Implications of a possible takeover of Cadbury's by Nestlé

Nestlé, one of the four most boycotted companies on the planet, is apparently considering a takeover of Cadbury's - a venerable UK chocolate company.

http://www.canada.com/business/fp/Cadbury+break+faces+sticky+obstacle/1972518/story.html

Somebody has already posted a petition against the takeover here:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/nonestlecadburys/index.html

While there are competition issues pertinent to the takeover, Nestlé refused to accept a ruling against its takeover of the Garoto chocolate company in Brazil - also an old family firm - from the competition authorities. Nestlé was warned at the outset not to integrate the businesses and reportedly signed an agreement saying it would undo the takeover if the competition authorities ruled that it should. However, it embarked on a five-year legal battle that eventually overturned the ruling against the takeover on the technical grounds that the authorities had taken too long to issue it. Nestlé is now reported to control 70% of the Brazilian chocolate market, reaching 100% in some sectors (see this Portuguese article).

A monopoly supplier is bad news for consumers as it means there is no price competition to keep prices down. But Nestlé has also been accused of price fixing in the US chocolate market with Mars and Hershey (its possible partner in the Cadbury takeover). See:

http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/02/nestle-chocolate.html

Nestlé is the target of a boycott because of the way it pushes its baby foods, putting its own products before infant health - and then misleads people and spies on campaigners to try to protect its reputation. See:

http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2009/09/nestle-rcslt.html

Cadbury's has a better reputation; recently it brought one of its leading brands into the fairtrade system, more than tripling the market paying fair prices to Ghanaian cocoa farmers. See:

http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/press_office/press_releases_and_statements/march_2009/cadbury_dairy_milk_commits_to_going_fairtrade.aspx

By contrast, Nestlé is accused of failing to act on child slavery and other child labour in its cocoa supply chain and of using the Fairtrade mark awarded to a token coffee product to divert criticism of how it treats farmers. See:

http://www.nestlecritics.org/

And:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/yqsanswered/yqanestle07.html

It remains to be seen whether Cadbury shareholders will consider taking the money of such an unethical company, which will see their famous brands added to the boycott list.

There are other reasons why they may wish to think carefully. In 1986, Nestlé made a hostile takeover of Rowntree, another old family chocolate firm. Despite promises to protect the UK operation, Smarties production eventually moved to Germany, Black Magic to the Czech Republic and Dairy Box to Spain. In 2006, 645 people were made redundant as a result of these changes.

Tony Randerson, Amicus officer for Nestle Rowntree in York, spoke out about the way the remaining workers were treated:

http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/04/changes-at-nestle.html

“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.”

Nestlé not only continues with such practices, it rewards managers who implement them: in other news, Nestlé is appointing the Chief Executive Officer of Nestlé Philippines to head up the global infant nutrition business. It is in the Philippines where Nestlé is accused of ignoring court rulings regarding its refusal to negotiate pension rights with workers and of targeting trade unionists. This case is featured in the Nestlé Critics report submitted to the UN Global Compact office earlier this year. See:

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

It was in the Philippines were Nestlé baby food marketing was exposed, alongside that of other companies, in a film produced by UNICEF. See:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/videos.html#philippines

Our July 2009 Campaign for Ethical Marketing action sheet features Nestlé targeting of mothers in the Philippines amongst other cases. See:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemjuly09.html#1

Any chance of a change in direction in baby food marketing should not be expected with the CEO ultimately responsible for these practices in the Philippines during the last 5 years being promoted to run the global operation.

We will remain vigilant in monitoring Nestlé's baby food marketing practices. Having to spend time revising boycott materials to include Cadbury brands is something we could do without.

A close look at Nestle's letter in the RCSLT Bulletin shows the dishonesty used to protect this company's unethical practices

The September 2009 issue of The Bulletin of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists (RCSLT) contains a letter from Zelda Wilson of Nestlé defending the company's baby milk marketing practices.

I am going to reproduce Zelda's letter in its entirety below. Why would I do Nestlé the favour of freely publicising its claims, you may ask? For the simple reason that sunlight is the best disinfectant and by showing how deliberately misleading Nestlé is - and the reasons behind such dishonesty - all will better understand the strategies of this most unethical of companies.

Here is the letter as published:

---Letter from Nestlé published in the RCSLT Bulletin September 2009

Nestlé firmly believes that breast-feeding is the best way to feed a baby and we are strongly committed to the protection and promotion of breast-feeding [Note 1].

However, when mothers cannot, or choose not to breastfeed, infant formula is the only product recognised by the World Health Organisation (WHO) as a suitable alternative [Note 2].

All Nestlé infant formula labels contain the "breast is best" message, together with other important reminders to mothers recommended by the WHO Code [Note 3].

In the UK Nestlé funded a DVD in 2004 for healthcare professionals to use to encourage teenagers to breastfeed. Although funded by Nestlé, the project was overseen by an independent midwife and reviewed professionally by senior healthcare professionals [Note 4].

In 1981, Nestlé took part in devising the World Health Organisation Code, which recommends to companies how they are allowed to market infant formula [Note 5]. The essence of the Code is that infant formula can only be marketed through healthcare professional and only by sharing scientific information [Note 6].

Nestlé has a robust internal system in place to make sure our employees abide by this Code and we also make sure our marketing practices are audited by independent, specialist professional service firms on a regular basis. Any violations are reported and addressed immediately [Note 7].

Nestlé was rated 'Best in Class' for compliance and third party verification relating to the WHO Code, as well as for reporting and transparency by GES Investment Services, Northern Europe's leading analysis house for socially responsible investment [Note 8].

You might want to look on: www.babymilk.nestle.com to get further information [Note 9].

