Members can now register to start our online monitoring course

One of the activities in our Make a Mark in 2010 initiative was to develop an online training course on monitoring the baby food industry.

The technology has been put in place and the first module has now been made live on our website. Further modules in the 8-module course will be added over the coming months.

The first two modules will be free to members of Baby Milk Action. Non-members will be able to access the modules at a future date.

The course is based on the training the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) gives to member organisations around the world. These have been tailored to the situation in the UK and include information on the narrower UK marketing legislation.

Each module consists of short filmed talks, interactive quizzes, reading, a powerpoint presentation and an exercise. Participants have access to the tutor via the online discussion forum and will be able to book a personal tutorial by phone or skype during the course. The course culminates in a guided monitoring exercise to receive a Baby Milk Action certificate as a Code Monitor.

So if you are a member, register with the site and then upgrade your registration to 'member' by following the instructions at:

http://info.babymilkaction.org/members/registration

If you are not yet a member of Baby Milk Action, you can join by clicking here.

Once you are registered as a member, log in to the website and you will find the link to Module 1 appears under the Courses -> Monitoring menu.

The unprincipled men who wish to dictate how the world is run

Mr. Paul Bulcke (left), CEO of Nestlé SA, and his predecessor and current Nestlé Chairman, Peter Brabeck-Letmathé, are seeking to set the agenda at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Swizerland this week. Nestlé is 'widely boycotted' in the words of its Global Public Affairs Manager, due to its aggressive marketing of baby foods in breach of international standards. Given the documentary evidence of systematic violations of the marketing requirements and the strategies employed by Mr. Bulcke and Mr Brabeck as they put their own profits before the lives and well-being of babies and their families, Baby Milk Action says it is ironic that Mr. Bulcke, co-chair of the meeting, believes he has any credibility in calling for "new global principles to fuel development". Mr. Bulcke, who was appointed CEO after achieving high growth in the baby food sector in Latin America, states in a press release on the Nestlé site: "When run in a principled way, with strong values and a long-term perspective, business can be an engine for development and prosperity."

Mr. Brabeck has for decades advocated that corporations be trusted to follow voluntary principles and be given greater power in policy setting than civil society organisations as the "engineers of wealth". At the last Nestlé shareholder AGM in April 2010 Mr. Brabeck warned against tying corporations up in a “regulatory straightjacket”, saying this was unnecessary as people should trust Nestlé's values. Mr. Brabeck's stance is inconsistent, however, because while opposing strong regulations protecting babies and their families in line with international marketing standards in favour of voluntary measures, he has argued that protection of company brands should be "entrenched in the law and strictly enforced by the authorities". Mr. Brabeck also argues publicly that corporations should be trusted as global citizens, but told business leaders in Boston in 2005, that corporations should not feel obligated to 'give back' to the community and should only support good causes if it will benefit shareholders.

Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator at Baby Milk Action, said, "Mr. Bulcke and Mr. Brabeck have demonstrated the only principle they seem to understand is money - that is why we call on people around the world to join the boycott until they agree to stop pushing baby foods in ways that undermine breastfeeding and endanger babies fed on formula. The boycott has forced some changes, but they still have a long way to go. Mr. Bulcke is trying to present himself as a principled business leader on the global stage as part of his strategy to divert attention from what Nestlé's does in reality."

Both Mr. Bulcke and Mr. Brabeck have rejected Baby Milk Action's four-point plan for saving infant lives and ultimately ending the boycott.

Mr. Bulcke's comments come as thousands of people have emailed the company over its latest baby milk marketing strategy, calling on it to stop violating international marketing standards. In other areas of concern, the India media has this week exposed a secret deal between Nestlé and universities to target young girls with information on nutrition - a request for information on the deal under India's Right to Information law was blocked by Nestlé (see Times of India). While attempting to set the global agenda, Nestlé is also the subject of complaints for violations of the UN Global Compact Principles registered Baby Milk Action and other Nestlé Critics. The UN Global Compact Office has refused to investigate the complaints, but continues to accept funding from Nestlé for its events and posts Nestlé's criticised reports on its website.

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

"Nestlé current global baby milk marketing strategy involves promoting its formula with the claim it 'protects' babies, when in reality babies fed on formula are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. I have written directly to Mr. Bulcke on this matter and he refuses to stop what is a clear violation of international marketing standards."

In its latest communication on the 'protect' logos added to formula labels in 120 countries, Nestlé has admitted that there is 'no proven benefit' from adding to formula ingredients such as DHA and ARA highlighted in the logos, but is still refusing to remove the logos. After receiving thousands of emails in Baby Milk Action's Email Nestlé campaign, Nestlé has said it has discontinued a leaflet promoting its formula as 'The new "Gold Standards" in infant nutrition', but not other leaflets claiming, for example, that its formula reduces the incidence of diarrhoea. Babies fed on formula rather than breastfed are more likely to suffer from diarrhoea. According to WHO, "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."

