Right to feed a child in public - youtube clip of London celebration and Mother Magazine's petition presentation

Scroll down for a Youtube clip of a gathering in Parliament Square, London, UK on 18 July when Mother Magazine and supporters gathered when presenting a petition on protecting the right to breastfeed in public to 10 Downing Street.

The clip opens with a song with lyrics by Alison Blenkinsop, a long-time Baby Milk Action supporter who has independently produced a book of songs and other humour to help raise funds for the campaign. More on that tomorrow.

This and other celebrations of the right to feed a child in public were prompted by the UK's planned Single Equality Bill. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/07/right-to-feed-baby.html

While politicians have highlighted the added protection they say this gives to a mother's right to breastfeed a child in public, health advocates are concerned that in the Bill the protection extends only to baby of up to 6 months of age. While other protection exists, we argue that this law confuses the issue as some may assume that breastfeeding beyond 6 months is not recommended or that it is fine to stop a mother breastfeeding in public if her baby is 6 months and one day old. Scotland has a clear law explicitly protecting a mothers right to feed her child in public (whether breastfeeding or formula feeding). This too has an unnecessary age specification, but at two years is showing greater respect to the recommendation of exclusive breastfeeding to six months, followed by continued breastfeeding with complementary foods to two years of age and beyond.

Veronika Robinson, Editor of Mother Magazine, explains more in the clip.

Nutrition, worms, measles and malaria

I have been re-reading Michael Latham's chapter in Global Obligations for the Right to Food about tackling the curse of worms, measles and malaria. Professor Latham recommends governments to take a Resolution to the World Health Assembly calling for a strategic program for tackling these three illnesses.

Professor Latham, like the rest of us who contributed chapters to Global Obligations for the Right to Food, makes the case that governments have obligations under existing human rights conventions to take collective action to deliver and protect the right to food. Promoting, protecting and supporting breastfeeding is part of the measures he highlights for improving child short and long-term health.

He also argues that relieving hunger, encompasses relieving malnutrition and that is not only achieved by providing more food, but ending endemic parasites and illnesses that compromise nutrition.

I don't want to reiterate everything that is in his chapter - you really should buy the book - but the three principal concerns (worms, measles and malaria) are embarrassingly cheap to address. Embarrassing, because governments with the resources are failing to do so. They are not only failing in their human rights and moral obligations, they are, in some respects costing themselves unnecessary expenditure.

Worms, parasites in the intestines that may affect organs such as the lungs, infect probably 2 billion people. Cambodia's de-worming programme cost US$ 0.06 per child.

There are about 50 million cases of measles every year, with about 1 million deaths. Immunization can have significant impact. "Six southern African countries that recorded 60,000 measles cases in 1996 reduced this to 117 cases in 2000". While national governments should be taking this action, where they cannot, the support of the international community is vital, argues Professor Latham, and will save them money if a concerted global campaign wipes out measles.

He writes: "It cost the United States US$ 124 million a year to keep itself free of smallpox for the twenty-five years prior to when smallpox was eradicated in 1978. Thus the US$32 million that the United States invested in the global Smallpox Eradication Program was recouped in about three months once smallpox vaccinations could be discontinued."

It is estimated that there are 1200 million cases of malaria every year, resulting in 1.5 million deaths annually. Impregnated bed nets are seen as an effective way to greatly reduce this toll. A net costs typically just US$ 3, but many people in poor countries cannot afford them. Malaria is so widespread that its impact is far greater than counted in deaths. Lost schools days, days of work and unmet potential can also be counted.

Governments have signed up to the human rights instruments, that include the right to health as well as the right to food, and the Millennium Development Goals, but are failing to meet the obligations that arise from these.

Find out more by buying Global Obligations for the Right to Food from Baby Milk Action's on-line Virtual Shop.

A closer look at promoting CSR in Eastern Europe

Ethical Corporation are running a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) event in Prague. See:
http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=6035

I have posted the following comment to their news item on it (Nestlé has a confirmed speaker at the event, though this is not specifically mentioned in the above link):

---
Participants would do well to look at how CSR is abused and brought into disrepute by some of its leading proponents, such as Nestlé.

Nestlé produces many reports on its activities, particularly those that are subject to most criticism, such as its marketing of baby foods and exploitation of water resources. Analysis shows they do not stand up to the evidence.

So-called independent audits of them, by Bureau Veritas for example, are similarly shown to be flawed. On baby food, Bureau Veritas uses Nestlé's much criticised, restricted interpretation of international marketing standards and when it investigated Nestlé's water exploitation in Brazil was apparently unaware that the company had been taken to court by the Public Prosecutor.

It is hardly surprising that many question whether CSR is anything more than Public Relations to divert criticism. See:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/

George Clooney and Daley Thompson in the media for their embarrassing links to Nestle

The Nestlé boycott strikes again, bringing Nestlé's baby food marketing malpractice to a national and international audience.

On Sunday the Observer newspaper in the UK ran a piece about letters sent to George Clooney by campaigners (including Baby Milk Action) wanting to inform him about Nestlé's dodgy business practices. Mr. Clooney had been tetchy when questioned at the Venice Film Festival (the boycott is big in Italy) about the conflict between his campaigning on behalf of Darfur and film roles exposing corporate malpractice on the one hand and his appearance in Nestlé advertisements for Nespresso on the other. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/09/george-clooney-coverage.html

We have still had no response from Mr. Clooney, but his office did send a standard Nestlé briefing with misinformation about its practices, citing GES and the Methodist Church.

For the Observer report, which also refers to actress Emma Thompson raising the issue, see:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2008/aug/03/4

Meanwhile over in the Times, Olympic Gold Medallist was being asked about his decision to appear in advertisements for Nestlé. See:
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/diet_and_fitness/article4442569.ece

Here is an extract:

---Extract begins
Thompson is being unveiled as the ambassador for Nestlé's Go Free scheme, in which you can swap empty cereal boxes and sweet wrappers for sports-activity vouchers. Aside from the odd health paradox of encouraging kids to munch sugar in order to get fit, there's also the open-sore question of Nestlé's long opposed practice of pushing baby-milk powder at mothers in developing nations. But more of that later.

