Szoptatás Portál ... naprakész információk a szoptatásról

The First Ulverston Breastfeeding Festival (16 - 22 August) was a thoroughly enjoyable event and one that deserves to grow. The town of Ulverston, close to the coast on the south side of the Lake District, is a delightful setting. I spoke on Friday in the Parish Church Hall, after a showing of the UNICEF Philippines film, Formula for Disaster. Many thanks to Jo Dawson for the invitation and for the hard work she put in with help from friends and family to make the event a reality. I really hope it becomes part of the calendar and inspires others in the UK and elsewhere.

There are links to the film and some of the information included in my presentation below, along with other news from the festival. My weekend at the festival was an opportunity to encourage people to email Nestlé over its latest baby milk marketing strategy (it is claiming its formula 'protects' babies, despite the fact that babies fed on formula are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die). Before reading on, take a minute to email Nestlé by clicking here (will open in a new window).

There were events throughout the week, including workshops and talks on baby-led weaning, milk banking, breastfeeding information for grandparents and the Breastfeeding Manifesto. There was a breastfeeding fair on the Saturday in the Coronation Hall, with stalls by Baby Milk Action and other organisations involved. Sedleigh played his song 'Every Drop Counts' and other music outside the hall - close to statues of Ulverston son, Stan Laurel, and his partner in comedy, Oliver Hardy.

The Madonna and Child Project is running until 28 August, an exhibition of beautiful, iconic mother and baby portrait prints with associated birth stories, by Canadian artist Kate Hansen.

At the beginning of the week, breastfeeding mothers gathered for the Big Breastfeeding Picture, which helped to gain coverage in the local media. There were various café events during the week as well, for a more informal chat over tea, coffee and cake or something more substantial. On Sunday morning, before the final café gathering, some of us climbed Hoad Hill, for amazing views over Morecombe Bay towards Blackpool on one side, the peaks of the Lake District on the other and in the far distance, the peaks of Yorkshire.

Ulverston has a series of festivals throughout the year, and anyone entering the town could not miss the signs saying the current one was The Breastfeeding Festival.

So why not plan a visit to the area next August to coincide with the Festival? Windermere and Coniston lakes are very close by with extensive tourist facilities and Ulverston itself offers camping, B&B and hotel accommodation. For a taste of what to expect, take a look at this year's programme: http://www.thebreastfeedingfestival.btik.com/p_People.ikml

You can view the film about infant feeding in the Philippines online by going to: http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/05/watch-film-from-philippines-here.htm.

In my talk I provided an update on what happened since the film. You can find much of the information here.

I then spoke about the situation in the UK. Here's a youtube clip I put together for the launch of the ONE MILLION CAMPAIGN last year, which has some of the information.

Click here to sign the ONE MILLION CAMPAIGN petition.

You can the text of a similar talk, with the powerpoint presentation, here:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog070310

Gillian Weaver, Chair of the UK Association of Milk Banking, told me about this great clip about a recent fundraising cycle ride by supporter, Steve Haberfield.

You can hear more of the song Every Drop Counts, by Sedleigh below. Sedleigh performed this and other songs live outside the Coronation Hall and at one of Gillian's talks. If you make a donation to the work of UKAMB, you will be sent the full song. See: http://www.ukamb.org/edc/index.html

Remember you can find news of forthcoming events on our diary dates page and we'll post up the dates for the Ulverston Breastfeeding Festival 2011 event when we have them and hope we can take part once again.

var sc_project=1935474; var sc_invisible=0; var sc_partition=17; var sc_security="650a9fb1";

The First Ulverton Breastfeeding Festival (16 - 22 August) was a thoroughly enjoyable event and one that deserves to grow. The town of Ulverton, close to the coast on the south side of the Lake District, is a delightful setting. I spoke on Friday in the Parish Church Hall, after a showing of the UNICEF Philippines film, Formula for Disaster. Many thanks to Jo Dawson for the invitation and for the hard work she put in with help from friends and family to make the event a reality. I really hope it becomes part of the calendar and inspires others in the UK and elsewhere.

There are links to the film and some of the information included in my presentation below, along with other news from the festival.

There were events throughout the week, including workshops and talks on baby-led weaning, milk banking, breastfeeding information for grandparents and the Breastfeeding Manifesto. There was a breastfeeding fair on the Saturday in the Coronation Hall, with stalls by Baby Milk Action and other organisations involved. Sedleigh played his song 'Every Drop Counts' and other music outside the hall - nearby statues of Ulverton son, Stan Laurel, and his partner in comedy, Oliver Hardy.