According to UNICEF: "Marketing practices that undermine breastfeeding are potentially hazardous wherever they are pursued: in the developing world, WHO estimates that some 1.5 million children die each year because they are not adequately breastfed. These facts are not in dispute."

Nestlé is also refusing to warn on labels that powdered infant formula is not sterile and the simple steps required to reduce the risks of possible contamination with harmful bacteria. Nestlé has had to recall formula in the past after contamination with Enterobacter Sakazakii, which has led to deaths in Europe (see WHO publication on this known problem).

Nestlé is not only criticised for violating the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant Resolutions. Campaigners monitoring other aspects of its business criticise the company for:

* trade union busting and failing to act on related court decisions;

* failure to act on child labour and slavery in its cocoa supply chain;

* exploitation of farmers, particularly in the dairy and coffee sectors;

* environmental degradation, particularly of water resources;

Click here for the report: Nestlé's UN Global Compact cover up - How Nestlé’s Shared Value reports cover up malpractice and bring the UN voluntary initiative for corporate responsibility into disrepute.

WHO breastfeeding recommendations under attack from industry-funded scientists

The BBC, the Guardian and other media are carrying stories about a comment piece from four authors published in the British Medical Journal today. This is not a new scientific study - it is a review of existing research selected by the authors and has been published in the 'Comment' section of the BMJ. Three of the four authors of the piece, Mary Fewtrell, Alan Lucas and David Wilson, receive funding from the baby food industry. Prof Lucas in particular plays a key role in advising the UK baby food industry, and has opposed the WHO recommendation for many years. In 2003 he went so far as to appear for the defence when one of the largest baby food companies, SMA Wyeth was successfully prosecuted for illegal advertising by Trading Standards.

www.babymilkaction.org/press/press31july03.html

http://www.babymilkaction.org/update/update33.html#2

http://www.babymilkaction.org/www.babymilkaction.org/update/update29.html#2

http://www.babymilkaction.org/www.babymilkaction.org/update/update23.html#11

Baby Milk Action expects this comment piece and the media coverage it is generating to be used by companies in their attempt to weaken national policies and legislation requiring complementary foods to be labelled for use from 6 months. In the UK, baby food companies are already labelling complementary foods for use from 4 months of age despite Government policy recommending 6 months exclusive breastfeeding or formula feeding.

When looking at the authors' comment piece, the following points should be borne in mind:

• The four authors are not attacking the recommendation that breastfeeding continue alongside complementary foods or the WHO recommendation of breastfeeding into the second year of life and beyond. Baby Milk Action is concerned about misreporting of the paper, with headlines such as, "Breastfeeding 'not always best'" or "Recommendation to breastfeed for 6 months challenged". Please post examples as comments to this articles, with links if possible.
• This is not a new scientific study - it is a review of existing research selected by the authors and has been published in the 'Comment' section of the BMJ.
• WHO’s policy arose from a systematic review of 3,000 studies on infant feeding. See The optimal duration of exclusive breastfeeding and Guiding principles for complementary feeding of the breastfed child. WHO has issued a statement today (14 January 2011):

WHO's global public health recommendation is for infants to be exclusively breastfed for the first 6 months of life to achieve optimal growth, development and health. Thereafter, infants should be given nutritious complementary foods and continue breastfeeding up to the age of 2 years or beyond.

WHO closely follows new research findings in this area and has a process for periodically re-examining recommendations. Systematic reviews accompanied by an assessment of the quality of evidence are used to review guidelines in a process that is designed to ensure that the recommendations are based on the best available evidence and free from conflicts of interest.

The paper in this week's BMJ is not the result of a systematic review. The latest systematic review on this issue available in the Cochrane Library was published in 2009 ("Optimal duration of exclusive breastfeeding (Review)", Kramer MS, Kakuma R. The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 4). It included studies in developed and developing countries and its findings are supportive of the current WHO recommendations. It found that the results of two controlled trials and 18 other studies suggest that exclusive breastfeeding (which means that the infant should have only breast milk, and no other foods or liquids) for 6 months has several advantages over exclusive breastfeeding for 3-4 months followed by mixed breastfeeding. These advantages include a lower risk of gastrointestinal infection for the baby, more rapid maternal weight loss after birth, and delayed return of menstrual periods. No reduced risks of other infections or of allergic diseases have been demonstrated. No adverse effects on growth have been documented with exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months, but a reduced level of iron has been observed in developing-country settings.

