Reality check at the Brazilian National Breastfeeding Conference

Today I am due to speak at Brazil's National Breastfeeding Conference about breastfeeding and corporations. As you can imagine I will be talking about the importance of the baby food marketing regulations adopted by the World Health Assembly, the results of monitoring that show these are being systematically broken where there are not enforced regulations and what we can do to change the situation.

I find these meetings refreshing, depressing, challenging and energising.

Refreshing because I have to spend far too much of my time trying to convince people there is a problem of aggressive baby food marketing that needs to be addressed, rather than mobilizing those who are already convinced. With companies such as Nestlé denying any wrong doing and using a wide range of strategies to persuade people it can sometimes be difficult. I call Nestlé strategy 'mid-point bias'. It relies on people thinking the truth must lie somewhere between its position and that of health advocates, such as Baby Milk Action. Nestlé has no qualms about being outright dishonest about its activities, whereas we stick to the truth (and if we couldn't stand by what we say about Nestlé then we would have been sued into bankruptcy long ago). So Nestlé moves the mod-point away from the reality. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2006/10/mid-point-bias.html

So the refreshing aspect of these meetings is I am with people who are familiar with what Nestlé and the other companies are doing, because it is part of their daily reality. Our focus is what needs to be done.

The opening address last night from Jean Pierre Allain was recalling the efforts that were made to implement the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes in Brazil - he was an advisor to the process. The industry tried to weaken the regulations, with Nestlé taking the lead and trying to undermine these, including through its financial support to the Paediatric Association. The regulations did come into force 20 years ago, though not as strongly as health advocates wanted. It has taken two revisions to make them as strong as they are today.

The Brazilian campaign is particularly strong, with members of the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) coordinating training and monitoring activities across the country. IBFAN Brazil organises the National Breastfeeding Conference every two years and attracts typically over 1,000 participants and a strong programme of national and international experts. I feel very priviliged to be one of them.

I have written previously about how strong the regulations are here. The type of aggressive marketing we see in many other countries does not happen in Brazil. Here concerns are about warning labels on whole milks. We helped with a campaign last year as the industry tried to weaken the wording of the 'Ministry of Health Warning' on labels of whole milk, saying it should not be used for infant feeding. This has been changed to say 'Ministry of Health Information'. Viewed against strategies such as Nestlé's advertising of formula on the shelves in supermarkets in South Africa and it claims on labels that formula provides 'protection', this concern may seem much less serious.

But speaking to a Brazilian colleague, I realised once again why it is such a concern here. And this is where it gets depressing. The concern in many parts of Brazil, particularly the poorer parts, is not that parents are using formula rather than breastfeeding, because many cannot afford formula. It is that they are using unsuitable products such as whole milks and, mentioned time and time again, Nestlé Ninho powdered milk in particular, which is promoted for feeding young children with all sorts of claims of the benefits it will bring.

We have a campaign trying to stop Nestlé promoting Ninho in the infant feeding sections of pharmacies and supermarkets. Nestlé's response is that whole milk is not infant formula so there are not breaking any rules by promoting it in this way! Ninho is typically a third of the price of the infant formula on the shelf next to it and research has shown that in poor communities mothers who bottle feed are more likely to use milks like this than formula. Here is a picture I took in a pharmacy a few years ago, which is on our site at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/yqsanswered/yqanestle03.html


These practices continue and people here have to deal with the consequences.

They also want help in stopping them.

I am here in part to talk about the Nestlé boycott because it is seen by Brazilian campaigners as a particularly powerful support for their work in defence of infant health. The fact that Nestlé is one of the most boycotted companies on the planet makes it a little easier to counter its well-resourced lobbying.

I'll be showing the newspaper cutting of the action being taken on the Scottish Parliament mentioned here last week. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/05/express-boycott-article.html

That solidarity makes a real difference to people, as do the letter writing campaigns, exposés and everything else we, and you, do.

Which I find very energising.

Brazil is a success story in that breastfeeding rates have increased markedly over the past 20 years thanks to the marketing regulations and parallel efforts to promote and support breastfeeding. The median breastfeeding duration has gone from 3 months to 10 months.

It hasn't been easy and there are still challenges. There is a new attack on the baby food marketing regulations I am hearing about and to which we have to respond. I know now I'll have the energy to do it!

Infants surviving on breastmilk in China earthquake

Just a quick mention here today of a link someone sent me with a couple of breastfeeding stories from the China earthquake. The heartbreaking story of a trapped mother who managed to sustain her baby through breastfeeding, though she died herself. And a police woman who has been acting as a wet nurse to some of the orphaned children. See:
http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,165248,00.html

While obviously some infants will be in need of formula, relief agencies do not want you or the companies to send this. It is far better for it to be sourced locally, as I wrote yesterday.

Instead send money.

Don't send formula to Burma or China

Disaster relief agencies have made it clear that they do not welcome donations of infant formula when responding to emergencies such as the cyclone in Burma and the earthquake in China.

To often donated formula is distributed without care and undermines breastfeeding. In addition labels are often in the wrong language. For those infants that do need to be formula fed it is far better for agencies to source formula locally and distribute it in a carefully targeted way.

So please don't send donations of formula. It is far better to send money.

If you are in the UK or other countries in the European Union it is actually illegal to export formula with labels in the wrong language.

We have worked closely with the Emergency Nutrition Network. See its website for appropriate responses at:
http://www.ennonline.net/ife/generalpublic/default.aspx

Scottish boycott campaign and Nestlé demos

As our press release on the boycott demonstrations on Saturday mentioned, a member of the Scottish Parliament, Elaine Smith MSP, introduced a motion calling for a re-think of contracts awarded to Nestlé to supply bottled water.

According to a report in the Scottish Sunday Express (18 May) some of the 5 councils known to have contracts, worth a reported £ 5 million, are starting to do so. Indeed, one has responded to complaints about the supplier and already switched. We have seen previously that if a council assumes responsibility to provide bottled water and significant numbers of people object to it being sourced from Nestlé, the council has legitimate grounds to switch suppliers.

Here is the cutting from the paper (click on it for larger version):


As I said in my quote, used by the paper: "We are very grateful to the efforts of supporters of the boycott to keep Nestlé malpractice in the public eye. It makes a real difference to our work and that of our partners around the world, particularly when Nestlé is using its cheque book and connections to try to undermine the marketing standards introduced to regulate baby food marketing practices and protect infant health. "

Many thanks to everyone who went out leafleting. Please do send us pictures. Thanks to Jean Rowe for these from the demonstration at Nestlé (UK) HQ in Croydon.

No to Nestlé in the Scottish Parliament and at UK demonstrations

Today I have put out a press release about a 'No to Nestlé' campaign launched in the Scottish Parliament by Elaine Smith MSP, who is concerned about contracts for bottled water being awarded to the company. If you are in Scotland then why not ask your representative to sign Elaine's motion.

The press release also flags up the demonstrations taking place at Nestlé's UK HQ tomorrow and Body Shop outlets (Nestlé part owns Body Shop). You can download a file to make your own leaflets if you haven't ordered from Baby Milk Action. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/action/demo08.html

You can find the press release, with a quote and briefing document from Elaine Smith MSP, at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press17may08.html

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/

Nestle links to UK Department of Health

Firstly, many thanks to everyone who sent birthday wishes last week!

While having a kind of break, there were still things going on, not least because this is National Breastfeeding Awareness Week in the UK. There was a conference in London which Baby Milk Action attended on Monday. More about that later.

In the build up there was an article in the Independent on Sunday concerning the Members of Parliament that Nestlé took to South Africa in February. Regular readers of this blog will know that one of them, Tom Levitt MP, has since launched a campaign defending Nestlé practices in the country, which comes at a very sensitive time as the South African government is looking to strengthen regulations. It turns out one of the other MPs on the all-expenses-paid trip represents a UK Department of Health minister in Parliament. The Independent led on this in its article Breast vs bottle: the new battleground.

This opens: "Efforts to encourage more women to breastfeed are being threatened by "aggressive" lobbying directed at the Government by the baby milk manufacturing industry, campaigners warned yesterday. The powdered milk manufacturer Nestlé has forged formal links with the Department of Health and took a ministerial aide on an all-expenses-paid trip to South Africa, The Independent on Sunday has discovered."