The Madonna and Child Project is running until 28 August, an exhibition of beautiful, iconic mother and baby portrait prints with associated birth stories, by Canadian artist Kate Hansen.

At the beginning of the week, breastfeeding mothers gathered for the Big Breastfeeding Picture, which helped to gain coverage in the local media. There were various café events during the week as well, for a more informal chat over tea, coffee and cake or something more substantial. On Sunday morning, before the final café gathering, some of us climbed Hoad Hill, where for amazing views over Morecombe Bay towards Blackpool on one side, the peaks of the Lake District on the other and in the far distance, the peaks of Yorkshire.

Ulverton has a series of festivals throughout the year, and anyone entering the town could not miss the signs saying the current one was The Breastfeeding Festival.

So why not plan a visit to the area next August to coincide with the Festival? Windermere and Coniston lakes are very close by with extensive tourist facilities and Ulverton itself offers camping, B&B and hotel accommodation. For a taste of what to expect, take a look at this year's programme: http://www.thebreastfeedingfestival.btik.com/p_People.ikml

You can view the film about infant feeding in the Philippines online by going to: http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/05/watch-film-from-philippines-here.htm.

In my talk I provided an update on what happened since the film. You can find much of the information here.

I then spoke about the situation in the UK. Here's a youtube clip I put together for the launch of the ONE MILLION CAMPAIGN last year, which has some of the information.

Click here to sign the ONE MILLION CAMPAIGN petition.

You can find some of the slides I used in my talk here from a similar talk:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog070310

Gillian Weaver, Chair of the UK Association of Milk Banking, told me about this great clip about a recent fundraising cycle ride by supporter, Steve Haberfield.

You can hear more of the song Every Drop Counts, by Sedleigh below. Sedleigh performed this and other songs live outside the Coronation Hall and at one of Gillian's talks. If you make a donation to the work of UKAMB, you will be sent the full song. See: http://www.ukamb.org/edc/index.html

Remember you can find news of forthcoming events on our diary dates page and we'll post up the dates for the Ulverton Breastfeeding Festival 2011 event when we have them and hope we can take part once again.

var sc_project=1935474; var sc_invisible=0; var sc_partition=17; var sc_security="650a9fb1";

The newly formed coalition Government in the UK has prioritised cutting public expenditure and the deficit and has also launched a campaign to scrap or amend unnecessary or ineffective legislation. The public are being invited to submit suggestions.

Baby Milk Action is suggesting the Government simplify the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations. You can support this suggestion by clicking on the 5th star under the heading 'Add a Rating' and leaving comments on the Government website - click here.

The regulations in their current form place an unnecessary burden on business, the public and enforcement authorities by treating infant formula and follow-on formula differently. When the last government was revising the Regulations, public bodies such as Trading Standards and the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition called for the ban on promoting infant formula to all breastmilk substitutes, including follow-on formulas. This was not done. In a review commissioned by the last government, Trading Standards and the umbrella body submitted evidence and stated: "One of the major problems for enforcement officers is the use of advertising and promotional material which blurs the distinction between follow-on formula and infant formula."

Health experts, including the Baby Feeding Law Group, a coalition of 23 health worker and mother support organsiations, called for the law to be brought into line with the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant Resolutions of the World Health Assembly. Baby Milk Action prepared a report (left) that was submitted to the consultation on the law that took place in 2006 that sets out the changes required (click here to access). This references studies by public bodies such as the National Institute for Clinical Excellence that show savings that could be made to the National Health Service by small increases in breastfeeding rates. Simplifying the formula marketing regulations in the way we are proposing, would help to achieve this.

Prohibiting the promotion of breastmilk substitutes does not prevent them being sold. Formula will still be available for those that need it and our proposals will ensure those who use formula have the information they need to reduce risks.

In the General Election in May 2010, the Liberal Democrats, who are now part of the coalition government, supported our pledge saying they will work for the International Code and Resolutions to be implemented in the UK and elsewhere. Now it is time to act on this pledge.

Click here to give your support to our proposal for simplifying the law by clicking on the 5th star under 'Add a Rating' and leave a comment.

Promotion of artificial feeding takes many forms. Our partner in the BFLG, the National Childbirth Trust, is currently highlighting how exam bodies are even playing a role in promoting formula and attacking those who call for companies to abide by the international marketing standards. See the NCT press release at:
http://www.nct.org.uk/press-office/press-releases/view/224

var sc_project=1935474; var sc_invisible=0; var sc_partition=17; var sc_security="650a9fb1";

Baby Milk Action asked the Virgin London Marathon for its sponsorship policy and a public statement on Nestlé's sponsorship.

