicised currently with a prize of CHF 500,000 (approximately US$ 480,000).
Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator at Baby Milk Action said: "Nestlé seems to think this PR stunt is a good investment to try to improve its abysmal image. It does not want to change the marketing practices that boost its profits while contributing to the problems of nutrition, water and rural development and lead to its poor reputation. It falls to members of the public to show they are not taken in. The more people support the Nestlé boycott - and tell Nestlé they are doing so - the more success we have in forcing it to change its practices."
Nestlé whole concept of Creating Shared Value is a Public Relations (PR) strategy to divert criticism of its business practices. Baby Milk Action and other Nestlé Critics have registered complaints about the misleading nature of the company's Creating Shared Value reports with the United Nations Global Compact Office, which posts the reports on its website. While refusing to investigate the complaints, the UN Global Compact Office continues to highlight Nestlé reports and accepted it as a Patron Sponsor of its 10th birthday conference in New York last year.
So in calling for nominations from initiatives that are no doubt doing good work, Nestlé is trying to cover itself with their reputation and convince people that it is somehow driving forward good practice in tackling problems of nutrition, water and rural development. Make no mistake, at the same time as violating international human rights and environmental standards, Nestlé is also trying to set the agenda on how corporations should be regulated at international fora, such as the World Economic Forum, and nation by nation. Nestlé opposes binding regulations as a 'straitjacket' on the 'engineers of wealth' and demands to be trusted to do the right thing because of its 'values'.
Nestlé has demonstrated time and again that it is not worthy of trust. While claiming to abide by the marketing requirements for baby foods, it is continue to systematically violate those standards. Its current global marketing strategy is to claim that its formula 'protects' babies when, in reality, babies fed on formula are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. After receiving thousands of emails from campaign supporters, Nestlé has admitted that there is 'no proven benefit' from adding ingredients such as DHA to formula, but refuses to end the marketing campaign based upon these ingredients, which mislead parents and health workers. More emails are needed - click here.
Nestlé only changes its practices when forced to do so by regulations or the pressure of public campaigns. Although still defending its logos, Nestlé has said it has discontinued a leaflet Baby Milk Action exposed that claims its formula is 'The new "Gold Standard" in infant nutrition' - a leaflet that should never have been produced in the first place. Campaigning does work - and with enough pressure Nestlé will be persuaded to drop its logos and other misleading claims, such as the claim its formula reduces diarrhoea (left - in reality, babies fed on formula are more likely to suffer from diarrhoea than breastfed babies).
For Nestlé it is a cost/benefit analysis: how much does its malpractice fuel the boycott versus how much extra sales these methods generate. To try to improve the ratio in its favour, executives invests heavily in PR stunts such as the Creating Shared Value prize and sponsorship of good causes. For example, it has entered into a secret deal with the Virgin London Marathon to promote its Pure Life bottled water - the organisers have refused to reveal their criteria for accepting sponsors, in breach of Charity Commission guidance. Nestlé's marketing of Pure Life bottled water has been criticised from Pakistan to Brazil for its impact on municipal water supplies and local communities - it had to stop pumping in Brazil under the threat of daily fines after a ten-year battle by the community affected by its bottling plant (famously Nestlé claimed its so-called independent auditors, Bureau Veritas, cleared it of any wrong-doing in Brazil, but Bureau Veritas admitted to Baby Milk Action they weren't even aware Nestlé had been taken to court by the public prosecutor and their work was not a legal audit).
Nestlé hopes to gain kudos from its support of the London Marathon with the Pure Life brand - and as no alternative water is on offer, boycott supporters entering the event either have to break their personal boycotts or endanger their health. Nestlé's Chairman has ridiculed the idea of giving back to society stating to business leaders in Boston, according to the Boston Herald: "companies should only pursue charitable endeavors with an underlying intention of making money for investors."
While those who are working on the ground to have a positive impact may be tempted by Nestlé's prize money, they should be aware of how they are being used by Nestlé and if they allow their reputations to be co-opted are, willingly or not, helping the company to deflect criticism.
In the UK it is being reported today that companies have infiltrated environmental groups. In so many areas, Nestlé has been there first: it employed a former MI6 officer to run a spying network in Switzerland that infiltrated Attac Switzerland, gathering information not only on the baby milk campaign, but on water campaigners in Brazil and trade unionists in Colombia whose members had been targeted by paramilitary death squads after organising at Nestlé factories.
