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

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

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

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

There are many other resources for promoting the boycott at:

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.nestlecritics.org/

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

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

A press release on our website tells more. See:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

International Milk Banking Conference in 2009

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

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

---

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

Details and booking forms at:

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

Topics include:

• A century of milk banking

• Is donor breastmilk baby friendly?

• Achieving Optimum Nutrition for preterm infants

• Analysing breastmilk in practice

• Uses of Donor breastmilk – what next?

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

---ends

Danone censured again for misleading parents over Milupa Aptamil formula

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can find Danone country sites at:

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

The UK site is:

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

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

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

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

I also tried the UK site at:

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

You can find address and fax numbers via these links.

Professor Kramer sets record straight over 'breastfeeding controversy' articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article continues:

---extract

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

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

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

---extract ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

World Breastfeeding Week 2009

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

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

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

You can find the full UNICEF statement at:

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

The WHO statements is available at:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.onemillioncampaign.org/

Australian advice on choosing infant formula

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Straight talking Australian's have done so.

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

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

Media coverage of rulings against misleading formula advertising

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Find further information on our press release at:

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

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

http://www.onemillioncampaign.org/

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

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

IBFAN breastfeeding calendar 2009 now reduced in price

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

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

See:

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

UK breastfeeding picnics - 20 July 2009

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

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

MAIN EVENT

Protect My Baby, Protect Me

Monday July 20th, 2009

Noon - 3pm

Victoria Tower Gardens

-o0o-

Birmingham Picnic

Monday July 20th, 2009

11am - 2pm

St Phillip's Cathedral

Colmore Road

Birmingham

Facebook Event

contact: breastfeeding@codepoets.co.uk

-o0o-

Poole Picnic

Bosum Buddies - Dorset

Monday July 20th, 2009

11am - 2pm

Poole Park

Poole

Facebook Event

contact: sophiesmailbox@yahoo.com

-o0o-

Stroud Picnic

Monday July 20th, 2009

11am - 3pm

Stratford Park

Facebook Event

contact: stroudrose@yahoo.co.uk

-o0o-

Warrington Picnic

Monday July 20th, 2009

Town Hall Park

Sankey Street

Warrington

Facebook Event

contact: jenniestevenson@googlemail.com

-o0o-

Salford Picnic

Monday July 20th, 2009

Noon - 2pm

Buile Hill Park

(in front of Mansion)

contact: j.wallsworth@gmail.com

-o0o-

Durham Picnic

Monday July 20th, 2009

Noon - 3pm

Palace Green

Durham

contact: sonia.bailey@gmail.com

Should mothers who use formula feel guilty?

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.onemillioncampaign.org/

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

Global Compact Critics on our Nestle complaint

Our complaint to the UN Global Compact office regarding Nestlé bringing the voluntary initiative into disrepute by using it to cover up its malpractice, is being downloaded and reported elsewhere.

The Global Compact Critics website tracks the shortcomings of the UN initiative. Its report on our complaint can be found at:

http://globalcompactcritics.blogspot.com/2009/06/international-campaign-calls-on-global.html

The World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action has highlighted the complaint on its front page at the moment. There is also news there of the rd WABA Global Forum, 14 -17 June 2010, Quebec City, Canada. See:

http://www.waba.org.my/

Interview on Nestlé's UN Global Compact cover up

I recently gave an interview to a Sheffield Live! radio station as part of an international student initiative in the build up to the next G8 summit. This has appeared on various websites, where you can listen to in online, including:

http://www.canstream.co.uk/sheffieldlive/index.php?id=16726

This included an exclusive on the launch of our report: Nestlé's UN Global Compact cover up. This report exposes how Nestlé breaches human rights and environmental standards and the strategies it uses to divert criticism. Amongst these is using the UN voluntary Corporate Social Responsibility initiative, the Global Compact, to portray its impact as wholly beneficial. We and colleagues who contribute to the Nestlé Critics site have lodged a formal complaint calling for Nestlé to be expelled from the initiative. See our press release for information at:

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

It is possible to download the report from the above link.

