We want Nestle out of the London Marathon - Facebook group

Nestle is sponsoring the London Marathon with its controversial Pure Life brand of bottled water. The next London Marathon will take place on 17 April 2011. If you would like there to be alternative supplies, you can join the Facebook group: "We want Nestlé out of the London Marathon". See:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=134180279931568&v=info

Nestle is the most boycotted company in the UK and its strategy it to try to improve its image and put boycott supporters and other campaigners in a predicament: withdraw from the marathon, endanger their health by not accepting water or break their boycott.

Members of this group are calling for alternative water to be provided and want Nestle out of the London Marathon. You can give your views on the London Marathon Facebook discussion board:

http://www.facebook.com/virginlondonmarathon?ref=ts

Nestle is the target of a boycott (and one of the four most boycotted companies on the planet) because the way it pushes baby milk. It breaks international marketing standards adopted by the World Health Assembly, undermines breastfeeding and puts babies that have to be fed on formula at risk.

Nestle pretends this is an issue of the past, but its current global marketing strategy is to promote its baby milk with the claim it 'protects' babies. Nestle knows that babies fed on its formula are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. Its claims undermine the obligatory 'breastmilk is best for babies' message that the boycott helped to bring in. You can send a message to Nestle about this at:

http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog260510

Nestle is also refusing to warn on labels that powdered formula is not a sterile product and the simple steps required to reduce risks of possible contamination with bacteria. Even babies fed on baby milk in the best conditions have died of such contamination. The World Health Organisation has issued guidelines for reconstituting formula to reduce the risk, but Nestle refuses to change its labels. See: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/micro/pif2007/en/index.html

Nestle bottled water business is the target of campaigners around the world for the harm it causes to their communities. In Brazil, Nestle's bottling of Pure Life water damaged an historic water park, prompting residents, dependent on the park for their livelihoods, to petition the public prosecutor to take action. Nestle was taken to court and eventually stopped pumping under the threat of daily fines - but it took 10 years of campaigning. See:

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

For concerns about Nestle's bottling in other countries, particularly the United States, see the water section of the Nestle Critics website:

http://www.nestlecritics.org/

The Nestle Critics site also has information from groups campaigning about Nestle failure to deliver on its promise to end child slavery in its cocoa supply chain by 2006, its use of palm oil implicated in destroying Indonesian rainforest (Nestle has said it will stop this following a Greenpeace campaign - but only by 2015), trade union busting, spying on campaigners and other concerns.

Supporting the campaign to remove Nestle from the sponsors of the London Marathon will help draw attention to its malpractice and add to the pressure for it to change.

Most people who run the Marathon do so because they want to contribute to good causes.

Nestle is not an appropriate sponsor.

Nestle's Chairman, Peter Brabeck-Letmathé, has stated clearly that companies should only pursue charitable endeavors with an underlying intention of making money for investors (see Boston Herald).

Nestle sponsorship of BlogHer Conference starts to go wrong for most-boycotted company

The Nestlé boycott works its magic again as sponsorship of the BlogHer conference by its Stouffer brand comes under scrutiny. The Conference is due to take place in New York in the United States (6 - 7 August). Ironically, this came to my attention by a posting on a blog by someone defending her decision to attend Nestlé's parenting-blogger event in California in October 2009, which led to a first-class public relations disaster on Twitter, the social networking site. Nestlé has an abysmal image in cyberspace and is trying to improve this. As debate rages over whether bloggers should attend the Conference and what they can do there to support the campaign if they do, some thoughts come to my mind, which I will share here. It is very welcome to see people taking a stand, but the fact that Nestlé is contributing to the unnecessary death and suffering of babies around the world is an uncomfortable fact to face if you are someone who loves a particular product or want to accept its largesse. Accordingly, facing the facts is generally avoided in the arguments for not taking a stand.

While some bloggers in this debate are dismissive of the boycott as a strategy, there are two groups of people who have no doubt as to its importance: Nestlé executives and campaigners.

According to Nestlé's Global Head of Public Affairs, Dr. Gayle Crozier-Willi, Nestlé is widely boycotted. In fact, an independent survey by GMIPoll found it is one of the four most boycotted companies on the planet, the most boycotted in the UK, where Baby Milk Action is based. For executives, the boycott ranges between being an irritant to an unavoidable problem to be dealt with, depending on the day and the forum. Our job as campaigners is to move it to the right end of this spectrum, because that is when we see change. For example, Nestlé refused to translate the labels of baby milks into the national language in countries such as Malawi until we got the issue onto national television - then they rushed out translated labels. When we held national demonstrations in the UK, picked up by Swiss television, Nestlé announced it would stop promoting complementary foods from too early an age. When boycotters have contacted Nestlé over specific examples of malpractice, such as leaflets claiming Nestlé formula 'counteracts diarrhoea', Nestlé has said it would replace them. In our current campaign against Nestlé's new global strategy claiming its formula 'protects' babies (see youtube clip below), Nestlé has already taken action over point-of-sale display of tins, after we exposed that Nestlé's distribution system was allowing such things to go ahead, despite Nestlé's published policy saying they are not permitted. In the following clip, I take on the role of Mr. Nastie to explain Nestlé's baby milk marketing strategy.

With enough pressure we will persuade Nestlé to remove its 'protect' logos from labels of baby milk - send a message here. At the shareholder meeting in April 2010, Richard Laube, Chief Executive of Nestlé Nutrition, defended the practice when we raised it and admitted the strategy has been rolled out in 120 countries.  Nestlé knows that babies fed on its formula are more likely to become sick and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die, but it puts its own profits first. Not only is there no justification for such an irresponsible strategy, it is a clear violation of Article 9.2 of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, which Nestlé claims to respect, which states: "Neither the container nor the label should have pictures of infants, nor should they have other pictures or text which may idealise the use of infant formula." [emphasis added]

This is only one concern amongst many, but it is particularly harmful as it undermines the message that breastfeeding protects babies. With enough mobilisation, we will stop it as we have stopped other outrageous practices. You can find out more and take action here: http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog260510

Now, in the debate about the BlogHer conference, there is a phenomena that I have noticed before when Nestlé sponsorship is involved: there is a distinct lack of engagement on the actual issue of Nestlé marketing practices and an unwillingness to look at the evidence. So people will say things like, 'it is recycled old news'.  Well, there have been problems with Nestlé for over a hundred years, but anyone paying attention knows we are talking about things Nestlé is doing RIGHT NOW.

Some say that it is a simple fact of life that it takes money to organise events and any sponsor could be criticised by someone, so just take the money and do good with it. Which brings to mind the stance taken by the Indian Academy of Paediatrics, which has refused sponsorship by Nestlé or any other company involved in infant nutrition since 1997, taking the view that it was better to pay for their own meals than compromise their independence. The Academy argued against all such sponsorship for health workers and this was introduced in legislation in 2003 - legislation Nestlé is accused of breaking. The World Health Assembly, made up of the world's health ministries, has also adopted Resolutions calling for conflicts of interest in sponsorship of health workers and health programmes to be avoided.

The stance taken in India has an impact on sales - and breastfeeding rates. The industry analysts, Euromonitor, stated in their report on the market in 2008: "The huge disparity in the retail value of milk formula sales between China and India is mainly due to the significant differences between their official regulatory regimes.” The action by paediatricians to protect infant health is reflected in other measures. Euromonitor notes: “In India, all advertising is prohibited, while in China, TV advertising and the use of celebrity spokespeople are allowed.”

If the Indian Academy of Paediatrics can find other ways to hold its meetings, surely it is not beyond the imagination of bloggers in the US to put in place an ethical funding policy for their events?