Nestlé likes to talk of Creating Shared Value - and wants the media and public to do so to as it tries to associate Nestlé with positive stories. But Nestlé's real concern is Creating Shareholder Value, putting its own profits before health, human rights and the truth.
Mr. Paul Bulcke (left), CEO of Nestlé SA, and his predecessor and current Nestlé Chairman, Peter Brabeck-Letmathé, are seeking to set the agenda at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Swizerland this week. Nestlé is 'widely boycotted' in the words of its Global Public Affairs Manager, due to its aggressive marketing of baby foods in breach of international standards. Given the documentary evidence of systematic violations of the marketing requirements and the strategies employed by Mr. Bulcke and Mr Brabeck as they put their own profits before the lives and well-being of babies and their families, Baby Milk Action says it is ironic that Mr. Bulcke, co-chair of the meeting, believes he has any credibility in calling for "new global principles to fuel development". Mr. Bulcke, who was appointed CEO after achieving high growth in the baby food sector in Latin America, states in a press release on the Nestlé site: "When run in a principled way, with strong values and a long-term perspective, business can be an engine for development and prosperity."
Mr. Brabeck has for decades advocated that corporations be trusted to follow voluntary principles and be given greater power in policy setting than civil society organisations as the "engineers of wealth". At the last Nestlé shareholder AGM in April 2010 Mr. Brabeck warned against tying corporations up in a “regulatory straightjacket”, saying this was unnecessary as people should trust Nestlé's values. Mr. Brabeck's stance is inconsistent, however, because while opposing strong regulations protecting babies and their families in line with international marketing standards in favour of voluntary measures, he has argued that protection of company brands should be "entrenched in the law and strictly enforced by the authorities". Mr. Brabeck also argues publicly that corporations should be trusted as global citizens, but told business leaders in Boston in 2005, that corporations should not feel obligated to 'give back' to the community and should only support good causes if it will benefit shareholders.
Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator at Baby Milk Action, said, "Mr. Bulcke and Mr. Brabeck have demonstrated the only principle they seem to understand is money - that is why we call on people around the world to join the boycott until they agree to stop pushing baby foods in ways that undermine breastfeeding and endanger babies fed on formula. The boycott has forced some changes, but they still have a long way to go. Mr. Bulcke is trying to present himself as a principled business leader on the global stage as part of his strategy to divert attention from what Nestlé's does in reality."
Both Mr. Bulcke and Mr. Brabeck have rejected Baby Milk Action's four-point plan for saving infant lives and ultimately ending the boycott.
Mr. Bulcke's comments come as thousands of people have emailed the company over its latest baby milk marketing strategy, calling on it to stop violating international marketing standards. In other areas of concern, the India media has this week exposed a secret deal between Nestlé and universities to target young girls with information on nutrition - a request for information on the deal under India's Right to Information law was blocked by Nestlé (see Times of India). While attempting to set the global agenda, Nestlé is also the subject of complaints for violations of the UN Global Compact Principles registered Baby Milk Action and other Nestlé Critics. The UN Global Compact Office has refused to investigate the complaints, but continues to accept funding from Nestlé for its events and posts Nestlé's criticised reports on its website.
Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator at Baby Milk Action, said:
"Nestlé current global baby milk marketing strategy involves promoting its formula with the claim it 'protects' babies, when in reality babies fed on formula are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. I have written directly to Mr. Bulcke on this matter and he refuses to stop what is a clear violation of international marketing standards."
In its latest communication on the 'protect' logos added to formula labels in 120 countries, Nestlé has admitted that there is 'no proven benefit' from adding to formula ingredients such as DHA and ARA highlighted in the logos, but is still refusing to remove the logos. After receiving thousands of emails in Baby Milk Action's Email Nestlé campaign, Nestlé has said it has discontinued a leaflet promoting its formula as 'The new "Gold Standards" in infant nutrition', but not other leaflets claiming, for example, that its formula reduces the incidence of diarrhoea. Babies fed on formula rather than breastfed are more likely to suffer from diarrhoea. According to WHO, "infants who are not breastfed in the first month of life may be as much as 25 times more likely to die than infants who are exclusively breastfed."