• Keeping recommendations under review is good practice and randomised controlled trials are also in progress; the four authors are pre-empting the results of these and do not refer to the 2009 review published by the Cochrane Library.
• The four authors imply that delayed introduction of solid foods may be linked to increased obesity - this is total conflict with the studies which show that early introduction - particularly of sugary foods is an important factor behind the obesity epidemic. Breastfeeding may actually help in the development of taste receptors.
• The argument to introduce solids at 4 months to prevent coeliac disease and allergies was summarised by ESPGHAN in late 2009 and was considered by many to be flawed. see our press release: http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press23dec09.html
• The UK Scientific Committee on Nutrition (SACN) and the Committee on Toxicity (COT) are reviewing the evidence on solid foods and coeliac disease. The draft opinion is NOT FINAL BUT Is on the SACN website with the Agenda papers for next week's SACN meeting. See paper SMCN/11/01 downloadable from http://www.sacn.gov.uk/meetings/sub_groups/maternal_child_nutrition/19012011.html
• SACN use international growth charts to describe the optimal pattern of infant growth in the UK (UK-WHO charts). These are based on studies of babies in 7 countries around the world and no significant difference was found between their growth profiles. The proposal from the four scientists that babies are treated differently depending on where they live conflicts with this research evidence. The mean age at introduction of solids to this cohort of breastfed infants in the WHO studies was 5.4 months (or "..about 6-months").
• The UK policy is to introduce complementary foods at around 6-months and progress responsively, in line with individual babies' progress and acceptance. Not all babies need solids at the same time: in every aspect of infant development there is a wide range of normal. Very importantly the introduction of the new policy in 2003 has been associated with a marked reduction in the numbers of mothers giving solids very early (i.e. before 4-months). Since it is widely accepted that very early introduction carries greater risk (particularly of coeliac disease), the UK policy could be considered from this perspective a success.
• The practice of ‘baby-led weaning’ is becoming more widespread, where babies are allowed to play with appropriately prepared solid foods and decide for themselves when to eat. Experience in this area suggests that babies naturally start to ingest complementary foods at around 6 months of age, when various developmental factors (hand-eye coordination, mastication ability etc) come together. This may be an evolved natural behaviour that has been lost through the practice of spoon feeding prepared paps. Further research is required in this area.
• Marianne Monie, Chair of the nationwide Breastfeeding Network, made an important point about the risk of swine flu: “The evidence supports introducing food when a baby is developmentally ready at around 6 months. Introducing food or infant formula before that time increases the risk of infections. Questioning the wisdom of the six-month guideline at a time when babies are at risk of catching swine flu is unfortunate, because exclusive breastfeeding reduces the risk of secondary infections that can be serious enough to need hospital admission. Parents should not feel pressured into rushing their baby onto solid food. Waiting until around six months gives another two valuable months of additional protection against chest and stomach infection."

Response from Joanna Moorhead:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/jan/14/breastfeeding-comment-joanna-moorhead

Response from UNICEF UK:

http://www.babyfriendly.org.uk/pdfs/unicef_uk_response_to_BMJ_article_140111.pdf

Mumsnet questions to Mike Brady

Q and A with Mike Brady

The Mumsnet parenting website invited their followers to post questions to be answered by Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator at Baby Milk Action, and selected the following.

Edited versions of these answers will be posted on the Mumsnet site - full answers are given here.

Browse the questions provided by Mumsnet below and click on the links to go straight to Mike Brady's full answer.

1. Lowercase

what drives you to carry on campaigning?

what has been the single most positive/encouraging change you have seen during your campaign?

2. Ceidlihgirl

Bottlefeeding mums perceive Baby Milk Action to be anti formula. Whilst this may not be the case, that perception will affect the credibility of anything you say. Does your organisation need a makeover?

3. Lagrandissima

Do you work with schools to raise awareness of issues around the formula industry? Do you think it might be useful to educate future parents at an early age about the pros/cons of formula/BFing?

Also, just wanted to say thank you for standing up to the big corporations. Shame our politicians don't have the balls to.

4. FrozenNorthpole

My question is this: if there is one message you would like the 18-21 year old mums / dads of the future to receive about breastfeeding, what would it be?

5. Tiktok

I would like to ask Mike how Baby Milk Action can explain that concern about formula is not the same as judging mothers who use it.

Maybe an idea to respond to this one !

6. Funnysinthegarden

Along with other posters, I too am uncomfortable with this discussion. I'm afraid that BMA and it's followers really do appear to be anti formula, and to me that is unacceptable.

I am not sure if politically it is wise for Mumsnet to host a chat with an organisation which holds such one sided views. Of course they say they support both types of infant feeding, but a glance at their site would suggest otherwise.

Suffice to say I won't be posting a question.

Incidentally, why is a man fronting this campaign. Surely there are many women who would be better placed to do so?

7. Tabblouleh

Question 1: Mike how did you get involved with BMA?

Question 2: What practical actions can MNers do to support BMA and are there any tasks which MNers could volunteer to help out with?

Question 3: How can we launch an effective campaign to ensure HCPs know/understand and communicate the safe methods of preparing formula?

