Szoptatás Portál ... naprakész információk ... szülőknek és szakembereknek

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

Fairtrade Fortnight is taking place from 22 February to 7 March. If you would like to support this, you can find out more at:http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/
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.http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2010/01/fairtrade-kitkat-launch.html
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. http://www.babymilkaction.org/pdfs/nestlefairtrade0210.pdf

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:http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2010/02/nestle-launches-cyberwar.html
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:http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/
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:http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemjuly09.html
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. var sc_project=1935474; var sc_invisible=0; var sc_partition=17; var sc_security="650a9fb1";

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.
---extractsNestle 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.http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/09/nestle-hi-jack-attempt.html
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:http://www.nestlecritics.org/
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:http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press17june09.html
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:http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/02/nestle-panic-miriam-stoppard.html
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.http://www.phdinparenting.com/2009/10/03/follow-up-questions-for-nestle/
Nestlé's PR disaster fuelled many blogs and entered the mainstream media with, for example, an article in the LA Times:http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2009/11/latimes-nestle-twitter-disaster.html
There are already tools for corporations to check their reputations in cyberspace and we find some are used to track our sites. See:http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2009/10/corporate-trolls-and-spies.html
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:http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2009/12/nestle-damages-fairtrade-mark.html
Whoever wins Nestlé's PR contract will have a lot to do. Please let us know if you see signs of their activity. var sc_project=1935474; var sc_invisible=0; var sc_partition=17; var sc_security="650a9fb1";

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.
---extractsNestle 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.http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/09/nestle-hi-jack-attempt.html
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:http://www.nestlecritics.org/
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:http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press17june09.html
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:http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/02/nestle-panic-miriam-stoppard.html
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.http://www.phdinparenting.com/2009/10/03/follow-up-questions-for-nestle/
Nestlé's PR disaster fuelled many blogs and entered the mainstream media with, for example, an article in the LA Times:http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2009/11/latimes-nestle-twitter-disaster.html
There are already tools for corporations to check their reputations in cyberspace and we find some are used to track our sites. See:http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2009/10/corporate-trolls-and-spies.html
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:http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2009/12/nestle-damages-fairtrade-mark.html
Whoever wins Nestlé's PR contract will have a lot to do. Please let us know if you see signs of their activity. var sc_project=1935474; var sc_invisible=0; var sc_partition=17; var sc_security="650a9fb1";

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:http://info.babymilkaction.org/formula_guidance/part1
Comments can be left on that site. I very much welcome feedback. var sc_project=1935474; var sc_invisible=0; var sc_partition=17; var sc_security="650a9fb1";

The Independent newspaper has picked up a quote from me in an article today on "The great KitKat debate: is it fair?" See:http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/house-and-home/the-great-kitkat-debate-is-it-fair-1881971.html
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:http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2009/12/nestle-kitkat-minister.html
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:http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemjuly09.html
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:http://www.ausfoodnews.com.au/2010/01/28/green-blacks-continues-fairtrade-push.html
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:http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2009/12/nestle-fairtrade-kitkat-usresponse.html
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:http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/thebigswap/about_the_big_swap/
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:http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/membership.html var sc_project=1935474; var sc_invisible=0; var sc_partition=17; var sc_security="650a9fb1";

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:http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/calendarlatest.html var sc_project=1935474; var sc_invisible=0; var sc_partition=17; var sc_security="650a9fb1";

Ben Goldacre has reproduced the press release from Professor Carlsen that generated the 'Breast NOT Best' news news stories this week. See:http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/breastfeeding-nonsense-in-the-media-where-did
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 beginsIt 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:http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2010/01/unicef-carslen-study.html
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:http://www.nhs.uk/news/2010/01January/Pages/Hormones-and-breastfeeding.aspx
---NHS analysis extractThis 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: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/00016340903318006
---Professor Carlsen researchMid-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:http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2009/08/kramer-sets-record-straight.html var sc_project=1935474; var sc_invisible=0; var sc_partition=17; var sc_security="650a9fb1";

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:http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2010/01/formula-use-male-hormone.html
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'.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8443904.stm
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:http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2009/08/kramer-sets-record-straight.html
UNICEF Baby Friendly Initiative in the UK has released a statement responding to the research, which is available at:http://www.babyfriendly.org.uk/items/item_detail.asp?item=620
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 var sc_project=1935474; var sc_invisible=0; var sc_partition=17; var sc_security="650a9fb1";

