Sunday, April 25, 2010

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

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

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

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

Friday, April 16, 2010

Vote for babies in the UK General Election

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

Thursday, April 08, 2010

Nestle tries to shake off boycotters

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

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

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

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

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

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

Annabel Karmel fan page

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, April 06, 2010

People power

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, March 22, 2010

Corporate influence on the UK Government

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

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

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

I commented on the article as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

What's your milk worth?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's your milk worth?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[SLIDE: Cost savings]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Longchain polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation in infants born at term

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

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

[SLIDE: DH study]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[SLIDE: Lancet]

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

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

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

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

(Combined total 10%)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Government Regulation a Growing Constraint”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

La Leche League Ireland exists.

You have come to the Conference.

You know what your milk is worth!!

[SLIDE: Contact us]

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

Tuesday, March 02, 2010

Online training course coming soon

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

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

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

See:

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

Friday, February 26, 2010

Nestlé's friendly MP stands down

Mr Tom Levitt, Member of Parliament for Buxton, has announced he is standing down at the next election.

Nestlé bottles Buxton water in the town and has befriended its MP with free tickets to the Wimbledon tennis tournament and a free trip to South Africa.

After the trip, Mr. Levitt praised Nestlé and suggested it should no longer be criticised for issues he said were 30 years in the past. In the Buxton Advertiser today, he is again quoted defending his friends at Nestlé:
http://www.buxtonadvertiser.co.uk/news/MP-Tom-denies-Nestle-job.6108297.jp

There is a short quote from me in the article and I have posted a follow-up to the editor as follows:

---

It is a disgrace that Mr. Levitt continues to claim regarding Nestlé baby milk marketing : "Nestle is amongst the most ethical of traders in this field."

He has been provided with information showing that while he was enjoying his free trip to South Africa, Nestlé was advertising infant formula in supermarkets - a practice so shocking that even its competitors in the Infant Feeding Association tried unsuccessfully to stop it. The voluntary Advertising Standards Authority, part-funded by Nestlé advertising revenue, cleared the practice, meaning all companies may resort to advertising, something prohibited by the international marketing standards Nestlé claims to follow. Nestlé drives down standards.

Mr. Levitt ignores the fact that the Department of Health in South Africa told Nestlé to stop making claims about its formula that undermine breastfeeding - and the fact it says it was not asked for an opinion by the ASA about the Nestlé supermarket advertising as normally happens with issues impacting on health.

Nestlé is currently promoting its formula with the claim it 'protects' babies and refuses to stop misleading mothers; infants fed on formula are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. This is not an issue from 30 to 40 years ago as Mr. Levitt likes to claim when defending his free Wimbledon tickets and other Nestlé benefits.

See our Campaign for Ethical Marketing.
---

The article picks up on a report in Private Eye that Mr. Levitt is heading for a consultancy with Nestlé, something they both deny in the Buxton Advertiser article.

We will watch closely. There is a history of Nestlé paying back people who have defended it. Lord Nazir Ahmed cropped up several times when former Nestlé Pakistan employee, Syed Aamir Raza, exposed practices such as bribing of doctors, which were substantiated by internal company documents. Lord Ahmed arrived uninvited at the European Parliament Public Hearing into the affair, which Nestlé boycotted. When he was unable to speak there, he wrote to Members of the European Parliament offering to brief them.

Aamir had met with Lord Ahmed asking for his help - a meeting I attended - and he was originally enthusiastic. However, a proposed public meeting never went ahead and Lord Ahmed then announced he had conducted an independent investigation in Pakistan which had found Nestlé was doing nothing wrong and that Aamir was trying to blackmail Nestlé. Two years later it emerged that the trip Lord Ahmed made to Pakistan had been organised and paid for by Nestlé and that he was being taken on by the company as a consultant. I took part in a head-to-head interview with Lord Ahmed on the BBC radio when his financial links with Nestlé were revealed. You can listen to the recording at:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/ram/broadcasts.html#lordahmed