Fundraising to hold UK formula companies to account

We are waiting for the UK government's review panel to give its recommendations on what to do in response to continued aggressive marketing of formula following the introduction of the new Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations 2007 and the associated guidance notes.

As the monitoring reports we produce for the Baby Feeding Law Group (BFLG) show, violations remain 'commonplace' - to use the word of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in its assessment of the government's performance in protecting child rights. The Committee, like all health worker bodies, mother support groups and the government's own Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition have called for stronger regulations.

We continue to monitor the companies and will be producing a further report in the coming months. The next report will respond to the action - or lack of it - taken by the review panel. It will also go to the home authorities responsible for enforcing the regulations, to the Advertising Standards Authority and the Food Standards Agency. As the latest report shows, this has stopped some questionable marketing practices, but has mainly demonstrated the failings of the current regulatory and enforcement system.

To do this work, we rely on the support of volunteer monitors (some of whom we have trained), donations and sales of reports.

We are grateful to LatchOn.org for listing our project on its site at:

http://www.latchon.org/projects.htm?region=17

You can make a donation via that site or the BFLG site:

http://www.babyfeedinglawgroup.org.uk/

You can download the latest report and purchase a printed copy at:

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

Call for Nestlé to be expelled from UN initiative

As you may recall, Nestlé attempted to hi-jack the Nestlé Critics site shortly before its launch. The site serves as a portal for information on various aspects of Nestlé malpractice. See:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/

Nestlé not only tries to silence critics and to spy on them (see the report on the site), it uses a UN initiative called the UN Global Compact as cover so its abuses of human rights and the environment can continue. Nestlé produces glossy reports which are published on the UN Global Compact and have even been launched at joint events.

Unfortunately the UN Global Compact has no procedure for confirming if the reports are accurate and complete. Indeed, it stresses it is not intended to be an enforcement or verification agency. Its aim is to encourage corporate responsibility through voluntary means and by holding up good examples of 'Communications on Progress' - Nestlé has been honoured in this way.

So the initiative is fundamentally flawed and much criticised. I wrote a chapter in the book 'Global Obligations for the Right to Food' analysing these issues and calling for a regulatory system that could stop malpractice.

The Global Compact does have integrity measures, under which complaints can be filed if it is thought that a company is bringing the initiative into disrepute by systematic abuses of the principles it claims to support. Nestlé does this and more: it uses the initiative as cover so abuses can continue.

So the Nestlé Critics have filed a complaint and Nestlé has 3 months to respond. We and our partners have raised our various concerns with Nestlé repeatedly without success, so if they are dismissed again, will the Global Compact act to remove Nestlé's reports and strike it from the list of partners? We shall see.

There is a rather nice report of our own to go with our complaint, which I have put together. You can download this from our website, via the press release issued today at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press17june09.html

Martek profits boosted by formula company bogus claims

Martek, the company that produces Long Chain Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids, from algae for adding to formula is doing well for itself.

The BioHealth Investor site reports "its fiscal 2009 second-quarter profit rose by 20 percent"

Why such demand for LCPUFAs? The report notes: "Omega-3 fatty acids are believed to play an important role in brain and eye development."

True, as far as it goes. Adding processed LCPUFAs to formula, a different environment to breastmilk, where human LCPUFAs naturally occur, is not found to provide any benefit.

The independent and respected Cochrane Library reviewed the evidence and concluded:

http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000376.html

"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."

Of course, the facts do not prevent Nestlé claiming its formula with LCPUFAs contains 'brain building blocks' or UK formula companies claiming they benefit brain and eye development. The companies do not follow the marketing requirements adopted by the World Health Assembly unless forced to do so.

This need not worry investors however. As Hambrecht & Quist said when it strongly recommended investors to buy shares in Martek Biosciences in the 1990s when it launched its Formulaid LCPUFA additive:

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

The question that parents need answered is whether it is worth spending more on formula that contains LCPUFAs. We have to direct parents to their health worker for information. However, as the World Health Assembly marketing requirements are not enforced in many countries, we know that health workers are not only misled by companies, but bombarded with gifts and hospitality to influence their views of the companies and their claims.