[...later...]

His involvement with Nestlé surely won't assist his rehabilitation with the British Olympic regime. Doesn't he fear being vilified by protesters such as the Baby Milk Action Group? “That's a good question,” he says, looking rather uninterested. “I don't know anything about that.” Well. So I explain how a broad alliance of global groups has spent the past decade publicly protesting at Nestlé's marketing of baby-milk formula in developing countries, flouting a World Health Organisation ban on the practice. “It sounds like her department,” says Thompson, glancing to the Nestlé PR woman sitting at his elbow.

She explains that the baby-milk arm of Nestlé is a “separate corporate entity” from the food part of Nestlé (including Rowntree's sweets, Nesquik and Golden Nuggets), which runs the sports awards, so that people really shouldn't mix up issues affecting the two. During this exchange, Thompson nervously scoffs a complimentary tube of Fruit Pastilles. “Well, I'm with Rowntree's anyway,” he laughs.
---extract ends

I'm not sure if it is more shameful for Nestlé PR to try to argue that its baby-milk arm is separate corporate entity than trying to divert attention by citing the fact the Methodist Church is an investor without revealing that the Church bought shares to (so it believes) better put pressure on Nestlé to stop its aggressive marketing practices (the Methodist Conference took the view that 'engagement' and the boycott could be seen as complementary strategies).

The Chief Executive of Nestlé, Mr. Paul Bulcke, is responsible for the junk food and sweets as well as the baby milk - they are parts of the same corporation. Nestlé shareholders pocket the profits from all sectors, with little question.

As Mr. Thompson doesn't know anything about the baby milk issue, we hope he will investigate now and consider whether he really does not want to be associated with such a company.

For other aspects of Nestlé malpractice, see:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/

Nestle is one of the world's most criticized companies

Nestlé is one of the top ten most environmentally and socially criticized companies, according to analysis conducted by the company ECOFACT.

This is how ECOFACT describes itself: "ECOFACT is a consulting boutique specialized in the management of environmental, social and reputational risks, mainly in the financial sector. ECOFACT is based in Zurich and leverages a global network of sector and issue specialists."

So it is coming from an industry perspective of how a company's image and, hence, value, is harmed by criticism. This shows the importance of campaigning, because company executives and investors take notice when a financial cost is put on their malpractice.

Nestlé is, of course, the target of an international boycott because independent monitoring finds it to be responsible for more violations of World Health Assembly baby food marketing standards than any other company. It is the largest company in the market and sets trends that drive down standards, as a recent case in South Africa demonstrates.

But Nestlé is not only criticised for its baby food marketing. There are many groups concerned about its business activities, informed by their experience of monitoring its impact on the ground.

To help bring this information together and provide a portal to the various campaigns, we have developed a new website with the theme: "Nestlé's Actions speak louder than its words". Nestlé is a leading exponent of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), which highlights voluntary action as a 'good corporate citizen'. Nestlé brings the concept into disrepute by using 'good works' and bogus claims about its impact in an attempt to divert criticism and undermine calls for binding regulations.

If you are interested in being an author for this website, please contact me. We will be launching it officially later in the year. You can find a preview - and a link to the ECOFACT press announcement - at:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/

World Breastfeeding Week 2008

Today is the start of World Breastfeeding Week, celebrated in many countries around the world and promoted by the World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action. WABA says 120 countries are participating. See:
http://www.worldbreastfeedingweek.org/

Take a look at the site for news of what is happening in your country. If you are organising an event you can join in a virtual torch run, picking up on the Olympics taking place this month. A torch will appear on the WABA world map for every event. You can see the map here:
http://www.worldbreastfeedingweek.org/worldwide.htm

The week is starting to gain more attention in the UK, where our national month is May because August is holiday time. One group in Leeds, Breast Buddies, is inviting people to help it promote breastfeeding by contributing their stories of breastfeeding around the world. See:
http://www.breastbuddies.org/

Baby denied milk for 18 hours at UK detention centre

Every few months it seems there is a scandal at Yarlswood Immigration Detention Centre in the UK over the way a mother and baby are treated.

The latest case concerns a baby who was only allowed water for 18 hours, despite concerted efforts from supporters to provide correctly-prepared formula.

You can support action by contacting Alison Blenkinsop, whose message is reproduced below with her permission. This was taken from:
http://www.nursingmatters.org.uk/statement.html

---Message from Alison Blenkinsop

Baby denied milk for 18 hours ‘not starved’ says head of the UK’s Detention Services, UK Border Agency

On Wednesday 2 July 2008 at about 11pm, I was visiting an online Yahoo! group for breastfeeding supporters. An urgent request had just been posted by Morgan Gallagher, Chair of Nursing Matters, an advocacy organisation for mothers and babies. I could hardly believe what I was reading.

Morgan’s main concerns were as follows.

Baby C (born 27^th March) had been removed to Yarl's Wood Detention Centre in Bedford at the age of eight weeks, with her mother and two siblings aged four and six. Her mother, who had successfully breastfed the older two, had been advised for medical reasons to feed Baby C with formula.

The Department of Health states that infant formula milk should be made up with freshly-boiled water at 70ºC, cooled and given immediately. Any left-over milk should be discarded. (See NHS Direct website). In Yarl’s Wood, powdered formula is locked in an office, and mothers must queue up and sign for it. Making up fresh batches each time is therefore extremely difficult for them. The formula has to be made up before 11pm, and then used from that bottle all night long. No refrigeration is available, and mothers are given bottle-warmers to warm the nighttime feeds made several hours earlier. This poses further health risks.