We have been told:

"Nestle will continue as one of the sponsors to the Virgin London Marathon next year (2011).

"The London Marathon’s sponsorship policy is confidential to the organisation of the event including the Race Director, CEO, Board of Directors and Trustees."

We have asked why the sponsorship policy is confidential. Many organisations do make their sponsorship policy publicly available. The better organisations are also prepared to consult on their policies or welcome feedback on them.

Obviously we are also concerned to learn that Virgin London Marathon has a sponsorship policy that allows a company as unethical as Nestlé to pass as a sponsor. We have asked what consideration was given, if any, to ethical concerns over Nestlé's practices and the promotion of its name, particularly given it is the most boycotted company in the UK and this has an impact on many who wish to support the London Marathon.

Organisations such as Nelson Mandela's Children's Fund and Breakthrough Breast Cancer have turned down donations (of £250,000 and £1 million respectively) from Nestlé because it conflicts with their funding policies. Nestlé's current Chairman, Peter Brabeck-Letmathé, has clearly stated that the purpose of supporting good causes is to benefit shareholders. Putting those who wish to run the London Marathon, often in support of a charity themselves, in the position where they have to break their boycott or put their health at risk is a pretty disgusting strategy. For further analysis of Mr. Brabeck's view of good causes see:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/03/nestle-generosity-to-good-causes.html

Nestlé is targeted with boycott action over its marketing of baby milk. In its current global marketing campaign, it is claiming its baby milk 'protects' babies and is 'The new "Gold Standard" in infant nutrition'. Babies fed on baby milk rather than breastfed are at greater risk of becoming ill and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. Members of the public are emailing Nestlé, but the company has indicated it will continue this strategy, which violates the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes. See the Email Nestlé campaign.

Nestlé is also specifically criticised over its bottled water businesses, as explained in our press release for the London Marathon in 2010.

Nestlé is one of the companies people can vote into the Corporate Hall of Shame in 2010. The nomination states:

"Nestlé – for undermining the human right to water and aggressively expanding its environmentally destructive water bottling operations over the objections of communities globally."

Baby Milk Action would welcome the organisers of the Virgin London Marathon being open about their sponsorship policy and allow people who wish ethical standards to be applied to comment.

Anyone who wishes to register their concern over Nestlé being promoted as a sponsor of the London Marathon, can join the Facebook group: "We want Nestlé out of the London Marathon". See:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=134180279931568

Update 22 July 2010 - The Virgin London Marathon has already responded by saying 'no further comment' to our questions regarding why the sponsorship policy is being kept confidential and what consideration was given to concerns about Nestlé's suitability.

var sc_project=1935474; var sc_invisible=0; var sc_partition=17; var sc_security="650a9fb1";

Nestlé is promoting its breastmilk substitutes with the claim they are, 'The new "Gold Standard" in infant nutrition' (June 2010). What does Paul the psychic octopus, who predicted the World Cup winners, think is the real gold standard?

Image by a supporter of Baby Milk Action's 'email Nestle' campaign: http://info.babymilkaction.org/emailnestle

var sc_project=1935474; var sc_invisible=0; var sc_partition=17; var sc_security="650a9fb1";

I have posted an analysis of Nestlé's response to Baby Milk Action's current 'Email Nestlé' campaign to our website. Nestlé has added logos to labels claiming its baby milk 'protects' babies and is promoting them with this and other health claims.
Nestlé is sending a standard response to people who have sent emails. This is given on our site with Baby Milk Action's analysis and a suggested reply. See:http://info.babymilkaction.org/cem/cemjul10 var sc_project=1935474; var sc_invisible=0; var sc_partition=17; var sc_security="650a9fb1";

The United Nations Global Compact marks its 10th anniversary in New York on Thursday 24 June 2010. Nestlé, one of the four most boycotted companies on the planet, is a patron sponsor, despite being the target of a complaint for egregious violations of the Global Compact Principles, a complaint the Global Compact Office has refused to investigate.

http://www.leaderssummit2010.org/

The Global Compact sets out Principles that corporations are asked to abide by voluntarily. Baby Milk Action registered complaints about Nestlé in 2009 and found that the Global Compact is not only ineffective in stopping malpractice, it enables them to continue by providing public relations cover and promoting company reports without checking for factual accuracy or investigating when egregious violations of the Global Compact Principles are reported.