With regards the boycott, every little helps and the way we promote it is intended to make it as easy to support as possible. We target Nestlé's flagship product, Nescafé, while publishing a list of major brands so people can avoid the whole lot, which obviously has more impact. We produce 'Nescafé - No Thanks' cards that people can leave where Nescafé is sold requesting an alternative option.

We promote International Nestlé-Free Week at the end of October (encompassing Halloween, which is a big chocolate event in some countries) so that people who do not usually boycott can be asked to avoid Nestlé products during that week. Those that normally only boycott Nescafé are asked to boycott all of them for the week. So when people say they have been given pause for thought because Nestlé makes such and such a product, that is not an argument for doing nothing, but an excuse.

In the BlogHer debate, some are saying that those who support the boycott should not go to the Conference. Everyone has to make up their own mind - Baby Milk Action certainly doesn't dictate. There is a difference between speakers who will be seen to endorse Nestlé if they share a platform with company spokespeople or are surrounded by branding and someone who sits in the audience to listen, learn and perhaps question.

Nestlé sponsorship provides an opportunity for campaigners and it is valid to attend to raise awareness and question Nestlé's involvement. Do not forget that following the Twitter disaster last year, Nestlé is embarking on a strategy to improve its image in cyberspace and sponsoring bloggers and their events is part of that strategy - people need to be alerted to how they are being used.

Nestlé is already reportedly paying celebrities US$10,000 per Tweet to say nice things about the company. It is worth recalling that when Mark Thomas, a British comedian and investigative reporter, was putting together an exposé of Nestlé for his television programme, they went digging through his past looking for any links with the company. Mark obtained company documents including his name using the data protection act and found a memo saying that if Nestlé could find he had advertised a company product they could attack him for hypocrisy for speaking out. You can see Mark's first programme on Nestlé on youtube.

Some people are saying it would be hypocritical for boycotters to attend the BlogHer event. There is a difference between an event organised by Nestlé (like its blogger event last year) and an event where the organisers have accepted Nestlé sponsorship, where we might hope to persuade the organisers to either get out of the arrangement or put in place a policy to prevent a repetition. Baby Milk Action has attended health worker events sponsored by baby food companies so we can gather material, take photographs, speak to other attendees and put the case to organisers that the action of the companies is not appropriate.

Handing out leaflets inside an event can be effective - and I will gladly help to make any leaflets for the BlogHer event legally bomb proof. Alternatively, or in addition, picketing events with placards and politely offering leaflets to those entering means that Nestlé's sponsorship is turned against it. And campaigners should always be polite, because even a few unpleasant comments will be used to suggest all campaigners are 'hateful' and provide an excuse for avoiding the real issues.

The dilemma for speakers reminds me of the situation Stephen Lewis, then Executive Deputy Director of UNICEF, found himself in when invited to be the key-note speaker at a nutrition event in Canada, only to find later it was sponsored by Nestlé and other formula companies.

He decided it would have more impact to attend and raise the unethical behaviour of the companies in his speech and say he thought their sponsorship of the event was inappropriate. See:

http://www.infactcanada.ca/nutblast.htm

A few year’s ago we handed letters to Members of Parliament, church and business leaders and other VIP guests as they entered a prestige Nestlé event, called its ‘development lecture’ – that year on the theme of malnutrition. This provided an opportunity for the guests to put the issues we raised direct to the CEO of Nestlé (UK). You may have heard Nestlé say it likes people to put questions – but they cancelled the event the following year because they didn't want to be questioned:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/boycott/boyct25.html#3

To bring it up to date, we have a share in Nestlé to attend the shareholder meeting to raise questions directly with the board of directors before other shareholders and also organise events on Nestlé’s doorstep. As the film clip above shows, although the boycott stops some malpractice, the company is always coming up with new ways to undermine breastfeeding to boost sales of its baby milk – the latest being its claim that its formula ‘protects’ babies:

http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog260510

Even if people do not want to support the boycott, they can still send a message to Nestlé via the above link asking the company to stop claiming its baby milk 'protects' babies.

It just takes a click.

Send a message to Nestle and spread the word

All postings regarding Nestlé's marketing of baby milk were censored at the company's Creating Shared Value Forum yesterday, so with the management refusing to engage with the public, we need to increase the number of messages going to Nestlé. Baby Milk Action is making this easier with new features on our new-look website.

You will find you can now easily share links to pages of interest with your friends. Try it out on our new film clip about Nestlé's strategy of promoting baby milk with the claim that it 'protects' babies, even though it knows babies fed on baby milk are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. The page includes a form for sending a message to Nestlé calling for it to stop this practice. See: http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog260510

When you've sent your message, why not pass on the link using the 'share this link' feature on you'll find on the site (left column), or the link at the bottom of the page, where you can add a personalised message. You can also share pages on Facebook.

People left comments on Nestlé's Facebook page yesterday while its Creating Shared Value event was taking place as comments posted to the discussion board, where Nestlé invited the public to engage with the company, did not get past the moderators. None of the questions were put to the panel at the associated event in London, which became a Public Relations coup for Nestlé as speakers spoke of their work in development in front of the Nestlé brand name.

The volume of messages about its baby milk marketing did at least prompt moderators to acknowledge people had been sending them and respond with links to Nestlé's policy statements and an offer to send its audit reports. However, Nestlé's policy statements and misleading audits are amongst the things people complain about - hence, Nestlé's refusal to post the actual comments people were making.

Nestlé's Creating Shared Value reports are also an attempt to Greenwash the company and divert criticism of its negative impact on babies, people and the environment. Past reports have been analysed by the Nestlé Critics, but there was no-one at the event to challenge Nestlé's portrayal of itself. So let's spread the word ourselves and plan for a demonstration at the event next year so the voices of those who Nestlé wishes to pretend do not exist will be heard.

LIVE 27 May - Nestlé Forum in London

Nestle is hosting a Forum in London today 27 May - broadcast on the internet - about its Creating Shared Value strategy. Nestle portrays itself as a model of ethical behaviour, driven by its values. Yet the claims it makes and reports it produces are very misleading.

Choose your way of putting questions about Nestle's pushing of baby milk and other issues to Nestlé and panellists. See the links at the bottom for sources of information about ongoing Nestlé malpractice, which shows Nestlé Creating Shared Value strategy is meaningless PR intended to divert criticism so it can carry on boosting profits while others count the cost.

How to put your questions - choose your method

Watch Nestle Forum webcast live and post comments:

http://clients.world-television.com/nestle/CSV_2010/

Post comments to Twitter at:

http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23csv2010

Post comments to Facebook at:

http://www.facebook.com/Nestle?v=wall&story_fbid=122651214433034

Post comments to Nestle Forum discussion board:

http://www.creatingsharedvalue.org/Forum.aspx

Concerns about Nestlé

Watch Mr. Henry Nastie, spoof marketing guru, explain the truth about Nestlé baby milk marketing at:

http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog260510

Nestlé's misleading Creating Shared Value reports exposed:

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

live nestle forum

Nestle is hosting a Forum in London today 27 May - broadcast on the internet - about its Creating Shared Value strategy. Nestle portrays itself as a model of ethical behaviour, driven by its values. Yet the claims it makes and reports it produces are very misleading.

Choose your way of putting questions about Nestle's pushing of baby milk and other issues to Nestlé and panellists. See the links at the bottom for sources of information about ongoing Nestlé malpractice, which shows Nestlé Creating Shared Value strategy is meaningless PR intended to divert criticism so it can carry on boosting profits while others count the cost.