There is a quote from me: "Time and again we see Nestlé trying to ingratiate itself with health workers and policymakers through gifts, free trips, sponsorship and so-called partnerships. Surely the Government should not look to companies to fund and organise trips such as this. If there is a legitimate public interest in fact-finding in South Africa, it should be publicly funded."

The article did present the issue as 'Breast v. Bottle', missing the point that we are working to protect breastfeeding and babies fed on formula. The introduction to a discussion board accompanying the article similarly missed the point, stating:

"The government is considering calls to ban the big baby milk firms from promoting follow-on formula. But companies like Nestle are mounting fierce lobbying campaigns targeting the Department of Health as well as mums. Should Nestle be allowed to advertise and mums make their own minds up? Or should Nestle be reined in so the government can promote the message that breast is best?"

I commented as follows. See:
http://ios.typepad.com/ios/2008/05/the-battle-of-t.html

---comment on Indy discussion board

This question is a little misleading. Health advocates such as Baby Milk Action have been calling for government action to protect breastfeeding AND to protect babies fed on formula. So-called 'information' provided by companies is always idealizing and often inaccurate. For example, companies boast of the benefits of LCPs and prebiotics in formula, yet independent analysis of the research by bodies such as the respected Cochrane Library finds the claims are not supported. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2006/10/health-claims-goldmine.html

Companies are fighting against requirements that they warn parents who do use powdered formula that it is not sterile and the simple steps that can be followed to reduce the risks from possible intrinsic contamination with harmful bacteria.

For parents to be able to make up their own mind they need accurate, independent information, not company propaganda.

A good illustration of the issue and the dangers of Nestle-funded trips, is the situation in South Africa. One of the MPs on that trip, Tom Levitt MP, has launched a campaign attempting to persuade people Nestle follows high standards in its marketing of infant formula and is defending the company's advertising and labelling in South Africa. This is despite the fact that the Department of Health in South Africa has said Nestle's claims for its NAN infant formula break national labeling laws:

"statements such as "optimal physical and mental development", "activate your baby's immune defences" and "strengthen your baby's natural defences" as indicated on the labels are just some examples of prohibited statements on NAN 1 and 2".

Babies fed on formula are denied the protection from infection provided by breastmilk and so more likely to become sick and in conditions of poverty more likely to die. Those that are fed with formula would be less at risk if Nestle brought warnings and instructions into line with those called for by the World Health Assembly.

The South African government is currently trying to introduce strengthened regulations and it is a disgrace that Tom Levitt, who has also enjoyed free tickets to Wimbledon tennis competition from Nestle, is undermining their efforts. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/04/what-south-africa-says.html

We have requested a meeting with Mr. Levitt many times, so far without success.

Nestle UK demo Saturday 17 May 2008

As highlighted in our last newsletter, the annual demonstration at Nestlé (UK) HQ in Croydon will take place on 17 May 2008 from 11:00 to 12:00.

This marks the anniversary of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1981. Nestlé violates the Code more than any other company, which is why it is the target of the boycott.

You can find out more on our website and also find ideas of what to do if you can't make it to Croydon. You can let us know you are coming via a form on the site, or just turn up on the day. Also if you fancy leafleting somewhere else, such as a Body Shop outlet (Nestlé owns 28.8% of L'Oreal, the owner of Body Shop). See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/action/demo08.html

We had thought of holding International Nestlé-Free Week during the same week, but it did not prove suitable for some of the other countries that mark this week. It will instead be held in the week ending 4 October, to mark the 20th anniversary of the launch of the boycott, which is the best supported in the UK. Nestlé is now one of the four most boycotted companies on the planet. For more information on the boycott and the impact it has in stopping Nestlé malpractice see:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/boycott/nestlefree.html

The 17 May comes at the end of UK National Breastfeeding Awareness Week. I'll write more about some of the events taking place during the week tomorrow.

The next step in Nestle's plan for entering UK hospitals

As I wrote here last month, Nestlé has a strategy to enter the UK formula market, where it currently only sells specialised formulas. For some time it has been working with a midwife called Chris Sidgwick to attack the boycott, which is the best-supported consumer action in the UK, and to encourage midwives to accept Nestlé-sponsored materials on infant feeding and bring them into UK hospitals.

In 2006 Chris went on an all-expenses-paid trip to Nestlé (HQ) in Vevey, Switzerland, organised by Nestlé Nutritionist, Zelda Wilson. This led to an article in the British Journal of Midwifery portrayed as an objective view of the boycott and Nestlé baby food marketing practices. The article contained multiple errors, including misrepresenting information from its primary source document. So widespread were the errors that Baby Milk Action was granted a substantial right to reply. Unfortunately, Nestlé now distributes the article without this. You can read our full analysis of the article, with links to many original supporting documents from the history of the campaign, at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/yqsanswered/yqanestle09.html

The article suggests: "Nestlé have financial and education resources available which would improve services to women and, as a result of fact finding, we see no reason not to tap into those resources at a time when most Trusts and educational establishments have very limited funds available."

Chris Sidgwick and Zelda Wilson came to our attention again earlier this year as they were part of a team of 5 that briefed stuudents at Sheffield University, calling for the student union to drop the boycott. Also in the team were people from Webber Shandwick, Nestlé's crisis management PR company.

Then we found Chris involved with Dr. Miriam Stoppard inviting health journalists to Vevey in February, no doubt hoping to generate more misleading articles about Nestlé practices. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/02/nestle-panic-miriam-stoppard.html

Now comes the next part of the strategy. Chris is billing herself as a 'Midwifery Advisor' and inviting people to a 'study day with a difference'. This is with a familiar name: "Zelda Wilson a State Registered Dietician specialising in human interaction and behaviour."

In the small print it states that the organiser: "HCP is sponsored by an exclusive grant from Nestlé Science and Education Services."

It promises: "INSIGHT and an opportunity to NETWORK".

I wonder if the networking will include more free trips from Nestlé for midwives in the hope that they too will start working for Nestlé's cause in opposing the boycott and getting its materials onto maternity wards.

As Zelda Wilson has admitted in her capacity as Nestlé Nutritionist, its Nestlé-branded materials for hospitals are intended: "to keep the company name and products in people's mind." See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemmarch08.html#1

Aptamil formula television advertisement in the UK

A new television advertisement for Aptamil formula (now owned by Danone) appeared on UK television last night. Look how it links the formula to breastmilk. This is the voiceover:

---Quote begins
Breastmilk is perfect for your baby.

Nothing compares to it. It strengthens your baby's natural defences and reduces the risk of infection.

How time flies by.

If you decide to move on from breastfeeding, Aptamil follow-on contains IMMUNOFORTIS to help support some of your baby's natural defences.

Aptamil follow-on. Helping support your baby.
---quote ends

The key is in the 'natural defences' tag. Breastfeeding - natural defences. Aptamil - natural defences. Clever, no? Some people earn a lot of money thinking this stuff up.

Advertising of all breastmilk substitues, which includes follow-on milks, is prohibited by the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes. At the beginning of the year Danone promised a 'root and branch review' of the marketing activities of NUMICO, owner of the Aptamil brand, following its takeover. As this campaign has just been launched, the indications are Danone is either very slow at getting the word out to the marketers or it has zero respect for the Code.

The Code aims to protect the right of mothers to accurate and independent information on infant feeding. The government and the World Health Organisation recommend breastfeeding beyond 6 months, so this message is undermined by the advertisement, which makes no mention of this recommendation.

I argue the advertisement is illegal as the UK law states: "Follow-on formula advertising shall be: (a) be designed to provide the necessary information about the appropriate use of the product so as not to discourage breast feeding."

The Guidance Notes that accompany the law state: "To minimise the risk of consumers making a connnection between follow-on formula and the act of feeding infants from birth, information in advertisements for follow-on formula should not include pictures or text which relate or compare follow-on formula to breastmilk."

The advertisement clearly does do this. The Guidance Notes are due to be signed off any day now having been put out to consultation some months ago. It seems Danone is rushing out the advertisement before this happens.