The official UK Department of Health line is that all formulas have to comply with composition standards so all formulas are equally suitable. There is no requirement to add LCPUFAs as there is not proven benefit from adding them. They are, however, believed to be safe.

The formula marketing regulations in the UK allow companies to add new ingredients to formula without proving their benefit or even safety: all they have to do is submit a copy of the label they plan to use to the Food Standards Agency.

This means that we are seeing what some have described as mass uncontrolled trials on populations of babies. While some parents may be persuaded to use formulas with LCPUFAs just in case, there is also the possibility that there may be unknown risks. In the US, a freedom of information request found that the Food and Drug Administration had registered reports from parents who believed their babies had had an adverse reaction to these ingredients. See:

http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/01/lcps-questioned.html

Formula is a nutritional medicine and, like any medicine, is intended for specific cases where it is needed. If it can be avoided, then the known health risks and possible unknown ones can also be avoided. This common sense approach is lost in the hype around formula - hype which is intended to make formula use seem to be a simple question of lifestyle so as to boost sales and profits for companies such as Martek.

It is a mother's right to decide how to feed her child and no-one should try to make her feel guilty for her decision: there are many factors involved.

It is not my purpose in pointing out what companies hide to make mothers feel guilty, but to shame our politicians for allowing companies to make bogus claims. My purpose is to defend a mother's right to make an informed decision. If she decides to use formula afterwards in any case, a decision based on facts rather than misinformation should be empowering.

While we have to be aware that some mothers feel pressured to breastfeed and demonised if they decide not to (or have no choice), I think it is also wrong and patronising to believe or argue that information should be kept hidden.

Those that use formula require better information: independent, objective information from health workers that have not been targeted by companies seeking to increase sales.

Demos against Nestlé and calls for leaders to act against baby milk pushers

It was a busy week last week with the World Health Assembly. We have had:

• New charts downgrading European countries for failing to act to stop aggressive marketing of breastmilk substitutes;

• The presentation of a petition calling for leaders around the world to act to protect their people;

• In the lead up to the Assembly, Baby Milk Action's Policy Director standing up at the Nestlé shareholder meeting, calling for Nestlé to change its ways, and a demonstration on the doorstep of Nestlé (UK).

Our partners from the International Code Documentation Centre launched a new State of the Code Chart by Country at the Assembly. This shows the action taken by governments to implement the World Health Assembly marketing requirements for breastmilk substitutes. Many have taken effective action, action which is helping to protect infant health. However, others have not done so. Indeed, most of the countries of the European Union have failed in their responsibilities to such an extent that they have been downgraded on the chart following the introduced of a new Directive in 2006. Only two countries, Luxembourg and Norway, put the well-being of their people first by going beyond the Directive. Read a press release from ICDC at:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press21may09.html

The Chart can be ordered through the Baby Milk Action online Virtual Shop at:

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

The ONE MILLION CAMPAIGN presented a petition with over 40,000 signatures calling for leaders to do more to protect, promote and support breastfeeding - thank you to everyone who has signed. If you have not done so, please do so. If you have, then please keep encouraging others to add their names as the petition will be used nationally and internationally in the future. See the ONE MILLION CAMPAIGN press release at:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press23may09.html

Nestlé is found to be the worst of the baby food companies. Patti Rundall OBE, Policy Director of Baby Milk Action, raised concerns at the shareholder meeting in April. These were dismissed by executives, but then the problems come from the very top: in the adjoining hall examples of Nestlé formula tins were on proud display with labels claiming it would 'protect' babies. In reality, formula-fed babies are more likely to become sick in the short and long term and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die.

Images from this and the annual demonstration at Nestlé (UK) HQ on 16 May can be found at:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press22may09.html

Many thanks to everyone who came to the demo, organised things locally or participated in the virtual demonstration on facebook: over 700 people signed up, prompting a reaction from the police Intelligence Unit. Find out more on the newswire report at:

http://www.communitynewswire.press.net/article.jsp?id=5787939