How to put your questions - choose your method

Watch Nestle Forum webcast live and post comments:

http://clients.world-television.com/nestle/CSV_2010/

Post comments to Twitter at:

http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23csv2010

Post comments to Facebook at:

http://www.facebook.com/Nestle?v=wall&story_fbid=122651214433034

Post comments to Nestle Forum discussion board:

http://www.creatingsharedvalue.org/Forum.aspx

Concerns about Nestlé

Watch Mr. Henry Nastie, spoof marketing guru, explain the truth about Nestlé baby milk marketing at:

http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog260510

Nestlé's misleading Creating Shared Value reports exposed:

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

Film clip: Nestle latest baby milk marketing strategy explained

The following talk by Mr. Henry Nastie, spoof marketing guru, was recorded outside Nestlé (UK) HQ on 22 May 2010. References for the information in the film are given below.

Mr. Henry Nastie was played by Mike Brady of Baby Milk Action. Other people interviewed were campaign supporters who had come to demonstrate at Nestlé (UK) HQ.

For a suggested letter to send to Nestlé, see the Campaign for Ethical Marketing action sheet.

On 26 and 27 May it is possible to post questions and comments about Nestlé's business practices to its Creating Shared Value open forum. See: http://www.creatingsharedvalue.org/Forum.aspx

Support Baby Milk Acton's Make a Mark campaign.

References:

1. Nestlé is the most boycotted company in the UK and one of the four most boycotted companies on the planet according to a 2005 survey by GMIPoll, reported in The Guardian newspaper on 1 September 2005. Nestlé is the target of a boycott because monitoring by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) finds Nestlé, the market leader, to be the worst of the baby food companies. The boycott has forced Nestlé to make changes - see some examples here. In the case of Malawi, in the past Nestlé refused to translate the required warnings into Chichewa, the national language, citing 'cost restraints'. It backed down after Baby Milk Action targeted this and Mark Thomas exposed Nestlé on his national television programme in 1999 - watch on youtube.

2. Nestlé claims it has reissued its instructions to distributors regarding prohibition of point-of-sale display of formula after Baby Milk Action contacted it about the display in a rural area of Malawi shown in the film. Not only does the display reveal that Nestlé systems are failing, it suggests that distributors may see no risk in promoting formula with the 'protect' logo even in the poorest of conditions if they believe it will 'protect' babies. Under-5 mortality in Malawi is 140 per 1,000 live births.

3. Nestlé (UK) HQ is in Croydon. Campaigners demonstrate every year on the anniversary of the adoption of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1981.

4. According to UNICEF: "Improved breastfeeding practices and reduction of artificial feeding could save an estimated 1.5 million children a year" and "Marketing practices that undermine breastfeeding are potentially hazardous wherever they are pursued: in the developing world, WHO estimates that some 1.5 million children die each year because they are not adequately breastfed. These facts are not in dispute." The 2003 WHO/Lancet Child Survival Series asked 'How many child deaths can we prevent this year?' and concluded that 1.3 million under-5 deaths in the 42 countries where most occur could be prevented by improved breastfeeding rates. See Your Questions Answered. According to WHO (2006): "The protection, promotion and support of breastfeeding rank among the most effective interventions to improve child survival. It is estimated that high coverage of optimal breastfeeding practices could avert 13% of the 10.6 million deaths of children under five years occurring globally every year. Exclusive breastfeeding in the first six months of life is particularly beneficial, and infants who are not breastfed in the first month of life may be as much as 25 times more likely to die than infants who are exclusively breastfed."

5. Baby Milk Action contacted Nestlé about its 'Protect' logos in July 2009 and asked members of the public to do the same, using its Campaign for Ethical Marketing action sheet. Nestlé posted a public response to its website in October 2009 following the public campaign and responded to Baby Milk Action after being reported to the UN Global Compact Office for breaching its principles. Nestlé defends the logos. A full analysis is available here.

6. The UN Global Compact Office has said it can do nothing of the violations of its principles other than encourage 'dialogue'. It also stated: "Of course, abuses of the 10 Principles do occur; however we believe that such abuses only indicate that it is important for the company to remain in the Compact and learn from its mistakes." Nestlé uses its involvement in the UN Global Compact in its Public Relations campaigns to try to divert criticism. Baby Milk Action also reported Nestlé over the 'protect' logos to the Swiss Government department responsible for enforcing the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. The Swiss Government also said it was unwilling to do anything other than promote 'dialogue'. Baby Milk Action asked it to request samples of the latest baby milk labels from the countries where the formula has been launched - it refused to do so and said it was closing the case. Further details here.

7. Baby Milk Action raised the 'protect' marketing campaign and other issues at the Nestlé shareholder meeting on 15 April 2010. Mr. Richard Laube, Chief Executive of Nestlé Nutrition, defended the logos and said they had been launched in 120 countries.

8. Nestlé's Global Public Affairs Manager, Dr. Gayle Crozier-Willi, said in correspondence with Baby Milk Action on 14 January 2010:

Nestlé makes significant investment in R&D and technology to deliver innovative products with scientifically proven nutritional benefits in many different areas. Concerning the 'Protect' logo, while all our infant nutrition products meet the needs of non-breastfed babies during the first critical months of life, the functional benefits that are encapsulated in the 'Protect' logo are the result of many years of intensive research on how best to improve the nutritional composition to stimulate the infant's immune system. The logo helps distinguish this particular formula from other less advanced products but does not claim in any manner that infant formula is superior to breast milk.

The 'proven' nature of the claims is disputed by independent reviewers (see below). In addition, all idealizing claims are prohibited by Article 9.2 of the International Code, which states:

Neither the container nor the label should have pictures of infants, nor should they have other pictures or text which may idealise the use of infant formula. [emphasis added]

The colourful logo, which says 'Protect Start' on the infant formula for use from birth and 'Protect Plus' on the follow-on formula for use from 6 months and the terms DHA, ARA, Opti-Pro and Bifodigenic effect. Analysis:

• DHA and ARA are Long Chain Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids LCPUFAs. According to the respected Cochrane Library: "It has been suggested that low levels of long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFA) found in formula milk may contribute to lower IQ levels and vision skills in term infants. Some milk formulas with added LCPUFA are commercially available. This review found that feeding term infants with milk formula enriched with LCPUFA had no proven benefit regarding vision, cognition or physical growth." http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000376.html

• Bifodigenic effect appears to be suggesting the formula contains an oligosaccharide - sometimes marketed as 'prebiotics' - (breastmilk contains over 100) to promote bacteria growth and provide protection against allergies. The Cochrane Library concluded a review: "There is insufficient evidence to recommend the addition of prebiotics to infant feeds for prevention of allergic disease or food reactions." http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab006474.html

• Opti-Pro implies a benefit for eyes (until recently, Nestlé owned marketed Opti-Free contact lens solutions) or 'Optimum Protein', itself an idealising claim. Nestlé's Dr. Crozier-Willi, said in her letter of 14 January 2010:

The logo 'Opti-pro' does not refer to eye development at all, rather it refers to an optimised mix of milk proteins which when ingested, results in the infant having a blood amino acid composition which closely resembles that of an infant on breast milk. This represents quite an advance in the application of technology to superior nutrition and is explained in detail in the scientific information that we share with health professionals.

Article 7.2 of the International Code states: "Information provided by manufacturers and distributors to health professionals regarding products within the scope of this Code should be restricted to scientific and factual matters, and such information should not imply or create a belief that bottle feeding is equivalent or superior to breastfeeding."

