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

EthicsWorld: The Challenges of Corporate CSR Reporting: Nestle’s Creating Shared Value – True CSR or Just Good PR?

It is often the way that Nestlé PR offensives draw attention to both its malpractice and its dishonest presentation of its practices. There are many past and recent examples, but one of my favourites is Nestlé's anti-boycott advertisement that blew up when all our complaints against it were upheld by the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). Mr. Brabeck, Chief Executive Officer, flew in to quell the storm, but instead generated headlines like: "Mr. Nestlé gets angry". See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/boycott/boyct25.html#1

The same is happening with its 'Shared Value' report launched last week. Peter Brabeck-Letmathé is retiring as Chief Executive, but will continue as Chairman and is currently on tour with the report, boasting of the positive impact Nestlé has on millions of people. Yet the report is incomplete and dishonest in its portrayal of the Nestlé activities with which I am familiar.

It was audited by Bureau Veritas, who famously cleared Nestlé of any wrong doing in water extraction in Brazil, but failed to report the fact - and were apparently unaware - that Nestlé was being pursued through the courts by the Public Prosecutor which resulted in out-of-court settlement requiring Nestlé to stop pumping water or face significant daily fines. The audits Bureau Veritas has conducted on the baby milk issue have been as flawed, missing practices such as Nestlé's supermarket promotion for 'new formula' in South Africa which breaches the weak Nestlé Instructions Bureau Veritas uses its benchmark as well as the World Health Assembly measures it should be using. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/yqsanswered/yqanestle10.html

These concerns about the process and the weight to put on such reports and counter criticism are gaining attention. The website EthicsWorld leads on Nestlé's 'Shared Value' report today:


It asks: "The Challenges of Corporate CSR Reporting: Nestle’s Creating Shared Value – True CSR or Just Good PR?”

The article states:

---extracts begin
The report takes on a wide variety of issues developed by a company that works with leading organizations like SustainAbility and AccountAbility. Nestle was one of the first food companies to help the Global Reporting Initiative develop a global reporting standard and indicators on sustainability in the food sector. It participates in such initiatives as the UN framework to tackle climate change and the International Cocoa Initiative. But despite Nestle’s positive credentials, advocacy groups like Baby Milk Action and Corporate Watch continue to be critics and challenge the credibility of the company’s reporting.

[...]

Nestle’s accomplishments in its key CSR areas are detailed in the report, but the text falls short when it comes to admitting problems and difficulties in meeting goals. Articles from outside sources, notably advocacy NGOs, highlight the shortcomings, but these too raise questions about objectivity at times and so makes the challenge of determining the reliability of corporate reports all the more complex.

An article from Baby Milk Action, for example, criticizes Nestle for aggressively marketing baby foods, trade union busting, failing to act on child slavery in its cocoa supply chain, depleting water resources, among other concerns. The group’s primary allegation is that Nestle has violated the baby food marketing requirements adopted by the World Health Assembly and conducts faulty audits. It has been critical of Nestle for many years.

An article in the Sydney Morning Herald expressed the same concerns over Nestle’s “aggressive marketing tactics.” According to the article, “under an agreement by the Manufacturers of Australian Infant Formula, companies may not advertise formula for children under 12 months as it has been shown to reduce breastfeeding rates.”

Corporate Watch has highlighted Nestle’s questionable marketing schemes in promoting its bottled water and the company’s impact on public water sources.

EthicsWorld seeks to assist companies and organizations to better understand the challenges of CSR reporting and continues to highlight reports by major firms and comments by leading NGOs. Keep monitoring our site for analysis on how companies are addressing this sticky issue.

---extracts end

Read the full article and find out more about EthicsWorld at:
http://www.ethicsworld.org/corporatesocialresponsibility/corporatecsrreports.php#nestle07

Baby Milk Action prides itself on the objectivity of its information and provides documentary substantiation, not just allegations. You can find some of this by exploring the links from our press release concerning the report at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press4march08.html

UK Government defends formula regulations in Parliament

The Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations 2007 were discussed in the UK Parliament last week (5 March 2008). You can read the full record here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmgeneral/deleg1/080305/80305s01.htm

This was because the opposition Conservative Party was trying to halt them coming into force. The good news is the Minister for Public Health, Dawn Primarolo MP, stood up to this challenge. However there was amgibuity about a promised 12-month review and what it would consider - its terms of reference may be too limited to address all the concerns of health advocates.

The Conservative Party challenge follows the baby food industry taking the government to the High Court in January. That case ended in February with a ruling in favour of the industry for when labelling requirements will come into effect, but fears that delays might be made to other parts of the Regulations of they would be struck down were not realised. There are still rulings to be made in Northern Ireland and Scotland (where the hearing has already taken place and the industry did at one stage try to delay the advertising requirements coming into force for two years) and we await the outcome of those.

The government is deciding whether to appeal the high court ruling, but the Regulations have otherwise come into force. Parliament has the opportunity still to block the Statutory Instrument that sets out the Regulations, but not to ammend it (which is a shame really because the government ignored the health expert advice, including from its own experts, to bring in weak and unnecessarily complex regulations).

The Conservatives had tabled a 'prayer' to strike down the regulations, which started a process of discussing whether this should happen. Peter Bottomley MP for the Conservatives saw the court case as a complicating the situation and said in the Parliamentary Committee hearing:

'There are two ways of resolving the dilemma. The first is for a discussion to take place between the usual channels in which the prayer and the statutory instrument are withdrawn, which would mean our procedures coming to an end. That has happened in the past. The second is for the Government simply to withdraw the statutory instrument anyway, or to say, through the usual channels, “Can we suspend the sitting and return, even if nothing is withdrawn, to allow time for consideration.”'

Dawn Primarolo MP was emphatic - "I am not prepared to withdraw the statutory instrument." She explained that the court case required only a change to the date on which labelling provisions came into force, which was in the government's power to change. Everything else stood and was necessary.

Annette Brooke MP for the Liberal Democrats raised the question of the promised review:

"For those of us who would like the regulations to go further, the review is of great importance. Will the Minister outline exactly what is proposed and when that review will start? She might have to give me various options, given the court decision. Nevertheless, it would be nice to have them. One thing about the court decision that concerns me is the fact that everything is getting pushed back in time; we want some of the changes to be implemented as soon as possible. The statistics and our international comparisons speak for themselves—there is an urgent need for action."