Baby C suffered repeated bouts of gastro-enteritis after arriving at Yarl's Wood, initially with projectile vomiting. Her mother took her care very seriously, and after being given leaflets by Morgan on safe formula preparation, refused to give the baby feeds which were not freshly prepared. She used anti-bacterial soap given by Morgan to scrub everything that the baby’s bottles came into contact with. The projectile vomiting stopped, but the diarrhoea persisted. This resulted in faltering growth. When C was first detained, her weight had been charted at just under the 98^th percentile. Four weeks later, no growth had occurred, and her weight line was now just above the 75^th percentile – actually a loss of weight from what was expected.

On Monday June 30th, C was taken to Bedford Hospital with a suspected chest infection. She was seen by a paediatrician, who prescribed an elemental, hypo-allergenic formula to address the feeding problems. She returned to Yarl's Wood that evening, with one 500g tin of elemental formula from Bedford Hospital, and a note from the hospital that more would be required.

By the afternoon of Wednesday July 2^nd, the tin of formula was nearly empty. The mother was assured that more would be obtained. At 7.30pm, Morgan received an urgent phone call from a volunteer from Medical Justice, stating that no elemental formula was available at Yarl's Wood. Morgan rang the centre, and was told by the night manager the following:

· there was no elemental formula in the compound

· Yarl's Wood medical team knew it was needed, but had not prescribed it in advance

· the mother had been told by a qualified nurse that the doctor on duty, who was contacted by telephone but who did not examine the baby, had said that the baby should have boiled water with sugar, or Dioralyte rehydration fluid

· no other action would be taken overnight, other than to offer the mother sugar, or Dioralyte.

At 8.15pm, Morgan told the night staff that she could collect a prescription from Yarl's Wood, obtain formula from an all-night chemist, and return it immediately. This offer was rejected. The reason given was that formula had to be processed through ‘the system’. Instead, the mother was given two boxes of Dioralyte to feed to Baby C through the night.

Morgan’s request on the chat group was for help in protesting about this baby’s treatment. I was appalled by this account, and resolved to do what I could to help.

On the morning of Thursday 3 July I spent two hours on the telephone in an attempt to help address this situation. The responses I had from Yarl’s Wood and Social Services was extremely worrying. I was assured by a Yarl’s Wood manager and social workers that food was not withheld from detainees, yet the baby had still not been fed by late morning. At 1pm, I heard from Morgan that Baby C had at last been given some formula, some 18 hours after her last milk feed.

A few days later, I sent an email to Brian Pollett, Head of Detention Services, asking for an explanation and assurances that such a situation would never be allowed in future.

14^th July

Dear Mr Pollett

I am writing to express my outrage at the treatment of a 3-month old baby, C, currently detained with her mother at Yarl's Wood, overnight on Wednesday 2nd July 2008.

Baby C needed a specialist formula milk, but none was made available from about 7pm on 2nd July to 1pm on 3rd July. Instead, her mother was advised to give rehydration fluids, or water. A letter was sent to a Yarl's Wood visitor by Gillian Foley, Area Manager, Detention Services, to explain how the situation had arisen and been managed. I quote:

'On the advice of the centre doctor, (the baby's mother) was recommended to feed C overnight with boiled water and Dioralyte until the prescription could be filled.'

A 3-month old baby requires milk every few hours, including overnight. A 6 kg bottle-fed baby should have access to around 900 ml of formula in 24 hours. Giving plain water can be dangerous. If a baby needs rehydration fluids, these should not be given in place of milk when the baby is able to take a milk feed. Withholding food from a young baby is extremely distressing to both child and mother, and especially dangerous to one already showing signs of malnutrition; baby C had gained no weight in four weeks of detention.

I am also very concerned that when I was first made aware of these concerns, I was unable to contact anyone at Yarl's Wood directly through the telephone system at 9.45 am on Thursday 3rd. The automated system kept being repeated, so I had to leave messages on various answerphones, unrelated to my query, in the hope of talking with someone. Eventually my call was returned by Mr X, residential Manager, at about 10.30. He told me: 'We do not refuse food to detainees', and claimed that formula was available for baby C. (I omitted to tell Mr Pollett that this manager gave me the name of the mother and child, which I did not know until then, in a blatant breach of confidentiality.) However, the baby was not fed for another 2½ hours after this.

I also rang Bedford Social Services, who told me that they could do nothing about child protection unless the Yarl's Wood staff contacted them first. I was then put in touch with Ms Y, social worker at Yarl's Wood, and she passed me on to her colleague Ms Z. They said they were unaware of this situation, and stated that they would investigate, but claimed that babies were not put at risk in this way at Yarl's Wood. In two hours of telephone calls, I felt I had come up against a brick wall of indifference.

I am writing to various agencies including the NSPCC and the Children's Society about this situation. Baby C's life was put at risk by deliberate starvation. In the UK, we expect that children who are mistreated will be removed to a place of safety. Even domestic animals are protected from negligent owners. It appears that babies under the care of our Government in Yarl's Wood enjoy no such protection.

I believe that you are aware of this situation. I would like to know what is being done to ensure that this appalling treatment is not repeated. I would also like assurances that the current dangerous and criminal neglect of young babies and their mothers at Yarl's Wood, which has been reported by many people and from which this particular incident arose, will be immediately addressed.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

Mrs Alison Blenkinsop RM DipHe IBCLC

Media Liaison, Lactation Consultants of Great Britain

Address/telephone number

On 28^th July, I received a reply from Mr Pollett, in which he stated the following:

---

‘Your assertions of mistreatment of Baby C are without foundation…. I simply cannot agree with the concluding statement of your letter that the care of young babies and their mothers at Yarl's Wood is dangerous and constitutes criminal neglect…. I absolutely reject your allegation that Baby C was deliberately starved.’

---

There are many extremely worrying aspects of detainees’ treatment by the UK Borders Agency. This is just one of them. If you disagree with Mr Pollett’s view of this treatment of Baby C, and wish me to tell him what you think, please contact me with your name, and any professional qualifications you hold, and I will pass on your message.

NB I have permission from Baby C’s mother to discuss her case as appropriate.