[Left, Nestlé promotes its breastmilk substitutes to health workers with health claims, such as claiming it will reduce diarrhoea, despite the fact babies who are not breastfed are at greater risk of diarrhoea and illness and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. The Global Compact Office refused to investigate the way Nestlé pushes its baby milk in ways that endanger infant health and violate human rights and the Global Compact Principles].

The Global Compact was introduced by then UN Secretary General, Koffi Annan, in partnership with the World Economic Forum as an alternative to the international regulatory systems many were calling for.

Baby Milk Action and other campaign groups concerned about egregious violations of the Global Compact Principles by Nestlé registered a complaint with the UN Global Compact Office last year under Integrity Measures. See the report: Nestlé’s UN Global Compact cover up - How Nestlé's Shared Value reports cover up malpractice and bring the UN voluntary initiative for corporate social responsibility into disrepute, available via:

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

Concerns raised included:

* aggressive marketing of baby milks and foods and undermining of breastfeeding, in breach of international standards;
* trade union busting and failing to act on related court decisions;
* failure to act on child labour and slavery in its cocoa supply chain;
* exploitation of farmers, particularly in the dairy and coffee sectors;
* environmental degradation, particularly of water resources;

In its responses, the Global Compact Office stressed that the Global Compact is a voluntary initiative and the Office has no mandate or resources to conduct investigations, but will promote 'dialogue'. As the campaign groups are already in 'dialogue' with Nestlé - and finding it unwilling to stop its egregious violations of the Principles - Baby Milk Action asked the Global Compact Office to conduct the review cited in the provisions of the Integrity Measures, which gives the Office the power to exclude companies and delist them from its website.

The UN Global Compact Office refused to conduct a review and continues to post Nestlé's Creating Shared Value and other reports on its website. The UN Global Compact Office stated in a telling phrase about the initiative:

"Of course, abuses of the 10 Principles do occur; however we believe that such abuses only indicate that it is important for the company to remain in the Compact and learn from its mistakes."

The Office has been asked for information on how Nestlé has 'learned from its mistakes' and has received no further information, though a briefing paper has been promised. For further details see:

http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/policyblog210510

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

"From the outset corporate accountability campaigners were concerned that the voluntary UN Global Compact would achieve little and divert attention from effective, enforceable regulations. In practice, Baby Milk Action's experience is the situation is far worse than this : the UN Global Compact is not only ineffective in holding companies to account, it is complicit in allowing violations of the Principles to continue by providing corporations with public relations cover. Nestlé's misleading reports are posted to the Global Compact website and even launched at joint events, giving them an apparent endorsement that is not deserved, but is exploited by Nestlé. We are currently asking members of the public to call on Nestlé to stop its latest global baby milk marketing scam, because the Global Compact Office did nothing to hold Nestlé to account. No company has been excluded from the Global Compact for violating the Principles - only for failing to send reports to be posted on the website regardless of their factual content."

Baby Milk Action is promoting the campaign 'Email Nestlé in June - stop its latest baby milk marketing scam', on Facebook, youtube, Twitter and its own site, particularly during UK Breastfeeding Awareness Week (21 - 27 July). See:

http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease16jun10

Members of the public are calling on the Nestlé to remove colourful 'protect' logos and other health claims from labels of its breastmilk substitutes as these undermine the obligatory message that 'breasfeeding is best for babies', introduced as a result of past campaigns which led to the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes being adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1981. Nestlé has recently added the 'protect' logos in a bid to promote its products despite the fact that babies fed on breastmilk substitutes are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. Idealizing images and text are prohibited on labels by Article 9.2 of the International Code. Nestlé also promotes its products to health workers with slogans such as, "Start healthy, Stay healthy".

According to UNICEF: "Improved breastfeeding practices and reduction of artificial feeding could save an estimated 1.5 million children a year".

'Protect' logos have already been added by Nestlé to products in 120 countries. Nestlé's health claims are disputed by independent scientific experts and even deemed contrary to national law in countries such as South Africa and blocked by Brazil's strong law. References are given on the campaign press release:

http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease16jun10

Nestlé has responded to the campaign so far by defending its 'protect' marketing strategy.