The term IMMUNOFORTIS, a made-up word suggesting strengthening of the immune system, is idealizing in itself and so prohibited by the Code. Immunofortis is a so-called prebiotic (again a non-permitted term). While the advertisement claims these support natural defences, an independent review by the Cochrane Library found the evidence was lacking. See: "There is insufficient evidence to recommend the addition of prebiotics to infant feeds for prevention of allergic disease or food reactions" at:
http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab006474.html

The website promoted in the advert advertises the full range of formulas, something the authorities appear reluctant to act upon despite the advertising of infant formula being illegal in the UK.

The term IMMUNOFORTIS is also used on the infant formula packaging which is almost identical to the follow-on formula packaging shown in the advertisement. Packaging follow-on formula and infant formula to make them cross promotional is illegal under the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations introduced at the end of 2007. However, the industry successfully took the government to court to delay having to comply with the labeling provisions for two years.

In court the industry argued it needed more time to change labels, despite knowing a year in advance that they needed to do so and despite the fact that their labels break the previous 1995 Regulations. We now know the Aptamil team was probably too busy to re-design its labels as it was working on this Aptamil advertising campaign.

The government has promised to review how the law and Guidance Notes work. You can send a message in support of a broad review by clicking here:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemapril08.html#2

Mr. Levitt's pro-Nestle campaign

As I mentioned recently, we have prepared a briefing responding to the pro-Nestlé campaign launched by Tom Levitt MP, who went on a Nestlé-funded trip to South Africa in February and continues to defend Nestlé's advertising and labeling of infant formula there despite the fact the South African Department of Health has said it is non-compliant and asked Nestlé to change its practices.

We still have no response from Mr. Levitt, despite sending him the briefing and asking, once againn, for a meeting.

His efforts to defend Nestlé and his acceptance of Nestlé hospitality and free tickets to Wimbledon tennis competiton, sees him making comments that not even Nestlé makes.

In dismissing the documentary evidence of malpractice collated by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), Mr. Levitt's campaign materials state of the Breaking the Rules 2004 report: "Mr. Levitt says of the Breaking the Rules report 2004, produced by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN):

“200 accusations were laid against Nestlé for breaking the marketing code in a 2004 [sic]. And so they were: but 199 were disproved by independent bodies and the other one had been corrected two years previously.”

This is not only untrue, it contradicts what Nestlé itself says. Nestlé dismisses the violations, but does not claim they were disproved by independent bodies.

This is Nestlé’s statement about the report, published in Mr. Levitt’s local paper in correspondence relating to his column defending Nestlé: “it is important to point out that our analysis of IBFAN's previous report in 2004 found that of the 200 allegations it contained only one was an actual violation and this had been corrected by Nestlé in 2002, two years before the report was published.”

So Nestlé refers to its own analysis, but Mr. Levitt MP relates this as coming from "independent bodies."

The fact is that IBFAN provided details about the violations in the report at Nestlé’s request as it claimed it could not investigate where it had placed its own advertisements or the leaflets and other materials documented without additional information. After providing the information nothing more was heard from Nestlé on the subject.

An earlier report did prompt an independent investigation. Twenty seven academic, development and church organisations formed the Interagency Group on Breastfeeding Monitoring to investigate marketing practices after Nestlé similarly dismissed an earlier report (they are produced about every three years). The Group published Cracking the Code in 1997 and reported ‘systematic’ violations by Nestlé and other companies. Commenting at the time UNICEF stated that IBFAN’s monitoring was ‘vindicated’. While this investigation was 11 years ago, the types of violations are similar to those reported in the 2004 Breaking the Rules report and the latest edition published in November 2007.

In 1999 the UK Advertising Standards Authority ruled against Nestlé’s claim in an anti-boycott advertisement that it markets infant formula ‘ethically and responsibly’ after conducting a two-year investigation. Nestlé was warned not to repeat this and other statements. While it does not do so in advertisements, it continues to make similar statements in its public relations materials and elsewhere, over which the ASA has no power to act.

Mr. Levitt’s claim that Nestlé malpractice is form ’30 or 40 years ago’ disregards all of this evidence, including up to around the time he claims he was investigating in South Africa.

Our briefing paper is available at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemapril08.html

Nestle accused of being anti-worker in Russia

Nestlé workers in Russia are protesting about the company's refusal to negotiate over wage rates.

Business Week reports: 'The workers blame one person alone for the current stand-off: Nestlé factory director Martin Ruepp. He has categorically rejected the union demand to create a binding mechanism for wage increases. The Swiss manager has declared that the company will continue to set wage increases at its own discretion."

Trade union representatives claim that wages are not keeping pace with inflation and they have had a wage increase in real terms for years.

It is of interest how Nestlé treats its workers and communities because sometimes people become involved in the baby milk issue, making unjustified defence of the company, on the basis that it is a local employer. Tom Levitt MP in Buxton is a recent example.

Nestlé does not show the same loyalty.

The Business Week quote above makes reference to York. Nestlé shifted production of some products oversees recently and laid off 645. It then tried to force a change in conditions on the remaining workforce, which the union claimed amounted to a 30 - 40% cut in pay. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/04/changes-at-nestle.html

The Russian workers have the support of colleagues in Germany according to Buiness Week:

"The workers are also finding support for their cause outside of Russia—from Germany's NGG union and the International Union of Food Workers, for example. For these international organizations the dispute addresses a fundamental issue: They fear that Nestlé will move more of its production to Russia if it can push through its low-wage policy in Perm."

Nestlé's refusal to negotiate with the workers is not unusual. It refuses to negotiate with workers in the Philippines, despite court orders calling on it to do so. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press20sept06.html

Nestle wants to hear from you - not!

Every now and then I have to update the link to the comment form on Nestlé's website. They change it periodically, I imagine to shake off people following our links to post messages about cases of Nestlé pushing baby foods in breach of international marketing standards, as feature in our Campaign for Ethical Marketing action sheets.

Our links will work again for a while. Do let me know when they die again - which I guess may be likely now I mention this! The link as of today is:
http://www.nestle.com/Common/Header/ContactUs.htm

If you are in the UK and fancy giving Nestlé a call on their free phone number then check out our clip below to see what happened when I did so.

I'll tell you in advance not to expect anything funny, this just shows what happens when you call.

Bill Gates nutrition initiative draws criticism from Indian health campaigners

I wrote yesterday about concerns in India that funds allocated for improving childhood nutrition are being spent on processed foods. At the same time people have been protesting about the activities of a nutrition programme backed by Microsoft billionaire, Bill Gates. This is new on the IBFAN website.


People call Upon GAIN to leave India and Government of India to regulate PPPs

A joint action group constituted by 33 persons including individual experts, pediatricians, public health experts, representatives from 19 national organisations working in public interest in health, development, gender, education and nutrition sector made strong voice and protest to GAIN for sparing India from the hands of multinational consumer and food companies to which GAIN is a promising market builder.

The group staged a silent protest using placards at the site of GAIN initiated meeting to call for an India Alliance for Infant and young child nutrition (IYCN) on 15^th April in Delhi.

The group submitted a pretest note to the GAIN representative in India and also interacted with the participants who were invited at the meeting and offered to answer any questions if they have while using their right to protest in the interest of people of India reeling with poverty, lack of food and lack of support to women who nurture the future of India.

Two members of the protest group also participated in the meeting and raised the points of ‘conflicts of interest’ while entering into any partnership.

Participants met immediately after the meeting and decided to work together for future action on these issues.

Contact for more information:
Dr Arun Gupta 9911176306
arun@ibfanasia.org
Vandana Prasad 9891552425
Mira Shiva 9810582028

Click here for media coverage.

IBFAN critical of Indian child nutrition scheme providing processed food

An article in Thaindian news yesterday highlights concerns of health advocates, including our colleagues in the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN).

The government allocates funds for food for children attending day care centres under the Integrated Child Development Service, but the small amount of money is being used to buy processed food rather than local food in some states in a link with private business.

"With such a low allocation, packaged food cannot provide required nutrition. We should go for hot cooked food from available local products,” said Arun Gupta, a member of the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), the report states. See:
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/health/give-cooked-meals-not-packaged-food-at-anganwadis-experts_10040863.html

Some other states are using locally sourced food.