Lord Ahmed again came to Nestlé's defence in 2003 when the TUC (Trade Union Congress) refused Nestlé a stand at their annual conference (Nestlé was one of two corporations that regularly exhibited, always amidst controversy - the other being British Nuclear Fuels). We had offered to debate with Nestlé in previous years and it refused - now denied its customary platform it agreed. Lord Ahmed was in the audience and to his lasting shame, stood up and told the audience that Aamir was living happily in Canada and his campaign exposing Nestlé had been about finding a way to leave Pakistan. I pointed out that Aamir was without his wife and children who he had not seen since leaving Pakistan three years before - he was unable to return home after threats from doctors implicated by the internal documents in accepting bribes and after shots were fired at his home, narrowly missing his brother. As Lord Ahmed attacked Aamir in this underhand way, Aamir was indeed in Canada, but distraught as his mother was ill with cancer. Aamir was separated from his wife and children for seven years and he never saw either of his parents again, who both passed away. There are many issues involved in Aamir's case. You can read his evidence here:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/update/update27feature.html

Another case of someone claiming to be independent but turning out to have financial links with Nestlé, revolves around an article published in the British Journal of Midwifery. Nestlé has widely distributed an off-print of the article, without the substantial right-to-reply from Baby Milk Action exposing some of the many errors and misrepresentations in the article. You can find a detailed analysis on our archive site. This provides an in-depth history of the campaign, with reference to source documents which can be downloaded from the site. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/yqsanswered/yqanestle09.html

Nestlé claims the article was written by 'independent midwives'. In reality the lead author was Chris Sidgwick who worked with Nestlé on a video that was distributed to UK health workers in breach of UK law, something that Trading Standards has raised with Nestlé several times. Not only did the authors enjoy an all-expenses-paid trip to Switzerland for 'fact-finding' at Nestlé's HQ, Chris's organisation, HCP Study Events, received funding from the Nestlé Nutrtion Institute. It still does, and Chris crops up from time to time inviting health journalists on jollies to Switzerland on Nestlé's behalf and students to drop their support for the boycott. We have contacted her to discuss her work for Nestlé, but have never received a reply. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2009/09/nestle-rcslt.html

Nestlé has even tried to use its cheque book to bring Nelson Mandela into its fold, offering half a million pounds just for a photo-opportunity. Nestlé persuaded Lord Richard Attenborough to put the offer to former President Mandela. The Nelson Mandela Children's Fund rejected the sum. i.Africa reported:

"In a statement it [Mandela's Children's Fund] reiterated the position it took in 2000 regarding a donation Nestle proposed to the Fund. In July 2000 the Fund was approached by Nestle, to contribute towards its Aids Orphan Appeal, a theme it had adopted for Mandela's birthday celebration with the children in that year

"However given the Nestle debacle in relation to HIV/Aids infected mothers and their campaign on promoting formula milk as opposed to breast milk and the disadvantages they put out publicly regarding breast feeding, the Nelson Mandela Children's Fund declined the donation.""

Nestlé's Chairman has been open in saying that the company only supports good causes if it benefits shareholders. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/03/nestle-generosity-to-good-causes.html

Nestlé is no doubt pleased that Mr. Levitt has parroted its PR about its baby food marketing following his trip, refused our offer to meet and ignored the evidence we have sent to him. I don't know the source of the Private Eye report on the alleged consultancy agreement, and would not wish to doubt Mr. Levitt's word, but it certainly reflects the way Nestlé works.

Friday, February 19, 2010

Updates and Campaign blog available on our new-look site

Our new-look website is gradually taking over from our present site. The present site will remain as an archive.

You can now find Update 42 on the new site at:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/update/update42

There will be a duplicate of this campaign blog on the new site. This is the first entry! See:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog

Monday, February 15, 2010

New-style email alerts - sign up now and tell us what you think

Here's a new innovation: html email alerts. I'm just sending the first one out.

You can subscribe to alerts and view the online archive, including the first html alert, at:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/emailalerts

Take a look and click on the link telling me if you like it or not.

This is a screenshot of it (note that clicking the links on this won't work)


If you are not on our email alert list, you can sign up via our new-look website that is coming online section by section (our old site will continue while we make the switch over and as an archive.

Friday, February 12, 2010

Boycott Nestlé leaflet for Fairtrade Fortnight

Fairtrade Fortnight is taking place from 22 February to 7 March. If you would like to support this, you can find out more at:

As you may know, Nestlé has gained Fairtrade certification for 4-finger KitKat. There are 6,000 farmers benefiting, gaining about an extra £400,000 per year from the Fairtrade premium. Nesté's has already received global publicity for this sum, which is a fraction of the price of its curent £43 million Nescafé UK advertising campaign. But much of the coverage is undeserved as Fairtrade KitKat involves just 1% of the cocoa Nestlé purchases while it is criticised for failing to deliver on its promise to end child slavery in the supply chain for the rest by 2006.