For further information contact Mike Brady on +44 7986 736179.

var sc_project=1935474; var sc_invisible=0; var sc_partition=17; var sc_security="650a9fb1";

We have just learned that the forthcoming Assembly of the United Reformed Church (4 July) presents an ideal opportunity to put pressure on Nestlé to stop its systematic violations of the World Health Assembly's marketing requirements for baby foods. If you will be attending the Assembly, please look at the up-to-date information in this site, particularly concerning Nestlé's current global baby milk marketing scam. Nestlé is claiming its baby milk 'protects' babies even though it knows babies fed on it are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. Contact me if you would like to discuss this further. Nestlé puts its profits before all else and the changes we have compelled it to make have come from exposure, and the public backing the boycott and telling Nestlé they are doing so.

[Left, How Nestlé promotes its breastmilk substitutes to health workers - this leaflet from Egypt June 2010 - claiming its formula 'protects' and is 'Strengthening the immune defenses and reducing the incidence of diarrhea in the crucial first year of life.' In truth, babies fed on baby milk are proven to be more likely to suffer diarrhoea than breastfed babies.]

The Assembly is due to debate the Church's boycott on investing funds in Nestlé and, possibly, the Church's promotion of the boycott. We are very pleased that the URC has been a long-time supporter of the campaign, as well as one of Baby Milk Action's funders, and hope this will be an opportunity to update the membership and reinvigorate the Church's involvement in the campaign.

From information we have received this week from the URC Church and Society Committee: "it had decided in 2007 that it was timely to review its 1992 boycott. As part of a period of information gathering and a wider review of the Church's ethical investment guidelines, some URC representatives attended a meeting with Nestlé organised by the ecumenical Church Investors Group in December 2009. This informed, in March 2010, a decision to propose to the Assembly that Nestlé should no longer be treated on a different investment basis from all other companies under its new, more rigorous, Ethical Investment Principles. Nestlé was invited by the URC to make a presentation in June 2010 to address some specific concerns."

Although the Committee began the review process three years ago and has met twice with Nestlé, Baby Milk Action was not approached or invited to brief the Committee prior to its decisions being taken and was only informed by the Committee on 21 June 2010, less than 2 weeks before the Assembly is due to take place, that it was asking the Assembly to endorse its decision to invest in Nestlé.

Baby Milk Action has now been invited to meet with some representatives of the Committee, but as it is currently concentrating on promoting its 'Email Nestlé in June' campaign and as it is National Breastfeeding Awareness Week has asked the Committee to hold the Resolution over to the next Assembly. This would also give Baby Milk Action time to arrange for experts to brief the Committee.

Baby Milk Action needs sufficient time to respond to the 22-page document prepared by the Committee for the Assembly and the Committee needs time to meet to review its investment decision in the light of this, if it is willing to do so. We will also try to prepare a briefing paper that can be distributed to the Assembly if the Committee does decide to press ahead with the Resolutions on allowing investment and dropping the boycott. The report reproduces Nestlé assertions without responses from Baby Milk Action. This is not only because Baby Milk Action was not consulted - it appears the Committee did not consult our website. For example, the Committee report includes Nestlé saying: "Nestlé itself has never marketed Perlagon on the basis that it combats diarrhoea." Search the Baby Milk Action website for 'Pelargon' and you immediately come to Baby Milk Action's response to this denial (contained in a 2004 briefing to the Methodist Church). As can be seen from Nestlé's own leaflet for Pelargon which claims 'Diarrhoea and its side-effects are counteracted...', Nestlé was not telling the truth

Had the Committee checked with Baby Milk Action during the past three years, would it have come to a different decision about Nestlé's claims and the proposal to put to the Assembly? In response to a Baby Milk Action letter-writing campaign in 2003 backed by pressure from the boycott, Nestlé not only admitted producing the above leaflets, it said it was "preparing new materials for health professionals in Southern Africa with increased focus on the factual and scientific matters in these materials." The boycott brings results. No wonder Nestlé wants the URC to end its support for the boycott and compromise its independence by profiting from its latest marketing campaign claiming Nestlé baby milk reduces diarrhoea.

The March 2010 decision by the Committee to invest came after Nestlé's Vice President, Neils Christiansen, briefed Church officials in December 2009. On first glance the Baby Milk Action information included in the report for the Assembly has been taken from a briefing from 6 years ago. We need to analyse the report, particularly the assurances given by the Mr. Christiansen and his team last December, but time is short - our priority during June is on targeting Nestlé's claims that its baby milk 'protects' babies and reduces the incidence of diarrhoea and other claims of health benefits - in truth babies fed on baby milk are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. Click here for the press release and link to send a message to Nestlé.