In response to this Dawn Primarolo said: " I shall briefly answer the hon. Lady. At the heart of the discussion in the review of advertising by the Food Standards Agency is the marketing in relation to infants of what is called follow-on formula. That is what the regulations seek to prevent, so the guidance lays out what should not happen, on current practice. We will then monitor that through the 12 months."

This is ambiguous, as the Baby Feeding Law Group, consisting of 22 health worker organisations and mother support groups, has submitted reports to government consultations calling for a broader review. Will that happen?

The way follow-on formula is marketed is one issue, and not even the most important one in my view. The latest BFLG report: "Trying to make the UK's weak formula law work" sets out the lessons learned from the 12 years of monitoring the effectiveness of the 1995 Regulations. Companies promote formula with idealizing claims, inducements and attacks on breastfeeding and do not provide parents and carers who use formula with necessary information on their products.

The impact of company promotion on understanding of infant feeding issues is what the review primarily needs to consider, with a view to strengthening the provisions if this is found to be necessary.

A investigation of whether promotion of follow-on formula, which is permitted in the UK is serving as de facto infant formula advertising, which is prohibited is a necessary part. The government has suggested it will prohibit follow-on formula advertising as many other countries and international standards do, if need be.

There is also a focus in the discussion on breastfeeding. We highlight the regulations are also to provide better protection for those who use formula. There are serious failings in the regulations in this regard and they need to be evaluated and corrected.

We ran a campaign asking people to send messages to the government supporting the BFLG position of making the review inclusive enough to evaluate the impact of all aspects of marketing. We will continue to raise it.

Buxton residents respond to Tom Levitt MP's column praising Nestlé

I wrote last week about an inaccurate defence of Nestlé written by Tom Levitt MP in his weekly column in the Buxton Advertiser after an all-expenses-paid trip to South Africa, where he failed to notice Nestlé promoting formula in supermarkets in breach of marketing requirements and its own proclaimed policy. We are targeting this violation on our March Campaign for Ethical Marketing action sheet. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemmarch08.html

My letter pointing out the innacuracies, given in that blog, has been published under the rather snappy headline: "Firms claims are 'utter rubbish'". See:
http://www.buxtonadvertiser.co.uk/letters/Firms-claims-are-utter-rubbish.3846754.jp

Some of Mr. Levitt's constituents also took issue with his unwarranted defence of Nestlé. See:
http://www.buxtonadvertiser.co.uk/letters/MP-nestles-too-close-to.3850152.jp
and:
http://www.buxtonadvertiser.co.uk/letters/Milk-policy-is-formula-for.3846752.jp

Nestlé bottles Buxton water in the town. One of the letter criticises the company regarding the spa that also makes use of the spring water. It is not the first time where bottling operations and the development of tourism based on spring water have come into conflict. See our past press release on Nestlé's damaging impact in São Lourenço, Brazil:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press2march06.html

Lancet article on protecting infant health in the Philippines

The new issue of the Lancet has an article about the struggle to protect infants and mothers from the aggressive marketing practices and lobbying pressure of the baby food industry.

It is written by Rene R Raya, Action for Economic Reforms, which describes itself as "an independent policy research and advocacy group. In the past 5 years, Action for Economic Reforms received grants from: Christian Aid, Oxfam, WHO, Frederich Ebert Stiftung, and the EU."

The article begins:

---extract begins
Scientists and policy makers have declared, urged, and exhorted countries to exert every effort to increase breastfeeding rates. 25 years of scientific evidence have accrued since the signing of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes in 1981, as illustrated by the Lancet Child Survival series in 2003 and many declarations, agreements, and resolutions adopted at World Health Assemblies and WHO/UNICEF meetings. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has warned that powdered infant-formula is not a sterile product.

In the Philippines, breastfeeding advocates welcomed the long-awaited ruling of the Supreme Court, which lifted on Oct 9, 2007, and with few changes, the temporary restraining order on the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (RIRR) of the Milk Code (1986). While the ruling did not support a total ban on advertising of breastmilk substitutes, it affirmed most of the provisions of the RIRR, including the right of the Department of Health to regulate and decide on: advertising materials; expansion of the coverage of the Milk Code to infants beyond 12 months; new labelling requirements stating that infant-formula may contain patho genic microorganisms and other health warnings; and prohibition of all health and nutrition claims for products within the scope of the Milk Code.
---extract ends

Here's the summary of industry pressure against the regulations as in the Lancet:

---extract begins
The ruling concluded nearly 3 years of legal battle that started with the strengthening of the implementation of the Milk Code in response to the rapid decline of breastfeeding. In the last quarter of 2004, the Department of Health crafted a national plan and updated the RIRR to align it with international standards. This effort met opposition from the industry, which mounted pressure against the Secretary of Health and his undersecretaries through meetings. The industry warned the US Embassy in Manila and the US regional trade attaché that the RIRR would negatively affect trade. The International Infant Formula Council wrote to UNICEF to complain about UNICEF activities in the Philippines that promoted breastfeeding. Industry representatives prompted congressional hearings and extracted the RIRR from the Committee on Health to the Committee on Trade. They wrote letters to Congress and the President of the Republic.
---extract ends

Your messages of solidarity with the Philippines showed the world was watching and helped to put the issue on the front pages in the Philippines and into the media around the world.

For my reminder of what it took to defend the regulations see my blog:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippines-saving-lives.html

Eventually the Supreme Court ruled in favour of protecting health over commercial interests, stating: "The framers of the constitution were well aware that trade must be subjected to some form of regulation for the public good. Public interest must be upheld over business interests".

You can access the Lancet article at:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS014067360860358X/fulltext

You will have to take out a free registration to access it.

Now the regulations need to be enforced. An independent committee is tasked with authorising all materials before they are used.

They are regulating a well-resourced sector. According to the Lancet article: "Nearly $100 million is spent annually on the advertising of breastmilk substitutes, which is about half the annual budget for the Department of Health."

Nestle launches 'shared value' report as malpractice is exposed.

This is the latest email alert (sent out using the Mass Mailer I wrote about yesterday):

On Monday Nestlé launched its 'shared value' report boasting of its "positive impact on millions of people across the world." Our press release about this is included below: "Campaigners criticise Nestlé shared value report as PR whitewash to divert attention from malpractice."