9. All of Baby Milk Action's posters had been removed from outside Nestlé (UK) HQ when it returned to remove them itself after packing up after the demonstration. Nestlé representatives, though generally calm and collected in public (unlike Mr. Nastie), are aggressive in trying to remove criticism. For example, Baby Milk Action was threatened with legal action by Nestlé prior to the launch of the Nestlé Critics website during International Nestlé-Free Week in 2008 - click here. In March 2010, Nestlé forced youtube to remove a Greenpeace film clip exposing the harm caused by the company's sourcing of palm oil - click here. Nestlé has also been accused of spying on campaigners in Switzerland - click here.

How Nestle spins when it gives into campaigners' demands - Greenpeace campaign update

Greenpeace is reporting that Nestlé has agreed to all of its demands regarding its sourcing of palm oil from suppliers accused of destroying Indonesian rainforest to produce it. Nestlé had earlier resisted calls to change its policies and practices and received many thousands of messages and Greenpeace campaigners dropped in - literally - on its shareholder meeting in Switzerland last April. From our own success in holding Nestlé to account, we know that its Public Relations team will be swinging into action to portray this as 'Nestlé taking the lead' - ignoring the great efforts campaigners have had to go to and using its climb down to divert attention from other concerns about it awful management behaviour.

We have several examples from the Baby Milk Action campaign we can cite. For example, we campaigned for three years over Nestlé's refusal to translate labels into the national language of the country where they were sold and prompted Nestlé to review its labels after getting this onto national UK television (The Mark Thomas Product).

This was portrayed by Nestlé in its 'Code Action Report' (left) as if it was unilaterally taking action. While it did indeed put out new labels in Malawi, one of the examples cited, these were rejected by the Government as inadequate. Although they have since been changed, Nestlé has added a logo claiming its formula 'protects' babies, when in truth babies fed on it are more likely to become sick and, in conditions of poverty as exist in Malawi, are more likely to die. This is the target of a current Baby Milk Action campaign - click here to send a message to Nestlé.

So don't be surprised if Nestlé puts out statements and pamphlets about it tightening its requirements for sourcing palm oil - without acknowledging it was forced to do so. Greenpeace is right to say that Nestlé must be closely monitored to see if it delivers on its undertaking.

In another example, we campaigned for 9 years to force Nestlé to accept a 1994 World Health Assembly (WHA) Resolution saying that complementary feeding should be fostered from 6 months of age - Nestlé routinely promoted such foods for use from 4 months of age or even less. It took bringing the Resolution into law and policies in many countries, further Resolutions at the Assembly and, finally, national demonstrations in the UK to prompt change. During the course of the week of demonstrations in 2003, which were filmed by Swiss television, Nestlé contacted Baby Milk Action to say it was accepting the WHA Resolutions - but again it spun this as Nestlé 'taking the lead', the headline in the 7th edition of its 'Code Action Report', shown left. Again, it has not lived up to its claim to change its practices and continues to push complementary foods from too early an age. A recent example was given on the PhDinParenting blog a couple of weeks ago.

Nestlé's Code Action Report has a curious history - Nestlé launched it in October 1999, with the claim:

"This is the first edition of a monthly report, issued by Nestlé to interested parties around the world, which is designed to be a reliable and authoritative source of information on implementation of the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes, including its Aims, Principles and Articles.

"This new initiative is intended to encourage meaningful dialogue with all interested parties concerned with infant feeding and nutrition, the encouragement of breast-feeding and the promotion of the WHO International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes."

Baby Milk Action took Nestlé at its word and entered into this 'dialogue' - as a result Nestlé had to publish corrections and apologies in subsequent issues of the Code Action Report, including a full-page right-to-reply from Baby Milk Action after it disputed our evidence regarding its use of community health workers to promote baby milks in the Philippines. It apologised to the Danish and other governments in the pages of the report for misrepresenting letters Nestlé claimed were official verification that it was abiding by the Code and Resolutions. For full analysis of this PR disaster surrounding these letters, see our 1999 briefing, Don't Judge a Book by its Cover.

So Nestlé decided that 'meaningful dialogue' was not such a good idea. The sequence of 'monthly' Code Action Reports, posted to Nestlé's anti-boycott website, are as follows:

Number 1: October 1999

Number 2: November 1999

Number 3: January 2000

Number 4: April 2000 (They are starting to come a little more slowly now)

Number 5: August 2000 (Now more than a year to wait..)

Number 6: October 2001 (And if you can believe it, an even longer wait..)

Number 7: June 2003 .. the newest edition on the site - no new report for nearly 7 years!

We are not alone in finding that when Nestlé backs down it tries to spin this to its own advantage.

In 2003 Oxfam launched a campaign against Nestlé's attempt to extract US$ 6 million from the Ethiopian Government at a time the country was experiencing famine. The compensation claim related to a factory that had been nationalised 27 years before, prior to Nestlé owning the company that had owned the factory. The Government offered US$ 1.5 million compensation, but Nestlé tried an accounting trick to increase this four-fold. Its Global Head of Communications, Francois Perroud, went on the radio claiming it was in the Government's interest to settle if it was to attract future investment. People sent messages and packs of rice to Nestlé and eventually it agreed to settle for US$ 1.5 million and donate this to initiatives in Ethiopia (history here). But Nestlé has no shame - the following year, when the Guardian newspaper reported that Breakthrough Breast Cancer had refused a £1 million donation from Nestlé on ethical grounds, Nestlé sent a letter to the newspaper dismissing criticism of its baby food marketing and claimed it was a force for good in the world, citing the donation made to Ethiopia - of course, it did not mention that that the donation came about not because of Nestlé altruism, but because of campaign protest. In addition, Nestlé's Chairman has made it very clear that any donations to good causes have to benefit shareholders.

So well done to everyone who campaigned on Nestlé's sourcing of palm oil. The company needs to be monitored to see it it delivers. Greenpeace is now moving on to target another company in its palm oil campaign.

Those who are concerned about Nestlé practices should not be misled if Nestlé now claims to be taking the lead on palm oil - this is a PR response and it has not changed its business ethos. Continued pressure is need to stop it claiming its baby milk 'protects' babies and other malpractice. Click here to send a message to Nestlé. The Greenpeace victory - as with our past victories - show that if we make enough noise, then Nestlé will judge it is in its own best interests to change.

You can help to make some noise by demonstrating at Nestlé UK (HQ) in Croydon on 22 May 11:00 - 12:00 or another Nestlé site or location where Nestlé products are sold. For further information on this and other future events, see our Diary Dates page.

Making a mark in the UK General Election

I've just sent out a press release with the news that the Liberal Democrats have pledged their support to our campaign to protect infant health. We have asked the parties vying for power in the UK General Election to pledge to work for the implementation of the World Health Assembly marketing requirements in the UK and support these minimum standards internationally. The Green Party and Scottish Green Party have also made this pledge. We wrote to all party leaders as part of our Make a Mark in 2010 activities.

The Liberal Democrats have sometimes been in second place in polling in the lead up to the vote, which takes place on 6 May and may hold the balance of power if no party wins an outright majority. The Scottish Green Party is already represented in the Scottish Parliament and the Greens are hoping to enter the UK Parliament at this election. We are still waiting for position statements from the other parties.

You can find out more from the press release - where you can also download a leaflet including the pledge. If you are in the UK, ask candidates in your constituency to make the pledge. See:

http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease03may10

The London Marathon - Nestle's sick strategy for attacking the UK boycott

Nestlé is the most boycotted company in the UK over the way it pushes baby milk and it is desperate to change the situation. It is reportedly paying celebrities US$10,000 per tweet to say nice things about it on Twitter and is hiring a PR firm to try to improve its image in cyberspace. Today it is sponsoring the London Marathon and is supplying branded Nestlé Pure Life water to runners around the course. We have produced leaflets for runners and others to hand out to use this as an opportunity to show they do not support Nestlé and have produced a press release including the following quote.

Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator at Baby Milk Action, said: "People have to drink water doing a marathon and it is the height of irresponsibility that the organisers are providing water with the Nestlé brand, which is boycotted by many. We considered whether we could provide alternative water along the route, but it is simply unfeasible. Anyone running must put their own health first, but can hand out our leaflets to show they disagree with being forced to drink Nestlé water - for some it will be the first Nestlé product to have passed their lips for many years. It is a pretty sick way of Nestlé to force people to break their boycott and shows how desperate the company is."

Best wishes if you take part in the Marathon. Please let us and the organisers know what you think of having Nestlé as a sponsor.

Vote for babies in the UK General Election

I've just posted a new page on our website with a leaflet for the UK General Election campaign. See:

http://info.babymilkaction.org/ukelection2010

Nestle tries to shake off boycotters

We have a boycott list with the main Nestlé brands in the UK. I was just adding a note that Nestlé is in the process of selling its Alcon contact lens solutions business to Novartis. This is due to complete in mid-2010. In the process I remembered I needed to update the link to Nestlé own brands page. We link to it from our boycott list, but Nestlé keeps changing the address of the page in small ways so the link dies (for example, its been changed from Brands.htm to BrandHome.htm). Thank you to everyone who contacted me about the dead link.

You can find our list with the link to Nestlé's latest page at
http://info.babymilkaction.org/nestleboycottlist

The game of 'find the Nestlé's brand page' is not the only one Nestlé likes to play. A new one surfaced when I visited the Annabel Karmel Facebook page today. Unsurprising as it was recruiting PR experts to try to improve its abysmal image in cyberspace. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2010/02/nestle-launches-cyberwar.html

Bestselling children's recipe book author Annabel Karmel withdrew from a campaign marketing Nestlé cereals last month after finding out more about Nestlé's baby food marketing practices and the boycott. Many members of the public posted messages and some alerted Baby Milk Action to the link up and a misleading statement defending Nestlé that was part of the campaign. See:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog060410

Visiting the site today I noticed a Nestlé advertisement at the side, calling on people to 'learn more about Nestlé approach to Corporate Social Responsibility'. This is trying to prompt visitors to listen to Nestlé's portrayal of its activities, rather than listen to boycotter supporters and critics.

They are probably targeting any page where Nestlé is mentioned, knowing that with a 'positivity' score in social media of just 12 out of 100 in an audit by Yomego Social Media Reputation (PR Week) these are likely to be critical comments.

Now you might think we know more than enough about Nestlé's approach to Corporate Social Responsibility: Put profits before all else, leave others to count the cost in damage to human lives and the environment, set up a team to tell people to ignore the critics, produce swish PR reports, recruit celebrities and others to pass on misinformation.

But I don't want to stop people hearing what Nestlé would like you to believe. You can find its latest Creating Shared Value report on its site at:
http://www2.nestle.com/CSV/Pages/CSV.aspx

For analysis of its previous report and the complaint the Nestlé Critics registered with the UN Global Compact, which posted the report on its website, see:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press17june09.html

Baby Milk Action is also on Facebook and Twitter. I've added some icons to our website so you can find us.

People power

There are two reasons why Nestlé is the most boycotted company in the UK and one of the four most boycotted companies on the planet (findings of an independent poll conducted by GMIPoll and reported in The Guardian http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/businessinsight/archives/2005/09/01/branded.html).

Because Nestlé is so bad and because you, campaign supporters, are so good.

The decision of children's food author Annabel Karmel, to withdraw from a link-up with Nestlé last month demonstrates this clearly.

Nestlé is the worst of the baby food companies, pushing its products in breach of international standards and contributing to the unnecessary death and suffering of babies around the world. Although the boycott has forced some changes to Nestlé policies and practices, it still refuses to sign up to Baby Milk Action's four-point plan for saving lives and ending the boycott. Its attitude is demonstrated by its latest global monitoring strategy, claiming its formula 'protects' babies - a disgraceful practice that it is defending even though it knows babies fed on the formula are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. It will take further pressure to force Nestlé to stop this. Click here to send Nestlé a message.

While Nestlé spends billions of pounds promoting its products and image around the world, its PR team is surprisingly inept at countering criticism. Nestlé had a 'positivity' score in social media of just 12 out of 100 in an audit by Yomego Social Media Reputation, according to PR Week reporting in February on Nestlé throwing more money at PR experts to try to counter this. Nestlé is also amongst the top ten companies criticised for social and environmental practices, according to ECOFACT. Greenpeace, targeting Nestlé over its sourcing policies for palm oil used in products like Fairtrade KitKat, found Nestlé's PR experts scored an own goal by using legal threats to force youtube to remove a spoof KitKat advertisement exposing how rainforests in Indonesia are being destroyed, contributing to climate change and endangering orang-utans. The clip went viral on other sites and youtube reinstated it. You can watch it here.

It is public support and action that makes all the difference. People like you spreading the word and sending messages to company executives.

Last year Nestlé's PR experts took 20 parenting bloggers to stay in a 5-star hotel in California, complete with celebrity chef, to co-opt them as cheerleaders for the company. Campaign supporters wrote blogs calling on them not to go. Some dropped out. Others went and some offered to take questions on the Twitter channel that Nestlé had set up for the event. This became a full-blow PR disaster for Nestlé that fuelled International Nestlé-Free Week in the US (during Halloween) and made it into the mainstream media. Baby Milk Action became aware of the event because of the surge in traffic to our sites from people posting links and we joined in, providing information and offering to debate with Nestlé on Twitter (not taken up). 

The point is, there is no way that Baby Milk Action could have achieved this alone. Nor would we want to have to try to do so. This is a mass campaign and it relies on the many thousands of boycott supporters around the world looking for opportunities to promote the boycott . We can provide information and support as best we can - supported by the network of campaigners, the majority volunteers, in the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), who monitor what Nestlé and other companies are doing around the world.

The recent case of Annabel Karmel shows how important supporters are in spreading this information (or raising awareness as campaigners like to say).

Annabel Karmel is a best-selling author of recipe books for children's food. She teamed up with Nestlé to promote its 'whole grain' cereals. There are concerns about Nestlé's cereals as they are criticised for having high salt and sugar levels, except for Shredded Wheat, the only 100% whole grain cereal which is used as a marketing balloon to hang the less healthy cereals on. The bigger concern was that Annabel put a statement defending the link up onto her website, which appeared to have been drafted by Nestlé's PR team as it suggested that evidence showed that Nestlé supported breastfeeding and complied with the relevant marketing requirements. People very quickly started leaving comments on the website and on Annabel's facebook fan page pointing to the evidence showing that, in truth, Nestlé systematically violates the World Health Assembly marketing requirements.

Baby Milk Action was tipped off and I added my comments and contacted Annabel and her media person for a response to the evidence of malpractice, including Nestlé's latest global 'protect' claims used to market baby milk. All I received was a standard response about the importance of eating whole grain cereal - the defence of Nestlé's baby food marketing given on the website was not repeated in this message, perhaps a sign of the embarrassment of trying to defend it. However, the email said: "I know you expressed concerns about the company and I have forwarded these to Nestle who will respond to you directly."

I posted on the Annabel Facebook page warning people that their details would be sent directly to Nestlé if they raised concerns - though I think that is not good practice from a data protection point of view, a check of the privacy statement on Annabel's site showed she is warning she might pass on data to companies.

Then on 25 March Annabel made a welcome statement on her Facebook page:

"We have had a few enquiries about my association on the Nestlé whole grain cereals campaign. I was initially happy to work with them on a range of healthy cereals which met my ideals on nutrition. However after listening to people’s comments, I have made the decision not to continue my association with Nestle. Annabel"

The link to the past statement defending Nestlé is now dead. 