You can find a simple leaflet with facts that Nestlé executives do not want you to know about Nestlé and cocoa - and its pushing of baby milk. Why not download it, print it back-to-back to make A5 copies and use them on your Fairtrade stall if you are having one, or give to friends.


Nestlé is the worst of the baby food companies. As it boasts about the new Fairtrade logo added to KitKat, we are campaigning to force it to remove new logos from its infant formula that claims this 'protects' babies - it does not, babies fed on it are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, are more likely to die.

Nestlé is not only trying to improve its image by promoting its Fairtrade KitKat, it is about to embark on a multi-million pound campaign in cyberspace. See:

Nestlé is one of the world's four most boycotted companies because people like you spread the word. This is why Nestlé is stepping up its spending on trying to improve its image. And this is why we need your help more than ever - with the financial crisis we have lost some members and had to cut staff hours. By becoming a member, sending a donation or buying something from our online shop, you help to keep us operating. See:

The more we can do, the more cases of aggressive pushing of formula we can stop (by Nestlé and other companies) and the more laws we can bring in and defend (there are over 70 countries now with laws). The more people support the boycott, the more Nestlé has to spend trying to counter it, which tips the balance towards it actually making the changes required to bring its practices into line with the marketing requirements adopted by the World Health Assembly. Join those sending messages to Nestlé about its 'protect' logos and eventually it will drop them as it has with many of the other strategies we have exposed. See:

So if you can, please click here. We don't need the millions Nestlé spends to have an impact. Membership starts at just £7 and every member makes a big difference.

Saturday, February 06, 2010

Nestlé plans offensive in cyberspace to 'counter criticism'

Nestle has an abysmal image. According to PR Week: "Nestle received a 'positivity' score in social media of just 12 out of 100 in an audit by Yomego Social Media Reputation." Is it responding by agreeing to our four-point plan for ending the boycott over its baby food marketing? No. It's hiring more PR experts.

See PR Week (3 February 2010): Nestle Briefs Agencies For Online Charm Offensive To Counter Criticism.

---extracts
Nestle is embarking on an emergency online PR campaign to restore its reputation amid sustained criticism on the internet.

The world's largest foods company is ramping up its efforts to monitor online opinion, including looking for an agency to handle its worldwide 'buzz' monitoring.

The action comes as Nestle continues to encounter vociferous online opposition on a range of issues, from traditional concerns about its formula milk, to newer attacks on its digital marketing efforts.

[...]

Nestle received a 'positivity' score in social media of just 12 out of 100 in an audit by Yomego Social Media Reputation. Kraft scored 32.

The research firm analysed Nestle over three months. The low score is driven by anti-Nestle sentiment on blogs and Twitter.

Nestle's social media 'noise' level scored a relatively high 68. Rival Coca-Cola has a 'noise' score of 92.
---extracts end

Nestlé is one of the world's most boycotted companies according to its Global Public Affairs Manager Dr. Gayle Crozier Willi. It has been embarrassed to find information about its human rights abuses and other concerns divulged and talked about on the internet.

The internet advertising company ad.ly claimed last month that Nestlé is amongst the companies paying celebrities US$10,000 a time to post positive tweets on Twitter, according to Gossip.net. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2010/01/nestle-celebrity-tweets.html

In 2008 Nestlé attempted to hi-jack the Nestlé Critics site just days before its launch with a legal action claiming ownership of the domain name. The launch went ahead with a different domain name, but the original, which had already been publicised, was retained for 6 months so people had the opportunity to update their bookmarks. It was not handed over to Nestlé on the grounds it might attempt to undermine the launch by posting bogus information on the domain - not so paranoid when you consider that Nestlé has been exposed for employing a former MI6 officer to run a spying operation infiltrating Swiss campaign groups.

Nestlé subsequently launched a 500-page legal action for the domain name. As it had not bothered to answer our letter regarding decision to use a different domain name for the launch, this was seen as an attempt at harassment. It was also a waste of shareholder money as we had no need of the domain name after the successful launch of the new address.