FORMULA

8. Lyns12

My question is what you would suggest to a mother who does not want to use formula but still requires, for whatever reason, milk to supplement her own?

9. HermyaTheRedNosedReindeer

I've come across some health care professionals who aren't as clued up on breastfeeding as what they are on formula feeding. It seems that the information is so readily available to those who want to find it, do you think there is any way of correcting the inbalance that seems to exist in some quarters?

10. Organiccarrottcake

Mike Brady My question is, how can the marketing of formula properly be controlled in the UK when the only apparent organisation to control it, the ASA, is a toothless waste of time. As it stands, if an advert is found to breach the regulations (such as the big-cup advert) the company is simply told to stop running it. Often they don't (I've seen this advert since its banning despite C&G telling me they were not running it again) and even if it isn't run again there's no requirement for retraction so viewers simply assumed it's run its course.

11. Jean Kelly

Hey Mike I have two questions:

1. Why do you think our food safety authorities don't test and approve formula? Surely it should be regulated so it doesn't contain such harmful things; bisphenol-A, aluminum, enterobacter sakazakii and salmonella enterica.

2. A lot of people are unaware of the risks of using formula so cant make an informed decision when deciding how to feed their babies. Do you think formula should be labeled with the health risks like tobacco boxes are?

12. Cuppateajanice

Powdered formula is impossible to make and store in a sterile manner, and therefore liquid formula is theoretically 'safer' in terms of potential hazardous contents.

Why, then, is there no concentrated sterile liquid formula product available on the market which can be diluted with cooled boiled water to provide a safer drink for babies.

Are current liquid sterilization/pasteurisation etc. techniques effective enough to allow a bottle of concentrated liquid formula to be kept in a fridge and used safely for a number of days? Are any formula companies looking into such a product or would it not be viable?

13. Himalaya

Do you think that the other baby milk companies that also violate the marketing code are relieved that the singular focus of the campaign on Nestle takes the heat off them? Is there any competition amongst baby milk companies to be recognised and seen as the most ethical in marketing, or do they all keep their heads down to stay out of the way of bad publicity?

NESTLE

14. Scrappydappydo

Do you think the boycott of nestle is having an impact. I haven't brought nestle products for 10 years but sometimes wonder if its worth it as they are such a huge company - not sure if little old me makes much of dent (not that I'll stop the boycott).

15. Lactivist

Hi Mike - How can I get across to people that it is important to boycott Nestle - my sons school seem to think it is something that happens abroad and nothing to do with us.

16. Maisyandpanduluce

I live overseas. Nestle is ubiquitous - in the way that, oh I don't know, bread, is in the UK. Any hints for boycotting things here?

FOLLOW-ON MILK

17. Marzipananimal

Hi Mike - How can I get across to people that it is important to boycott Nestle - my sons school seem to think it is something that happens abroad and nothing to do with us?

There’s a mix-up with the questions, as this appears above.

FORMULA IN 3RD WORLD COUNTRIES

18. Milamae

Do you think the use of formula in developed countries is over demonized in order to protest against it's use in 3rd world countries?

Can you see how this alienates many parents and do you think a different approach would be more beneficial?

19. Snugglepops

I am interested in inappropriate formula feeding during disasters and the aftermath, such as Haiti.

How do we ensure that aid money we give is not used to provide formula and thereby increase the suffering or babies and children at such a difficult point of their lives?

Is formula safe only in countries with good water supply, good standard of living, hygiene etc?

20. Himalaya

As I understand it from "UNICEF stats www.childinfo.org/breastfeeding_infantfeeding.html etc..the majority of babies in the developing world who are not exclusively breastfed are not given other milk or given formula, but water or complimentary foods traditional in that community such as maize meal porridge.

So the challenge of enabling more women to exlusively breast feed for longer and save the lives of 140 million children a year is not simply one of breastmilk vs formula (or of poor people vs big corporates) it is also about challenging some of the traditional practices handed down from Grandmas etc...

So the question is, do you think that there is any hope, that a company such a Nestle could be a force for good. They have has so much marketing expertise, scientific research and global reach, and an interest in selling products to children and families throughout their lives - do you think there is any hope that they might become a force for good in promoting sound nutrition, from breastfeeding to eventual weening and beyond. Do you see any sign of companies doing this?

Bonus question: What is the story behind the famous twins photo?

I have seen that there was a discussion about the famous ‘twins’ picture used on a postcard sold by Baby Milk Action and so have given the background to this and the issues it raises.

Nestle-free Week 2010 gets off to a Tweeting good start

It is International Nestlé-Free Week from 25 - 31 October 2010 (press release). A week for people who boycott Nestlé over its baby milk pushing to do more to spread the word and for those who don't boycott to give it a go. This year people are being asked to email Nestlé over its last baby milk marketing strategy: it is claiming its formula 'protects' babies despite the fact that babies who are fed breastmilk substitutes are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die.