Alison Blenkinsop IBCLC, DipHE

International Board Certified Lactation Consultant and midwife

aliblenk AT hotmail.com

www.linkable.biz

(Nursing Matters has facillitated this web page on Ms Blenkinsop’s request. She does not speak for Nursing Matters and her work on this baby’s welfare is being done under her own professional brief. Nursing Matters is more than happy to offer this facility to her in her campaign for justice for Baby C, and her pressing for an undertaking by UK Borders Agency that such an outrage is never allowed to re-occur.)

Arnie terminates transfats in California

If you have read my chapter in the book Global Obligations for the Right to Food - or this blog - then you will have seen the lessons learned from different ways of encouraging companies to reduce the level of transfats in foods. In short, with regulations they do so, with encouragement for voluntary action they, at best, introduce some low-transfat products and market them as healthier, putting the onus on the consumer to choose the healthier option and, most likely, pay extra for the privilege.

Well, Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Governor of California, is taking on the food industry and has signed a law requiring companies to remove transfats from products by 2010.

There is a report here on the BBC website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7526624.stm

This states: "A review by the New England Journal of Medicine in 2006 concluded that there was a strong connection between the consumption of trans-fats and coronary heart disease. It found they boosted "bad" cholesterol levels in the body. The review said that eliminating artificial trans-fats from the food supply could prevent between six and 19% of heart attacks and related deaths each year."

They are used to extend the shelf life of products and have no nutritional benefit.

The move was opposed by the California Restaurant Association according to the BBC.

Thanks to Rob A for posting the link on a comment to an earlier blog here. I really do appreciate people alerting me to information they think may be useful.

Calendar reduced - great breastfeeding pictures from around the world

We still have a few copies of our 2008 breastfeeding calendar available. Though the months are passing, the breastfeeding pictures from around the world are a useful resource. For example, some clinics laminate them to display on their walls.

We have now reduced the price to £3.00 including UK postage and packing.

Take a look at the pictures and order at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/calendarlatest.html

A diverting campaign on obesity

Just a few facts....

In 2002 a report from UBS Warburg investment bank said that 46% of Nestlé income was from 'less healthy foods' and at risk if governments brought in regulations to tackle the epidemic of obesity.

Nestlé's Chairman and former Chief Executive, Peter Brabeck-Letmathé, decided to rebrand the firm as a Nutrition, Health and Wellness company.

Breastfed infants are less likely to be obese. Nestlé's aggressive marketing of formula undermines breastfeeding.

Nestlé is currently trying to enter the mass UK formula market, with the help of television celebrity, Dr. Miriam Stoppard. This is particularly bad news as Nestlé drives down formula marketing standards of the industry as a whole.

Nestlé cereals have been criticised for being high in salt and fat - Nestlé relies on Shredded Wheat, which is 100% wheat, to provide it cover. The UK Advertising Standards Authority ruled in June against a Nestlé cereal advertisement calling on people to eat three servings of 'whole grains' every day.

Regulations in Denmark have forced food companies to cut levels of transfats in foods, but Nestlé and the food industry as a whole is pressing for voluntary action elsewhere.

Nestlé sponsored a fringe meeting at the last Labour Party Conference and thereby shared a platform with the Minister for Public Health.

In May, The Independent on Sunday (IoS) reported: "An investigation by the IoS has uncovered strong ties between Nestlé, the world's largest baby milk manufacturer, and the Department of Health. Rosie Cooper, a parliamentary private secretary to the Health minister Ben Bradshaw, is undergoing a year-long Industry and Parliament Trust fellowship with Nestlé, and in February went for a week to South Africa as a guest of the group to oversee its corporate social responsibility activities." Where apparently she didn't notice Nestlé breaking South African regulations in the way it markets its formula there.

Nestlé sponsored a conference on obesity in July, attended by the Chief Medical Officer.

In October 2007, I queried how the government would respond to a report it had commissioned called Tackling Obesities: Future Choices. The Public Health Minister commented in her introduction: "As the report demonstrates, there is no quick and easy solution to tackling obesity." Would the government act on the recommendations for increasing breastfeeding rates by implementing the World Health Assembly marketing requirements for baby milks? The answer turned out to be no. It has not.

What about taking legislative action along the lines of Denmark? The book 'Global Obligations for the Right to Food' argues that it has human rights obligations to improve diets.

It seems not. Instead the government is embarking on an advertising campaign encouraging people to exercise more. Important, but it should not be a diversion.

Yet the government has 200 million reasons to be diverted. The campaign is being funded to the tune of £200 million by Coca-Cola, Kellogg's, Mars, Nestle and Tesco, all to some degree or other responsible for promoting 'less healthy foods'.

Beware of Nestlé spying

The Swiss campaign group, ATTAC, has launched a legal action against Nestlé and Securitas after it was revealed that the world's largest food company had sent a spy to infiltrate the group while it was preparing a book exposing company practices.

Although Nestlé claimed in a statement that the spy was sent to check whether Nestlé buildings were to be targeted during the G8 summit in Evian in 2003, ATTAC points out that the spy only joined their group some time after the G8 was over. The spy infiltrated the sub-group working on the book on Nestlé. See:
http://schweiz.attac.org/druckformat.php3?id_article=1822

I was a guest speaker at an event in June 2004 in Nestlé's home town of Vevey, Switzerland, where this book was launched. ATTAC said the spying continued until summer 2004 so it is possible my messages to the group about the event and concerns about Nestlé were sent straight on to the company.

We have had our own concerns about possible underhand activities in the past, such as when students informed us that when Nestlé came to speak at their college they were approached by people claiming to be from Baby Milk Action and wanting to speak about their plans for promoting the boycott. Baby Milk Action was not informed of the event and had sent no-one (at that time - as now - Nestlé refused to speak if we were present). The people claiming to be from Baby Milk Action were seen to leave with the Nestlé speaker. At the time I wrote to Hilary Parsons, Nestlé's Head of Corporate Affairs, and received a denial that this had ever happened.

We expect Nestlé to be paying attention to what we are doing - the point of the boycott is to get its attention to prompt changes. Nestlé's preference is to respond with denials and to embark on public relations campaigns to divert attention from concerns. Reading that Nestlé has apparently admitted that spying is also part of its strategy does not come as a surprise.