So the upshot is that Annabel, many of her 5,000 Facebook fans and lots of people who visited will have come across the concerns. As a secondary impact, we have had lots of traffic to our sites, more people joining our email lists to keep updated and perhaps even some of the recent members have joined as a result.

I think this reinforces Baby Milk Action's approach of trying to contact celebrities and public figures who defend Nestlé to try to put them right before trying to shame them. We did eventually go public over George Clooney as he has passed on Nestlé's misinformation to others even after we provided evidence showing he had been misled. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press31jan09.html 

There are various boycott groups and events that have been set up on Facebook and other social networking sites. It is impossible for Baby Milk Action to monitor them all, though we have our own official group on Facebook at:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=4978994961

We welcome people promoting the boycott and other campaigns themselves. Please put a link to our website and be careful to use the explanations for the campaign as given here or feel free to send text to me for checking. Anything we produce is legally water-tight and we shall step in if there is a challenge - but we cannot be held responsible if incorrect statements are made in editing our information.

If you have your own site or blog, you can even use a banner advertisement or logo that will link to our site. See:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/nestlefree

We also welcome help in promoting the campaign at events, whether to do with infant feeding, development or other issues. For example, we have a leaflet for promoting the boycott at Fair Trade events, explaining why Fairtrade KitKat has been added to the boycott list. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2010/02/boycott-fairtrade-kitkat.html

If you would like a Baby Milk Action stall at an event or a guest speaker, please contact us. We have a network of area contacts who are able to provide support and I try to take up invitations to speak when I can, such as at the recent La Leche League Ireland Conference. 

With the General Election just called in the UK, we have the opportunity to ask politicians to pledge to strengthen the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations. The UK law is very weak, allowing companies to advertise breastmilk substitutes, such as follow-on formula, widely. The Government's own review has called for steps to be taken to strengthen the law. So do ask candidates on the doorstep if they will do this. We have written to the party leaders and will add a campaign for the election to this site shortly.

Baby Milk Action does need income to provide this support, of course. Though our annual budget is less than the cost of one Nestlé television advertisement, we have to work hard to raise what we do spend. So please do remember to encourage people to join Baby Milk Action and to visit our online Virtual Shop for information, merchandise and to make a donation. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/ 

The boycott led directly to the World Health Assembly introducing marketing standards for baby milk and we have had a lot of success in bringing these into legislation around the world. But where there is no legislation or it is not enforced, companies continue to push their products in ways that endanger health. The boycott and our campaigns targeting other companies remain essential. With enough public support and pressure we will force Nestlé to stop it latest global 'protect' marketing strategy. The label from Malawi that is pictured on our campaign sheet to illustrate this strategy also shows the power of the boycott, because Nestlé refused to translate this label into the national language of the country until campaign pressure let to it being exposed on national television. Every person you tell, every link you post, every message you send to Nestlé helps to hold companies to account and to protect babies.

Corporate influence on the UK Government

A investigative television programme on Channel 4's Dispatches in the UK is reporting on how corporate lobbyists recruit politicians to gain access to Government Ministers and the Chairs of influential Parliamentary committees.

A former Minister, Stephen Byers MP, has been secretly filmed at a bogus lobbying company set up by the journalists describing himself as like a 'cab for hire' at £ 3,000 - £ 5,000 per day. He claimed he had been able to get labelling regulations changed for a supermarket client. Since realising he was being filmed, he has claimed that he had been exaggerating and the Ministers he claimed to have lobbied have said that he had not contacted them and they had not changed regulations.

The Guardian reports on this today and states that Harriet Harman, the leader of the Commons, told MPs, "I want to reassure honourable members and the public that ministers act in the public interest. They make decisions in the public interest. It is an absolutely fundamental part of the duties of their office."

I commented on the article as follows:

Having seen how Ministers behaved when drafting the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations, I question this statement.

All leading health worker bodies, mother support groups and the UN Committee on the Rights for the Child have called on the Government to bring the law into line with minimum international standards to protect breastfeeding and babies fed on formula. The Government's own Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition, Trading Standards and LACORS also called for stronger measures.

The Government followed the industry line of doing the minimum possible. In part they were concerned at upsetting the European Commission by going further than its weak Directive - but other countries did go further. They were also concerned about legal action - and were taken to the high court by the industry in 2008 as it successfully tried to delay some of the measures coming into force.

So putting corporate interests before the public interest is not necessarily due to dodgy dealings - it may be down to lack of courage.

An Independent Review Panel has just reported and noted the problems with enforcing the law and calling for the Government to take steps. It now has the justification to strengthen the law. The Panel even suggested the Government could cite the precautionary principle to do so.

The question is will they, or whoever forms the next government, act to protect infants and mothers? And if not, why not? See:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease11mar10a

There are reasons to be concerned about corporate influence or at least mindset. The head of the Food Standards Agency came from the dairy industry.
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/12/uk-formula-influence.html

And the Independent on Sunday reported in 2008: "Rosie Cooper, a parliamentary private secretary to the Health minister Ben Bradshaw, is undergoing a year-long Industry and Parliament Trust fellowship with Nestlé."
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/05/nestle-uk-government.html

She and other MPs also enjoyed a trip to South Africa at Nestlé's expense. Nestlé, the most boycotted company in the UK and one of the four most boycotted on the planet, over the way it markets baby milk. A company the Department of Health in South Africa was taking to task at the time over the claims it is using on the labels for its baby milk, which mislead mothers.

Greenpeace shames Nestle over source of palm oil in products like Fairtrade KitKat

Thousands of copies of our new leaflet have been downloaded, exposing Nestlé's attempts to undermine the boycott over its baby milk marketing and improve its image using its token Fairtrade KitKat product - which involves just 1% of its cocoa purchase. Nestlé is also criticised for failing to deliver on a promise to end child slavery in its cocoa supply chain.

We need to update the leaflet now to include information from Greenpeace's campaign, exposing the source of plam oil in Nestlé products. Greenpeace states on its site today:

We have new evidence which shows that Nestlé - the makers of Kit Kat - are using palm oil produced in areas where the orang-utans' rainforests once grew. Even worse, the company doesn't seem to care.

Greenpeace are organising a protest at Nestlé (UK) HQ today and have released the youtube clip below.

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/kitkat

Click here for Nestlé's response - it says, "we have made a commitment to using only "Certified Sustainable Palm Oil" by 2015."

Sounds a bit like its commitment in 2001 to end child slavery in its cocoa supply chain by 2005. Nestlé has not only failed to deliver on this and an extended deadline of 2008, it has been obstructive to the process. Let's hope its statement on palm oil is not also an empty promise to diffuse bad publicity.

The protest comes as Nestlé launches its latest 'Creating Shared Value' report boasting of its claimed beneficial impact around the world. The previous report prompted a complaint by leading experts on Nestlé to the office of the UN Global Compact, which publishes the reports on its website. See:

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

I note from Nestlé's press release that Hilary Parsons, formerly of Nestlé (UK), has been promoted to Nestlé S.A. Public Affairs Manager. A few years ago Hilary lost a series of debates with me on Nestlé's baby milk marketing activities, despite her best efforts to mislead people. Nestlé now refuses to even speak if Baby Milk Action is present. While some may question Hilary's effectiveness at PR when Nestlé is the most boycotted company in the UK and one of the four most boycotted on the planet, her promotion indicates to me once again what Nestlé's real values are.

What's your milk worth?