[Not included here - see it on our website:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press4march08.html]

The report includes claims that Nestlé markets baby milk responsibly. It comes as we launch our March Campaign for Ethical Marketing action sheet, exposing Nestlé's systematic violation of international marketing standards around the world as well as the weaker Nestlé Instructions the company promotes as its policy. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemmarch08.html

For example, Nestlé claims not to advertise or promote infant formula, yet partners in South Africa have asked us to help stop Nestlé promoting its 'new improved' formula in supermarkets. You can view Nestle's shelf talkers on the site. We are asking people to send a message to Nestlé new Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Paul Bulcke, who is due to take over from Mr. Brabeck in April (Mr. Brabeck will continue as Chairman).

Mr. Brabeck rejected the four-point plan put to him to save infant lives and ultimately end the boycott. It remains to be seen if Mr. Bulcke will change policy.

Elsewhere, Danone, which recently took over NUMICO (owners of Nutricia, Milupa and Cow & Gate) making it a global player, has announced a root-and-branch review of business practices. You can send a message to Danone welcoming this and asking it to commit to bringing its policies and practices into line with the marketing standards. We have put a similar four-point plan to Danone as that rejected by Nestlé and hope it will act on it, as a US feeding bottle and teat company is doing to become 'Code compliant'.

Mr. Brabeck is now on tour with his report. Let me know of any events so we can alert people to raise concerns about Nestlé practices at the meetings and with leaflets outside. You can download our ten facts leaflet and other resources at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/downloads.html

Contact us if you are in the UK and would like leaflets. There is a forthcoming event organised by Nestlé and the London Business School on 10 March: "Where next for corporate responsibility: Can business make a meaningful impact?" It is taking place at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in London (near Baker Street tube) beginning at 10:15. Contact me if you are interested in coming along.

If you do leaflet at any events, please do follow our leafleting guidelines. Do not cause an obstruction. Move if asked to leave private property (you have a right to be on public property). Offer leaflets, but do not force them on people. If there is to be a big group staging a demonstration, it is a good idea to inform the police beforehand. Please keep us informed of any action you do take and let us know if you need any help.

The link for the action sheet once again is:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemmarch08.html

To sign up for alerts, go to:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/pages/contact.html#contactform

Mass mailing email alert lists

I have a shareware programme for mass mailing. It is called macmassmaler. As the name suggests, it is for running on a Mac. You can find it here:
http://www.macmassmailer.com/

This has just been updated (at the time of writing it is version 1.3.5). This is a much improved version. It has its own smtp engine and can cope with smtp timeouts.

I did have some problems prior to these updates and some of you on my email list may have received my last email alert more than once. Sorry about that. Problems are now solved.

Great news as tomorrow I am sending out an alert with our updated press release on Nestlé's latest PR initiative - its 'shared value' report - and our new Campaign for Ethical Marketing action sheet.

The mass mailer makes it very easy for me to update lists. I just collect the emails and webforms from people wanting to join or leave into a folder in my email programme. I also collect the delivery failure emails. Export the folder (which on a Mac you do simply by dragging it to the desktop). From the mass mailer, I can then scan the folder for email address and indicate whether I want them added or deleted from my mailing list.

Very efficient and hopefully will keep me off spam lists because I only email people who sign up and they can unsubscribe easily.

If you want to sign up to receive alerts, go to the contact page of
http://www.babymilkaction.org/

The gap between Nestle's PR and reality is immense.

Nestlé has just launched a new PR booklet called 'Creating Shared Value'. It did so at a join meeting yesterday with the UN Global Compact in New York.

The Global Compact was set up by Kofi Anna when he was Secretary General of the United Nations as an alternative to regulating corporations. The Compact is, in fact, a toothless PR endorsement for companies who have to do nothing other than proclaim their support for its 10 principles. Nestlé has been more active than some in submitting reports proclaiming how well it is doing. These do not have to conform to any standard, are not audited and the Global Compact does not investigate complaints of breaches (though it will investigate whether a company brings the Global Compact brand into disrepute - which we believe Nestlé does). I write about better alternatives in the new book 'Global obligations for the right to food'. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/02/global-obligations.html

There is probably some truth in some of the things Nestlé presents in its report, but when it comes to various aspects of Nestlé business practices with which I am familiar I see that the gap between what Nestlé says it does and what it really does is immense, particularly in those areas where it is being criticised.

I address some of these issues in our press release which you can find at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press4march08.html

Nestlé's new report presents it as respecting the marketing requirements for baby foods even citing audits, when at the self-same time Nestlé is publicly defending breaches such as distributing promotional fliers for Lactogen to mothers in Bangladesh and branding babies from birth in China. There are a host of other issues aside from baby food. Quotes from other campaigns are coming in and being added to the press release.

If you have been on the receiving end of Nestlé business practices or involved in trying to persuade it to respect human rights and the environment then you particularly appreciate Mr. Brabeck's comments on the launch of the report:

"Creating shared value means thinking long term while at the same time delivering strong annual results," he said.

"This enables us to deliver five to six per cent organic growth while at the same time improving our environmental and social performance, thereby having a positive impact on millions of people across the world."

Perhaps those on the winning side of Nestlé's thirst for growth and profits do number so highly, but even if so, that does not justify the well-documented practices of aggressively marketing baby foods, trade union busting, failing to act on child slavery in its cocoa supply chain, depleting water resources and the rest.

As Franklin Fredrick, who you can see here, said today: "We had to battle for 10 years to stop Nestlé breaking federal laws in Brazil as its water extraction was destroying the historic water park in São Lourenço. We didn't experience much in the way of 'shared value' from Nestle. It put its own profits before our community."

Cut throat competition building a US$20 billion baby food market

There is a new report out analysing the global baby food industry from the financial point of view.

There are extracts on this website:
http://www.emediawire.com/releases/baby_foods_meals/infant_formula/prweb735554.htm

---extract begins
It states: "Global baby foods and infant formula market is projected to witness steady growth through the forecast period and reach US$20.2 billion in sales by 2010. Although US and Europe are the leading markets for baby foods and infant formula products, these developed regions offer little opportunities for growth due to the declining birth rates, static market conditions, and consolidation. As a result, manufacturers are moving towards the more lucrative and populous markets in Asia-Pacific, and are currently focusing their efforts on India and China."

[...]