We need all the support we can get. The Methodist Church Central Finance Board decided to invest in Nestlé in 2006 against our advice, suggesting this was a parallel strategy to the boycott to address the 'scandal' of Nestlé baby milk marketing. However, Nestlé has used that investment to try to undermine the campaign. The Methodist Church has had to contact Nestlé several times to ask it to stop misrepresenting the investment decision. The the Central Finance Board decision appears to have influenced the URC Committee, although the Methodist Conference was not asked to endorse - and did not endorse - investing in Nestlé. This was a decision of the Central Finance Board, following a report produced by the Joint Advisory Committee on the Ethics of Investment (JACEI), which suggested investment would allow closer 'engagement' with Nestlé management. The Methodist Conference in 2006 did adopt texts stating:

"JACEI acknowledges the continuing concern with regard to some aspects of Nestlé's interpretation of the International Code, the implementation of company guidelines and the transparency of the procedures for monitoring compliance. These concerns may cause some through conscience to maintain a consumer boycott of Nestlé products." [emphasis added - documents available here]

We have yet to be told of any benefit of the Central Finance Board's strategy of 'changing things from within'.

It is a fallacious argument that investing gives more influence. FTSE4Good, an ethical investment listing, confirmed to Baby Milk Action this week, "Nestle is not included in the FTSE4Good indices," but this does not stop 'engagement'. FTSE4Good went on, "As you know we are engaging with all the infant food manufacturers re our criteria as a key aim is about improving company practices." That is the normal approach of ethical investing - don't invest in companies until they make meaningful changes, demonstrated by independent monitoring. Invest without those changes, leverage is lost and conflicts of interest result as the investor profits from the malpractice.

Nestlé current refusal to remove the 'protect' logos from the labels of its breastmilk substitutes certainly shows that it has not changed. This and other health claims and promotional practices are a clear violation of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1981. In May 2010, the World Health Assembly expressed its concern over ongoing violations, particularly those related to health claims and specifically stated it: "CALLS UPON infant food manufacturers and distributors to comply fully with their responsibilities under the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant World Health Assembly resolutions;”

However, in its response to our 'Email Nestlé' campaign, the company is refusing to remove the claims and ignores the measures adopted by the World Health Assembly. Nestlé is telling the public : "the World Health Assembly does not formulate marketing standards -– rather it makes health policy recommendations to Member States."

Nestlé is telling the media, "The 'Protect' logo is simply used to inform people of the scientifically proven benefits of the product in meeting the nutritional needs of babies."

According to UNICEF: "Improved breastfeeding practices and reduction of artificial feeding could save an estimated 1.5 million children a year".

According to the World Health Organisation: "Exclusive breastfeeding in the first six months of life is particularly beneficial, and infants who are not breastfed in the first month of life may be as much as 25 times more likely to die than infants who are exclusively breastfed."

Independent reviews have a different view of specific claims used by Nestlé. For example, the Cochrane Library has reviewed studies regarding added LCPs and supposed benefits to brain and eye development and concluded these are 'not proven'. The Department of Health in South Africa told Nestlé its claims breach South African labelling laws, but Nestlé refused to remove them.

Nestlé strategy of claiming its formula 'protects' babies undermines the obligatory 'breastfeeding is best for babies' warning that the boycott helped to bring in. The 'protect' strategy comes from the very top of the company, as does the strategy to undermine the boycott. Mr. Christiansen, who led the Nestlé delegation to the URC, is credited within Nestlé for ending the first boycott of the company in 1984 by making promises to abide by the International Code (the marketing standards Nestlé now suggest do not exist). The promises were broken and the boycott relaunched in 1988. Today, according to even Nestlé's Global Public Affairs Manager, Nestlé is 'widely boycotted'. In fact, an independent survey found it to be one of the four most boycotted companies on the planet and the most boycotted in the UK. The boycott has forced some significant changes from Nestlé (see some examples here), but it continues to reject Baby Milk Action's four-point plan for saving lives and ultimately ending the boycott. For example, it refuses to accept the validity of the World Health Assembly measures. Nestlé is singled out for boycott action because monitoring finds it to be the worst of the baby food companies.

We will do our best to respond to Nestlé's latest attempt to undermine the boycott and hope that the URC Assembly will become an opportunity for Church members to say they find it unacceptable that Nestlé continues to systematically violate the World Health Assembly marketing standards.