Boycotters in the United States started the ball rolling yesterday with a Twitter Party. Thousands of tweets were entered on the Twitter site using the #noNestle hashtag. People shared information about how Nestlé violates the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and other measures adopted by the World Health Assembly; how right now Nestlé is undermining breastfeeding by promoting its formula as 'The new "Gold Standard" in infant nutrition'; how Nestlé denies information to parents who use formula that would help them to reduce risks - Nestlé refuses to warn them that powdered formula is not sterile and may contain harmful bacteria. Some people tweeted about the different brands that Nestlé owns. Part of the purpose of the week is to persuade people who think it is too hard to give up Nestlé products to look for alternatives and some tweeters made suggestions of other products to use when boycotting Nestlé. Nestlé-Free Week includes Halloween and campaigners have produced 'Nestlé Free' bags for giving out candy to children knocking on their doors.

The discussion continues on the #noNestle hashtag during International Nestlé-Free Week and beyond. We have adopted a Tweet Ribbon produced last year by a boycotter, which people can add to their Twitter avatar. See:

http://twibbon.com/join/Nestle-Free-Week

People are also spreading the word on Facebook by inviting friends to join the event page:

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=161402963879234&index=1

Breastfeeding or using formula, International Nestlé-Free Week needs your support

It is International Nestlé-Free Week at the end of October. Our press release can be found at:

http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease10oct10

I saw a comment on one discussion board where someone had posted a link: "sorry .. but some people cant breast feed .. so making people feel guilty because they cant .. no thanks ..."

I posted the following comment:

I have joined this forum to leave a comment from Baby Milk Action. Our slogan is 'Protecting breastfeeding - Protecting babies fed on formula' and we do NOT work to stop people having access to formula or to stop Nestlé or any other company from selling it. There is no intention to make mothers feel guilty over how they feed their children. It is a mother's decision.

The demand is simple: for Nestlé to market its products in accordance with the international marketing standards adopted by the World Health Assembly. These are very clear in their purpose: "to contribute to the provision of safe and adequate nutrition for infants, by the protection and promotion of breastfeeding, and by ensuring the proper use of breastmilk substitutes, when these are necessary, on the basis of adequate information and through appropriate marketing and distribution."

As we show on our site with reference to Nestlé's own materials it both undermines breastfeeding with untrue claims about its formula and refuses to provide information for those who use formula with information on how to reduce the risks. Powdered formula is not sterile and Nestlé does not want to admit this on labels because doing so would undermine its claims that its formula protects babies and may harm its sales - Nestlé cares about profit above all else, hence the need to hit it in the pocket with the boycott to force changes.

Powdered formula sold in the UK does warn on labels that it is not sterile and the instructions include the step required to kill any possible harmful bacteria in the powder. If companies are not forced to include this information, they hide it. The information on how to mix up formula to reduce risks is available from the World Health Organisation and the UK Department of Health.

So whether breastfeeding or using formula, we hope everyone agrees that babies have a right to protection and mothers have a right to accurate information. Supporting International Nestlé-Free Week is a way to help achieve that.

Find out more on the press release, including how to send a message to Nestlé and join the Facebook group.

http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease10oct10

You must be having a laugh!

Funny!

Thanks to VictoriaSlinglady for this.

Why 'Cow & Gate, pah'? If you are in the UK or Ireland, you may have seen that those nice people at Danone were inspired by an earlier laughing baby youtube clip when creating an advertisement for their Cow & Gate formula. This has claims suggesting the formula provides everything a baby needs. However, amongst other shortcomings, formula, unlike breastmilk, it is not a living substance. As a mother produces protective properties in response to infections in the environment, this is passed tailor-made through breastfeeding to a child at its most vulnerable time. In addition, powdered infant formula is not a sterile product, meaning it may contain harmful bacteria such as enterobacter sakazakii and salmonella. Thanks to our campaigning labels in the UK now warn that powdered infant formula is not sterile and instructions are improving, though need to be clearer about the importance of including a step of mixing up the powder with water above 70 degrees Centigrade to kill any bacteria that may be in the formula. The feeding bottle or cup should then be cooled before feeding to the child. For more on making formula feeding safer, see the infant feeding section of this site.