Companies engaged in production of baby foods face cut throat competition, particularly on the innovation platform. Each company is focused on gaining a competitive edge over rivals by introducing new products into the markets from time to time. Major companies operating in the global market for baby foods and infant formula include Nestle, Numico, Abbott Laboratories, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Gerber, Heinz, Danone, and Hipp. Nestle, Danone, Heinz and Royal Numico. Among these, Nestle is a dominant player with global presence.

Europe represents the leading regional market for baby foods and infant formula products for 2007, capturing more than 30% share of the global sales, as stated by Global Industry Analysts, Inc. However, the large population base in developing regions, particularly India, China and Brazil, is expected to facilitate in shifting the focus of manufacturers to these regions. As a result, Asia-Pacific is projected to emerge as the fastest growing regional market over the 2001-2010 period, driven primarily by the exceptional sales in the Chinese market. Europe would continue to retain its position as the leading baby meals market by 2010, with sales projected to reach US$2.1 billion.

---extract ends

The cut throat competition between companies to grow their market share, results in the type of aggressive marketing practices exposed in the monitoring report produced by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) called Breaking the Rules, Stretching the Rules.

Nestlé comes in for special mention here too, for being the worst of the baby food companies.

We have also seen the efforts of NUMICO, now owned by Danone, to compete with Nestlé in the asian markets has led to more violations coming from its group of companies.

While the portrayal of artificial feeding as modern and helping to develop intelligence is only part of the story, it is no doubt contributing to the declining breastfeeding rates seen in China. For a recent blog on China see:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/08/code-china-australia.html

If you want to see the full financial analysis report you can order it here:
http://www.strategyr.com/Baby_Foods_and_Infant_Formula_Market_Report.asp

It costs US$4450 so I'm not sure we'll get to see a full copy.

The IBFAN report is much more reasonably priced. You can order it here:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/publications01.html#btr07

It costs £25 for non-profit use (not including investment planning) and £75 for profit use.

UK court case over - now its time to prosecute the companies for illegal labelling

The industry challenge to the UK Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations at the High Court in London came to an end today with the Judge ruling that companies will have 2 years to bring labels into line with the 2007 version of the Regulations which were due to come into force on 11 January 2008. Companies will have to comply with all other parts of the Regulations immediately.

Baby Milk Action presented evidence to the court suggesting that as labels on the market are non-compliant with the 1995 version of the Regulations and companies have already been warned by Trading Standards they must change these labels, it would have made far more sense to comply directly with the 2007 Regulations.

Now that the ruling has been made, Baby Milk Action is calling for Trading Standards to act to take illegal labels off the market. Both 1995 and 2007 Regulations only allow a limited range of claims on labels. Many of those currently in use are not on the list, including:

* Immunofortis
* Prebiotics and Prebiotic care
* New improved protein balance
* Easily digested

Both the 1995 and 2007 Regulations also prohibit idealizing text and images from labels. Trading Standards have already warned various companies they must change their labels to comply.

Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator at Baby Milk Action said: "This will hopefully be a hollow victory for the companies as we have been able to present evidence to the court showing that labels on the market are non-compliant with both the 1995 and 2007 version of the Regulations. Companies introduced new labels from April 2007 after being reminded of the these provisions by the authorities, but have not removed all non-compliant claims, so let us hope they will now move to prosecute. The public have been subjected to this misleading promotion for far too long.

"We did want the 2007 labelling provisions to come into force so companies would bring their warnings and instructions into line with the Food Standards Agency guidance to parents to reduce the risks of possible contamination with harmful bacteria. The FSA introduced their guidance to parents in 2005 and it is very troubling that companies have won this delay until 2010 - this unwillingness to provide essential information shows the contempt with which companies treat those parents who do use formula."

Full press release will be available on the Baby Milk Action website shortly. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/

Member of Parliament defends Nestlé after jolly to South Africa

We exposed in our Update 37 newsletter in December 2005 how Tom Levitt MP (High Peak) defended Nestlé's baby food marketing activities when questioned over accepting free tickets to the Wimbledon tennis competition.

Now he has topped that by going on a Nestlé-funded jolly to South Africa and writing in glowing terms about Nestlé support for an HIV charity and for, so he says, cleaning up its baby food marketing business.

You can see the article in the Buxton Advertiser at:
http://www.buxtonadvertiser.co.uk/tomlevittcolumn/Buxton-Water39s-parent-firm-helps.3828893.jp

I have sent the following message to the newspaper and direct to Mr. Levitt with an invitation to meet so we can provide him with objective and accurate information about Nestlé practices.

---Letter for publication
It would appear that Tom Levitt MP was taken in by Nestlé misinformation on his recent jolly to Africa as the company's guest. He writes: "Thirty years ago Nestlé's practices in marketing infant formula inappropriately were condemned across the world. Today they have cleaned up their act. Their marketing and distribution practices are tougher and tighter even than international agreements require." Sorry Tom, but this is utter rubbish as the results of a global monitoring project with evidence from 67 countries demonstrated in the report Breaking the Rules, Stretching the Rules, published in November 2007. This shows Nestlé continues to break international marketing standards in a systematic way and is the worst of the baby food companies. Perhaps you didn't notice and Nestlé didn't tell you, but as you were enjoying Nestlé hospitality, it was promoting formula with prohibited advertising in supermarkets in South Africa - I am sending you an example found in Johannesburg in December 2007. Such shelf talkers are a clear violation of the World Health Assembly marketing requirements for breastmilk substitutes, as are the health claims on the labels.

Mike Brady
Campaigns and Networking Coordinator
Baby Milk Action
---

Here is the shelf-talker which will feature on our March 2008 Campaign for Ethical Marketing action sheet.

Article 5.1 of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes states: "There should be no advertising or other form of promotion to the general public of products within the scope of this Code."

To make it even clearer, Article 5.3 states: "In conformity with paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article, there should be no point-of-sale advertising..."

Nestlé breaks the Code.

For information on how Nestlé is exploiting the HIV tragedy for its own financial gain, see:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/compseptoct01.html#1

The above shelf talker was found in Johannesburg in December 2008, the same town where Mr. Levitt visited at Nestlé expense.

His entry in the UK Parliament's Register of Members Interests states: "7-14 February 2008, to South Africa, looking at corporate social responsibility. Flights, accommodation and other costs, in Cape Town and Johannesburg, paid for by Nestlé UK."

Other MPs accepting Nestlé hospitality in the current register are:

David Gauke (Hertfordshire South West): 4 July 2007, my wife and I were guests of Nestlé Waters at Wimbledon.