According to UNICEF: "Marketing practices that undermine breastfeeding are potentially hazardous wherever they are pursued: in the developing world, WHO estimates that some 1.5 million children die each year because they are not adequately breastfed. These facts are not in dispute."
Nestlé is also refusing to warn on labels that powdered infant formula is not sterile and the simple steps required to reduce the risks of possible contamination with harmful bacteria. Nestlé has had to recall formula in the past after contamination with Enterobacter Sakazakii, which has led to deaths in Europe (see WHO publication on this known problem).
Nestlé is not only criticised for violating the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant Resolutions. Campaigners monitoring other aspects of its business criticise the company for:
* trade union busting and failing to act on related court decisions;
* failure to act on child labour and slavery in its cocoa supply chain;
* exploitation of farmers, particularly in the dairy and coffee sectors;
* environmental degradation, particularly of water resources;
Click here for the report: Nestlé's UN Global Compact cover up - How Nestlé’s Shared Value reports cover up malpractice and bring the UN voluntary initiative for corporate responsibility into disrepute.
The Mumsnet parenting website invited their followers to post questions to be answered by Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator at Baby Milk Action, and selected the following.
Bottlefeeding mums perceive Baby Milk Action to be anti formula. Whilst this may not be the case, that perception will affect the credibility of anything you say. Does your organisation need a makeover?
Do you work with schools to raise awareness of issues around the formula industry? Do you think it might be useful to educate future parents at an early age about the pros/cons of formula/BFing?
Also, just wanted to say thank you for standing up to the big corporations. Shame our politicians don't have the balls to.
My question is this: if there is one message you would like the 18-21 year old mums / dads of the future to receive about breastfeeding, what would it be?
Along with other posters, I too am uncomfortable with this discussion. I'm afraid that BMA and it's followers really do appear to be anti formula, and to me that is unacceptable.
I am not sure if politically it is wise for Mumsnet to host a chat with an organisation which holds such one sided views. Of course they say they support both types of infant feeding, but a glance at their site would suggest otherwise.
Suffice to say I won't be posting a question.
Incidentally, why is a man fronting this campaign. Surely there are many women who would be better placed to do so?
My question is what you would suggest to a mother who does not want to use formula but still requires, for whatever reason, milk to supplement her own?
I've come across some health care professionals who aren't as clued up on breastfeeding as what they are on formula feeding. It seems that the information is so readily available to those who want to find it, do you think there is any way of correcting the inbalance that seems to exist in some quarters?
Mike Brady My question is, how can the marketing of formula properly be controlled in the UK when the only apparent organisation to control it, the ASA, is a toothless waste of time. As it stands, if an advert is found to breach the regulations (such as the big-cup advert) the company is simply told to stop running it. Often they don't (I've seen this advert since its banning despite C&G telling me they were not running it again) and even if it isn't run again there's no requirement for retraction so viewers simply assumed it's run its course.
1. Why do you think our food safety authorities don't test and approve formula? Surely it should be regulated so it doesn't contain such harmful things; bisphenol-A, aluminum, enterobacter sakazakii and salmonella enterica.
2. A lot of people are unaware of the risks of using formula so cant make an informed decision when deciding how to feed their babies. Do you think formula should be labeled with the health risks like tobacco boxes are?
Powdered formula is impossible to make and store in a sterile manner, and therefore liquid formula is theoretically 'safer' in terms of potential hazardous contents.
Why, then, is there no concentrated sterile liquid formula product available on the market which can be diluted with cooled boiled water to provide a safer drink for babies.
Are current liquid sterilization/pasteurisation etc. techniques effective enough to allow a bottle of concentrated liquid formula to be kept in a fridge and used safely for a number of days? Are any formula companies looking into such a product or would it not be viable?
Do you think that the other baby milk companies that also violate the marketing code are relieved that the singular focus of the campaign on Nestle takes the heat off them? Is there any competition amongst baby milk companies to be recognised and seen as the most ethical in marketing, or do they all keep their heads down to stay out of the way of bad publicity?
Do you think the boycott of nestle is having an impact. I haven't brought nestle products for 10 years but sometimes wonder if its worth it as they are such a huge company - not sure if little old me makes much of dent (not that I'll stop the boycott).
Hi Mike - How can I get across to people that it is important to boycott Nestle - my sons school seem to think it is something that happens abroad and nothing to do with us.