It is, of course, for the members to decide whether they wish to invest in Nestlé - and so profit from this malpractice - and to consider the message this will send. It is for members to decide whether to act collectively in promoting the boycott. We did offer today to debate with Nestlé at the Assembly, but have already been told this is not possible. We will respond to the report as best we can - but we have rather a lot else on at the moment and time is short. We need all the help we can get so that Nestlé's attempt at a PR coup instead shines the spotlight on what it is doing right now around the world.

Despite the Methodist Church Central Finance Board deciding to invest in Nestlé and 'engage', the company has relaunched its strategy of claiming its baby milk reduces diarrhoea and is further away than ever from meeting the FTSE4Good criteria and our own four-point plan for ending the boycott as it now denies the marketing standards adopted by the World Health Assembly. The boycott, however, stopped Nestlé's 'counteracts diarrhoea' claim in the past and other violations of the World Health Assembly marketing standards. We will stop its latest global marketing strategy as well with enough public support.

If the URC invests in Nestlé it will profit from violations of the World Health Assembly marketing standards, such as the company's global strategy claiming its baby milk 'protects'. This tin in Saudi Arabia (May 2010), also has the prominent flash 'New Active Immunity' to divert attention from the fact that babies fed on baby milk are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies. Such images and text are prohibited by Article 9.2 of the International Code.

Other claims on the back of the label include: "LCPUFA Two special fatty acids found in breast milk, important for your babies defense system, and contribute to the development of brain and vision." In its response to Baby Milk Action's current campaign, Nestlé says these claims are 'scientifically proven'. This is simply untrue. Read the analysis by the independent and respected Cochrane Library at http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000376.html

Nestlé says the 'protect' logos have been launched in 120 countries. For an example from Africa click here.

Here I am focusing on the baby milk issue. There are other issues, such as the way Nestlé is using its Fairtrade KitKat to divert attention from its cocoa purchasing record. While Fairtrade KitKat benefits the producers of the 1% of cocoa sourced by Nestlé for this product, Nestlé has failed to deliver on its promise to end child slavery in its cocoa supply chain by 2006. It has been taken to court in the US by campaigners acting on behalf of former child slaves from Ivory Coast.

Nestlé has also been targeted recently by Greenpeace over the harmful impact its sourcing of palm oil. It has responded in the same way as it responded to the child slavery campaigners in 2001: promising to end the practice within five years. It remains to be seen whether it will deliver on this undertaking or not.

Similarly, there are other groups raising concerns about Nestlé trade union busting activities, impact on water supplies and spying on campaign groups. You can find information on this issues on the Nestlé Critics website at:

http://www.nestlecritics.org/

Also see the report the Nestlé Critics submitted to the United Nations Global Compact under its Integrity Measures:

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

var sc_project=1935474; var sc_invisible=0; var sc_partition=17; var sc_security="650a9fb1";

[The following message has been received from the Brazilian National Breastfeeding Conference (10 - 12 June 2010) - Encontro Nacional de Aleitamento Materno (ENAM) - regarding Nestlé's latest global breastmilk substitutes marketing strategy and Baby Milk Action's campaign to stop this. It is UK Breastfeeding Awarness Week at present (21 - 27 June)]

Participants at the ENAM Conference are concerned to learn that Nestlé is promoting its breastmilk substitutes around the world with the claim its products 'protect' babies. Like Nestlé we know that babies fed on breastmilk substitutes are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die.
We are pleased that in Brazil Nestlé's marketing strategy is against our laws and our laws have been strong enough to stop Nestlé using the strategy here. We are disturbed to learn that Nestlé is using the strategy in 120 other countries.
Article 9.2 of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes is very clear: "Neither the container nor the label should have pictures of infants, nor should they have other pictures or text which may idealise the use of infant formula." [emphasis added]. Article 11.3 of the Code is clear that manufacturers and distributors should abide by its provisions independently of government measures.
The latest Resolution adopted by the World Health Assembly in May 2010 calls once again for these measures to be implemented and for additional action to prevent infant feeding products being promoted with health claims that have not been explicitly approved.
Accordingly, we call on Nestle to respect the Code and remove these labels from the market with immediate effect.
We recommend that governments follow the example of Brazil and introduce the Code and subsequent, relevant Resolutions in strong legislation and enforce this. Breastfeeding rates have been recovering in Brazil in recent decades due to the efforts being made here to protect, promote and support breastfeeding.
We send a message of solidarity to everyone around the world who is taking action, big and small, to hold Nestle and other companies to account for violations of the Code and Resolutions.
Notes from Baby Milk Action
Brazil has introduced progressively stronger regulations implementing the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant Resolutions of the World Health Assembly. These prohibit all advertising and promotion of products for children up to two years of age (in the UK advertising of follow-on formula for use from 6 months of age and complementary foods, often promoted from 4 months of age, is commonplace). Brazilian regulations also require prominent Ministry of Health warnings on labels of such foods, whole milks and feeding bottles and teats. Breastfeeding rates in Brazil declined after Nestlé entered the market at the beginning of the last century. Rate have increased from less than 3 months median duration in the early 1980s to over 10 months today. Baby Milk Action has asked supporters to send messages to Brazilian policy makers several times when the dairy industry has lobbied to weaken the regulations. For further information, see this blog from 2007. Nestlé, principally, now focuses on sponsoring health workers in Brazil, creating conflicts of interest in violation of World Health Assembly Resolutions. var sc_project=1935474; var sc_invisible=0; var sc_partition=17; var sc_security="650a9fb1";