Siân James (Swansea East): 7-14 February 2008, to South Africa, looking at corporate social responsibility. Flights, accommodation and other costs, in Cape Town and Johannesburg, paid for by Nestlé UK.

Linda Riordan (Halifax): 7-14 February 2008, study tour of South Africa, looking at corporate responsibility. Flights, accommodation and other costs, in Cape Town and Johannesberg, paid for by Nestlé UK.

See you in court?

The High Court battle between the baby food industry on one side and the UK government and health campaigners on the other begins tomorrow and is scheduled for two days. You can come along if you can make it to London. It is open to the public. See British justice in operation.

Strictly speaking this is the battle by the industry against the English and Welsh Ministers. Last week we had the court battle in Scotland, where we are still waiting for a judgement. The court case in Northern Ireland will take place after the High Court battle.

So that's three court cases and, as you might imagine, the industry is wanting to keep us out of court. They opposed our involvement in Scotland, but we attended the case as observers to here the arguments. The issue is ostensibly about labelling. The industry thinks it should not have to comply with the labelling provisions of the 2007 Regulations until 2010. In Scotland it tried to extend this to other provisions of the Regulations, such as advertising and the case was postponed by the Judge as he asked to the industry to make up their mind.

In the UK the focus is on the labelling requirements. Again the industry is opposed to us being involved. Here, however, we have been accepted by the court as an 'interested party' in our own name and as members of the Baby Feeding Law Group and Breastfeeding Manifesto Coalition. We have managed to submit written evidence and a witness statement and are very grateful to supporters for the financial support that has made this possible.

We will be able to say more as the case unfolds, but have issued a press release today with information on the grounds for the case, which links to the press release of the Food Standards Agency, and our view of why the industry is pursuing this case. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press27feb08.html

And watch this space!

Rebranding this blog

It is time to re-brand this blog and I am looking for your suggestions on what it should be called.

I'm prompted to do so because, as I wrote yesterday, a post about conflicts of interests in accepting sponsorship from companies with a financial interest in infant feeding decisions was taken as a call to boycott a nipple cream company. This led to some misinformed comments about the boycott 'going too far' in targeting a breastfeeding product.

I already have much too much to do to spend time responding to criticisms of things I have never said, but I was interested to know how this misconception arose and so registered with the dicussion forum involved and posed the question.

This prompted someone to provide the following insight as part of the answer: "I think the confusion arises from the name of the website: "boycott nestle"..."

The blog was called : "Boycott Nestlé - Protect Infants". It does, of course, cover a lot to do with the boycott, but, as it has always explained, covers other areas of Baby Milk Action's work in protecting infants. To try to stop future misunderstandings I think it is time to re-brand the blog and I have already given it a provisional new title: "Mike Brady's Baby Milk Action blog". It has my name in it because it is, to some extent, a personal view of the topics involved.

But I'm open to suggestions for better titles for the blog. So feel free to post them here. You may also have views about the name Baby Milk Action. There have been times when people have seen the name and think the organisation exists to donate baby milk.

I'll also investigate migrating the blog to another URL. The links currently all begin with http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/ which may also cause some confusion.

The danger, of course, is the focus may go off Nestlé, which is the worst of the companies in terms of violations and in terms of opposing the internationally agreed marketing standards and our work to see them implemented in enforceable measures.

So feedback welcome.

Some clarity on what is and what is not on our boycott list

Oh dear. I understand someone has linked to a past post of mine about who owns Lansinoh, incorrectly claiming we are calling for a boycott of this nipple cream because it is owned by a feeding bottle company that violates the World Health Assembly marketing requirements for these products.

I don't know how these things happen. The blog is about conflicts of interest in sponsorship of health workers and materials and suggests there needs to thought about the appropriateness of accepting funding from a company that violates the marketing requirements. You can read the blog here:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/10/lansinoh-pigeon.html

How that was read as a call for mothers who use nipple cream to stop doing so is a mystery. If you can shed any light, please let me know.

There is not even a boycott call on Pigeon, the owner of Lansinoh. Its malpractice is targeted by other means, such as the exposé on that earlier blog.

Nestlé is singled out for boycott action because it is the worst of the companies when it comes to violating the marketing requirements for baby foods.

But note well, the boycott does not target Nestlé formula, it targets other Nestlé products. In the UK, the primary focus is on Nescafé coffee, though we list all the products from which Nestlé profits - except the formula so boycott supporters can avoid them all if they wish.

The boycott, and all our work holding baby food companies to account, aims to compel companies to abide by the internationally-agreed marketing standards. We have a lot of success in achieving this. The marketing requirements exist to protect breastfeeding AND to ensure breastmilk substitutes are used safely if necessary.

So if the boycott is an effective campaigning strategy and is helping to save lives, why don't we include Nestlé formula on the boycott list? Because there may be times when Nestlé formula is all that is available for a child that has to be fed on formula and our primary concern is the well-being of children.

However much Nestlé tries to give a different impression, we are not calling for formula to be banned or boycotted, just for it to be marketed appropriately, which means in line with international standards.

Nestle backsliding on its claim to abide by 6 months recommedation for introduction of complementary foods

You need eternal vigilence with Nestlé. In 2003 it caved it with its opposition to World Health Assembly Resolutions, adopted from 1994, which said that the appropriate age for introducing complementary foods is 6 months of age.

Nestlé refused to accept the validity of the Resolution WHA 47.5 from 1994 and it took 9 years of campaigning and further Resolutions until, during a week of demonstrations in the UK, Nestlé announced it was 'taking the lead' in re-labelling complementary foods for use from 6 months, rather than 4 months or earlier. See our press release from the time at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press17may03.html

Now we have news that Nestlé is trying to corner the market in infant nutrition products with a new line called NutriNes. According to a report on the website Nutraingredients, Nestlé boasts the food will be 100% natural and the technology used: "perfectly preserve the taste of the ingredients and their nutritional quality."

See:
http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/news/ng.asp?n=83259-nestl-infant-nutrition-probiotics

The website also reports: "A spokesperson told NutraIngredients.com that the food will be aimed at infants over the age of four months."

House of Lords debate - government committed to 12-month review of formula Regulations

Yesterday I wrote about the House of Lords debate on the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations 2007. Baroness Finlay called for stronger regulations, but withdrew her move for weak version presented by the government to be annulled as the government indicated they would be strengthened if a 12-month review found this to be necessary.