Zelda Wilson

Nestlé

---Quote ends

There is an Editor's Note that follows the letter in the RCSLT Bulletin, which states: "Nestlé provided resources to support their current position and are keen to respond to any issues that RCSLT members raise. If you would like to read the resources or correspond with Zelda, please write to bulletin@rcslt.org"

The details below will help anyone members of RCSLT wishing to do so. If you find it too daunting to unpick Nestlé’s blunt, but untrue, assurances, it is worth recalling that Baby Milk Action has invited Nestlé to participate in an independent expert tribunal to examine claim and counter claim in detail, but Nestlé refuses to even set out its terms and conditions for doing so.

For a short period Nestlé did participate in debates, mainly at universities, with Baby Milk Action, but lost them all and has now reverted to its position of refusing to attend if we are present. We have a recording of a debate from a school available at:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/videos.html#debate

Perhaps before the RCSLT accepts any funding from Nestlé in future, it would like to consider inviting a debate at its conference?

It is also worth remembering that the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) spent two years examining similar claims made by Nestlé in an anti-boycott advertisement. Though it ruled in Baby Milk Action’s favour in 1999 on all our complaints Nestlé continues to repeat similar claims where the ASA has no power to investigate – such as in the letter to the RCSLT. See:http://www.babymilkaction.org/pages/jbc.html#1

Untrue and misleading claims in the Nestlé letter.

Note 1: Evidence gathered by people on the ground around the world shows that Nestlé systematically undermines breastfeeding in the way it promotes its breastmilk substitutes. The example below is Nestlé's Nan infant formula purchased in Malawi in August 2009 - Malawi is one of the world's poorest countries with under-5 mortality at 140 per 1,000 live births. Yet Nestlé promotes its formula with a logo claiming it 'protects'. The logo detracts from the legally-required 'breastmilk is best for babies' message, a message that Nestlé refused to translate into the national language of the country until Baby Milk Action campaigned on this issue, bringing it to the attention of Mark Thomas who exposed the practice on national UK television, prompting Nestlé to back down. Baby Milk Action is currently running a campaign calling on Nestlé to remove its 'protect' logo from Malawi and all other countries - this is a global strategy - the labels were on proud display at Nestlé's shareholder meeting in Switzerland in April 2009.

You can take action over this and other some other current examples of Nestlé malpractice at:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemjuly09.html

Note 2. Pasteurised donor breastmilk is used in many countries when mothers cannot breastfeed, for example if their baby is premature.

While Nestlé claims that infant formula is the only 'suitable alternative' it also promotes its whole milk in the infant feeding sections of pharmacies and supermarkets around the world and in materials such as this calendar from the Dominican Republic.

Many poor mothers who use powdered milk to feed their infants use unsuitable powdered whole milk rather than formula, which is typically three times the price.

Again this practice is driven from the top of Nestlé - the picture below is from one of Nestlé's own 'social responsibility' reports and shows Nestlé auditors next to Nido whole milk alongside formula in the baby food section of a pharmacy. Baby Milk Action raised this with Nestlé and called on it to keep whole milk away from infant formula in retail outlets, but it refuses to do so, arguing that as whole milk is not a bona fide breastmilk substitute, no marketing regulations apply to it! It may be totally immoral not to stop this practice, but it is all money in the bank for Nestlé.

See: http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/yqsanswered/yqanestle03.html

Earlier this year a study published in the British Medical Journal exposed coffee creamer being promoted with a logo showing a bear with a baby in the breastfeeding position, which led to it being used in feeding bottles. The exposure of an issue that had been raised for years did prompt Nestlé to remove the logo. See:

http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2009/01/nestle-bear-brand.html

Note 3. As the label from Malawi shows, Nestlé undermines the required 'Breast is Best' message. The WHO Code prohibits idealizing text and images from labels, so it is dishonest of Nestlé to imply it complies with the Code's requirements when it has 'protect' logos and other claims on labels.

In addition, Nestlé refuses to tell those parents and carers who do use formula how to prepare it to reduce risks of possible intrinsic contamination. Powdered formula is not sterile and babies have died as a result of Enterobacter Sakazakii contamination in Nestlé formula in the past. Companies have been called on to make those who use formula aware of the risks and to revise their instructions so these can be reduced. Nestlé refuses to do this. See:

http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/02/powdered-infant-formula-is-not-sterile.html

Note 4. It is staggering that Nestlé is boasting about a DVD in the letter when this was distributed in breach of UK law, which requires that such materials receive prior authorisation from the responsible government department. Baby Milk Action has campaigned on this and finally it was taken up by Croydon Trading Standards which has informed us that it has "“written to the company stating that they need to obtain approval from the Department of Health.” In other words, the video had been distributed in breach of the Regulations since its launch. As far as I am aware permission has still not been granted - I have forwarded Nestlé's letter to Trading Standards.

So why is Nestlé boasting to RCSLT of a film distributed in breach of the law? Because it thinks it can get away with people not knowing the background.

The history of the film is more illuminating still. It was launched at the Royal College of Midwives Conference in 2004 by Chris Sidgwick, resumably the midwife that Zelda is referring to as 'independent'. At the launch Chris made an appeal for midwives to drop their support for the Nestlé boycott so as to make use of the video. We raised at the time that the video could only be distributed if the Department of Health had given permission, but Nestlé went ahead regardless.

Zelda Wilson then took Chris and some others on an all-expenses-paid trip to Nestlé HQ in Switzerland to prepare an article on the baby milk issue. The resulting article was published in the British Journal of Midwifery, but was so misleading and flawed that Baby Milk Action was given a substantial right to reply in a subsequent issue. Nestlé continues to distribute the article without our right to reply. The article really was very badly done, with references misused, quotes misapplied and other types of factual errors which led us to question - without satisfactory answers - whether it had gone through peer review. (The British Journal of Midwifery is itself known for breaching the baby food marketing requirements, advertising Aptamil on a free-gift calendar in a past issue for example). A full analysis with links to original documents can be found at:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/yqsanswered/yqanestle09.html

We then discovered that Nestlé was sponsoring study days run by an organisation called HCP Study Events - proprietor Chris Sidgwick. Communications from Chris about one event highlighted the expert speaker “Zelda Wilson a State Registered Dietician specialising in human interaction and behaviour", but failed to mention that Zelda Wilson works for Nestlé.