Harassment of breastfeeding mothers - is it a peculiarly British failing?

The breastfeeding picnics that took place on Monday 21 July 2008 generated media coverage both before and after the events. The aim was to celebrate and assert the right to breastfeed in public and to call for better legal protection against harassment.

The fact that protection is needed was demonstrated after the event. According to organiser, Morgan Gallagher, speaking to Community Newswire today:
http://www.communitynewswire.press.net/article.jsp?id=4941288

---extract begins

Ms Gallagher explained: "On the way home from London, two mums were harassed on the Tube, in two separate events. One mum was tutted at loudly for feeding her crying baby [another] was shouted at by a male commuter who 'didn't want to see that'.

"No wonder mums are inhibited from breastfeeding. In Scotland, the law was followed by a very thorough campaign to let everyone know that this was utterly unacceptable."

Negative remarks were also left on the comments pages of local newspaper websites in Oxford and Bournemouth in response to stories about the picnics.

Ms Gallagher added: "The hatred is frightening. All it takes is one article in a local English newspaper to scratch the surface, and it all comes pouring out.

---extract ends

It is odd why some British people should be so perplexed by breastfeeding in public. In Brazil, the land of topless samba dancers, where breasts are sexualised at least as much in the UK, breastfeeding in public is not only commonplace, but people react as if I am asking a stupid question when I enquire if they ever have any negative reaction from other people. Certainly Brazil has an imaginative breastfeeding promotion programme, but this does not include laws to protect breastfeeding mothers because the attitude encountered in Britain just does not seem to exist.

I'd be interested to know what people in other countries think. Are the British particularly odd in this regard, or are mothers harassed where you are?

Dr. Miriam Stoppard's study on breastfeeding rates

I gather Dr. Miriam Stoppard is contacting Heads of Midwifery at UK hospitals requesting information on breastfeeding rates.

I am contacting her for further information about this study and any possible links with Nestlé, which is currently trying to break into the mass UK formula market through forming closer links with health workers.

Earlier this year, Dr. Stoppard invited health journalists to visit Nestlé HQ in Switzerland on an all-expenses-paid trip. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/02/nestle-panic-miriam-stoppard.html

If you have been contacted and would like to be kept informed, please let me know.

The right to feed a baby in public

Breastfeeding picnics are taking place at various locations in the UK today (Monday 21 July 2008) to celebrate and assert a mother's right to feed her child in public - and to call for better and clearer protection of that right. See:
http://one-of-those-women.blogspot.com/2008/06/breastfeeding-picnic-2008.html

Although certain rights may seem self evident, in terms of national and international law they have to be written, or derived from other rights that are written. In practical terms, they have to be fought for, more often than not. So the Magna Carta established rights such as habeus corpus (the right not to be imprisoned without just cause) in the UK and made the King subject to the rule of law following a confrontation between King John and various land owners or Barons. The right of leaders to vote for their leaders has been a continual process of struggle, culminating in the UK with women gaining the right to vote through the effots of the sufragettes. The right to be free was won by those enslaved and their supporter in a protracted struggle, though, nonetheless, slavery continues as has been documented in the chocolate industry, for example, where campaigners have to battle still for Nestlé and other companies to ensure that child slaves are not used in producing their cocoa.

So it is with the right to feed a child, which has been infringed repeatedly. The right for a child to receive adequate nutrition already exists in international law. Dr. Arun Gupta explains this in his chapter on breastfeeding in the book ´Global Obligations for the Right to Food´, available from Baby Milk Action.

Note that while the following human rights provisions refer to breastfeeding, they also refer more broadly to nutrition and so also apply to mothers or other carers feeding with formula. The key instruments are the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which include the following:

Infants have the right to the highest attainable standard of health. Art. 24(1) CRC, Art. 12(1) ICESCR and to adequate nutritious food. Art. 24(2)(c) CRC, Art. 11(1) ICESCR.

Mothers have a right to education and SUPPORT in the use of basic knowledge of child health and nutrition, the advantages of breastfeeding. CRC 24.2(e) CRC.

State Parties are OBLIGED to ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child. Art. 6(2) CRC.

Take appropriate measures to assist parents and others responsible for the child to implement this right. Art. 27(3) CRC.

The Innocenti Declaration, endorsed by the World Health Assembly, and the Global Strategy for Infant and Young Child Feeding, adopted by the Assembly give concrete actions deriving from these rights.

Human rights instruments, such as these conventions, put obligations on governments to deliver and protect these rights. They have to report to the United Nations system on how they are doing. Interestingly, the UK government has flagged up Scotland´s Breastfeeding etc. bill in its report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which is to be scrutinised in September. The bill protects a mothers right to feed a child of up to two years of age with milk in a public place. Campaigners are calling for a similar law - better, one with no age limit - at the breastfeeding picnics taking place today.

Without a commitment to action to protect mothers and babies across the UK the government is setting itself up for embarassment before the Committee, where it is already due to be grilled over its failure to implement the marketing requirements for baby foods. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/06/uk-crc-failure.html

A child´s right to adequate nutritious food is not being protected if a mother is prevented from feeding a hungry baby due to the prejudices of others. Just last week, McDonald´s apologised after a mother was asked to stop breastfeeding her child. She came back with friends and staged a protest. The mother said: ´I had a proper maternity top on which is designed for breastfeeding so no one could see anything.´ See:
http://www.nowpublic.com/health/mcdonalds-apologises-after-group-mothers-staged-sit-over-breast-feeding-ban

Certainly some people feel uncomfortable even with discreet breastfeeding taking place. But should their discomfort come before the well-being of mothers and babies, just because in their view it is not the ´done thing´ to breastfeed in public? No, is the answer. The government has an obligation to protect the mothers and babies.