Unfortunately, Danone has little regard for providing accurate information and systematically violates the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant Resolutions adopted by the World Health Assembly setting out minimum marketing standards. The UK Government has still not implemented these measures (despite repeated calls from the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child to do so) and the Advertising Standards Authority voluntary advertising code ignores the Code and Resolutions, even though companies should abide by them independently of government measures. However, even the ASA will sometimes take action and last week ruled against a Danone advertisement for Cow & Gate formula, in which the company made untrue claims implying a child over 6 months could only receive the iron it required through a processed milk. In truth a breasfed baby or a baby fed on infant formula, will receive the iron it needs through normal family foods introduced into the diet around that time. See:

http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/news/1029911/Cow---Gate-Milk-ad-banned-iron-claim/

Danone is laughing all the way to the bank since taking over the Nutricia, Milupa, Aptamil and Cow & Gate brands in 2007. At that time it promised Baby Milk Action a 'root-and-branch review' of marketing activities. Well, time is now running out and if the forthcoming global monitoring report produced by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) shows that Danone has not delivered on its promise and is getting as bad as Nestlé as it tries to compete with the worst of the baby food companies (which seems to be the case, particularly in Asia), then it will likely face consumer action. The Nestlé boycott is a key tool in forcing Nestlé to change policies and practices (click here for our current campaign action). If Danone won't change to abide by the marketing standards voluntarily, then it may be time to hit it in the pocket in the same way.

In the meantime, in the UK we continue to work to improve the formula marketing requirements to protect breastfeeding and protect babies fed on formula. You can support our current campaign by clicking here.

You might not feel like laughing now, so scroll up and watch that clip again!

Over 140,000 people call for United Nations to protect, promote and support breastfeeding and appropriate information

The UN Secretary General, Ban KI-moon, is today announcing a worldwide campaign to save the lives of 16 million mothers and children over the next five years and a fund of US$40 billion to help achieve this goal. See The Guardian.

This is wonderful news - and we should perhaps not be too surprised to find that Nestlé, a company with a long record of abusing women and child rights, is trying to muscle in on the initiative to try to distract attention from its on-going aggressive marketing of baby milks in breach of international standards and other much-criticised practices.

Far too many mothers and children die from preventable causes. While we welcome the new United Nations initiative, we should also remember that there are far cheaper, but politically more difficult, steps that can be taken to reduce unnecessary child deaths: implementing and enforcing existing measures adopted by the United Nations. Over 140,000 people have signed a rolling petition calling for policy makers to take action to protect, promote and support breastfeeding, with over 3,000 addressing a specific message to the Secretary General over the last three days. See the ONE MILLION CAMPAIGN.

In the area of infant feeding, the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes is helping to save lives in many countries, but many more have yet to implement it and the subsequent, relevant Resolutions of the World Health Assembly. These international minimum standards aim to protect breastfeeding and ensure breastmilk substitutes are used safely when necessary and companies are called on to abide by them independently of government action, but do not do so.

Worse still, the United Nations Global Compact, a voluntary initiative intended to improve the behaviour of transnational corporations, has been found to be complicit in working with companies such as Nestlé to allow violations of the Code and Resolutions to continue: it accepts Nestlé funding to promote the initiative and posts on its website Nestlé's PR materials claiming the company abides by the Code and Resolution, but refuses to investigate reports of egregious violations of the Global Compact Principles registered under the initiatives Integrity Measures. There are also concerns that corporations will be using the UN Secretary General's new initiative as a way to improve their images, while continuing to abuse human rights.

A few weeks ago, the Secretary General's Office worked in 'collaboration' (to use the word in a report on the World Health Organisation site) with the International Business Leaders Forum at 'a special meeting to explore ways the private sector can contribute to supporting the Global Strategy for Women’s and Children’s Health'. According to the report, 'Best practices from a range of industry sectors and companies were showcased', with Nestlé one of the companies there with something to show and tell - though not, presumably, it's latest baby milk strategy of claiming its breastmilk substitutes 'protect' babies when it knows babies who are not breastfed are more likely to become sick and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die.

The report concludes: 'A number of companies are already looking seriously at how they might respond to the Global Strategy, and identify commitments, which will be announced to the public during the UN Millennium Develop Goals (MDG) Summit on 22 September 2010 in New York and in the months to come.'

However, when Baby Milk Action contacted the Secretary General's Office, we were informed that only governments are involved in the Global Strategy launch. Is the Secretary General wary of appearing publicly too close to Nestlé, one of the four most boycotted companies on the planet over its pushing of baby milk in breach of international marketing standards adopted by the World Health Assembly, part of the UN system?

The Global Strategy for Women's and Children's Health follows on the Global Strategy for Infant and Young Child Feeding, which has proved to be an invaluable tool for improving breastfeeding rates, that could prevent 1.3 million under-5 deaths in the 42 countries where most under-5 deaths occur. A World Health Organisation (WHO)/Lancet study found that improving breastfeeding rates could save more lives than universal provision of safe water, adequate sanitation and childhood vaccines. This strategy and the adoption of the International Code and Resolutions is the UN at its best: bringing policy makers together from around the world to coordinate action that helps to save lives.

In turning these initiatives into reality, people on the ground have come up against the baby food industry. As industry analysts Euromonitor state in their report on the state of the baby food industry in 2008: “The industry is fighting a rearguard action against regulation on a country-by-country basis."