When in Brazil a couple of years ago, I investigated the school food programme there, which is held up as a model for the world. Locally sourced food is provided to a menu developed by a nutritionist. Expenditure and performance is overseen by elected councils, which include representatives of parents. Any journalists interested in further information are welcome to contact me.

I will say more about the attempts to use nutrition schemes to promote processed foods in future. Sometimes they are used as an attempt to industrialize the whole feeding process, so undermining breastfeeding.

Letter in the Buxton Advertiser exposing Nestle's false claims regarding South Africa marketing campaign

As I mentioned last week, we have produced a briefing paper responding to the campaign to present Nestlé as complying with baby food marketing requirements, promoted by UK Member of Parliament, Tom Levitt MP. This can be downloaded from:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemapril08.html

With Mr. Levitt still not responding to the messages, communication continues through the pages of his local paper, the Buxton Advertiser. The current edition has my letter exposing Nestlé's claims that its infant formula advertising and labeling in South Africa comply with international and government requirements. They do not. Mr. Levitt has said he accepts Nestlé's explanation, which suggests he did not check the position of the South African authorities on his Nestlé-funded trip to South Africa nor since.

See:
http://www.buxtonadvertiser.co.uk/letters/Nestles-milk-line-is-hard.3995176.jp

URGENT ACTION: Review of the UK formula regulations

Baby Milk Action has launched a campaign calling for the UK Government to broaden the terms of its review of the new Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations. The Government is consulting on this until the end of April.

By going to the Baby Milk Action website, you can send a message in a matter of minutes using the draft as a model. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemapril08.html#2

You can also send messages to the formula companies who have still not corrected labels that comply with neither the old nor the new regulations.

Response to Mr. Tom Levitt MP

This is just a quick note to say if you have received a letter from Mr. Tom Levitt MP claiming that Nestlé stopped aggressive marketing of baby milk 30 to 40 years ago and dismissing the documentary evidence of on-going malpractice, then you will be interested in the briefing paper we have produced in response.

This shows how Mr. Levitt is making claims that even Nestlé does not make in his attempt to clear the company and excuse his free trip to South Africa and tickets to Wimbledon provided by Nestlé.

Plus the facts about Nestlé formula advertising and labeling and the South African government's position.

This can be downloaded from our action page in support of South Africa at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemapril08.html

We are asking Mr. Levitt to issue a correction, so it would be useful if you could let us know about any communications you receive. See the contact link at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/

Help South Africa to stop Nestlé and others pushing formula

The South African Department of Health is consulting on new regulations for the marketing of baby foods.

The are implementing the marketing standards adopted by the World Health Assembly since 1981. Companies are called on to abide by these independently of government measures, but they don't, as the recent blogs on Nestlé's infant formula advertising and labeling shows.

It is our recurring experience that governments come under pressure from industry to weaken legislation. So please do spend a couple of minutes sending a message of support. All you need to do is give your name and email, modify our suggested message as you see fit and click the button. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemapril08.html

Be a part of the action. A similar campaign helped to neutralise industry pressure on the Philippines government and Supreme Court last year. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/update/update40b.html#philippines

Our campaign sheet also has an action on the new UK law.

Baby Milk Action's Annual General Meeting

It was Baby Milk Action's Annual General Meeting last Saturday. Many thanks to everyone who made it to Cambridge for the event.

Our board of directors is elected by the membership, who also have accounts and an overview of our activities presented to them. You can become a member via our on-line Virtual Shop at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/membership.html

Members receive our printed newsletter (though you can opt to receive this electronically if you prefer). More importantly, your membership fees help to keep us operating. Our self-generated income makes up more than 50% of our what we receive, with the rest coming from grants from development agencies and charitable trusts.

We do reserve the right to refuse membership (those refused can take out a subscription to the newsletter instead) and ask people attending the meeting to declare any link to the baby food industry. Of course, this does not stop a company from sending someone along to tape the meeting without declaring a connection. We don't go as far as Nestlé, which had me searched when I attended their Annual General Meeting last year!

What South Africa says about shelf talkers and claims on formula

Tom Levitt MP, who went on an all-expenses-paid trip to South Africa to investigate Nestlé has still not responded to Baby Milk Action about the information we provided on Nestlé malpractice in the country. Nor has Mr. Levitt accepted our offer to meet. He has, however, posted an article dismissing the information on his blog. Unfortunately comments on the article are disabled, so I am making my response here.

The blog states: "Mike Brady also refers to what he describes as “prohibited” NAN advertising in South Africa. This allegation is incorrect and the Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa has, in fact, already ruled that this advertising did not contravene any advertising restrictions. Mr Brady’s final allegation that the health claims on the NAN labels are non-compliant is also incorrect as the health claims fully comply with the South African regulations that apply to this product."

Clearly Mr. Levitt did not think to check with the authorities in South Africa before accepting Nestlé's assurances. There is no ruling published on the ASA website and Nestlé did not provide this when asked, though it did reply to our letter. The South African Department of Health (DH) points out that it is usually consulted on ASA rulings regarding formula marketing and has no knowledge of a ruling on the shelf talkers. Indeed the DH points out that the advertising code states: "Appendix G 1.3.2 There must be no point-of-sale advertising..."

Nestlé was informed that shelf talkers are viewed by DH as a breach of the international marketing standards, yet continues to defend the shelf talkers.

Regarding the health claims the DH position is that: "The SA Regulations 2 (9) (b) & (c) of the Regulations Governing the Labelling and Advertising of Foodstuffs, published under Government Notice No. R. 2034 of 29 October 1993 strictly prohibits health/curative/restorative/prophylactic/medicinal claims.

"Therefore, statements such as "optimal physical and mental development", "activate your baby's immune defences" and "strengthen your baby's natural defences" as indicated on the labels are just some examples of prohibited statements on NAN 1 and 2".

Such promotion and claims are illegal in Mr. Levitt's constituency, so it is disappointing that he is defending these practices in South Africa and undermining the Department of Health's position.

This is a critical time for infant health in South Africa as the Government is consulting on tightening regulations. Mr. Levitt's attempts to portray Nestlé as voluntarily complying with international standards - when the opposite is the case - should be seen in this context. People who are interested in protecting infant health should visit the Baby Milk Action website and see the action in the 'code watch' section.

Mr. Levitt's defence of Nestlé has not gone down well with some people in Buxton, as letters to the press show. It doesn't take much to read what the marketing requirements say to realise that Nestlé is breaking them. Indeed we conducted a poll on our website, showing the shelf talker and the text of the Code and 100% of those completing it agreed Nestlé is breaking the rules. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemmarch08vote.html

Mother maltreated in Yarl’s Wood Immigration Detention Centre

Once again a breastfeeding mother is being maltreated in Yarl's Wood immigration detention centre in the UK. We joined in the campaign in support of a Janipher Maseko from Uganda and her child last year. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/11/janiphers-story.html

For the latest case, please read the blog from Morgan Gallagher at:
http://one-of-those-women.blogspot.com/2008/04/letter-from-yarls-wood.html

She is providing support in this case, providing updates and will tell you what you can do to help.

Changes at Nestle

As I wrote yesterday, Nestlé, the World's Largest Food Company, will have a new Chief Executive today. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/04/welcome-mr-bulcke.html

There are other changes underway at Nestlé. Last year it bought Gerber baby foods from Novartis. This week it has sold a 25% stake in Alcon, producer of contact lens solutions, to Novartis for US$ 11 billion. It has options to sell the rest over the coming years. If the divestment from Nestlé is complete then one day Alcon may be removed from the boycott list of products from which Nestlé profits. Watch this space, as they say.

This extra cash is fuelling speculation that Nestlé will buy the Mead Johnson formula business from Bristol-Myers Squibb, which is putting it up for sale to concentrate on pharmaceuticals.