Baroness Harnham, for the Conservatives, supported the annulment or delay of the Regulations, in line with the position of party leader, David Cameron MP, who has called for the Regulations to be scrapped. She questioned whether parents who use formula should be warned that powdered infant formula is not sterile and instructions on how to reduce the risks of possible contamination with harmful bacteria.

As I wrote on Monday, the Conservative tactic is ill-informed because if the 2007 Regulations fall, the baby food industry will immediately be criminalised as labels on the market breach the 1995 version of the Regulations, which would remain in force. We have long called for companies to be prosecuted under these and it will become more pressing to use the Regulations if the updated ones go back to the drawing board. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/02/conservative-criminalise-industry.html

Though we were disappointed that the recommendations of the Baby Feeding Law Group and the government's own advisors were rejected in drafting the 2007 Regulations in favour of the industry plea to do the minimum possible, we prefer the review process to begin immediately. It was, therefore, very welcome that the government again voiced strong commitment to this in the House of Lords debate and for the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes.

Here is an extract from the Hansard record of the debate. See:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/80218-0013.htm

---extract begins
Baroness Thornton:[For the government] I recognise that several NGOs, including the Baby Milk Action Group, the National Childbirth Trust, the Breastfeeding Manifesto Coalition and others are calling for further regulations to ban all advertising and promotion of breastmilk substitutes, including follow-on formula, and want the Government to implement the entire WHO code on the marketing of breastmilk substitutes. The Government are determined to take tough action to stamp out marketing, promotion and advertising practices which undermine breastfeeding directly and indirectly. Indeed, this is evidenced by the Government’s Choosing Health White Paper, which made a commitment to review the relevant provisions of the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations 1995, with a view further to restrict the promotion of infant formula. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, will accept this reassurance.

I assure noble Lords that the Government’s new controls are as tight as possible within the constraints of the EU law and have been specifically drafted to address loopholes in the 1995 regulations which allow manufacturers to market and promote their products in ways that do not enable UK consumers clearly to differentiate between infant formula and follow-on formula when purchasing products, and which bypasses restrictions on advertising of infant formula by labelling and advertising follow-on formula in such a way that it is often difficult to distinguish the practice from advertising for infant formula. This is unacceptable and the Government are determined to take tough action to remove this confusion. In this way the new directive and regulations provide for increased consumer protection compared with the previous infant formula legislation.

The key changes include: updated rules on the composition of all types of formula; tighter rules on the labelling of all types of formula; tighter restrictions relating to the marketing and promotion of infant formula; requirements for companies to label, present and advertise infant formula and follow-on formula in such a way as to avoid confusion between them in the mind of the consumer; a requirement for companies to make clear on the product packaging that follow-on formula should be used only by infants from six months of age; restrictions on the number of health and nutrition claims that can be used on infant formula; and the introduction of national notification requirements, which allow European Union countries to monitor the marketing of new infant formula more effectively.

The Government will also be introducing robust guidance for industry and enforcement authorities on how correctly to apply the new law. The guidance will make it very clear that advertising practice for follow-on formula must change and formula for older babies must be clearly labelled and advertised such that it is clearly distinguishable from infant formula. This is necessary because advertisements for follow-on formula, which may include presentation of the packaged and labelled product, have the potential to be seen as adverts for infant formula, a practice which is specifically prohibited so as not to undermine government advice that babies should be exclusively breastfed for the first six months.

These tough new measures will give effect to the principles and aims of the WHO code on the marketing of breastmilk substitutes and will protect breastfeeding by substantially restricting advertising, requiring proper labelling and prohibiting the donation of any informational or educational material by formula manufacturers unless it has been specifically authorised by the Government, prohibiting the advertising of infant formula to the public, and prohibiting any follow-on formula advertising which promotes infant formula. I hope that this will go some way to meeting the noble Baroness’s points.

In addition, the Government have given a further and key commitment to provide an independently chaired review of the new controls. That point has been recognised by other noble Lords. If after time it is found that the new arrangements are not working effectively or delivering the necessary level of protection for babies, because the arrangements have been circumvented or because new methods of promotion emerge, the Government will respond proportionately and consider taking further legislative action.

Lord Avebury:My Lords, how can the Government take further legislative action when the noble Baroness has told us that the regulations are as tightly drawn as they possibly could have been under the directive?

Baroness Thornton:My Lords, the point is that the independent review after the controls are in place will allow us to assess whether or not this is working. If it is not working, as my honourable friend in another place said, the Government are determined to take action and to make this work. We are confident that this package is effective, proportionate and evidence-based, and, together with the independently chaired review, is a big step forwards in the protection of mothers and babies. As the noble Baroness stated, the Infant and Dietetic Foods Association is challenging the new regulations in England and Wales, which we wanted to come into force on 11 January 2008.

[...]

Clearly, we are disappointed by the IDFA’s decision to bring proceedings and the Government are fighting the case because they consider that they have implemented the transitional provisions in line with the obligations of the directive. The Government’s intention and policy objective were clear before the new directive was published in 2006. The industry has been aware since that time of the labelling changes that it will be required to make. The Government are committed to those regulations and will ensure that they apply as soon as possible, taking into account the outcome of the court proceedings.

In conclusion, I reiterate that the Government’s priority is to ensure that infant formula and follow-on formula are clearly labelled so that parents and carers who wish to use those products can do so correctly. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her Motion.

---extract ends

Baroness Finlay replied, in part: "I am also glad to hear that there will be an independent review and that the Government intend to take action on it and the background to the timeframe for the introduction of the current regulations, which are currently subject to judicial review. With regard to that background and to the very helpful comments from the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion."

So the only obstacles to the review process taking place and resulting in stronger regulations if the companies do not clean up their act are the Conservative party call for them to be annulled and the industry's legal challenge.

Baby Milk Action has been attending the court case in Edinburgh and has submitted evidence to the forthcoming High Court case in London. We will say more about what is happening in these cases when it is possible to do so.

We are still in desperate need of financial help for our role in the legal battles and for gathering data for the review process. If you are able to make a contribution, however small, this would be much appreciated. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/donation.html#bflg

House of Lords debate - trying to make formula feeding safer

There was a debate in the UK House of Lords on Monday about the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations 2007. You can read the full text in Hansard here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/80218-0012.htm

The debate was called by Baroness Finlay of Llandaff who challenged the Regulations for not going far enough and so not providing adequate protection for breastfeeding or for parents who use formula. On this latter point she said:

---extract
Sadly, some mothers cannot breastfeed, but infant formula should be a fallback choice if breastfeeding is not right for them. Of course, such mothers must not feel stigmatised and safe formula products have been important for many women.