Part of Nestlé's strategy is to try to 'partner' with the United Nations. Earlier this year, Nestlé was a patron sponsor of a UN Global Compact event in New York, despite Baby Milk Action and other Nestlé Critics having registered an official complaint with the UN Global Compact Office over Nestlé's egregious violations of the Global Compact Principles and its bringing the initiative into disrepute. The Global Compact Office refused to investigate the case, citing lack of resources or mandate. In a telling comment, it 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."

In my view, the UN Global Compact is worse than useless because it provides public relations cover to Nestlé and other companies violating human rights by posting their reports and taking part in joint events, while refusing to investigate complaints.

If the Secretary General is being courted by Nestlé and others who want to be seen as playing a part in the new Global Strategy for Women's and Children's Health - and Bill Gates is cited as a speaker by the Guardian - then what hope is there for poorly resourced citizens' groups such as Baby Milk Action and our partners having our legitimate concerns addressed?

I'll sum up with a quote that can be used by journalists, citing Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator, Baby Milk Action:

"In our complaint to the UN Global Compact Office, we focused in on Nestlé latest global marketing strategy where it is claiming its baby milk 'protects' babies and is 'the new "Gold Standard" in infant nutrition'. Nestlé also refuses to provide information on known risks of formula feeding to parents who use its products and the simple steps that can reduce these risks. As Nestlé knows, babies fed on breastmilk substitutes are more likely to become ill than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. Such marketing strategies are not only clear violations of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, Nestlé has been told they violate specific national regulations and has been emailed by thousands of people calling on it to immediately stop these practices. Nestlé continues to defend them. While Nestlé continues to put its own profits before the health and well-being of babies, the UN should not only be investigating it for violating the Code and the Global Compact Principles, it should be closing the door on executives who want to be seen as partners. It is welcome that the new Global Strategy for Women's and Children's Health stresses the importance of breastfeeding, but we should remember that promotion and support of breastfeeding and accurate, independent information is undermined if protection is not also put in place."

For images of Nestlé's latest promotions and a quick form for emailing Nestlé, see:

http://info.babymilkaction.org/emailnestle

Midwives should tell Danone to keep its ill-gotten Aptamil loot

We are receiving many outraged reports from people who have seen that Danone is offering midwives grants of up to £1,000 from a fund of £20,000. This sponsorship is branded with the Danone formula name and logo, Aptamil (Danone is also behind the Nutricia, Milupa and Cow & Gate formula brands).

The money is being handled by the charity Tommy's. I would say Danone is using the charity to 'launder' the money in an attempt to make it more acceptable.

Firstly, for Tommy's and midwives to accept funds from Danone violates World Health Assembly marketing requirements.

Article 7.3 of the Code states:

"No financial or material inducements to promote products within the scope of this Code should be offered by manufacturers or distributors to health workers or members of their families, nor should these be accepted by health workers or members of their families."

Danone is promoting the Aptamil formula brand by linking the funding to it. The Aptamil logo features prominently on the charity's webpage and this links to an Aptamil-branded website that promotes the products with misleading claims.

It is not only a concern that Danone's money is linked to the Aptamil formula brand, accepting money from a formula company creates a conflict of interest for health workers. The World Health Assembly has adopted several Resolutions addressing conflicts of interest, such as Resolution 58.32, which calls for measures: "to ensure that financial support and other incentives for programmes and health professionals working in infant and young-child health do not create conflicts of interest."

A baby food company providing midwives with grants creates a conflict of interest, whatever the purported purpose of the grant.

Secondly, aside from these issues, we should not forget that Danone is second only to Nestlé for worldwide violations of the International Code and Resolutions. The only reason that Danone is not the target of a boycott like Nestlé is that after taking over the Aptamil and other brands from NUMICO in 2007, it promised to conduct a 'root and branch' review of marketing practices. All indications are that it has not taken the required action to end violations - quite the opposite. The next global monitoring report from the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), due this year, will inform campaigners whether it is time to launch a consumer campaign against Danone to stop its aggressive marketing practices. The boycott of Nestlé has forced it to change some practices and is currently putting pressure on Nestlé to stop its latest global marketing campaign - click here.

In the UK, Danone brands have rulings against them from the Advertising Standards Authority for misleading parents. For example, the ASA upheld Baby Milk Action's complaints against advertising claims that Aptamil is the 'best follow-on formula' and protects against infection. See our press release from 22 July 2009.

Any health worker that has accepted Danone money is required to disclose this to their employers. Article 7.5 of the International Code states:

"Manufacturers and distributors of products within the scope of this Code should disclose to the institution to which a recipient health worker is affiliated any contribution made to him or on his behalf for fellowships, study tours, research grants, attendance at professional conferences, or the like. Similar disclosures should be made by the recipient."