This is the text of a talk I gave to the La Leche League Ireland Conference on 7 March 2010. The accompanying PowerPoint presentation is attached to the posting of this blog on our website. See: http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog070310

Many thanks for the invitation to speak at the Conference. I bring greetings from everyone at Baby Milk Action. No doubt many of you are in contact with Patti Rundall, our Policy Director, and Sarah Hansen, our Office Manager.

I've been asked to speak on the topic: "What is your milk worth?"

And I've been thinking about the different ways to answer this. My immediate thought was there's a short answer and a long answer.

Here's the short answer. [SLIDE: Baby Quinn poster]

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a smile is worth a thousand more.

But I guess you do want some words from me too, so here's the long answer.

What's your milk worth?

Well, a La Leche League Conference doesn't need me to explain how babies without breastmilk suffer greater short and long-term illness. Your milk is worth better health for your babies, which is priceless.

But I'm going to try to be a bit more precise than priceless.

So how does Euros 130/litre sound for the value of breastmilk? [SLIDE: € 130/l]

That's how much neonatal units in hospitals in the UK pay to milk banks - but that's not for the milk, that for the processing costs of the milk bank that collects and pasturises it. Premature babies fed on it have better chances of surviving.

That's one figure. We can also consider the number of lives lost through babies not being breastfed and the cost to our health services. Breastmilk is the most locally produced natural food there is - replacement feeds require processing and transport which has an environmental impact. Mothers aren't paid to breastfeed their babies, but if they don't breastfeed, they have to pay for breastmilk substitutes, so we can think about the cost of that and the multi-billion Euro industry that has arisen and the harm that it does.

I imagine as you've asked me here from Baby Milk Action you'd like to know something about company marketing and what can be done to stop it. We can also turn this question around and ask, "What is breastmilk worth to us?" What will we do to defend breastfeeding.

These are the issues I'm going to explore in a bit more depth, starting with breastmilk being worth Euros 130/litre for neonatology units.

A litre will provide nourishment and protection to many babies, of course, as a few millitres is enough to fill the stomach of a premature baby. [SLIDE: Stomach sizes]

This image shows the stomach size of a normal new-born baby to get an idea. This comes from a reliable source - the LLL International website.

The reduction in Necrotising Enterocolitis is one of the main reasons for having donor milk for babies if they cannot receive their mother's milk while in intensive care or undergoing Kangeroo care. NEC is where the tissue of the bowel dies and it is a big killer of premature babies. I visited the donor milk bank in Chester this week and they rarely have cases of NEC. Breastfeeding has sometimes been described as the continuation of the placenta and it finishes the job of the development of the digestive system.

Other hospitals where babies are dying from NEC are starting to source donor breastmilk from Chester. And just last month the National Institute for Clinical Excellence published its guidelines. I know there is a milk bank across the border in Irvinestown Health Centre in County Fermanagh and I understand it operates across Ireland and is providing donor milk to 700 babies per year. Like many milk banks, I also understand it relies to some extent on fundraising.

The figure I gave for the cost of processing human milk comes from Chester which is a charity and has to raise all its operating costs itself, about € 130,000 per year, and it processes 1000 litres. Someone once said, wouldn't it be strange if health had all the money it needed and the army had to hold jumble sales for weapons. But in the world we live in, it is breastfeeding supporters who hold the jumble sales.

But that does not mean the work is not professional. [SLIDE: Chester conference] Chester is holding a milk bank conference in May - you can find out more information on their website. You'll be able to find the notes for my talk on the Baby Milk Action website next week, but here is the address of the Chester site if you want to note it. This is particularly relevant to Neonatologists, so you might like to suggest your contacts attend.

The mothers who donate the milk are volunteers, of course. They do it, because they know the value of breastmilk.

I started out with Baby Quinn. A picture of contentment. But not just contentment. It is a picture of nurture and protection coming from the living substance that is breastmilk and the warm and love with which it is delivered.

You know better than me that breastfed babies are optimally fed. Denied breastmilk and fed with cow's milk or soya milk, however much it is processed and adapted, they will have greater risk of short and long-term illness. Breastfeeding is worth life and health.

And illness costs not only the individual, but society as a whole. In 2006 we made a submission to the UK government as it was revising our Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations to implement a revised EU Directive. We made a submission calling for the government to implement the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant Resolutions of the World Health Assembly in legislation. [SLIDE: The Code]

The Code and Resolutions, for short, set out how companies can and cannot market their products and came about as a direct result of the Nestlé boycott and wider campaign. The Code itself was adopted in 1981 and aims to protect breastfeeding and babies fed on formula.

Governments are called on to implement it and we asked our government to do so. We had built a coalition called the Baby Feeding Law Group [SLIDE: BFLG], consisting of the major health worker organisations and mother support groups and the submission (shown left) had the backing of all these organisations. If you don't have such a coalition in Ireland, then it might be something to think about.

One of the questions in the UK Government consultation was about costs and we pulled together the figures available to us to make an economic case for protecting breastfeeding. [SLIDE: NICE report]

In the UK, a NICE costing report evaluated possible savings from Baby Friendly Initiative accreditation. They said.

“The evaluation assumes that a 10% improvement in initiation rates is a realistic target.

“On the basis of medical literature we assume that an increase in the number of babies that breastfeed will lead to a reduction in healthcare expenditure because of avoided cases of otitis media, gastroenteritis and asthma. On the basis of an annual birth rate of 605,634 a 10% improvement in breastfeeding would mean that 60,563 additional babies would be breastfed.”

[SLIDE: Cost savings]

• about 17,000 cases of otitis media avoided at a saving of £509,000.

• almost 3900 cases of gastroenteritis being avoided, at a saving of £2.6 million

• over 1500 cases of asthma being avoided, at a saving of £2.6 million.

• a reduction in the cost of teats and formula of £102,000

NICE. Postnatal care: routine postnatal care of women and their babies. Costing report: Implementing NICE guidance in England. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2006. pp 36. www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=345136

A US Study looked at savings to their welfare scheme from breastfeeding. [SLIDE: WIC]

Compared with formula-feeding, breastfeeding each infant enrolled in WIC saved US$478 (€350) in WIC costs and Medicaid expenditures (the US welfare schemes) during the first 6 months of the infant’s life.

Montgomery DL, Splett PL. Economic benefit of breast-feeding infants enrolled in WIC. J Am Diet Assoc 1997 Apr;97(4):379-85 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9120189

They also looked at broader savings to the economy [SLIDE: 3.6 billion]

The US study found a minimum of $3.6 billion would be saved if breastfeeding was increased from current levels (64 percent in-hospital, 29 percent at 6 months) to those recommended by the U.S. Surgeon General (75 and 50 percent), for each year at the higher rate. Pro rata to the population of Ireland, this equates to € 40 million per year of improved breastfeeding.

Figure based on treatment of only three childhood illnesses: otitis media, gastroenteritis, and necrotizing enterocolitis.

This does not count the savings of the cost of formula.

It does include the loss of earnings of the 720 babies who were estimated to die each year in the US from Necrotizing Enterocolitis who would not have died if breastfed.

Weimer. The economic benefits of breastfeeding: A review and analysis, Food Assistance & Nutrition Research Report No. 13. Wash.D.C., USDA, 2001. www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/FANRR13/

In our submission in the UK, we recommended the government commission research on environmental impacts of babies not being breastfed – our figures are out of date. There is no food more locally produced and unprocessed than breastmilk. For formula we need to consider: [SLIDE: Environmental impact]

• Methane from cows is a greenhouse gas. Transport and processing impact.

• Resources used for packaging: 86,000 tons of tin plate would be used each year if every US baby was formula fed, with 550 million discarded tins (1991 figures).