There are also suggestions that Nestlé may go for outright ownership of L'Oreal, which controversially took over Body Shop a couple of years ago. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/09/anita-sad-news.html

In other Nestlé news today, the death of Rowntrees has been announced. Nestlé bought this British confectionery company based in York in a hostile takeover battle in the 1980s. Some production has since been moved outside the UK. Smarties moved to Germany. Black Magic to the Czech Republic. Dairy Box to Spain. 645 people were made redundant. (See the Daily Mail 20 September 2006). There has been investment in a new Aero factory in York, but with a quarter of the workforce on notice to leave, Nestlé tried to force through cuts of 30% to 40% in pay and conditions on those that remained, as the Amicus trade union website reported. See:
http://www.amicustheunion.org/default.aspx?page=4652

---extract begins
Tony Randerson, Amicus officer for Nestle Rowntree in York, said:

“Management have made clear that unless our remaining members accept significant cuts they face the same fate as their colleagues who have already lost their jobs.

“We are making clear to the company that although we will work with them to ensure the plant is viable and, if necessary, cost savings are made, eroding hard won and hard fought for pay and conditions and threatening employees with the sack is not an acceptable way to operate.”

The union says that threatening workers with the sack and imposing severe pay cuts is in breach of international employment guidelines and that they will be making representations to the company at an international meeting of all the trade unions involved with Nestle in Geneva next week (Tuesday 10th October).
---extract ends

As The Press reports today, Nestlé Rowntree is no more. It is being renamed Nestlé Confectionery, though some products will retain Rowntree branding.

This should serve as a reminder that Nestlé shows no loyalty to those that work for it, to the heritage of the businesses it swallows, or the communities where it operates. Tom Levitt MP, who is currently defending Nestlé's advertising and labelling of infant formula in South Africa (in breach of international standards and South African policies) because Nestlé bottles Buxton water in his constituency, would do well to remember this. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/03/buxton-residents-speak.html

Welcome to Mr Paul Bulcke - Nestle's new Chief Executive

Tomorrow Nestlé's Chief Executive Designate, Mr. Paul Bulcke, is due to have his appointment confirmed by the shareholder meeting in Switzerland.

We have written to Mr. Bulcke asking him to make a statement to shareholders prior to the vote about his position on the marketing of baby foods. Unlike his predecessor and current Chairman, Mr. Peter Brabeck-Letmathé, will Mr. Bulcke accept the validity of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant Resolutions and agree to bring Nestlé policies and practices into line? Those are the first two steps for ultimately ending the Nestlé boycott. Nestlé's Global Public Affairs Manager, Dr. Gayle Crozier Willi, stated last year that Nestlé is 'widely boycotted', so shareholders will presumably be interested to know if this constraint on their business can be lifted. I will let you know what happens.

More importantly, Nestlé compliance with the Code and Resolutions will make a real difference to infants. 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."

Whether Mr. Bulcke will be appointed is not open to question. It is a foregone conclusion that the board will get their way as even when there was a shareholder rebellion over the current Chief Executive, Mr. Peter Brabeck-Letmathé, also being made Chairman it was impossible to muster enough votes. Indeed, it is statistically impossible to carry a vote on some issues because Nestlé is so obstructive when it comes to registering shares, as I have mentioned before. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/09/new-boss-old-boss.html

Should any journalists be looking for a quote, here is one from me.

Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator at Baby Milk Action, said:

"Mr. Bulcke's predecessor rejected the four-point plan aimed at saving infant lives and ultimately ending the boycott and embarked on a strategy of denials and deception to try to divert criticism, creating quite a few public-relations disasters in the process. Whether Mr. Bulcke can act any differently with his predecessor as Chairman remains to be seen, but I sincerely hope that he wishes to do so. Nestlé's aggressive marketing of baby foods in breach of international standards contributes to the needless death and suffering of babies around the world."

Images with examples of Nestlé malpractice can be found at:
http://www.flickr.com/babymilkaction

For an insight into what happens at the shareholder meetings see:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/04/glimpse-of-nestls-soul.html

Be a Star : UK campaign marketing breastfeeding where most women don't breastfeed

Little Angels, an inspiring mother support group based in Blackburn, has launched a social marketing campaign with the health authorities in Blackburn with Darwen, East Lancs and Bolton.

Little Angels rallying cry is 'Making Breastfeeding Fashionable'. I spoke at their conference last year, and heard how breastfeeding rates at 6 weeks are just 40%. Though low, this is a significant achievement as before Little Angels were active, the rate was just 20%.

Here is part of the campaign to reach new mothers. It goes under the title: Be a Star.

This is Michelle Bromley. Michelle is 23 years old, from Colne and mum to 3 month old Naomi and 3 year old George.


See more pictures and listen to the accompanying radio advertisements at:
http://www.beastar.org.uk/

The campaign is feature in The Guardian today. You can read the article at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/apr/08/healthyoungpeople

Here's an extract:

---extract begins
"We've found it's no use talking about the benefits of breastfeeding," says Michelle Atkin, from Little Angels, a community interest company in central Lancashire , which trains breastfeeding peer supporters. "For this group, it can be difficult to think that breastfeeding could be for them. Too often, it's seen as a 'sitting cross-legged under a tree humming' thing – something hippies do! We needed something different."
---extract ends

Do take a look at the other images on the Be a Star website, where you can also leave comments.

Brabeck concerned about water shortages

Nestle's Chief Executive Officer, Peter Brabeck-Letmathé, has raised concerns about water being used for agriculture and bio-fuels. While there is good reason to be concerned about access to what is becoming a scarce resource in parts of the world, Mr. Brabeck's concerns are self serving. He is reported on swissinfo.ch as follows:

---
"As we run out of water, Nestlé will also have the problem of securing raw materials," he said.

He added that the scarcity of water would make food less accessible to the world's poor.

---

My comment:

---
Mr. Brabeck's concerns are typically selfish. Nestle's interest in water is as a resource to increase its own profits. Around the world it is being criticised for its extraction of water from aquifers for bottling. In the Brazilian spa town of São Lourenço citizens raised a petition prompting legal action by the Public Prosecutor, who found breaches of federal law. Nestle eventually settled out of court, compensating the town by renovating the water park and stopped pumping in the face of daily fines if it did not do so. All the same Nestle pumped water for 10 years. Nestle claimed : "a third party audit by Bureau Veritas confirms that we have acted in accordance with Brazilian legislation, and we extract far less water than we are legally permitted... Bureau Veritas audit confirms that the test evidence and resultant regulatory approvals do not support allegations that exploitation of the Primavera Well (Sao Lourenço) negatively impacts groundwater in the region."

However, Bureau Veritas told Baby Milk Action: "our work did not constitute a legal audit as such, nor did it include a review of the on-going civil action". Documentary evidence gathered by Baby Milk Action includes official legal opinions that the law was broken. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press2march06.html

New law bans promotion of infant formula AND follow-on formula

Yesterday the law implementing the European Union Directive on Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula was published. The advertising and promotion of infant formula and follow-on formula to the general public is forbidden, including point-of-sale promotion.

If this is surprising news, then let me quickly add that I am talking about the law in Luxembourg.

In the UK the Baby Feeding Law Group, a coalition of health worker and mother support groups, called on the government to treat infant formula and follow-on formula the same and prohibit advertising and promotion, as required by the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, adopted by the World Health Assembly. The government's own Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition and LACORS, the umbrella body for Trading Standards officers who have to enforce the law, called for the same thing in their responses to the government's consultation on implementing the EU Directive.

We argued that as the Directive explicitly states its aim is the implementation of the International Code the government could protect the right to independent information on infant feeding by prohibiting the promotion of all formula advertising (click here if you have the idea that advertising is providing useful information). The government claimed that it did not have that power. Policy makers in Luxembourg clearly see things differently.

Give and take in Nestle's bottled water business

Two news stories come together, exposing Nestlé's way of doing business. On the one hand harming communities, on the other providing support to schemes with high publicity value in the same area. We see it all the time with the issue of infant care as Nestlé pushes its baby foods while trying to push money on people who work with children.