The Nestlé Critics site serves as a portal for various campaigns on Nestlé malpractice:

The groups involved in the Nestlé Critics site have filed cases with the UN Global Compact calling for Nestlé to be excluded from this voluntary corporate social responsibility initiative for egregious violations and bringing it into disrepute. A exposé of Nestlé is one of the most popular downloads on our site. The case is ongoing. See:

Nestlé has arranged in the past for misinformation on its activities to be placed in the media by inviting journalists on all-expenses-paid trips to its head office in Switzerland. In 2008 it recruited Dr. Miriam Stoppard, a well-known media doctor, to make the invitation. See:

Then last year, Nestlé tried to influence parenting bloggers in the US by flying 20 of them to a 5-star hotel in California and setting up a tweet channel on Twitter for them to relate their experiences. This became a fully-fledged PR disaster for the company as people raised questions on the tweet channel about Nestlé malpractice and some of the bloggers invited questions to put to Nestlé executives. Briefly Nestlé appeared on the channel to try to take control, but left after an hour. Baby Milk Action had become aware of the event through traffic to our sites and offered to take part in a tweet debate with Nestlé, which was ignored.

Nestlé did respond to a blogger who had written an open letter to the attendees calling on them to reconsider, but the responses were so transparently dishonest that they added to the anger in cyberspace and led to a spontaneous Halloween boycott in the US, boosting International Nestlé-Free Week, which Baby Milk Action promotes at that time.

Nestlé's PR disaster fuelled many blogs and entered the mainstream media with, for example, an article in the LA Times:

There are already tools for corporations to check their reputations in cyberspace and we find some are used to track our sites. See:

Nestlé's move comes as it also attempts to improve its image by certifying 4-bar KitKat chocolate in the UK as Fairtrade, providing another focus for exposing Nestlé malpractice. Only 1% of Nestlé's cocoa purchase is involved and it is criticised for failing to deliver on a promise to end child slavery in its cocoa supply chain by 2006.

The addition of the Fairtrade mark to KitKat may bring Nestlé some good publicity, but it has also apparently damaged the credibility of the Fairtrade mark:

Whoever wins Nestlé's PR contract will have a lot to do. Please let us know if you see signs of their activity.

Wednesday, February 03, 2010

Information on formula from Baby Milk Action

A while ago I wrote a blog asking: "Which infant formula is best?"

People asked for additional information. There is a vacuum of objective information on formula and the differences between brands with different ingredients. We have been calling on the health authorities to provide this.

While we shall continue to campaign, I've bowed to the demand and put together a short film for mothers and other intending to use formula that explains the regulations for formula sold in the UK, the legally-required ingredients and the optional ingredients found in some formulas, but not others.

I don't go over the specific brands on the market at the present time as they keep changing, so it will be necessary to look at the labels, but I will add a page that can be kept updated.

You can find this information on our new-look website, which is under development. It is necessary to register (free of charge) to see the full film.

See:

Comments can be left on that site. I very much welcome feedback.

Thursday, January 28, 2010

A tale of two logos: The Fairtrade mark added to KitKat while Nestlé tells mothers its formula will 'protect' their babies

The Independent newspaper has picked up a quote from me in an article today on "The great KitKat debate: is it fair?" See:

They invite comments, so feel free to give your views.

For the concerns over the way Nestlé is using the Fairtrade mark to divert criticism of unethical business practices, such as its pushing of baby milk, see my past blogs, such as:

It is ironic that as the Fairtrade logo appears on Nestlé KitKats, we continue to campaign for Nestlé to remove a logo from its infant formula labels that claims Nestlé formula 'protects' babies. It does not - babies fed on it are more likely to become ill than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, to die. You can send a message to Nestlé about this via our Campaign for Ethical Marketing action sheet, which shows a tin from Malawi, one of the world's poorest countries:

While Nestlé is gaining worldwide publicity, much of it good, for its decision to source 1% of its cocoa from farmers within the Fairtrade scheme, Green and Black's has today announced it is going 100% Fairtrade. See:

US Fair Trade organisations have said they think far more should have been demanded of Nestlé, particularly as it has failed to deliver on its promise to end child slavery in its cocoa supply chain by 2006. See:

While we have added Fairtrade KitKat to the Nestlé boycott list, that does not mean we are anti-Fairtrade. Indeed, Fairtrade fortnight is coming up in the UK from 22 February to 7 March. You can find ideas to support it at:

If you are planning a stall or event, then feel free to contact Baby Milk Action for leaflets explaining why Nestlé Fairtrade KitKat is on our boycott list.