The HCP Study Events website does admit, however, that the organization is supported by a grant from the Nestlé Nutrtion Institute (see bottom of the page)– so much for Zelda’s claim of ‘independence’. See:

http://www.hcpstudyevents.org.uk/

As well as these financial links, Chris and Zelda formed part of a five-person contingent that lobbied students at Sheffield University to drop their support for the boycott in a visit on 31 January 2008 - fortunately students consulted Baby Milk Action, UNICEF and Save the Children and the report countered some, though not all, of the dishonest claims made. Save the Children recalled studies had found "violations by Nestlé are systematic. We have no reason to believe that this has changed." Students voted to retain the boycott when it came to a cross-campus referendum. See:

http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2009/03/sheffield-student-boycott.html

Earlier in 2009 we exposed that Chris was trying to recruit others to go on trips to Switzerland at Nestlé's expense to write articles. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/04/nestle-uk-strategy.html

Note 5. Nestlé's claim about taking part in devising the WHO Code is so shameless it is laughable. UNICEF and WHO convened meetings to discuss developing a Code in 1979 following a long campaign, including a Senate hearing called by the Senator Edward Kennedy, who passed away this week. You can see a clip of this at:

http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2009/08/edward-kennedy.html

It is true that industry was involved in these discussions alongside campaigning organisations, including representatives of the Baby Milk Action Coalition as we were known at that stage. Throughout Nestlé attempted to weaken the Code and its Vice President, Ernest Saunders, opposed the final version when it came before the World Health Assembly, calling it 'irrelevant' and 'unworkable' and ‘bereft of support from the world industry’.

But reading Zelda's re-writing of history, you would think Nestlé was behind the Code from the start! You can download a copy of Nestlé's letter and other documents from the time at:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/yqsanswered/yqanestle09.html

Note 6. The statement that "infant formula can only be marketed through healthcare professional and only by sharing scientific information" is nonsensical and does not reflect the provisions of the Code. Marketing includes the process of selling and formula can be sold through retail outlets, though some countries have attempted to limit sales to pharmacies.

What the Code restricts is PROMOTION. There should be no promotion of any type.

Companies are limited to providing scientific and factual information to health workers and it is for health workers to advise parents - not to market infant formula to them on behalf of Nestlé, but to provide them with objective information, including on the benefits of breastfeeding and the difficulty of reversing a decision to introduce infant formula.

The Code also prohibits companies giving gifts to health workers and seeking direct and indirect contact with parents - which Nestlé breaches systematically. Subsequent Resolutions also address the issue of conflicts of interest and call for special care when it comes to accepting sponsorship for health workers or programmes involved in infant feeding.

As the RCSLT is all too aware, Nestlé is very keen on sponsoring health workers.

Note 7. The claim that Nestlé's marketing is independently audited and violations addressed is untrue. Nestlé does pay a firm called Bureau Veritas to conduct audits – meaning it is not independent. Bureau Veritas audits are carried out not against the International Code, but Nestlé's own Instructions. As well as auditing against these weaker provisions, Bureau Veritas misses the violations documented by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) or excuses them.

When violations are reported to Nestlé directly it is similarly dismissive unless pressure from adverse publicity and the boycott prompts it to act, as in the case of refusing to label products in Malawi in Chichewa, the national language, as described above.

Nestlé similarly paid Bureau Veritas to audit its water bottling activities in the town of São Lourenço, Brazil, when the company was under fire for destroying an historic water park in the spa town. Nestlé claimed Bureau Veritas cleared it of any wrong-doing and found it was fully compliant with the legislation. When questioned by Baby Milk Action, Bureau Veritas, which had visited Brazil, admitted it was unaware that the Public Prosecutor in the town had taken Nestlé to court - Nestlé eventually agreed to stop pumping and to compensate the town under the threat of daily fines until it did so.

Questioned by Baby Milk Action as to why it had failed to mention these and other key facts showing Nestlé was breaking the law, Bureau Veritas admitted: "our work did not constitute a legal audit as such, nor did it include a review of the on-going civil action" (even this was incorrect as at that time Nestlé had agreed to the Prosecutor's demands). None of these facts has stopped Nestlé from claiming regarding this case: "a third party audit by Bureau Veritas confirms that we have acted in accordance with Brazilian legislation",

See:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press2march06.html

Note 8. Far from being 'Europe's leading analysis house for socially responsible investment' GES Investment Services is perhaps unique in the so-called ethical investment sector as it looks only to company reports on their activities rather than independent monitoring reports. IBFAN has asked GES to accept its monitoring reports as evidence of Nestlé malpractice and it refuses to do so, saying its analysis model does not allow this. Reputable organisations such as FTSE4Good exclude Nestlé from their ethical investment lists because the company's policies and practices to not meet their criteria. See:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/yqsanswered/yqanestle10.html

Note 9. Nestlé's 'Code Action' website has a curious history. It was launched amongst much fanfare as the online depository for monthly 'Code Action' reports. These reports were to showcase Nestlé's claim that it complies with the Code, but they very quickly became an embarrassment to Nestlé. One issue carried a substantial right to reply from Baby Milk Action after the company had denied our claim that it was hiring health workers to promote formula in rural areas of the Philippines. Other reports carried apologies to governments which Nestlé had falsely claimed had verified it was complying with the Code. The monthly reports became more and more infrequent and there hasn't been a new issue for some years. See:

http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2006/10/searching-for-action.html

Why is Nestlé targeting the RCSLT?