The two news stories that dropped into my inbox this week on the same day are about water, however. Nestlé has a poor record when it comes to exploiting water resources in the face of opposition from communities. Regular readers of this blog will be familiar with the legal action prompted by a community petition in São Lourenço, Brazil, which, eventually saw Nestlé forced to stop pumping large volumes of water from the water park on which the spa town survives for its Pure Life brand of bottled water. Nestlé claimed an audit by Bureau Veritas had confirmed it had complied with Brazilian legislation, but Bureau Veritas admitted when questioned by Baby Milk Action: “our work did not constitute a legal audit as such, nor did it include a review of the on-going civil action". See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press2march06.html

Similar stories are found elsewhere. Nestlé is curently up for induction into the Corporate Hall of Shame not just for its baby food marketing practices, trade union busting etc. but also because of its exploitation of water, with Michigan featuring prominently. See:
http://www.stopcorporateabuse.org/cms/page1669.cfm

Bottling water is a great business as the resource is virtually free to the company. Indeed, in the latest case in Florida, Nestlé had to pay just US$ 230 for a licence to pump water until 2018, according to a report on the consumerist.com website. Even this outlay was more than offset by the tax refunds of US$ 196,000 Nestlé received for opening the bottling plant with the promise of 300 jobs, which have not yet appeared. Nestlé can pump 1.5 million gallons a day and successfully challenged a move to reduce the volume. Residents have left outraged comments on the news site complaining that householders have been instructed to conserve water due to shortages.

Nestlé's new CSR report, audited by Bureau Veritas which has been so accommodating to Nestlé in the past, boasts of Nestlé's positive impact on water. Nestlé claims to have improved efficiency of water usage at its factories. If it is true, then that is welcome. But in boasting of this while hiding its negative impact and making demonstrably untrue claims about the situation in places such as Brazil, Nestlé brings CSR as a whole into disrepute as empty PR.

Similar questions need to be asked over Nestlé's use of schemes promoting water conservation, such as one announced this week in the Philippines, a country where Nestlé has a reputation to improve due to criticism of its baby food marketing and trade union busting activities.

Here is the introduction to the article in the Sun Star:

---quote begins
THE Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and Nestlé Philippines Inc. have launched a water awareness and conservation campaign called Every Drop Counts, to promote awareness that potable water is becoming increasingly scarce globally and locally, and to advocate specific practices to prevent its waste.
---quote ends

Nestlé is using its advertising budget to promote the scheme:

---quote begins
Every Drop Counts will feature tri-media advertisements by DENR and Nestlé Philippines using the latter's classic public service series Sa Mata Ng Bata as a vehicle, to remind audiences that water is an indispensable but limited resource and that they can personally take specific actions to conserve it. Sa Mata ng Bata is the value-formation public service campaign that Nestle Philippines started in the late 1980s, to call the attention of the public to the vital role of adults in forming the values of children who look up to them as role models.
---quote ends

Such activities are used to divert criticism from the negative impact that Nestlé has and are a very small business expense. Remember Nestlé's Chief Executive Officer, Peter Brabeck-Latmaté, has been clear in the past that support of good causes is only justified if it benefits shareholders. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/03/nestle-generosity-to-good-causes.html

This is not all about PR of course. It is also about selling more bottled water. The report on the initiative in the Philippines ends:

---quote begins
During the launch, Sager [Nestlé 'Choose Wellness' head] spoke on the key role of water as a zero-calorie nutrient in maintaining health and wellness, particularly the need for adults to drink at least eight glasses or two liters of water each day, with 2/3 of body weight consisting of water. The World Water Day Technology Exhibit, to be held for several days at Ninoy Aquino Parks and Wildlife on Quezon Boulevard near the Elliptical Circle, was also ceremonially unveiled during the launch. Underscoring the linkage between water and health, Choose Wellness, Choose Nestlé nutritionists-dietitians were on hand to provide free nutrition counseling, and sampling of Nescafe Protect, Milo, Nestle Fitnesse and Nestle Pure Life water rounded out the event.
---quote ends

The love hormone

We have added two more breastfeeding books to our on-line Virtual Shop after these were presented at a lactation consultants conference we attended recently. If you are organising a conference or event in the UK and are interested in having Baby Milk Action attend with a stall with information, publications and merchandise, please let me know.

The additions to our Virtual Shop are:

'The Oxytocin Factor' by Kerstin Uvnäs Moberg. A groundbreaking look at "the love hormone, " and its role in everything from childbirth and bonding to human relationships.

'Breastfeeding Made Simple' by Kathleen Kendall-Tackett and Nancy Mohrbacher, which acknowledges : "Some mothers find that breastfeeding is more challenging than they expected—and anything but simple."

To view these and other publications on breastfeeding and infant care see:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/publications03.html

If you have read the books already, why not leave a comment on our site?

Critics of not the Nestlé boycott

One of the things that takes more time than I would like is having to respond to attacks on the boycott campaign strategy which misrepresent or misunderstand what the strategy is all about.

Here's an example in the long, long discussion about 'ethical consumerism' prompted by an article on the Guardian website yesterday.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/cath_elliott/2008/03/matters_of_conscience.html

My response to a ill-informed, would-be expert:

---
[Someone said] "If you think it was the boycott that caused the scandal of US pressure on Nestle to come to light in the Philippines you are living in cloud cuckoo land. What caused it to come to light was persistent lobbying by those opposed to formula; many of those might also have supported the boycott but that was coincidental. As for those who claim consumer pressure will cause Nestle to give up selling formula, do the math."

As I said, see the range of strategies we used to achieve victory in the Philippines at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/update/update40b.html#philippines

It is a fact that the support of boycotters put the story on the front page there. Here's an example, not from cloud cuckoo land, but from the Philippines biggest-selling broadsheet:
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view_article.php?article_id=33842

The campaign succeeded in drawing attention to the industry attack on the law in the Philippines because the boycott keeps this issue in the spotlight. You are proving the fact.

You say: "As for those who claim consumer pressure will cause Nestle to give up selling formula, do the math."

Which is not what the boycott is aimed at doing at all. If you wish to criticise the campaign, please at least check what it is about before doing so.

The demand on Nestlé is straightforward: to bring its baby food marketing policies and practices into line with the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant Resolutions of the World Health Assembly.

Article 11.3 calls on companies to abide by these measures independently of government measures. As I said above, they can comply when given no choice by independently monitored and enforced legislation. The campaign works for legislation. Baby Milk Action and its partners in the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) train policy makers around the world.

The companies are not being asked to do anything unreasonable - they were even involved in the discussions that let to the International Code and most now claim to abide by it. Monitoring shows they do not, with Nestlé being the worst of the companies, hence it being targeted by the boycott.

A four-point plan has been put to Nestle aimed at saving infant lives and ultimately ending the boycott. Nestle has rejected it out of hand.

Other companies are targeted by exposés and letter writing campaigns. A bottle and teat company has been cooperating with campaigners as it wishes to be 'code compliant' and is making the necessary changes. Another company recently announced a 'root and branch' review of its policies and practices after taking over one of Nestle's leading competitors and we are in discussion with it over what it will change. Continued monitoring will show whether it can be declared 'code compliant'.

Please look at the boycott section of the Baby Milk Action website for further information on what the boycott is really about:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/
---

For examples of Nestle policies and practices that have changed as a direct result of being targeted by the boycott campaign, see the site and this blog.

Ethical consumerism article in The Guardian

There is an article on The Guardian website today by Cath Elliott about ethical consumerism, which refers to the Nestlé boycott. You can find it here:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/cath_elliott/2008/03/matters_of_conscience.html

Here is the section on the boycott, with the links as on the original: "I also try not to eat or drink any Nestlé products; this is because despite years of protests and boycotts, the company still refuses to abide by the International code of marketing of breast milk substitutes. The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates that some 1.5 million children die each year in the developing world because they are not adequately breastfed, and yet Nestlé continues to market baby milk formula in countries where access to clean water supplies cannot be guaranteed, and where bottle feeding is tantamount to a death sentence."

Feel free to join the debate this has prompted. I have posted the following comment:

The support for the Nestle boycott is much appreciated. The boycott keeps Nestle's pushing of baby milk in the public eye (as has just been demonstrated) and has helped lead to changes in company policies and marketing practices.

Baby Milk Action and our partners have had a lot of success in working for legislation implementing marketing requirements adopted by the World Health Assembly, the world's highest health policy setting body. Where companies have no choice they can comply with these measures. They are not being asked to do something that is impossible.

But where they can get away with it they push formula, undermining breastfeeding and contributing to needless death and suffering of babies. For those parents and carers that do use formula, they do not provide the information they need to reduce risks.