The UK government has made rather a mess of trying to protect this right in legislation. As I reported here recently, it was suggesting in response to a petition on the 10 Downing Street website that mothers were only protected feeding infants up to 6 months of age. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/06/breastfeeding-in-public-six-months.html

Barry Durdant-Hollamby was one of those taking issue with the government over this and, following his discussion with the Cabinet Office, the response to the petition has been changed to read:
http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page15731.asp

---extract from government response to petition calling for protection for breastfeeding in public

Some people seem to think that women can be arrested or charged for indecency for breastfeeding in public - this is wrong. There isn't, and never has been, any reason for a women not to breastfeed while on the street or in public.

In addition, there is already protection for women who are breastfeeding, whatever the age of the baby, wherever goods and services are provided - for example in shops, cafes, on buses etc. This is within existing sex discrimination law. There is also added protection under the grounds of 'maternity', so that there is even stronger protection for the first six months. The Equality Bill will make it explicit that maternity discrimination includes 'breastfeeding', so that women can be completely confident in the knowledge that the law is on their side if they want to breastfeed while going about their day-to-day business, without having to face the humiliation of for example being asked to leave a cafe by the owner.

---extract ends

Deputy Minister for Women, Barbara Follett was prompted to issue a statement, quoted by Barry, saying:

---Barbara Follett quote
Mothers have to be confident that they can breastfeed their infants in a café, restaurant or shop without the embarrassment of having the owner ask them to stop. This type of discrimination has in fact been unlawful for more than thirty years, and the mother - with a baby of any age - could challenge the owner under the Sex Discrimination Act.
---quote ends

She also admits:

---Barbara Follett quote
The law is not as clear as it could be. People are unsure of their rights and their responsibilities in this area. Some people also think that women can be charged with indecency for breastfeeding in a public place. This is utter nonsense and completely wrong.
---quote ends

Confusion arises because when complaints are made about a mother feeding a child, too often it is the mother who is censured, rather than the person making the complaint.

In addition, the Single Equality Bill, currently going through Parliament, is, according to statements made about it, seeking to protect breastfeeding in premises accessible to the public. At the draft stage there was no mention of breastfeeding, though government press statements led on supposed protection deriving from protection of ´maternity´ which, it was said, would include mothers breastfeeding children up to one year of age. More recent reports have suggested this will be babies up to 6 months of age. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/06/breastfeeding-in-public-backtrack.html

At the consultation stage we called for breastfeeding to be mentioned explicitly with no age limit. There needs to be consistency and no confusing message that could give some the idea they have the right to stop mothers feeding babies over 6 months of age.

Campaigners organising the breastfeeding picnics agree that the present situation lacks clarity and are unimpressed by the claim that protection has existed for the past 30 years under sex discrimination legislation. See:
http://one-of-those-women.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-stupid-do-they-think-we-are.html

On her blog, Morgan Gallagher is highlighting the campaigners call for similar protection in the rest of the UK to that which exists in Scotland. The law there has gained a high public profile and, in a country where breastfeeding rates are particularly low and public breastfeeding is seen by some as against tradition, people know that they are in the wrong if they try to stop a mother feeding her child. Laws are not the whole of the story, but they do send a message and, if necessary, can be enforced.

The Convention of the Rights of the Child calls for states to take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children. Art. 24(3) CRC. If it is traditional to berate women for breastfeeding or to push them into the toilet, then action should be taken by the state.

Some may balk at the suggestion. There is something quite ingrained in some people against breastfeeding in public. While the fact that some people may find it difficult to change their view should be understood, their discomfort doesn´t trump the rights of mothers and babies.

Just as those who have a deep-seated dislike of people of different race, cannot put their dislike above the right of people not to be discriminated against. Or men who think they are more deserving because of their sex, cannot put this conceit above the right of equal treatment.

We can make our societies better. It is our right.

Celebrating breastfeeding in public in the UK

As I flagged up recently on this blog, there will be breastfeeding picnics taking place at various locations in the UK on Monday, 21 July. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/07/uk-breastfeeding-picnics.html

They are intended to celebrate and assert a mother's right to breastfeed her child in public.

There has been some confusion recently around the Single Equality Bill going through Parliament at the moment and what this has to say on the subject. The Bill didn't even mention breastfeeding when put out to consultation - though there was a spin put on it by politicians that has led to the confusion. I will be returning to this topic shortly with reference to existing laws on harassment and sex discrimination mean the right to breastfeed is already protected.

Laws are not the whole of the story, however. The disapproval mothers sometimes encounter in the UK is due to cultural reasons and events such as the picnics are a way to change cultural perceptions.

Another way is through poster campaigns and exhibitions such as that recently promoted by Breast Buddies in Leeds. Their pictures showed mothers breastfeeding around the city. The poster below, of Claire and Marcus, was voted favourite by readers of a regional newspaper, The Yorkshire Evening Post.


This does capture the convenience of feeding a child while out shopping, without having the inconvenience and expense of mixing up formula or using ready-to-feed (more expensive still)*.

You can see the rest of the posters on the Breast Buddies website at:
http://www.breastbuddies.org/posters.htm

*Remember powdered formula is not sterile and the Department of Health and World Health Organisation advice is that it should be mixed up with water above 70 deg. C to kill any harmful bacteria, which can be done by taking a flask of hot water when travelling. Be sure to let the reconstituted formula cool before using, but use within an hour. Alternatively, ready-to-feed formula, which is sterile, can be used. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/02/powdered-infant-formula-is-not-sterile.html

Nestlé driving down standards in South Africa and the world

As you are likely to have seen from our May press release, after three attempts we finally received the South African Advertising Standards Authority ruling from Nestlé regarding its shelf talkers. Nestlé promoted its Nan infant formula with signs on the shelves highlighting the 'new' version of the product, which has logos on the labels (which were pictured) saying it 'protects'. In reality infants fed on the formula are more likely to become sick than breastfed children and, in conditions of poverty often encountered in South Africa, to die.

We ask Nestlé to substantiate its claim that the shelf talkers had been cleared as a search did not bring it up on the ASA website and neither Nestlé nor the ASA provided it to us when asked.