Nestlé attempts to forge links with health workers around the world, particularly those connected with infant feeding. In part this is as a route to target parents, for example by providing free gifts bearing the Nestlé name and styling of its formula. Zelda Wilson is on the record from one of her anti-boycott presentations as admitting the purpose of such gifts is: "to keep the company name and products in people's mind." When the gifts are for maternity wards then clearly the relevant product is infant formula. See:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemmarch08.html

Speech therapists have a role to play in infant feeding – indeed in Brazil it is common practice for milk banks to have a speech therapist as part of the team to help with positioning and because infant feeding methods can have a profound effect on development of the mouth and teeth. In countries such as Brazil Nestlé also attempts to woo speech therapists with financial support.

A related goal is that Nestlé can then use its links to try to improve its image. In part this may be by boasting of its financial support to the organization. It is also because an organization accepting Nestlé funding is inevitably drawn into defending the company in excusing its decision. So in The Bulletin the Editor suggests that the documents provided by Nestlé support its position, whereas objective analysis of these and source documents such as those I reference would expose how Nestlé has attempted to mislead.

If you question whether Nestlé could really be so dishonest in the assurances it has given in its letter, let me simply say you need to wake up and smell the non-Nescafé coffee.

That is the least of its sins. This is a company that puts its own profits before the health and well-being of infants. As well as using deception to divert criticism of its practices, there are other clues as to its nature, such as the fact it employed a former MI6 officer to hire a spy to infiltrate a campaign organisation in Switzerland. Many other concerns have been raised by campaigners and employees regarding other aspects of Nestlé's business. See:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/

I have contacted the Editor of The Bulletin asking that an objective assessment of Nestlé's claims is published after considering the source documents and other evidence. Failing that, I can provide a response to Nestlé. In the meantime, please do direct people to this analysis of Nestlé's claims to subject them to a little sunlight.

Nestle launches £43 million Nescafe coffee promotion - more opportunities to promote the boycott

Nestlé, one of the world's most boycotted companies, is about to launch a £ 43 million promotional campaign in the UK for Nescafé coffee, the principal target of the boycott.

You can obtain leaflets and posters with the 'Give Nescafé the Boot' logo from Baby Milk Action or download them here:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/downloads.html

There are many other resources for promoting the boycott at:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/boycott.html

I've posted the following comment on The Guardian website, which has a report on the promotional campaign at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/aug/31/nescafe-nestle-43m-advertising

---

Nescafe is, of course, the principal target of a consumer boycott over Nestle's aggressive marketing of baby foods. Monitoring around the world by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) - consisting of more than 200 groups in over 100 countires - finds Nestle to be the worst of the companies in pushing breastmilk substitutes in breach of international standards adopted by the World Health Assembly. Such tactics contribute to the unnecessary death and suffering of infants - according to UNICEF 1.5 million babies die every year for not being breastfed - and puts infants that have to be fed on formula at risk.

You can see current examples of malpractice highlighted by the UK group Baby Milk Action - including how Neste labels its formula as 'protecting' babies, when in truth they are more likely to become sick and, in conditions of poverty, to die than breastfed babies. See:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemjuly09.html

As The Guardian has previously reported, Nestle is one of the four most boycotted companies on the planet. See:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/businessinsight/archives/2005/09/01/branded.html

In the past it has tried to improve its image by launching a 'fairtrade' coffee - backed by a misleading national advertising campaign which failed to mention that just 0.1% of coffee farmers dependent on Nestle were involved in the scheme. The strategy was widely criticised, not least because Nestle's poor treatment of farmers and role in driving down prices paid to them, is a matter of record. See:

http://www.nestlecritics.org/

Senator Edward Kennedy - remembering his contribution to holding Nestlé and others to account

Senator Edward Kennedy passed away on Tuesday. He played a pivotal role in the baby milk campaign, calling Senate Hearings in 1978 and putting company executives on the spot about their aggressive marketing practices. The added calls for a marketing code was taken up by WHO and UNICEF and led to the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes three years later.

A press release on our website tells more. See:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press27aug09.html

Here's a clip of a Nestlé executive being put on the spot. The Hearings are so significant that even today Nestlé is trying to discredit them, distributing a paper with misrepresentation of what happened. See:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/yqsanswered/yqanestle09.html

Senator Kennedy found that executives felt they had no responsibility for investigating the conditions under which their formula was used.

You can find transcripts and a scan of a contemporary article from the Washington Post (24 May 1978) on the Hearings at:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/yqsanswered/yqanestle09.html#senate

Here's an extract from the Washington Post: "Oswaldo Ballarin, President of the Nestlé Co. Brazil, which produces infant formula, angrily denied the charges, saying: 'The US Nestlé Co. has advised me that their research indicates this is actually an indirect attack on the world's free economic system.' A red-faced Kennedy shot back: 'Now you can't seriously expect us to accept that... that these people are involved in some worldwide conspiracy to attack the free world's economic system.' Ballarin apologised."

International Milk Banking Conference in 2009

A message from the site of the UK Association for Milk Banking about a celebratory conference for a century of human donor milk banks taking place on Saturday, 26 September 2009 in Vienna.

Milk is pasteurised and stored and used principally for premature infants, who do far better than infants fed on formula and are less likely to develop the debilitating condition of necrotosing enterocolitis (gut tissue death).

---

The European Milk Banking Association (EMBA) is delighted to host this Centenary Anniversary Conference in Vienna, home to the world’s first established human milk bank. This will be an opportunity to learn from the accumulated wisdom of a century of milk banking and to identify current problems. We will also be considering how best to utilise this knowledge to ensure optimum safety and accountability as the future of milk banking unfolds.

Details and booking forms at:

http://www.stillen.de/we_stillen/emba_symposium2009.htm

Topics include:

• A century of milk banking

• Is donor breastmilk baby friendly?

• Achieving Optimum Nutrition for preterm infants

• Analysing breastmilk in practice

• Uses of Donor breastmilk – what next?