We are currently exposing Nestle's advertising of infant formula in South Africa, which Nestle is attempting to defend, despite the fact its own policy says it does not advertise formula in developing countries. See an example of its shelf talker for retail outlets and take our quiz at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemmarch08vote.html

The latest global monitoring report produced with our partners has results from 67 countries and shows Nestle to be the worst of the companies, which is why it is singled out for boycott action. Nestlé responds with PR campaigns and recently took a group of MPs on a jolly to South Africa, one of whom is now vocally defending Nestle's advertising of infant formula there, despite the fact Nestle has been told such practices breach the marketing code and despite the fact they are illegal in the MPs own constituency. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/03/buxton-residents-speak.html

Nestle's latest PR offensive, its 'Shared Value' report, has received criticism from campaigners working on this and other issues. Rather than acting to change its practices, Nestle invests in trying to divert criticism. The boycott is an essential tool to increase the financial cost to Nestle of its abuse of human rights. Find out more on the Baby Milk Action website, where this response to the 'Shared Value' report can be found:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press4march08.html

Sheila McKechnie Awards 2008

One of our director's, Lisa Northover, was shortlisted for a Sheila McKechnie award last year. Here is news of this year's competition:

---
An opportunity to apply for a bespoke campaigning support programme.

The Sheila McKechnie Foundation is looking to support 12 individuals who would benefit from a campaigning support programme especially designed for their needs.

One of last year's winners told us:
“Winning an Award has pushed me this far. I've now got the skills and will-power to keep going in the rest of my campaigning life.”

This is a unique opportunity for novice campaigners who rarely get the opportunity to receive a programme of personalised support to help them to improve the impact of their campaigning. The package includes a mix of one-to-one support and group workshops in addition to some rare shadowing opportunities.

Now in their third year, the Sheila McKechnie Awards are for individuals campaigning on a wide range of issues, including health, the environment, international development and issues relevant to communities. We also have awards especially for young people. This award is great for people who work or volunteer in the charity sector, and for those who wouldn’t necessarily describe themselves as campaigners, but as people who just want to change make a difference or change something.

More information about the award categories is available on our website http://www.sheilamckechnie.org.uk or you can contact Pushpa Dougall 020 7770 7892. Applications can be made by visiting www.sheilamckechnie.org.uk/showSub.php?id=70&page=3 . Please note the deadline is Monday 7 April.

Thank goodness for mother support groups

From time to time people contact Baby Milk Action for advice on feeding their child. This is not something we are able to give and we direct people to their health worker, mother support groups and independent sources of information, such as the National Health Service website and carelines and UNICEF's materials.

You can find links and contact details via this blog or on our website links page at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/pages/links.html

We do not link to commercial websites, partly because this could raise questions over our independence and partly because we do not have the resources to monitor the sites.

UK mother support groups are non-profit organisations and an important resource. We believe they should have better support from the government in acknowledgement of the important role they fill. Some do accept commercial sponsorship and we have welcomed groups producing and publishing their funding policies, which can be found on the Baby Feeding Law Group website:
http://www.babyfeedinglawgroup.org.uk/

Like Baby Milk Action (which accepts no commercial funding) the contributions of members and magazine subscribers is crucial to these groups. I've flagged up the work of different groups in the past and having just received an advertisement from La Leche League GB will give them a plug. It is great to know these groups exist when we need to refer mothers to somewhere they can find support and independent information.

Please do make contact and join or subscribe if you can. If you are able to run an ad like this one to help promote their work, I am sure that would be appreciated.

New t-shirts for summer!!

The clocks change this weekend in the UK and before you know it Spring will be back and Summer around the corner. Whether you are here or not, now is a great time to buy one (or more) of Baby Milk Action's famous fridge magnet t-shirts, now available in two new colours: black and fuchsia. They show a line of pregnant and breastfeeding fridge magnets - the real things are also available.

Take a look at them in our on-line Virtual Shop now by clicking here:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/tshirts.html

All profits help with our campaigns holding the baby food companies to account. If you want to see what we are up against, consider Nestlé's infant formula advertising in Africa, which we are currently targeting, but Nestlé is attempting to excuse. We think the marketing standards Nestlé should abide by - and its own publicly stated policies - prohibit this advertising. Judge for yourself and participate in our vote at: http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemmarch08vote.html

Formula donations causing diarrhoea in emergency situations

The press release below, from the UNICEF East Asia website, reminds us of the need for care in providing help to mothers and infants in emergency situations. Find the original at:
http://www.unicef.org/eapro/media_7973.html

You can find resources for planning an appropriate response to emergency situations via my blog:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/10/babies-in-emergencies.html

Call to action to stop the use of breastmilk substitutes in emergencies

Jakarta, March 20th, 2008 - The lives of babies and young children are being put at risk by the inappropriate use of breastmilk substitutes, particularly in emergency situations, says a coalition of more than 100 nutrition and emergency experts.

“The protection, promotion and support of infant and young children feeding in emergencies is inadequate. Inappropriate use of breastmilk substitutes in emergencies, often received as unsolicited donations, endangers the lives of infants and young children,” says the coalition.

102 representatives from the UN, international NGOs, and Government from 16 countries gathered together in Bali 10th – 13th March at a meeting organized by the Emergency Nutrition Network. At the end of the 3 day meeting, a strongly worded statement was released with a call to action to prevent the continued use of breastmilk substitutes in emergencies and to improve the support of infant and young child feeding in emergencies in general.

“The issue of nutrition in emergencies, particularly for babies and young children, is of paramount importance …and one that need serious attention,” says Dr Gianfranco Rotigliano, UNICEF Representative to Indonesia. “We …..know that a decline in breastfeeding indicates an increase in the use of formula milk, which, even if used correctly, is inferior to breastmilk.”

In emergency situations when clean water and opportunities to clean feeding bottles are often lacking, the risks associated with artificial feeding are particularly high. There is a common mis-conception that families in emergencies need infant formula and powdered milk. Authorities in emergencies often see unsolicited donations of such products flooding the affected area.

“Systems are urgently needed to prevent and control such donations in order to protect the lives of young children. And the public and the well intentioned donors need to be informed that such products are not needed or wanted during emergencies,” says the coalition.

Presenters at the meeting emphasized the fact that improving infant and young child feeding during emergencies is one of the most effective ways of reducing death rates and preventing malnutrition.

In 2006 after the Yogyakarta earthquake, UNICEF, UNFPA, the local Department of Health, the University of Gadjah Mada and other partners conducted a survey. It began 21 days after the earthquake and found that some 70 per cent of households with children had received baby milk donations.

The survey revealed that infant formula donations had contributed to a two-fold increase in formula consumption among children under-two and, consequently, a six-fold increase in rates of diarrhoea among these children. Diarrhoea is the second biggest killer of children in developing countries after acute respiratory tract infections.

This was one of the first surveys to document the extent and scale of infant formula donations and its impact on feeding practices and illness rates.

“We know through decades of medical research that breastfeeding children up to the age of two years, or even longer, gives them the optimum opportunity for growth, development and good health. In the first six months of life, it is the only food and drink a baby needs,” says Dr .Rotigliano.

*****************************************************
For further information contact:
Kirsty McIvor, Communication Officer, UNICEF
+ 62 21570 5816 ext 298/+62 8121052631

Help put Nestlé in the Corporate Hall of Shame

You can vote to put Nestlé in the Corporate Hall of Shame. This is an initiative of the US organisation, Corporate Accountability International, which, as Infact, launched the first boycott of Nestlé in 1977, leading to the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes in 1981. Go to this page:
http://www.stopcorporateabuse.org/cms/page1669.cfm

While our work with partners in bringing those measures into legislation is helping to stop malpractice and save lives, Nestlé continues aggressive marketing, where it can get away with it. The current boycott puts pressure on Nestlé to abide by the marketing requirements elsewhere and has helped force some changes in policy. However, as I write, Neslé is attempting to excuse its advertising of infant formula in South Africa, despite this being a clear breach of the Code and Nestlé's own Infant Formula Policy for Developing Countries. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemmarch08vote.html

As you'll see from the Corporate Accountability International profile on Nestlé, there are a whole host of other concerns, some of which we have also addressed in our press release on Nestlé latest PR offensive, its 'Shared Value' report. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press4march08.html

Nestlé in Sri Lanka - baby food regulations and the dairy industry

The Nestlé 'Shared Value' report says on page 55: "Results of the most
recent of these external audits, carried out in Sri Lanka, can be accessed from www.babymilk.nestle.com"

But visit that website and there is no sign of this audit. The most recent 'Action Report' is June 2003! I have documented here before how these reports, which were supposed to be monthly, became a channel through which Nestlé had to admit to breaking the marketing code for baby foods and apologise for misrepresenting comments from others. Baby Milk Action gained a full-page right to reply in one issue. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2006/10/searching-for-action.html

The latest news blurb highlighted on the home page is from 24 July 2007.