This is the title of a press release we have been sending out as part of our campaign: Email Nestlé in June - stop its latest baby milk marketing scam.
Nestlé's Global Public Affairs Manager, Dr. Gayle Crozier-Willi, is taking the lead in defending Nestlé's strategy of promoting its baby milk with logos saying it 'protects' babies and other claims about its supposed benefits - claims that do not stand up to scrutiny.
Dr. Gayle Crozier-Willi latest response to campaign supporters puts the following argument for ignoring Nestlé's responsibilities under the World Health Assembly marketing standards. She says: "the World Health Assembly does not formulate marketing standards – rather it makes health policy recommendations to Member States."
Funny that. Article 11.3 of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1981 states: "Independently of any other measures taken for implementation of this Code, manufacturers and distributors of products within the scope of this Code should regard themselves as responsible for monitoring their marketing practices according to the principles and aim of this Code, and for taking steps to ensure that their conduct at every level conforms to them."
In addition, Dr. Gayle Crozier-Willi was leading Nestlé's delegation lobbying Health Ministers at the World Health Assembly last month and so she knows they adopted a further Resolution on 22 May that specifically: “CALLS UPON infant food manufacturers and distributors to comply fully with their responsibilities under the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant World Health Assembly resolutions.”
Nestlé is demonstrating its contempt for this call. If you think it should abide by the International Code, please email it via:http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog260510
Nestlé has still not got the message that it will lose more business through people's outrage than it will make from boosting sales of its formula. So please do keep spreading the word. Nestlé puts profits before all else - even the lives of babies and the rights of mothers, as this clear breach of the World Health Assembly marketing requirements shows. So we need as many messages as possible to go to Nestlé to give it a financial reason to stop this shameful marketing strategy.
See the press release at:http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease16jun10
And send an email to Dr. Crozier-Willi via:http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog260510
var sc_project=1935474; var sc_invisible=0; var sc_partition=17; var sc_security="650a9fb1";

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.nestlecritics.org/

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

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

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

Nestle is not an appropriate sponsor.

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

var sc_project=1935474; var sc_invisible=0; var sc_partition=17; var sc_security="650a9fb1";

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It just takes a click.

var sc_project=1935474; var sc_invisible=0; var sc_partition=17; var sc_security="650a9fb1";

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

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

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

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

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

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

var sc_project=1935474; var sc_invisible=0; var sc_partition=17; var sc_security="650a9fb1";

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

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

How to put your questions - choose your method

Watch Nestle Forum webcast live and post comments:

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

Post comments to Twitter at:

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

Post comments to Facebook at:

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

Post comments to Nestle Forum discussion board:

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

Concerns about Nestlé

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

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

Nestlé's misleading Creating Shared Value reports exposed:

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

var sc_project=1935474; var sc_invisible=0; var sc_partition=17; var sc_security="650a9fb1";

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

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

How to put your questions - choose your method

Watch Nestle Forum webcast live and post comments:

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

Post comments to Twitter at:

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

Post comments to Facebook at:

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

Post comments to Nestle Forum discussion board:

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

Concerns about Nestlé

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

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

Nestlé's misleading Creating Shared Value reports exposed:

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

var sc_project=1935474; var sc_invisible=0; var sc_partition=17; var sc_security="650a9fb1";

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

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

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

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

Support Baby Milk Acton's Make a Mark campaign.

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

var sc_project=1935474; var sc_invisible=0; var sc_partition=17; var sc_security="650a9fb1";

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number 1: October 1999

Number 2: November 1999

Number 3: January 2000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

var sc_project=1935474; var sc_invisible=0; var sc_partition=17; var sc_security="650a9fb1";