• Making a world of difference – a look at milk banking around the globe

---ends

Danone censured again for misleading parents over Milupa Aptamil formula

Danone picked up another ruling against its Milupa Aptamil follow-on formula this week from the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). This time it was for its television advertising, which suggests that Aptamil protects babies against infections because it contains IMMUNOFORTIS - a made up name, which is itself an idealizing claim.

Two weeks ago the ASA ruled Danone could not claim that IMMUNOFORTIS protects against infection or that Aptamil is the 'best follow-on formula' and that it had breached the Advertising Code's clauses on substantiation, truthfulness and comparisons. See:

http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2009/07/aptamil-not-best.html

Baby Milk Action did not figure in the latest ruling, and we were not aware of or consulted on the draft ruling or invited to submit evidence. This is surprising as we have been complaining about the television advertising to the authorities since it appeared and featured it as an example of malpractice in the monitoring reports we produce for the Baby Feeding Law Group, which are submitted to the ASA. It was listed in the March 2009 report as 'ASA investigating' - but we were not subsequently contacted. See:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/publications01.html#bflgreports

Congratulations to the members of the public who registered complaints with the ASA. Despite these recent rulings, the ASA has a very poor record in even taking up the cases reported to it, generally rejecting them out of hand. It has also rejected the role assigned to it in the Guidance Notes accompanying the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations 2007 (see correspondence in the March 2009 report stating: "We have no remit or authority to apply standards to promotions or communications that are beyond the scope of the Codes (regardless of the sector in question) and the ASA Council cannot be bound by the content of a guidance document."

The advertisements show a protective glow around children fed on Aptamil, with the suggestion this wards of germs, such as when other children sneeze on them.

Links to company contact pages to take action over unethical baby food marketing

Have you sent messages to the companies that put infants at risk by pushing baby milk in ways that breach the marketing standards adopted by the World Health Assembly? That contravene the right of mothers' to receive accurate information on formula? Cases were highlighted on our Campaign for Ethical Marketing action sheet for July 2009, which is available on our website at:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemjuly09.html

You can send messages via company websites. I only give the general link to the site as the companies keep moving the specific contact page, perhaps trying to shake us off.

But for now, those below work. On the campaign sheet you find a suggested message that you can cut and paste into the comment box on the company website and edit as you see fit (though I prefer it if people don't get abusive as this may be used against the campaign!)

Nestlé - for claiming its formula 'protects' when children fed on it are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies, and other cases.

http://www.nestle.com/Common/Header/ContactUs.htm

Danone - requesting that it respects the Advertising Standards Authority ruling against claims it makes about Aptamil and Cow & Gate formula, and removes the untrue claims from all materials and labels. Danone is the parent company, owning Nutricia, Milupa and Cow & Gate brands (and it is Milupa Aptamil). They may pass it on to the subsidiary company, but we want to reach the people at the top of the empire so they know people are concerned. It is Danone that may face a consumer boycott in the future if it does not take action. It is starting to rival Nestlé for malpractice, particularly in Asia as it tries to compete.

You can find Danone country sites at:

http://www.danone.com/en/tools/group-websites.html

The UK site is:

http://www.danone.co.uk/contact-us.php

Mead Johnson - for making untrue claims about its Enfamil formula (claims similar to those the ASA ruled against in the Danone case, above).

The US site contact form requires US address information, information on children in the family and offers free samples. I was able to submit the form, putting in my real address, with the Mead Johnson Zip code (477421). The link is:

https://www.mjn.com/app/iwp/B2CProcessContactFormInfo.do

I also tried the UK site at:

http://functions.tellonline.com/Tellformmail.asp

You can find address and fax numbers via these links.

Professor Kramer sets record straight over 'breastfeeding controversy' articles

Professor Kramer has given an interview to the Independent on Sunday explaining how journalists misrepresented his research and what he said about it when writing articles suggesting the benefits of breastfeeding are questionable.

These articles appeared shortly before the UK Advertising Standards Authority published a ruling against Danone/Milupa's claim that Aptamil is the 'best follow-on formula' and claims about it building a child's immunity, leading to references to the 'controversy' over the benefits of breastfeeding appearing in some reports. Now it is World Breastfeeding Week, there is the same danger. See:

http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2009/07/media-coverage-aptamil.html

Whether the hidden hand of the formula industry was behind the articles, or it was simply journalists looking to stir up an argument and being sloppy or dishonest with their representation of Professor Kramer's research is probably something we will never know.

However, this is what Professor Kramer has said to the Independent on Sunday, see:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/press-twisted-my-words-says-academic-in-breastmilk-row-1766147.html

"Journalists certainly have the right to express their own opinions, but not to misquote experts they choose to interview in order to support those opinions. That sort of sensationalist journalist would not surprise me from the tabloids, but I had expected better from The Atlantic and The Times."

The article continues:

---extract

The Times quoted Kramer, who is based at McGill University, Montreal, as saying there was "very little evidence" breastfeeding reduces the risk of a range of diseases from leukaemia to heart disease. Yet, what he actually said was: "The existing evidence suggests that breastfeeding may protect against the risk of leukaemia, lymphoma, inflammatory bowel disease, type 1 diabetes, heart disease and blood pressure." All he did concede was that we need "more and better studies to pursue these links", a common cry from academics lacking in funding.

As for the article merely casting him "in the camp that believes that breastfeeding will turn out to have a slight effect on brain development", well, that hardly squared with his life's work, he said yesterday. "There is an IQ advantage to breastfeeding by as much as three or four points. It's not the difference between Einstein and a mental retard at an individual level, but it means having a smarter population on average, fewer children with school difficulties, and more gifted children."

He added: "There really isn't any controversy about which mode of feeding is more beneficial for the baby and the mother, but when you read the article in The Times it sounds like there is." Furthermore, he points out: "I'm not aware of any studies that have observed any health benefits of formula feeding. That's important, and any mother weighing the benefits of breastfeeding vs formula feeding needs to know that."