The ruling can be downloaded from our website and I have now had time to produce an analysis of Nestlé's response, which can be read at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEMresponses/CEMRapril08.html

While the ruling does indeed reject the complaint about the shelf talkers, it contradicts the position of the South African Department of Health, which says it is usually consulted on such issues and was not in this case.

You can read full details on the website, but one aspect that I want to highlight here is the fact that the complaint about Nestlé's promotion was brought by the Infant Feeding Association.

The Infant Feeding Association was formed at the end of 2003, when the South African government was last considering regulations for the marketing of baby foods. It argued that: "The legislation would infringe on the manufacturers' right to freedom of speech and mothers' rights to information". See:
http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=129&fArticleId=303940

The aim of the legislation and the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant Resolutions of the World Health Assembly from which it derives actually aims to protect breastfeeding and to ensure that formula is used safely when necessary. The aim is not to stop mothers receiving information, but stop misinformation.

Nestlé argued that its shelf talkers were providing information and the ASA agreed: "The material does not fall within any of the restrictions mentioned in Clause 1.3.2, nor does it contain anything which might be considered to be "sales phraseology". It simply shows pictures of the "OLD" and "NEW" packaging in a factual and informative manner. It isn't likely to induce sales to consumers, but is intended to inform existing customers that the product is now available in new packaging."

However, we support the Department of Health view that shelf talkers should not be permitted.

The shelf talkers are intended to draw attention to the formula. If Nestlé's concern was simply to make it clear the new formula was equivalent to the old, this could have been done on the label. The strategy was to suggest a 'new' formula, offering to 'protect' (a claim highlighted on the labels shown on the shelf talker), was on the market.


Nestlé stressed in a letter to Baby Milk Action that the complaint was brought by a competitor, not the Department of Health. But it is, in fact, more serious than that. The complaint was brought by the industry body as a whole.

The ruling states: "The complainant submitted, in essence, that the campaign goes beyond informing consumers of a change in packaging by drawing much attention to the brand. This contravenes both the World Health Organisation (WHO) Code and the Code of Advertising Practice, which [sic] practices used to induce sales directly to the consumer at retail level" [I presume it should read 'prohibits practices']

It is significant that both the baby food industry and the Department of Health are critical of Nestlé's promotion.

While we can perhaps take some comfort that some in the Infant Feeding Association are attempting to maintain standards, it is disappointing that the self-regulatory Advertising Standards Authority found for Nestlé as this threatens to drive down standards. If the industry body cannot stop Nestlé from what it views as a violation of the Code, then the worry is they will feel compelled to follow Nestlé's poor example. That is exactly what happened in the US when Nestlé broke a voluntary advertising ban.

The last global monitoring report revealed that the NUMICO companies (Nutricia, Milupa and Cow&Gate) - now owned by Danone - are becoming worse in their violations as they try to compete with Nestlé in Asia.

Nestlé, the largest company in the market, is the cruz of the problem. When we are able to stop Nestlé from driving down standards it can bring substantial benefits.

UK breastfeeding picnics - 21 July

There are to be picnics held around the UK next week to support the right to breastfeed in public.

You can find out full details on Morgan Gallagher's blog at:
http://one-of-those-women.blogspot.com/2008/06/breastfeeding-picnic-2008.html

Events will take place in Parliament Square in London and in:

• Birmingham
• Bournemouth
• Camberely
• Colchester
• Durham
• Hinckley
• Oxford

Heinz/Farley's new formula launch shows how it betrays mothers

Not so long ago Heinz/Farley's was trying to gain free publicity for its formula by claiming it was the cheapest on the market.

It distributed fliers such as the one shown below to health workers encouraging them to promote it as the 'best formula' at the 'best price', highlighting that it could be afforded using vouchers in the welfare food scheme.
They also press released the claim of being the cheapest formula, gaining coverage in the national media. We complained about this back-door advertising strategy to the UK Advertising Standards Authority, but received a typically dismissive response from the ASA.

As many mothers in the UK are now experiencing, Farley's 'best formula, best price' strategy was a little misleading. It has launched a new formula called 'Nurture' (in itself and idealizing claim) with new ingredients. Perhaps Heinz would argue that its old formula was the best even without these ingredients, but it shows how dishonest such promotion is. 'Best formula' is meaningless, when the formula is not only a poor second to breastmilk (which contains many ingredients that are as yet unidentified or impossible to synthesize to add to formula), but also to the formula which the marketing department is waiting to launch onto the market. Heinz may argue that its new formula is the 'best formula'. All companies claim the same thing, making it impossible to judge from their information which is really the best. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/08/best-infant-formula.html

Heinz/Farley's hopes to pick up customers (from other formula companies and from breastfeeding) by giving the impression that 'best' means the same as 'good'. It doesn't. It means as good as it can be given the current level of understanding of why breastfed infants are healthier than formula fed ones, the current state of processing technology and the current interest of making claims about ingredients. Infants fed on it will be sicker in the short and long term. That is not 'good'. That is not 'best'. It may be the only alternative for some babies who cannot be breastfed and do not have access to donated milk. It is a better option than other milks which are even more harmful. Formula is an important and necessary nutritional medicine, but it is marketed in a way that suggests it is a lifestyle choice and that the 'best formula' is not really any different from breastmilk, and may be even better.

New ingredients are not even added because they are shown to provide benefits to infants. Indepedent reviews of evidence for past additions such as LCPs and prebiotics has shown no benefits, despite company claims. This is why it is not a legal requirement to add them to formula. Our position is that anything that is important to reduce the risk to formula-fed infants should be added to all formula. The authorities who examine the research for ingredients in the European Union and elsewhere have found the case for adding these ingredients is not supported. As an investment company said regarding Martek, which makes most of the LCPs used in formula, see:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2006/10/health-claims-goldmine.html

---Hambrecht and Quist on Formulaid (an LCP cocktail)
The history of infant formula has shown that virtually all similar examples have led to wide-scale introduction of such additives into infant formula, even if there was no evidence that the additives were important. Infant formula is currently a commodity market with all products being almost identical and marketers competing intensely to differentiate their product. Even if Formulaid had no benefit we think that it would be widely incorporated into most formulas as a marketing tool and to allow companies to promote their formula as 'closest to human milk.'
---quote ends

The Heinz/Farley's strategy shows clearly how this strategy works. Its new formula is appreciably more expensive than the old, £3.00 per tin more expensive, some mothers are complaining. That is what the marketing department thinks its new claims are worth.