So why is the audit not really there?

It could be because Nestlé does not wish to expose it to scrutiny. Baby Milk Action has campaigned about Nestlé malpractice in Sri Lanka in the past. When new regulations were being introduced ten years ago, Nestlé lobbied against provisions implementing the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/compfeb98.html#2

Any improvements in marketing practices in Sri Lanka are despite Nestlé's best efforts to undermine the regulations, not because of any willingness to comply.

Also in Sri Lanka, we have examined the impact of Nestlé and other multinational companies on the dairy industry, which has seen small-scale farmers lose their livelihoods and the price of milk to the public soar.

There is an article in the Sri Lankan newspaper, The Daily Mirror, today recalling the role of the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) in achieving stronger regulations.

The article also addresses the destruction of the indigenous dairy industry, though it does not mention Nestlé by name. Here is an extract:

---Daily Mirror extract
Handing over the domestic dairy development to a transnational company was similar to handing over a flock of lambs to a wolf for protection. Today the destruction of the domestic milk production is complete and is replaced by a monopoly over the milk market which is controlled by a few milk companies. The prices are dictated by the industry. As a direct result almost half the children, under five, are acutely malnourished and wasted, and 40 percent of pregnant women are anaemic. The Asian Human Rights Commission has recorded the price of a 400 gm packet of Milk Powder as Rs 6.00 in 1977, Rs 50.00 in 1994, Rs 100.00 in 2001, Rs 195 in October 2007 and today it is Rs 275. The Consumer Affairs Authority seems to have no way of controlling the rapidly increasing milk prices.
---extract ends

I interviewed a Sri Lanakan campaigner about this in 2002 to find out about Nestlé's impact in the country after a debate in the UK with Nestlé's Beverley Mirando, who is from Sri Lanka, and claimed people in the country welcome Nestlé's impact. I knew there had been demonstrations against the company on the milk issue and wanted to hear direct from people there. You can listen to the interview at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/ram/monlar/monlarinterview.html

So while Mr. Brabeck, Nestlé Chief Executive, tours with the 'Shared Value' report boasting that Nestlé benefits millions of people, it seems that people on the ground have a different view. Perhaps this is why the Sri Lanka audit is not yet available on the Nestlé website.

Nestlé's impact on the dairy industry in Sri Lanka is a recurring story. I have documented similar concerns about market domination followed by price hikes elsewhere. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/04/right-again-unfortunately.html

By coincidence, China Knowledge is reporting today: "Nestle to raise milk powder prices up to 30% in China".

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

Will Nestlé pay compensation for its quality control failings?

My colleague, Patti Rundall, was on South African radio at the weekend, being asked about the recall of Nestlé formula there. A batch has been manufactured with incorrect levels of ingredients. The day after the announcement, Nestlé had received 15 customer complaints and stated: "We have been told that the babies have been vomiting or having diarrhoea" . We have asked Nestlé to clarify where the products are sold. See my blog from last week at:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/03/letter-to-brabeck.html

In her interview, Patti raised the question of compensation for affected families. Compensation is important not only for the families, but to help motivate companies bring their quality control standards up to expected levels. This has been picked up in the South African media. See:
http://www.sabcnews.com/south_africa/health/0,2172,165962,00.html

In the UK we would expect compensation to be paid and don't believe families in South Africa be treated differently.

Questions over Nestlé policy and product distribution in Africa

Yesterday I faxed Nestlé's Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Brabeck, about Nestlé's bizarre decision to defend its infant formula supermarket promotion in South Africa and also to offer assistance over Nestlé's latest formula recall.

I am seeking an explanation as to why Nestlé is advertising infant formula in Africa, let alone defending the practice, when the Nestlé Infant Formula Policy for Developing Countries states: "NESTLE DOES NOT advertise or promote infant formula to the public."

It could be that I have forgotten what words mean and somehow Nestlé's point-of-sale promotion (which the company itself has described as 'advertising') is somehow consistent with its statement that it does not advertise or promote. To help me out, please take a look at Nestlé's stated commitment and let me know what you think:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemmarch08vote.html

The issue with the latest formula recall is a batch of Lactogen infant formula containing higher levels of zinc, iron and copper. This has been causing illness according to a Nestlé spokesman quoted by Reuters on Wednesday:

"'We have received 15 customer complaints since our announcement yesterday ... We have been told that the babies have been vomiting or having diarrhoea,' Theo Mxakwe, spokesman for Nestle South Africa, told Reuters."

The batch code is 73100179LI.

Two weeks ago Nestlé recalled Nan 2 formula for a similar reason, as the South African Daily Despatch notes. That batch code is 73310179B2.

According to media reports Nestlé has announced the recall in South Africa, Botswana and Zambia.

The International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) monitors Nestlé practices across Africa and is looking out for the tins.

I have asked Mr. Brabeck to confirm if any other countries are involved.

In 2005 Nestlé shifted its Zimbabwe operation to South Africa as a cost cutting exercise. Problems soon after the shift resulted in parents in Zimbabwe who had been using its formula desparately seeking supplies and the South African HIV intervention programme, which provides formula for some mothers, experienced shortages.

In the past I have personally found formula from South Africa in Mozambique.

In other recalls Nestlé has been reluctant to take action. In 2005, an Italian Judge ruled that Nestlé formula should be seized by the police as Nestlé had failed to order a recall over contamination with chemicals from the label printing process identified months before.

In China in 2005 Nestlé refused to order a recall of formula with higher-than-permitted levels of iodine until consumer action prompted a re-think. The China Daily reported Nestlé had responded : "with the speed and alacrity of a sailor drunk on shore leave."

In 2002 when Beba infant formula was found contaminated with Enterobacter Sakazakii after the death of a child in Belgium, Nestlé initially only recalled the formula within the European Union as this had been ordered by authorities, but IBFAN found the formula from the same batch on sale elsewhere.

For links to supporting documents see:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press22nov05.html

So the point is, the formula in this latest case could be in countries other than those indicated publicly.

The IBFAN network is doing what it can to check and I hope that Mr. Brabeck will cooperate by providing clarification on where the formula is sold.

Can Nestlé really advertise infant formula in Africa as it claims?

On our March 2008 Campaign for Ethical Marketing action sheet, we have exposed various Nestlé violations, including its advertising of infant formula in a supermarket promotion in Johannesburg in December 2007.

Now, Nestlé criticises us for claiming practices are violations by saying we misinterprete the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1981. It is claiming it has done nothing wrong in advertising infant formula in South Africa.

Nestlé claims: "Nestlé was the first company to voluntarily adopt the WHO Code of Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes (the WHO Code) as a minimum standard in all developing countries."

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

The Nestlé Infant Formula Policy in Developing Countries: "NESTLE DOES NOT advertise or promote infant formula to the public."

Yet, all the same it is defending its shelf talker in South Africa, just as it defended its promotional fliers for Lactogen in Bangladesh last year.

I don't see how Nestlé can produce such materials, let alone defend them, when it is claiming the Code is its minimum standard. But that is exactly what it is doing in a letter in the Buxton Advertiser today.

I'll respond to the detail of that letter on a future occassion. It is this overarching question which is perplexing me today and I want your views because I am feeling as if I have fallen down a rabbit hole and words no longer mean what it says in the dictionary, but what Nestlé wants them to mean at that particular moment.

So please help me out. Reading what the Code says, reading what Nestlé's Policy says, do you think it should be advertising infant formula in Africa?

You can find more detail and give your vote at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemmarch08vote.html