---extract ends

Professor Kramer also told the journalists that the benefits of breastfeeding are so clear there is no need for breastfeeding advocates to overstate the case. This was flipped to suggest he was condemning advocates for overstating the case.

Speaking on the BBC Radio 4 Woman's Hour programme, Professor Kramer again commented on how the quote attributed to him regarding the evidence for the benefits of breastfeeding was incorrect. He did suggest greater research was needed and that public health advocates should not rely on older studies, particularly with regard to allergy prevention. You can listen to Professor Kramer and Professor Mary Renfrew at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/01/2009_29_thu.shtml

He stressed there have been no health benefits found for formula feeding. The discussion also covered why the issue had blown up, the support needed for breastfeeding and that mothers who use formula should not be made to feel guilty. He stated clearly that he has no problems with the expression 'breast is best' and that there is no question that 'breastfeeding is better than formula feeding where it is possible'.

The articles have led to these misrepresentations of Professor Kramer's work and statements being reproduced in other reports - such as some on the ASA ruling - and on talkboards, causing harm that will likely echo on for years and undermine the right of mothers to accurate information.

Conspiracy or cock-up? It is always difficult to judge.

Even the Independent on Sunday article, setting out to set the record straight, misleadingly labels Baby Milk Action as 'anti-formula campaigners', both unwarranted and an industry portrayal we are trying to escape. It states clearly on our home page 'Baby Milk Action is not anti-baby milk', so what we have here is probably a journalist in too much of a hurry. But we have to live with the consequences.

To set that record straight, let me stress we are 'infant health campaigners' and work both to protect breastfeeding and to protect babies fed on formula. We do this through monitoring baby food company policies and practices against the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant Resolutions adopted by the World Health Assembly - companies are expected to abide by this code independently of whether it has been introduced in government measures.

We work for legislation implementing the Code and Resolutions and hold companies to account through campaigns such as the Nestlé boycott, which targets the worst of the companies. This does not make us anti-formula - as it explains on our home page:

"Breastmilk substitutes are legitimate products for when a child is not breastfed and does not have access to expressed or donor breastmilk. Companies should comply with composition and labelling requirements and other Code requirements to reduce risks - independently of government measures. Parents have a right to accurate, independent information. Baby Milk Action is not anti-baby milk. Our work protects all mothers and infants from irresponsible marketing."

World Breastfeeding Week 2009

World Breastfeeding Week starts tomorrow (1-7 August). The theme is Breastfeeding, A Vital Emergency Response: Are You Ready? You can find out more, download materials and find events at:
http://www.worldbreastfeedingweek.org/

UNICEF and WHO have made statements in support of the week, which is coordinated by the World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action.

UNICEF's statement includes: "Around 9 million children under five die every year, largely from preventable causes... According to the Lancet, optimal breastfeeding in the first two years of life, especially exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months, can have the single largest impact on child survival of all preventative interventions, with the potential to prevent 12 to 15% of all under age 5 deaths in the developing world... This year's World Breastfeeding Week provides an opportunity to sensitize policy-makers, donors, implementing partners and the general public to the benefits of breastfeeding, to its particular importance in emergency situations, and to the need to protect and support mothers to breastfeeding during emergencies."

You can find the full UNICEF statement at:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/pdfs/UNICEFWBW2009.pdf

The WHO statements is available at:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/pdfs/WHOWBW2009.pdf

One country facing an emergency is Malawi, one of the world's poorest countries, where 13% of the population is infected with HIV.

In conditions of poverty, infants have a better chance of escaping HIV and being protected from other infections if they are exclusively breastfed. Yet in Malawi, Nestlé is promoting its formula with a logo claiming that it 'protects'. Formula is very expensive and those that believe the claim that the formula 'protects' may well use it alongside breastfeeding - mixed feeding is the worst possible scenario for the transmission of the virus.

It is a government requirement that tins have warnings that breastmilk is best for babies, but Nestlé refused to translate these into Chichewa, despite a government request to do so, because of 'cost restraints'. It took a Baby Milk Action campaign, that led to Mark Thomas highlighting this irresponsible marketing on UK television, to change Nestlé's mind, and further campaigning to persuade Nestlé to show cup feeding, rather than bottle feeding, in line with government policies. See:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/compfeb00.html

So campaigning works. Now we need to persuade Nestlé to remove the 'protect' logo it has introduced on labels in Malawi and elsewhere in the world. You can help by sending a message to Nestlé. You will find the information you need to do so on our July Campaign for Ethical Marketing action sheet, which is now available on our website at:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/cem/cemjuly09.html

Also featured on the action sheet is a call on Danone/Milupa to stop using claims for its formula that have been found to be untrue in a ruling last week from the UK Advertising Standards Authority. Although these breach the advertising code's clauses on substantiation, truthfulness and comparisons, the code is voluntary and it remains to be seen whether similar claims will be removed from labels and other promotion stopped. There is also a call for Mead Johnson to stop making untrue claims about its formula.

If politicians fulfilled their responsibility to implement the baby food marketing standards adopted by the World Health Assembly, then public campaigns would not be necessary and there would be progress towards stopping the millions of preventable under-5 deaths.

You can help put pressure on politicians by signing the ONE MILLION CAMPAIGN petition. If you have already signed, visit the campaign website to see what action you can take to encourage friends and colleagues to sign up. See:

http://www.onemillioncampaign.org/

Australian advice on choosing infant formula

I have written previously about the difficulty faced by parents and carers who are using formula when it comes to understanding which formula to use. See:

http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/08/best-infant-formula.html

The following advice from the publication "Dietary Guidelines for Children and

Adolescents in Australia" from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council has been brought to my attention. This can be downloaded at:

http://www.healthinfonet.ecu.edu.au/health-resources/promotion-resources?lid=15159

“The prices of different infant formulas and the types of retail outlets that sell the formulas are not related to quality or nutritional value. All infant formulas sold in Australia meet the relevant nutritional and quality-control standards. Use of a particular formula by a hospital does not mean that formula is the ‘best’ one. Interchange between formulas within the same generic group is optional and can be decided on the basis of cost.”