Those mothers need clear information on what is contained in formula products and how to prepare the formula safely. For example, current World Health Organisation guidelines recommend that the water used to mix the formula powder should be 70 degrees centigrade or higher to kill any bacteria and that the formula should then be allowed to cool. However, that information is not on labels, even though the WHO says that it is the single most effective step to reduce the risk of bacterial contamination and that contamination with Enterobacter sakazakii is found in some tins of formula, even before they are opened.

---extract ends

Lord Avebury spoke in favour of implementing the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and referred to information we had submitted to the Lord's' Merit Committee which scrutinises such legislation:

---extract begins

The Merits Committee has drawn to our attention the evidence that it received from a powerful consortium of professional and lay organisations; that is, that these regulations should have banned the advertising of infant milk formula and follow-on formula and that the labelling should include, as the noble Baroness said, a minimum temperature for the water used for mixing. By failing to do so, according to the Baby Feeding Law Group, the regulations undermine the efforts being made by health professionals to see that mothers are provided with scientifically correct advice on the best feeding regime for infants. That point of view is supported by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition and the Local Authority Coordinators of Regulatory Services.

---extract ends

Speaking for the Conservative Party, Baroness Hanham also referred to the need to provide better information to parents and carers who use formula, but advocated two years delay until 2010 before asking companies to bring their instructions into line with that introduced by the Food Standards Agency in 2005. She said in part:

---extract begins

The Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee draws attention to Baby Milk Action’s concerns that the question of labelling giving details of the minimum temperature of water used for mixing the formula does not seem to have been resolved either. It would seem logical that the manufacturers should be involved in discussions as to whether and why this is necessary now, before they have to introduce new labelling, rather than in 12 months’ time, or 12 months after the FSA’s independent review. That is another good reason for giving a proper transition time.

---extract ends

This is the same old industry tactic of delay, delay, delay.

The problem of intrinsic contamination has been known about by the industry for decades. It came to public prominence with the death of a child in Belgium in 2001. The issue has been addressed several times at the World Health Assembly, where the industry lobbies against controls. Both the World Health Organisation and the Food Standards Agency have introduced guidance for parents after a great deal of investigation and thought.

But still Baroness Hanham questions whether it is necessary to inform parents that powdered formula is not sterile and how to reduce the risks, which, remember, can, and have, led to brain damage and death.

Don't forget the government has already bowed to industry pressure and instead off making it a legal requirement to provide this information is only 'recommending' that companies do so.

Cases of infants dying in the industrialised world due to this contamination are rare, though no-one yet knows how much of the greater sickness is due to the all-too-common contamination of infant formula with harmful bacteria. The steps to reduce the risks are simple, they just detract from the message of technological perfection the industry tries to impart with its messages claiming formula is the 'most advanced ever'.

When the parents in Belgium sued Nestlé for failing to warn them of a known risk, they lost on the basis that Nestlé's labels had complied with the law.

Is there a need to re-do the work of the World Health Organisation and Food Standards Agency? I think not. Let us hope that misinformed parents will not have cause to lament this strategy of delay.

The debate ended with Baroness Finlay accepting assurances from the government that the Regulations will be strengthened if they do not work. More on that tomorrow.

Conservative Party call to annul Regulations could criminalise UK formula companies

It is surely not their intention but a call by the opposition Conservative Party in the UK House of Lords yesterday for the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations 2007 to be annuled would have immediately criminalised the baby food companies in the UK had it succeeded. The leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron MP, has personally backed a move to strike down the Regulations. As it portrays itself as the party of business, criminalising an industry sector is perhaps not the best way to win friends.

If the 2007 Regulations fall, the 1995 Regulations remain in force. Under the 1995 Regulations, Trading Standards officers could prosecute companies for selling products with claims on labels that are not on a permitted list. We have been calling for this to happen for some time and arguing that as the current labels on the market were produced AFTER the companies were reminded of the provisions of the 1995 Regulations companies deserve no leeway and the products should be re-called and re-labelled. See what needs to change here:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press20july07.html

This Heinz/Farley's label shows the possible consequencies of the Conservative call (though I imagine these are unintended consequencies).

The label contains the phrase 'with omega-3 lcps'. This is not permitted by the 1995 Regulations, but Heinz introduced it last year with the agreement of the Food Standards Agency as it was to be included on the permitted list of the 2007 Regulations. So if the 2007 Regulations stand, Heinz is in the clear, at least with regard to this claim (there are other things wrong with the labels). If they are annuled or delayed, Heinz could find itself in front of a judge and facing a criminal conviction.

The companies are in a decidedly sticky situation in any case because they themselves have had the 2007 Regulations suspended in England and Northern Ireland by taking the government to court. In Scotland the courts decided against suspending the Regulations while hearing the case.

The Infant and Dietetic Food Association (IDFA), the trade association which is fighting the law, is claiming it has taken the action to "protect the continued supply of baby milk formula". See:
http://www.idfa.org.uk/news_full.aspx?id=90&cat=4

Its logic is that it needs time to comply with the 2007 Regulations and, it argues, it could, in theory, be required to recall labels that are non compliant until the new labels are ready. It argues it didn't have time to prepare, though the Food Standards Agency told the media it had been discussing the changes with the industry for three years. A recall under the 2007 Regulations is perhaps an unlikely scenario as the enforcement authorities have shown they do not rush such action. We have been waiting for 12 years for action under the 1995 Regulations!

We believe the industry's real concern is that the government has promised to review the 2007 Regulations during the first 12 months of operation and to strengthen them if they are not effective. In the debate in the House of Lords, Labour and Liberal Democrat peers spoke in favour of this approach, while also voicing their concern that the Regulations are far weaker than international standards. I'll give a fuller report on this tomorrow.

Yesterday I wrote about the hospitality that Dr. Miriam Stoppard is offering to health journalists on behalf of Nestlé, which is trying once again to break into the UK formula market, this time using a marketing strategy of sponsoring health workers, who are somewhat reluctant to accept its largesse. As someone commented on that blog, there is a link from Dr. Miriam Stoppard's website to the IDFA website as a source of extra information. Funnily enough I haven't seen any links on the website to independent sources of information such as the government's own NHS Direct website.