Which brings us to the second part of the betrayal. Having marketed its formula as the cheapest, Heinz/Farley's has removed it from the market. Mothers who budgeted to use this formula, perhaps making decisions on whether to breastfeed and how and when to return to work, suddenly find their plans have to be re-written, which may not be possible.

There are many other aspects of this product launch to be explored, from the validity, or otherwise, of the claims, the marketing campaign, the labelling and the targeting of health workers.

We will continue to monitor and to campaign for more effective regulation to protect breastfeeding and to protect babies fed on formula. As ever, your support for this, both practical and financial, is essential.

Books including information on Nestlé available from Baby Milk Action

Someone posted a comment on an earlier blog entry asking if there are any books about Nestlé.

We have a variety in our on-line Virtual Shop that deal with Nestlé specifically or in the broader context of the campaign.



Breaking the Rules, Stretching the Rules 2007 profiles Nestlé and the other main formula companies with examples of how they have been found to be pushing formula in breach of World Health Assembly marketing requirements. See:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/publications01.html#btr07



Fighting and old battle in a new world is a publication from 2005 tracing the history of the campaign and is written by someone who was there at the formation of the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), Annelies Allain. She went on to set up the International Code Documentation Centre, which coordinates IBFAN's global monitoring projects. It is available at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/publications01.html#oldandnew



The Politics of Breastfeeding is written by Gabrielle Palmer, who has also been involved in the campaign since the first boycott and was involved with Baby Milk Action at the beginning. This book has opened the eyes of many people and motivated them to take action. It is fully updated and orders are being taken. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/publications02.html#politics



Using international tools to stop corporate malpractice - does it work? is a 2004 publication that I edited. It includes cases studies from 5 countries where experts commissioned by IBFAN examined the history of infant feeding and efforts to stop baby food companies pushing formula and undermining breastfeeding. In some countries these efforts worked, in others not. In every case the industry was trying to undermine strong regulations. You can download the report, or purchase a printed copy at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/publications01.html#checks



Global Obligations for the Right to Food, edited by Professor George Kent, uses existing human rights commitments to argue that governments have a collective responsibility to deliver the right to food. I have contributed a chapter on holding corporations accountable, which takes Nestlé as its main cases study, not only with regard to baby food marketing, but other harmful aspects of its business, such as exploitation of water resources.

Each chapter makes recommendations for action by governments and others. I'm exploring some of the wider implications on my personal global justice blog.

The book is available to order at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/publications02.html#gorf

For other publications on infant feeding see:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/publications00.html

Will the ASA do anything about Cow & Gate's bottle feeding advertisement?

Here are a couple of screen shots of the Cow & Gate advertisement I wrote about yesterday. We have reported this to the UK Advertising Standards Authority.


As you can see it is promoting bottle feeding with the suggestion that this provides key nutrients for healthy digestion and strengthened natural defences. The advertisement does not mention that a child fed on formula is more likely to suffer from gastro-enteritis, respiratory infections and other illnesses than a breastfed child.

The small print says that the product 'is not a breast milk substitute'. But what is a feeding bottle and teat if not a substitute breast?

The product shown is a follow-on milk. Breastfeeding is recommended not just for 6 months, the age at which companies encourage parents to start using follow-on milk, but beyond this. Follow-on milk replaces that part of the diet best provided by breastmilk and so is a breastmilk substitute covered by the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes. The Code prohibits the advertising of such products.

The advertisement shows a pack shot for the 3rd milk in the Cow & Gate range. The infant formula in the range is branded in the same way, so the advertisement is cross promotional. It also directs people to a website where the full range is advertised. The advertisement is also on the Cow & Gate website.

The UK law is weaker than the International Code and allows the advertising of follow-on milks. However Article 11.3 of the Code calls on companies to abide by its provisions independently of government measures. Danone, which now owns NUMICO (parent of Nutricia, Milupa and Cow & Gate), said earlier this year that it is conducting a 'root and branch review' of marketing activities, following its purchase. On present evidence there is no change to policies or practices.

Without some sign of action in the coming months, particularly in developing countries where NUMICO is also aggressive, Danone may well find itself the target of a consumer campaign.

The Guidance Notes to the UK law have something to say about follow-on formla advertising. Some extracts:

---
47... Read together, the aims of these regulations are to ensure that consumers recognise that advertisements for follow-on formula relate exclusively to products for older babies and not infant formula. Such advertisements should not promote, either directly or indirectly, infant formula, or formula milks/bottle-feeding in general. (regulations 18, 19 and 22).

48. In order to achieve compliance, companies will therefore need to ensure that formula advertising does not:
• promote a range of formula products by making the brand the focus of the advert, rather than specific products (e.g. where specific products are mentioned only in a footnote or in a picture of a tin of formula within the advertisement)...
• focus primarily on the promotion of ingredients, or the effect of ingredients, which are common to both follow-on formula and infant formula...
---

There are other provisions requiring the labelling and branding of infant formula and follow-on formula to be different, which are also being breached.

But will the ASA do anything? Past experience is not good. The ASA cleared an advertisement for Wyeth/SMA formula at the end of last year and we continue to receive reports of it being shown. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press19dec07.html

That case is featured in the report we prepared for the government's review of the effectiveness of the regulations, alongside other practices which we believe break the regulations.

You can find the report on the Baby Feeding Law Group website, which we maintain, along with links to the regulations. See:
http://www.babyfeedinglawgroup.org.uk/

Donations to help with our monitoring work, which is currently unfunded and has to be done mainly in staff spare time, are very welcome.