We need all the help we can get to stop practices such as Nestlé telling mothers around the world that its formula will 'protect' their babies. According to UNICEF: "Improved breastfeeding practices and reduction of artificial feeding could save an estimated 1.5 million children a year."

We have tried to enlist the help of the UN Global Compact Office and the offices responsible for overseeing the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, but they are unprepared to do anything other than encourage us to 'dialogue' with Nestlé. We have been in 'dialogue' with Nestlé for decades and what we have learned is that Nestlé acts when it is pressure or shamed, particularly if it believes its profits and its image (which impacts on its profits) will be harmed.

So please do consider sending a message to Nestlé and reminding friends and colleagues of Nestlé malpractice. The launch of Fairtrade KitKat presents an ideal opportunity.

Nestlé spends millions on trying to improve its image. But with your help we are able to put the other side of the story into the national press, as with the article in The Independent today.

You might also like to consider becoming a member of Baby Milk Action, if you are not already, or sending us a donation. See:

Friday, January 22, 2010

Where's Mum? - or - Here's looking at you, kid!

Baby Milk Action produces a calendar with breastfeeding pictures from around the world on behalf of some of the groups belonging to the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN).

We are always on the look out for good-quality pictures, so contact us if you have any to offer.

Putting the calendar together is always a challenge because all the groups that will sell it to help raise funds for their activities to protect infant health have to be happy with the selection of pictures. There is a voting process that goes on to ensure that the views of each group are respected and everyone has mainly their favourite pictures, plus a few they just like a lot.

I have a vote myself and have always been a bit suspicious of disembodied pictures such as the one that appears in January, shown below.




I tended to mark such pictures down because, regardless of how much we are focused on infant feeding, women - and mothering - is about much more than offering a breast to a child, so where's Mum?

But someone who has breastfed and loves these pictures pointed out to me that these are not pictures of disembodied breasts (though such pictures exist), but a Mum's-eye-view of breastfeeding and that is why these pictures are so popular.

Which just goes to show, you have to be open to other perspectives!

What do you think?

You can see the rest of this year's selection of pictures at:

Friday, January 08, 2010

What Professor Carlsen actually said about infant feeding

Ben Goldacre has reproduced the press release from Professor Carlsen that generated the 'Breast NOT Best' news news stories this week. See:

The press release is headlined "Breastfeeding is not as beneficial as once thought". As I explained earlier, Professor Carslen's hypothesis is that mothers use formula because of excess male hormones, that also have a negative impact on the child in the womb, and it is the male hormones that explain the poorer health of formula-fed babies, rather than the method of feeding. To quote Professor Carlsen from the opening of the press release:

---Quote begins
It is true that breastfed infants are slightly healthier than bottle-fed babies. But apparently it is not the milk that makes the difference. Instead, the baby’s overall health is all determined before he or she is born. So why do so many studies associate breastfeeding with better health for young babies. The answer is simple: If a mother is able to breastfeed, and does so, this ability is essentially proof that the baby has already had an optimal life inside the womb.
---quote ends

His research was about the impact of hormones on infant health and feeding method, but the articles reporting on this have implied that breastfeeding has no impact on infant health compared to formula feeding.

UNICEF Baby Friendly Initiative in the UK has commented: "the claims made in relation to these findings do not account for the large differences in breastfeeding rates between countries, with some having 99% of mothers successfully breastfeeding. They are also contradicted by the large body of evidence which shows that levels of successful breastfeeding can be increased by a range of improved support interventions."

UNICEF Baby Friendly has also taken issue with the suggestion that breastfed infants, as a population, are not healthier than formula-fed infants. While Professor Carlsen reviewed only 50 studies to state breastfed infants are 'slightly healthier', UNICEF cites a systematic review that examined evidence from 400 studies on infant feeding, after ensuring they were well designed, and "found that breastfeeding is associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of: acute otitis media, non-specific gastroenteritis, severe lower respiratory tract infections, atopic dermatitis, obesity, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, childhood leukaemia, sudden infant death syndrome, necrotizing enterocolitis, maternal breast cancer and ovarian cancer." See:

Professor Carlsen wasn't looking at the impact of feeding methods on health, but the impact of hormones during pregnancy on a mother's breastfeeding behaviour. He found increased use of formula (ie less breastfeeding) amongst mothers with higher levels of male hormones. However, it is interesting to note that the results state there was "correction for maternal age, education and smoking", apparently missing other factors such as birth weight, delivery methods, separation of mother and child after birth etc. which may have been relevant, particularly given the small sample size.