• In 1987, 4.5 million feeding bottles were sold in Pakistan alone.

• A formula-fed 3-month old baby requires a litre of water a day for preparing formula and the equivalent of 73 kg of firewood per year, contributing to deforestation in poor countries.

Radford, A. Breastmilk: A world resource, Baby Milk Action, Cambridge, UK, 1991. www.babymilkaction.org/pdfs/worldresource91.pdf

The UK Government, like the Irish Government, did not listen to the calls for implementing the Code and Resolutions and has done the bare minimum to implement the EU Directive. [SLIDE: Montoring report]. We produce monitoring reports on behalf of the Baby Feeding Law Group, which show the strategies companies are using. You see advertising for follow-on formula on television and idealising claims on formula labels, as well as promotion to health workers, sponsored events, misleading information and so on. The same as you have in Ireland. This is a Cow & Gate mailout after the company signed up a mother. [SLIDE: Sore boobs]

I bought some formula yesterday from the supermarket and I want to demonstrate what the companies are doing. [Formula Race - you had to be there to appreciate this!].

But these claims are misleading. Let's look at the claims made about LCPs - Long Chain Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids. [SLIDE: LCPs]

Longchain polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation in infants born at term

It has been suggested that low levels of long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFA) found in formula milk may contribute to lower IQ levels and vision skills in term infants. Some milk formulas with added LCPUFA are commercially available. This review found that feeding term infants with milk formula enriched with LCPUFA had no proven benefit regarding vision, cognition or physical growth.

Simmer K, Patole S, Rao SC. Longchain polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation in infants born at term. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD000376. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000376.pub2. www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000376.html

[SLIDE: DH study]

Mothers are misled. ‘Myths stop women giving babies the best start in life’ Department of Health survey, May 2004:

“Myth: Over a third (34%) of women believe that modern infant formula milks are very similar or the same as breast milk

“Fact: Infant formula milk does not contain the antibodies, living cells, enzymes or hormones present in breastmilk. Breastmilk is designed for each individual baby and changes over time whereas infant formula milk is designed for every baby.”

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Pressreleases/DH_4081944

So these and other claims are untrue, but companies base their marketing strategies upon them. This can have a devastating impact in developing countries where access to health care to treat sick infants is often lacking.

According to the Lancet series on child survival, improved breastfeeding could save 1.3 million under-5 babies every year.

[SLIDE: Lancet]

By improved breastfeeding, they mean 90% exclusive breastfeeding to 6 months, with continued breastfeeding for 99% of babies during the first year. We are a long way from that at present. But if it were not for breastfeeding, many more millions of babies would die each year.

Improving breastfeeding rates in the 42 countries where most under-5 deaths occur, could prevent 13% of those under-5 deaths. [SLIDE: Lancet comparison] That’s more than would be saved by:

• universal provision of safe water and sanitation (3%)

• universal provision of HIB, Tetanus and Measles vaccines (4%, 2%, 1%).

(Combined total 10%)

Appropriate introduction of complementary foods could save a further 6%.

[SLIDE: World Bank estimate] The World Bank has estimated that meeting the health Millenium Development Goals of providing universal access to safe water and sanitation by 2015 at US$ 30 billion (€22 billion) per year. Of course, there needs to be the improvements to water, sanitation and vaccination, but this give an indication of the value of increasing breastfeeding, which could save more lives. Indeed, many of the children who survive unhealthy conditions would have died if they had not been breastfed.

The Costs of Attaining the Millennium Development Goals, World Bank, accessed March 2010, www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/mdgassessment.pdf

Where is the money and support for breastfeeding? Putting money into breastfeeding support and taking action over marketing are political decisions. And the baby food industry is big money. [SLIDE: Baby food industry]

The retail value of the global baby food market in 2008 according to analysts Euromonitor was € 23 billion. Two-thirds of this is formula. So there's about a € 15.3 billion industry because of babies not receiving breastmilk. Let's consider that some babies cannot be breastfed because they are abandoned or orphaned without access to alternative supplies of breastmilk or because the mother cannot breastfeed for medical reasons. Formula is essential for some babies, so let's knock off the formula required as a nutritional medicine and reduce the sum to € 15 billion to reflect the value of the breastmilk that is being substituted.

To defend this market, companies battle against regulation. According to Euromonitor: [SLIDE: Industry action].

“The industry is fighting a rearguard action against regulation on a country-by-country basis,”

“Government Regulation a Growing Constraint”.

“There are significant international variations in the regulations governing the marketing of milk formula, which are reflected in sales differences across countries.”

To finish, I want to turn this question around and ask you: "What is your milk worth?" By which I mean, what are you doing to defend breastfeeding?

In the discussion about the Politics of Breastfeeding yesterday, people were wanting to know what they could do. We'll be able to explore this more in the discussion, but I want to see if I can inspire you with a story from the Philippines. This is a country where, according to WHO, 16,000 babies die every year because they are not breastfed.

In 2006 the Department of Health introduced regulations to stop companies marketing formula as if it would turn babies into geniuses. [SLIDES: Abbott, Nestlé].

Abbott's formula had an IQ logo, with the word 'eye' in the letter 'I', suggesting it benefits visual and mental development. Nestlé undermined the legally required 'breastmilk is best for babies' message with a colourful logo claiming its formula contains, "Brain Building Blocks". These are referring the the LCPs I mentioned before - where the Cochrane Library review found such claims are not proven.

The pharmaceutical companies that make formula took the government to the Supreme Court and the US Chamber of Commerce wrote to the President demanding the law be struck down or American companies would pull out of the country.

Here's what happened next [SLIDES: Philippine campaign - showing demonstrations, media work, letter-writing campaigns, petitions, UNICEF DVD, culminating in the 'brave breasts' protest outside the Supreme Court. Also see Update 40].

Now, topless protests might not be the thing to do in Ireland. But next time you see an advertisement you might like to remember this story and think, "What is breastmilk worth?" [SLIDE: Action ideas]

Is it worth a letter to the Advertising Standards Authority? Sending violations to La Leche Leage? Starting a campaign in Ireland?

[SLIDE: International ideas - boycott] Supporting the boycott of Nestlé, worst of the companies? Writing to all companies about practices that harm health. Our current priority is Nestlé's new strategy of claiming its formula 'protects' babies. This is about the LCPs we hear about earlier. This label shows that campaigning works. It is from Malawi, one of the world's poorest countries and Nestlé refused to translate it into the national language until we campaigned and shamed it on UK television.

Here's the challenge facing you in Ireland. [SLIDE: Breastfeeding rates]

"Ireland is in the unenviable position of having the lowest breastfeeding rates in Europe and this has been the situation for at least two generations.

"Currently only about 40% of new mothers in Ireland initiate breastfeeding and many of these cease doing do so before their infants are four months old."

Fallon M, Breastfeeding in Ireland, Department of Health and Children, Accessed March 2010, www.equality.ie/index.asp?docID=586

I understand the situation has improved slightly from this figure, but rates are still low.

Here's the hope. [SLIDE: The hope]

La Leche League Ireland exists.

You have come to the Conference.

You know what your milk is worth!!

[SLIDE: Contact us]

Baby Milk Action can help. So do please visit our website and stay in touch. Also look out for an online training course on monitoring which is being added to our website.

Online training course coming soon

We are developing an online course on monitoring the baby food industry.

You can find out more by watching a short film clip and trying a sample quiz on our website.

Please take a look and let me know what you think of the technology. If you are a member of Baby Milk Action, also register with our site because the first module will be free to members. Members will also receive a discount on the remaining modules. The planned price for non-members is £10 per module.

See:

http://info.babymilkaction.org/courses/monitoring