Let us hope that if IDFA and the Conservative Party do have their way and the 2007 Regulations fall, enforcement action for the 1995 Regulations will immediately follow. Action over these non-compliant labels is long overdue.

If Heinz is ordered to recall the label introduced in anticipation of the 2007 Regulations, shown as the example above, then the Conservative leader, David Cameron MP, can claim some of the credit.

Nestlé is in a panic in the UK and calls in Dr. Miriam Stoppard and Chris Sidgwick

Nestlé's current strategy to enter the UK market is through attempting to persuade midwives to accept its sponsorship. It invites midwives on all-expenses-paid trips to Vevey in Switzerland and tells them how much it cares. This worked with a terribly inaccurate article published by the British Journal of Midwifery in 2006 - so bad that it calls into question the standards of its peer review process and resulted in the journal publishing an extensive right-to-reply from Baby Milk Action.

Now Dr. Miriam Stoppard, a celebrity author and broadcaster in the UK, has been recruited by Nestlé to invite health journalists to Nestlé's global head quarters in Vevey in Switzerland in March.

She writes:

---extract from Dr. Stoppard's invitation
I’m helping the educational division of the Nestle Nutrition Institute to organise a trip that would encompass fact finding, an introduction to Nestlé research and presentations on topics such as obesity, infant nutrition and pre and probiotics (draft agenda below) where Nestlé scientists are engaged in cutting edge research. There will be trips to the laboratories and the opportunity to chat to researchers first hand. There will also be seminars where you can question the decision makers in Nestle about any topic you wish.

We will be housed in the Nestlé Research Centre, nestled in the hills just outside Lausanne. It will be a very pleasant social occasion as well as giving you the opportunity to get to know Nestlé, its work and its programme of corporate social responsibility in some detail.

I do hope you’ll be able to join us, if so please let me know as soon as possible and I will organise your flights and accommodation.

---extract ends

The programme includes sessions on pre and pro-biotics, ingredients Nestlé and other companies add to formula and then make idealizing claims about.

It was a Nestlé Nutritionist, Zelda Wilson, who organised the trip resulting in the BJM article, written by midwife Chris Sidgwick and others. Midwives will remember Chris Sidgwick from a past Royal College of Midwives conference when she called on them to stop supporting the boycott and accept Nestlé funding for materials. She had just produced a video with Nestlé funding she was wanting them to use. Such materials can only be produced with the written approval of the Secretary of State for Health. We asked for the letter of authorisation, but it has never been produced.

Our analysis of the BJM article shows how primary sources of data were misrepresented and misquoted. It can be found at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/yqsanswered/yqanestle09.html

Now we have no objection to midwives disagreeing with the strategy of the boycott or taking a different view of the evidence, though we would rather have their support, but misrepresenting the evidence - and Baby Milk Action's position - is quite another matter.

The BJM published a long letter from us alongside one in which Chris Sidgwick attempted to defend describing her investigation as independent when the trip was organised and funded by Nestlé.


The page can be downloaded from:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/pdfs/bjmmikesletter0906.pdf

Now we raised these concerns directly with the authors and though Chris Sidgwick, the named conctact, did not respond, one of the other authors did acknowledge our message.

It is a great concern that the article is being distributed by Nestlé without our right-to-reply being included. The most recent case to come to my attention was in Nestlé lobbying of Sheffield University students, encouraging them to drop their support for the boycott. Not only was the article used, but Chris Sidgwick was part of the Nestlé team.

The purpose of the article is explicit. It states: "Education for midwives and sound, well produced, high quality educational material for women is costly; 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."

With the latest initiative by Dr. Miriam Stoppard, it seems that Nestlé is starting to panic. The UK Government has introduced new regulations for formula marketing and promised to strengthen them in 12 months if they do not stop aggressive marketing. The Baby Feeding Law Group, consisting of UK health worker bodies and mother support groups, has called for Guidance Notes to accompany the law to reject company-sponsored materials such as that proposed by Chris Sidgwick. So perhaps Nestlé sees the clock is ticking its time away and so it is making this last push to gain the support of midwives.

At the same time, Nestlé's Global Public Affairs Manager, Dr. Gayle Crozier Willi, finally had to drop the pretence that the boycott has no impact and admitted last year that the company is 'widely boycotted'. In the UK it is particularly strong amongst student unions - one survey by the National Union of Students Services Ethics Committee finding that Nestlé is the most boycotted company amongst students, with 38% of student unions having official boycotts. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/update/update37.html#25

Nestlé now refuses to debate with Baby Milk Action in front of students having lost all past votes and will only speak if we are not present. It sent a team of 5, including Chris Sidgwick and people from Weber Shandwick, its crisis management advisors, to try to persuade the committee at Sheffield University.

Nestlé's best course of action would be to abide by the internationally-agreed marketing requirements, but it still refuses to bring its policies and practices into line.

This offering of 'hospitality' to health journalists and midwives as a way to enter the UK market and undermine support for the boycott raises questions of conflicts of interest, which are addressed in World Health Assembly Resolutions and the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) Code of Professional Conduct, which states:

---NMC Code of Professional Conduct Article 7.2 and 7.4

You must ensure that your registration status is not used in the promotion of commercial products or services, declare any financial or other interests in relevant organisations providing such goods or services and ensure that your professional judgement is not influenced by any commercial considerations.

You must refuse any gift, favour or hospitality that might be interpreted, now or in the future, as an attempt to obtain preferential consideration.
---end of extract

Apparently there were midwives who refused to join the BJM authors on the day-and-a-half trip, where travel, accommodation and food were paid by Nestlé. Perhaps they were concerned about the conflicts of interests and possible breaches of the NMC ethical code. The authors put a very different interpretation on their refusal, however, stating: "Most of us readily agreed to attend, but not all who were invited were allowed to do so by their managers. It was evident that some midwives and health visitors were managed by people who had fixed views about Nestlé and they were not prepared to encourage the investigation. Some were even threatened with their jobs should they get involved.”

An investigation does not require taking Nestlé funding and only speaking to Nestlé staff.

A properly-conducted investigation would not result in the flawed article Chris Sidgwick and her colleagues produced.

If any journalist do end visiting Nestlé following the invitation from Dr. Miriam Stoppard let us hope they maintain their independence and do a better job.