Hi Mike - How can I get across to people that it is important to boycott Nestle - my sons school seem to think it is something that happens abroad and nothing to do with us?
There’s a mix-up with the questions, as this appears above.
I am interested in inappropriate formula feeding during disasters and the aftermath, such as Haiti.
How do we ensure that aid money we give is not used to provide formula and thereby increase the suffering or babies and children at such a difficult point of their lives?
Is formula safe only in countries with good water supply, good standard of living, hygiene etc?
As I understand it from "UNICEF stats www.childinfo.org/breastfeeding_infantfeeding.html etc..the majority of babies in the developing world who are not exclusively breastfed are not given other milk or given formula, but water or complimentary foods traditional in that community such as maize meal porridge.
So the challenge of enabling more women to exlusively breast feed for longer and save the lives of 140 million children a year is not simply one of breastmilk vs formula (or of poor people vs big corporates) it is also about challenging some of the traditional practices handed down from Grandmas etc...
So the question is, do you think that there is any hope, that a company such a Nestle could be a force for good. They have has so much marketing expertise, scientific research and global reach, and an interest in selling products to children and families throughout their lives - do you think there is any hope that they might become a force for good in promoting sound nutrition, from breastfeeding to eventual weening and beyond. Do you see any sign of companies doing this?
I have seen that there was a discussion about the famous ‘twins’ picture used on a postcard sold by Baby Milk Action and so have given the background to this and the issues it raises.
IBFAN's famous breastfeeding calendar is now available at reduced price. With 12 full-colour A4 breastfeeding pictures from around the world. View them in our on-line Virtual Shop and order today!
.
Infant Formula Explained
Independent, accurate information on infant formula from the Baby Feeding Law Group. Produced by Baby Milk Action and MarkIt Television. Suitable for use in UNICEF Baby Friendly certified health facilities. Click here to view clips and order.
ONE MILLION CAMPAIGN
Petition calling on political leaders to act on their promises to protect, promote and support breastfeeding
Push this site up the Stumbled upon listings
Books
How we can use human rights arguments to defend the right to food. With a chapter by Mike Brady on holding corporations to account (with Nestlé as a case study) and by Dr. Arun Gupta on breastfeeding.
It is very difficult - and time consuming - to find funding for our UK work. If you are wealthy and want to help, please consider making a big donation. Use this button to pay by credit card, PayPal or cheque (cheques cost us less to process). Read more here.
Donations of any size can be made via the donation page on our website.
Click on the logo to find out how to add it to your site
You can download this widget or add it to your website or blog to keep updated from Baby Milk Action newsfeeds: this blog, the weekly podcast and the website (use the arrows at the top to move between them)
Now you can leave and read comments about items in our Virtual Shop.
Is this blog useful? Can you make a donation?
Thanks for reading! Can you make a donation from time to time to support Baby Milk Action's work? Just click the button to donate using our secure server. The only advertising you will find on this blog is for our materials.
Formula for Disaster film from UNICEF Philippines, showing the aggressive marketing strategies used there and the impact.
Order a DVD or view it on line.
Shopping bags
Reusable Fairtrade cotton shopping bags available in Baby Milk Action's on-line Virtual Shop, along with books, postcards, t-shirts and much more.
"I am a breastfeeding counsellor & I have two "baby at breast" t-shirts. I love 'em. Wore them to church the other day and loved explaining what Baby milk Action meant."
Last year we exposed Nestlé claiming the formula in its tins was 'The new "Gold Standard" in infant nutrition', another attempt to appropriate the language of breastfeeding, long described as the "Gold Standard". After thousands of emails from boycott supporters, Nestlé said it had discontinued the leaflet - after attempting to argue that the 'Gold' referred to the colour of the formula labels.
Nestlé hopes to gain kudos from its support of the London Marathon with the Pure Life brand - and as no alternative water is on offer, boycott supporters entering the event either have to break their personal boycotts or endanger their health. Nestlé's Chairman has ridiculed the idea of giving back to society stating to business leaders in Boston, according to the 
Mr. Paul Bulcke (left), CEO of Nestlé SA, and his predecessor and current Nestlé Chairman, Peter Brabeck-Letmathé, are seeking to set the agenda at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Swizerland this week. Nestlé is '