UPDATE: The UK National Health Service has analysed the research and pointed out today that Professor Carlsen did not even look at the impact of male hormones on infant health. It states:

---NHS analysis extract
This study did not compare levels of male hormones during pregnancy to the baby’s health, but only to whether the mother breastfed after giving birth. The researchers have supplied no evidence to back up their claim that there is no benefit from breast milk.
---extract and Update ends

Here is the abstract for the research, available at:

---Professor Carlsen research
Mid-pregnancy androgen levels are negatively associated with breastfeeding

Objective. Breastfeeding depends on endocrine changes during pregnancy. The association between gestational hormones and lactation has been sparsely investigated. Previously, androgens were used for lactation inhibition. We investigated a possible association between second trimester maternal androgen levels and breastfeeding. Design. Prospective observational study.

Setting. University hospital setting.

Population. Women from a random sample of pregnancies (n = 63) and from a group with an increased risk for giving birth to a small-for-gestational age newborn (n = 118) were included. All participants had singleton pregnancies and one or two previous births.

Methods. Maternal androgen levels were measured in gestational week 25. The association with reported breastfeeding was explored by univariate and multivariate linear regression analyses. Analyses were adjusted for factors known to be associated with breastfeeding.

Main outcome measures. Breastfeeding at six weeks, three months, and six months postpartum.

Results. In the random group, breastfeeding at three and six months was negatively associated with maternal testosterone, androstendione, and free testosterone index levels. After correction for maternal age, education and smoking, breastfeeding at both three and six months was negatively associated with the free testosterone index. In the group of women with an increased risk for giving birth to a small-for-gestational age newborn, breastfeeding at six weeks and three months was associated negatively with maternal dehydroepiandrosterone and this association persisted after correction for maternal age, education, and smoking.

Conclusions. Maternal androgen levels in mid-pregnancy are negatively associated with breastfeeding.
---quote ends

Some journalists do like rushing out 'Breast NOT Best' headlines, which do harm around the world and misrepresent or distort the real story. We faced a similar situation last year. You may recall a scientist, Professor Kramer, was quoted in literally thousands of articles around the world as questioning the benefits of breastfeeding. He soon criticised the journalists who wrote the original article for misrepresenting what he had said - but few journalists and media outlets that had run the earlier articles issued follow-up corrections. See:

Thursday, January 07, 2010

UNICEF comments on Professor Carlsen study

I wrote yesterday about a strange Norwegian study that is being reported under headlines 'breast is NOT best', when a more relevant headline would be 'Excess male hormone leads mothers to bottle feed and harms babies claims scientist'. See:

Not all journalists have been as sensationalist as the Daily Mail, amongst others. The BBC website ran with the headline: Hormones 'govern ability to breastfeed'.

The BBC report opens: "Mothers who find breastfeeding so hard that they give up should not blame themselves, researchers say. A Norwegian study concludes that difficulty feeding a newborn may be down to higher levels of the male hormone testosterone during pregnancy."

I've written in the past on the subject of guilt. My view is that it is a woman's decision on how she feeds her baby and no-one should try to make her feel guilty.

However, as UNICEF points out, there are some countries where 99% of mothers breastfeed, so the theory that excess male hormones prevent mothers from breastfeeding seems dubious.

Other doubts are being cast over this conclusion. The sample size was small - 180 pregnant women - and mothers with higher levels of male hormone are associated with lower birth weight babies. Whether medical interventions were made during birth also needs to be explored.

The research was looking at the hormone impact on pregnancy and breastfeeding, not on health outcomes from breastfeeding compared to formula feeding - Professor Carlsen's comments on this come from his interpretation of a selection of existing research and he agreed this finds health benefits, while disagreeing this was down to breastfeeding having intrinsic benefits.

His interpretation of the research on breastfeeding is not widely held. Journalists wrote similar sensationalist stories last year regarding Professor Kramer, who complained he had been misrepresented, but the damaging false information had gone around the world and few journalists published corrections to their stories. See:

UNICEF Baby Friendly Initiative in the UK has released a statement responding to the research, which is available at:

I include the full text below:

---UNICEF UK Baby Friendly Initiative statement on new breastfeeding research

A number of newspaper articles have today reported on a Norwegian study which has found an association between higher levels of male hormones in pregnancy and the ability to breastfeed after birth. The authors are reported to have extrapolated from their findings that mothers’ ability to breastfeed is entirely down to these hormone levels. They are also reported to have claimed that exposure to high levels of testosterone before birth account for the differences in health outcomes between breast and bottle fed babies. The findings of this small study are of interest and may warrant further investigation. However, the claims made in relation to these findings do not account for the large differences in breastfeeding rates between countries, with some having 99% of mothers successfully breastfeeding. They are also contradicted by the large body of evidence which shows that levels of successful breastfeeding can be increased by a range of improved support interventions.