This will be true of formulas in any country with food safety laws requiring products to comply with the standards of the Codex Alimentarius Commission.

This addresses the confusion caused by the UK Department of Health position, which is that all formulas have to comply with composition standards (while advising against use of soya formula unless on medical advice - it is not legal to sell formula based on goat's milk), but does not respond to the question: "So does that mean it's okay to buy the cheapest?"

Straight talking Australian's have done so.

I believe, however, there should be an additional advice and we are calling on the health authorities to investigate and come up with clearer information. There are reports of some babies having an adverse reaction to some of the additional ingredients that companies add, such as Long Chain Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids (ingredients with no proven benefit, but which companies make great claims about). So it may be necessary to change a formula if the child does not react well to it - a health worker should be consulted.

Some suggest rotating formulas because the additional ingredients some companies add are effectively being tested on the public. Rotating means any possible harm will be reduced and any benefit - should there be any - will not be missed.

Media coverage of rulings against misleading formula advertising

There has been good coverage of our victory over the misinformation that Danone/Milupa perpetrates with its Aptamil advertising. The Advertising Standards Authority ruling against a 2007 advertisement was published yesterday. You can find links to some of the media coverage at:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press22july09.html

In general the coverage has been good, explaining the ruling against misleading claims made about Aptamil supporting the immune system (and Cow & Gate in another ruling following complaints from the National Childbirth Trust). The rejection of the claim that Aptamil is the 'best follow-on formula' also receives prominent coverage.

Some in the media were still moved to present it as a breastfeeding/bottle feeding issue though. For example, the BBC site states: "But some pro-breast feeding groups believe there should be a total ban on this kind of advertising."

Well, we may be a pro-breast feeding group, but we are also pro the right of those who use formula to accurate information. The garbage put out in formula advertisements by Danone and its competitors does not help mothers make an informed decision.

The media likes controversy, however. Last week several papers picked up on a story challenging the benefits of breastfeeding over formula feeding, some of them quite gleefully, though the story itself had no merit: the difference is short and long-term health is well supported by the evidence. Some theorised that these stories appeared at this time because World Breastfeeding Week starts next week. Knowing the ASA ruling was about to be published - as the industry also did - I wondered if that was the reason the story was being put out at this time; indeed, at least one report on the ASA ruling included a paragraph about the 'controversy' over whether breastfeeding really has the health benefits claimed for it.

I have no reason to doubt that these particular journalists were doing no more than stirring up controversy to provoke a reaction. Some so-called journalists, however, have links to the industry. One is Brendan O'Neill, whose Spiked website has provided services to INFORM, a front organisation for the formula industry. He has misrepresented things I have said more than once to make an unwarranted attack on 'lactavists' (I am still annoyed at Brendan because though he made a correction the first time he did this, he has still not responded to an even more blatant case of misrepresentation published on The Guardian site). See:

http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/01/brendan-oneill.html

It serves the industry to portray our work as denying information to mothers, when the opposite is the case: we want mothers to have accurate information and actively campaign for the government to provide this through the NHS. The companies cannot be trusted to be objective, as these ASA rulings show. While it is the nature of advertising to exaggerate, formula is a nutritional medicine, not chocolate bars or yoghurts. Higher standards for marketing should apply - and, indeed, they were introduced by the World Health Assembly in 1981, but still not implemented by the UK Government.

The NCT, which brought the complaints against the Cow & Gate misleading claims, is also labelled as pro-breastfeeding. It is, but it is also pro supporting mothers who use formula. You can find an NCT information sheet on its website at:

http://www.nct.org.uk/info-centre/how-do-i/view-43

So let's stop the breastfeeding/bottle feeding divide. The industry and their voice pieces and controversy-seeking media may wish to create division, but anyone who cares about infant health should surely support an end to company advertising of formula in favour of independent, objective information through the health care system and better labelling and composition.

Aptamil 'best formula' and other claims not supported by evidence, says Advertising Standards Authority

Nearly two years ago I asked the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in the UK to investigate claims made in an advertisement for Aptamil follow-on formula.

The advertisement claimed that Aptamil is the 'best follow-on formula'. Is this true, I asked, considering that all companies claim their formula is the best? When claims are made in an advertisement, they have to be 'legal, decent, honest and truthful' according to the voluntary advertising code.

I also queried the claims made about IMMUNOFORTIS in Aptamil. This is a made up name for a type of oligosaccharide added to the formula (which is called a 'prebiotic' by the company, though this is not an allowed term in the UK marketing law).

I wanted to know whether the claims "This unique formulation helps to support your baby's natural immune system …" and "Intensive work has shown that immunofortis … supports your baby's natural immune system" could be substantiated.

Well, after two years of investigation by the ASA and much wrangling with Danone/Milupa, the makers of Aptamil, the verdict is in.

The company has been told not to repeat the claims and has been found to have breached the advertising code clauses on substantiation, truthfulness and comparisons.

So no, Aptamil is not the best formula and its formula does not support the natural immune system. The company has misled parents.

It has continued to make these and other claims during the two-year investigation and may well continue to make them in other materials and on labels, because they are not covered by the ASA, which is only a voluntary system of regulation in any case.

So while Danone/Milupa has been found to have misled parents, the UK law will allow them to carry on doing so elsewhere.

That's why we - along with just about every other organisation working to protect health and mothers' rights - is calling for the UK Government to implement international minimum marketing standards in the UK.

And it is why we are calling for the Government to ensure that parents who want to know which formula is the best and about the ingredients it contains are able to obtain independent, objective information.

You can't trust companies that want to flog more formula to tell the truth to customers. Don't take my word for it. Look at the ASA ruling.