Here is a quote from me, Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator, Baby Milk Action, for anyone that needs one:

"Danone is second only to Nestlé in the global baby milk market and pushes its products almost as aggressively. If it does not deliver on its promise to clean up the marketing for brands it took over when it purchased NUMICO, it will find itself, like Nestlé, the target of a consumer campaign.

"The money on offer is linked to a Danone formula brand name, Aptamil, and so is serving a promotional purpose. It is a breach of World Health Assembly marketing standards for companies to offer such financial benefits and health workers are also in breach of standards on conflicts of interest if they accept them. Even if this was not the case, the fact that Aptamil is promoted with misleading claims, some of which have rulings against them from the Advertising Standards Authority, shows this is a company that puts its own profits before the health and well-being of mothers and babies and its ill-gotten loot should be untouchable by those wanting to protect and support mothers and babies."

You can see examples of Danone violations of the International Code and Resolutions in the UK in the monitoring reports Baby Milk Action produces for the Baby Feeding Law Group.

Ask UN Secretary General to protect mothers and babies on 22 September

A MESSAGE FROM THE ONE MILLION CAMPAIGN

Dear Friend,

Globally 3.6 million Infants die before they reach their first birthday and millions are malnourished because of inadequate and inappropriate breastfeeding and complementary feeding practices.

Most effective interventions to save babies’ lives and prevent malnutrition is to enhance early and exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months, and good complementary feeding thereafter along with continued breastfeeding. For this, women needed to be supported.

The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki- moon will launch the Global Strategy for Women's and Children's Health at a special event during the MDG Summit in New York on 22nd September.

Let's call upon the UN Secretary General to ensure support to women.

SIEZE THE MOMENT and raise your voice.

Sign and send the petition to the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki - moon to urge him to include specific budgetary support for adequate maternity benefits and entitlements, skilled counseling in health systems, in order to make it possible for women to breastfeed successfully.

SIGN IT HERE

http://www.onemillioncampaign.org/view_campaigns/sieze-moment-sign-your-support-women-breastfeed

JUST A FEW days left ACT NOW and ASK 10 of your YOUR FRIENDS TO SIGN UP AS WELL!

http://onemillioncampaign.org/tell_your_friends?user_id=-1&node_id=585

Thanks !!

Team One Million Campaign

email un

A MESSAGE FROM THE ONE MILLION CAMPAIGN

Dear Friend,

Globally 3.6 million Infants die before they reach their first birthday and millions are malnourished because of inadequate and inappropriate breastfeeding and complementary feeding practices.

Most effective interventions to save babies’ lives and prevent malnutrition is to enhance early and exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months, and good complementary feeding thereafter along with continued breastfeeding. For this, women needed to be supported.

The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki- moon will launch the Global Strategy for Women's and Children's Health at a special event during the MDG Summit in New York on 22nd September.

Let's call upon the UN Secretary General to ensure support to women.

SIEZE THE MOMENT and raise your voice.

Sign and send the petition to the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki - moon to urge him to include specific budgetary support for adequate maternity benefits and entitlements, skilled counseling in health systems, in order to make it possible for women to breastfeed successfully.

SIGN IT HERE

http://www.onemillioncampaign.org/view_campaigns/sieze-moment-sign-your-support-women-breastfeed

JUST A FEW days left ACT NOW and ASK 10 of your YOUR FRIENDS TO SIGN UP AS WELL!

http://onemillioncampaign.org/tell_your_friends?user_id=-1&node_id=585

Thanks !!

Team One Million Campaign

email un

A MESSAGE FROM THE ONE MILLION CAMPAIGN

Dear Friend,

Globally 3.6 million Infants die before they reach their first birthday and millions are malnourished because of inadequate and inappropriate breastfeeding and complementary feeding practices.

Most effective interventions to save babies’ lives and prevent malnutrition is to enhance early and exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months, and good complementary feeding thereafter along with continued breastfeeding. For this, women needed to be supported.

The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki- moon will launch the Global Strategy for Women's and Children's Health at a special event during the MDG Summit in New York on 22nd September.

Let's call upon the UN Secretary General to ensure support to women.

SIEZE THE MOMENT and raise your voice.

Sign and send the petition to the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki - moon to urge him to include specific budgetary support for adequate maternity benefits and entitlements, skilled counseling in health systems, in order to make it possible for women to breastfeed successfully.

SIGN IT HERE

http://www.onemillioncampaign.org/view_campaigns/sieze-moment-sign-your-support-women-breastfeed

JUST A FEW days left ACT NOW and ASK 10 of your YOUR FRIENDS TO SIGN UP AS WELL!

http://onemillioncampaign.org/tell_your_friends?user_id=-1&node_id=585

Thanks !!

Team One Million Campaign