The claims made relating to the health outcomes of breastfeeding do not account for the dose response found in many studies, which show that babies breastfed exclusively or for longer periods have the best overall outcomes.

The study does not account for or tally with the known mechanisms for how breastmilk protects against illness. For example, breastmilk contains a range of anti-infective properties including immunoglobulins, white cells, anti-inflammatory components, enzymes and non-antibody factors such as lactoferrin and the bifidus factor.

The body of evidence for the benefits of breastfeeding is very large and comes from a wide range of studies into many different illnesses, carried out by numerous researchers in many different universities. Systematic reviews of the literature have also been carried out and are especially useful, as they are able to eliminate weak studies and combine the findings of all the high-quality papers in order to demonstrate with the greatest reliability whether a protective effect truly exists. It is important to note that there is variability in the quality and depth of evidence in relation to some illnesses which is why the authors of these reviews tend to call for further research to clarify the finding. It remains the case, however, that the evidence for the advantages of breastfeeding is strong.

The two most recent and influential reviews were carried out by the Agency for Health and Research Quality and the World Health Organization and are summarised below:

Ip S, et al (2007) Breastfeeding and Maternal Health Outcomes in Developed Countries. AHRQ Publication No. 07-E007.Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

This review carried out in the USA screened over 9,000 papers and used evidence from 400. It refers only to health outcomes in developed countries. The review found that breastfeeding is associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of: acute otitis media, non-specific gastroenteritis, severe lower respiratory tract infections, atopic dermatitis, obesity, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, childhood leukaemia, sudden infant death syndrome, necrotizing enterocolitis, maternal breast cancer and ovarian cancer. Link.

Horta B et al (2007) Evidence on the long-term effects of breastfeeding. WHO.

This paper reports on a series of systematic reviews to assess the effects of breastfeeding on blood pressure, diabetes and related indicators, serum cholesterol, overweight and obesity, and intellectual performance. It found a significant reduction in the incidence of obesity and overweight and type 2 diabetes. It also found that breastfed babies had lower systolic blood pressure, lower cholesterol and better performance in intelligence tests. Link.

Although the protective effects of breastfeeding on gastroenteritis and respiratory infections have not been questioned, attempts have been made to dismiss these in developed countries as mere ‘tummy upsets’ or ‘coughs and colds’, whereas in reality a reduction in severe infection resulting in hospitalisation has been found. The Millennium Cohort Study is a nationally representative longitudinal study of 18,819 infants who were born in the UK in 2000-2002. Data on infant feeding, infant health, and a range of confounding factors were available for 15,890 healthy, singleton, term infants who were born during this period. This study found that 53 per cent of diarrheal hospitalisations each month could have been prevented by exclusive breastfeeding and 31 per cent by partial breastfeeding. A total of 27 per cent of lower respiratory tract infections could have been prevented each month by exclusive breastfeeding and 25 per cent by partial breastfeeding. Quigley M et al (2007) Breastfeeding and Hospitalization for diarrheal and respiratory infection in the United Kingdom Millennium Cohort Study. The full paper can be found here.

It is important to be aware that the protective effect of breastfeeding is stronger in relation to some illness, notably gastroenteritis, than it is for other illnesses such as allergies. This does not mean that there is no protective effect against those other illnesses, rather that the risk to the bottle-fed baby is greater for some illnesses than for others. Importantly, where the evidence shows a slight protective effect of breastfeeding, this can still be the result of well performed research. Therefore, to describe the evidence as weak because of a lower degree of protection is inaccurate and misleading. It is important to note that a small protective effect of breastfeeding against a significant illness will have a dramatic effect across a population.

The role of the Baby Friendly Initiative and of health professionals is to give pregnant women and new parents the full facts about infant feeding based on the best available evidence in an objective and non-judgemental manner in order to allow informed decision making. We then need to help mothers to make decisions appropriate to their circumstances and to support them in their decision whatever that may be.
---quote ends