Find further information on our press release at:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press22july09.html

You can send a message to politicians around the world calling on them to protect breastfeeding and protect babies fed on formula at:

http://www.onemillioncampaign.org/

Update February 2010: For Baby Milk Action's guidance on choosing formula, see:

http://info.babymilkaction.org/infant_feeding/formulafeeding

IBFAN breastfeeding calendar 2009 now reduced in price

Our 2009 breastfeeding calendar has now been reduced to £3.00 including UK postage and packing.

It's still great value as the pictures can be used as a training resource. Some people laminate them to be able to hand them around.

See:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/calendarlatest.html

UK breastfeeding picnics - 20 July 2009

Breastfeeding picnics in the UK, as reported on Morgan Gallagher's blog. See:

http://one-of-those-women.blogspot.com/

MAIN EVENT

Protect My Baby, Protect Me

Monday July 20th, 2009

Noon - 3pm

Victoria Tower Gardens

-o0o-

Birmingham Picnic

Monday July 20th, 2009

11am - 2pm

St Phillip's Cathedral

Colmore Road

Birmingham

Facebook Event

contact: breastfeeding@codepoets.co.uk

-o0o-

Poole Picnic

Bosum Buddies - Dorset

Monday July 20th, 2009

11am - 2pm

Poole Park

Poole

Facebook Event

contact: sophiesmailbox@yahoo.com

-o0o-

Stroud Picnic

Monday July 20th, 2009

11am - 3pm

Stratford Park

Facebook Event

contact: stroudrose@yahoo.co.uk

-o0o-

Warrington Picnic

Monday July 20th, 2009

Town Hall Park

Sankey Street

Warrington

Facebook Event

contact: jenniestevenson@googlemail.com

-o0o-

Salford Picnic

Monday July 20th, 2009

Noon - 2pm

Buile Hill Park

(in front of Mansion)

contact: j.wallsworth@gmail.com

-o0o-

Durham Picnic

Monday July 20th, 2009

Noon - 3pm

Palace Green

Durham

contact: sonia.bailey@gmail.com

Should mothers who use formula feel guilty?

Should mothers (and fathers) feel guilty for using formula rather than breastfeeding?

Plenty do - or feel they are expected to. Here's a comment someone has just posted anonymously on an earlier blog here:

---

Since all of you are clearly obsessed with the idea that formula feeding is bad, bad, bad - perhaps I should mention that for some mothers, it's the only alternative. My wife tried to breastfeed and in the end had to resort to bottle feeding. We didn't want to, and we didn't like it. But it was the only option we had. So for all you mums who sneer at the poor ignorant women formula-feeding their babies - good for you. We had no choice - and guess what? Our baby is a year old, healthy and a joy. So stick that in your narrow-minded obsessive pipe and smoke it.

---

I've also recently been contacted by a health worker who says she sees the ill health resulting from formula feeding - such as gastro-enteritis, ear infections - and raises the greater risk of diabetes and other long-term illnesses. She asks: " There seems to be an obsession about fear of "making Mums feel guilty" when it comes to breast feeding, but NOT with other health advice e.g. smoking and healthy eating and vacinnation advice etc. I don't know why this terror of Mums feeling guilty seems UNIQUE to breast feeding."

I stand by my often repeated - but as often ignored - comment that it is a mother's decision how she feeds her child and nobody should attempt to make her feel guilty about it.

I appreciate that some may disagree, but my view is that mothers have a right to accurate, independent information on infant feeding and the health implications of not breastfeeding. If a mother makes an informed decision not to breastfeed, then there are presumably reasons why other factors were judged to be of greater importance than breastfeeding. If she decided not to breastfeed because she was misinformed or misled by company propaganda which suggests formula and breastfeeding are equivalent, or did not have the support to overcome difficulties with breastfeeding, I'm not sure that it is either fair or productive to blame her for being failed by those responsible for regulating marketing practices and providing support.

Remember, in the UK, 90% of mothers who stopped breastfeeding before their child was 6 weeks old said they wanted to breastfeed for longer. The mother cited in the first quote, tried to breastfeed and wasn't able to make it work.

The ones who should feel guilty are those who have failed to implement and enforce the marketing standards that were adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1981 and Resolutions since which update and clarify them. In the UK, this means the drafters of the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations which allow misleading advertising and labels to go onto the market. The ones who should feel guilty are the company executives who, as policy, seek to weaken legislation and systematically break the Code and Resolutions.

Those of us trying to promote and support breastfeeding need to do a better job of reaching mothers - it is not easy because the formula industry is far better resourced and uses dishonesty to undermine breastfeeding and suggest that formula feeding and breastfeeding are equivalent (or formula feeding is better - despite the legally required 'breast is best' message).

Rather than using guilt as a lever over mothers, I think a better approach is to understand the role of formula marketing and find better ways to communicate to mothers, particularly those who have had, or are having, a bad experience with breastfeeding. I do appreciate tireless efforts are being put into this already by many.

I do think all of us who are attempting to change formula-feeding cultures back into breastfeeding cultures - which exist or have been recovered in many countries - should redouble our efforts. Promoting the ONE MILLION CAMPAIGN is a good start:

http://www.onemillioncampaign.org/ - also shaming Nestlé, the worst of the baby food companies by promoting the Nestlé boycott: http://www.babymilkaction.org/

As a final thought, I think it is important that those who do use formula, for whatever reason, are also protected. Information should be accurate. Instructions should be correct. And formula should be cheaper - it has one of the highest mark-ups of any product. This is the aim of our safer formula campaign - see the site.

ONE MILLION CAMPAIGN - presentation at the World Health Assembly in May 2009

Please watch this film showing the presentation of 45,000 petition signatures gathered so far in the ONE MILLION CAMPAIGN to support mothers to breastfeed. Today there are over 59,000 signatures.

If you have not yet signed up, you can do so at:

http://www.onemillioncampaign.org/

If you have signed up, then spread the word using the resources you will find on the site.