UPDATE 7 JANUARY: For what Professor Carlsen actually said see:http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-carlsen-said.html
Includes the comment from his press release: "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."---update ends
There is another round of articles suggesting that breastfeeding is not better for babies than infant formula. Yet looking at the details of the story, the above headline would be more relevant.
This latest round of articles is citing research from a Norwegian scientist, Sven Carlsen. Sensationalist journalists, such as one writing in the Daily Mail have declared: "Breast is NOT best... Women should forget what they have been told about the health benefits of breastfeeding..."
Read on, however, and you find that Prof. Carlsen does not disagree with the evidence regarding the benefits of breastfeeding.
Even the Daily Mail admits:
"Prof Carlsen's team reviewed data from more than 50 international studies looking at the relationship between breastfeeding and health. Most concluded that the more children were breastfed, the healthier they were. On the surface this was correct, said Prof Carlsen, from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim."
The hypothesis that Prof. Carlsen is proposing is that mothers reach for formula because they have excess male hormone. As the Daily Mail says later in its article:
---extract beginsThe Norwegian scientists' own work pointed to links between levels of androgen male hormones in the wombs of pregnant women, the health of children, and breastfeeding.
'Pregnant women who have higher levels of androgens breastfeed less,' said Prof Carlsen. 'Probably this is a direct effect of hormones that simply limit nursing ability by reducing milk production in the breast.'
A pregnant woman's health affected hormones in her womb, which had knock-on effects on her unborn child, said the researchers.----extract ends
Surely a more relevant headline would be: "Excess male hormone leads mothers to bottle feed and harms babies claims scientist".
We could perhaps question why the headline is not this, but "Breast is NOT best".
On past experience, some in discussion fora and email lists (possibly company trolls) will be seizing on the 'breast Not best' headline to shout down the evidence regarding breastfeeding. They too should be asked whey they are taking this line, rather than discussing the 'excess male hormones lead mothers to bottle feed' theory.
Rather than rushing to comment, however, I believe this whole story needs to be approached with a great deal more caution than that demonstrated by the Daily Mail and some other journalists.
Scientists who have conducted thousands of studies that have demonstrated that, taken as a population, formula-fed infant have poorer health outcomes than breastfed infants will no doubt claim that confounding variables have already been taken into account in their studies. Remember Pofessor Carlsen apparently admits that 'on the surface' these findings are correct - his claim is that it is not formula that has an adverse effect on babies, but supposed excess male hormone present in the mother during the pregnancy.
Whether there is any substance to this theory is something that will receive considered comment in the coming days. If there is any validity to this argument, how it has been possible to attribute 100% of the difference in health outcomes to male hormone rather than formula feeding needs to be scrutinised.
In the meantime some journalists run ahead with sensationalist headlines.
We faced a similar situation last year. You may recall the scientist, Professor Kramer, who was quoted in literally thousands of articles around the world came out and 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:http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2009/08/kramer-sets-record-straight.html var sc_project=1935474; var sc_invisible=0; var sc_partition=17; var sc_security="650a9fb1";

According to an advertising company, Nestlé is paying celebrities US$10,000 a tweet to push Nestlé products on Twitter, the social networking site.
This is not the only way Nestlé is attempting to use Twitter. Last year Nestlé caused a public relations disaster for itself by flying prominent parenting bloggers to California to blog and tweet on Nestlé products. People posted tweets questioning Nestlé's business practices, which were raised by the bloggers with Nestlé executives. Nestlé's demonstrably dishonest answers then fueled support for the boycott and a spontaneous Halloween boycott of Nestlé candy called Boo Nestlé.
It has now been revealed that Nestlé pays celebrities to tweet on its products through the 'In-stream advertising' company, Ad.ly.

Celebrities are typically paid US$ 10,000 for a single tweet mentioning a product from one of Ad.ly's clients. According to E! online: "Ad.ly, a new company whose sole purpose is to hook up tweeters (famous and otherwise) with ad partners, Kim Kardashian and Soulja Boy both earn that amount every time they tweet for cash, at least when they do it via Ad.ly. (Kardashian recently did a tweet like that for Nestle, says Sean Rad, CEO of the company.)"
According to Gossip Net, Kim Kardashian, who is listed on the Ad.ly site as one of their top 'publishers' has denied receiving funding from another firm for tweeting about a product.
Internet companies also provide tools for corporations to track how their brand is mentioned on Twitter and social networking sites so they can feed their own information into discussions. See:http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2009/10/corporate-trolls-and-spies.html var sc_project=1935474; var sc_invisible=0; var sc_partition=17; var sc_security="650a9fb1";

As The Guardian reports today, the UK Freedom of Information Act is five years old:http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jan/04/freedom-information-caught-act
I used the FOI Act back in 2005 to obtain information from Ofcom regarding a television sponsorship by Heinz for Farley's formula. Advertising of infant formula is illegal in the UK, but follow-on formula advertising is allowed.

For more details on the advertising campaign and complaint see:http://www.babymilkaction.org/update/update37.html#7a
International standards prohibit all advertising and make health workers responsible for advising parents (companies are limited to providing scientific and factual information to health workers). We see companies exploit this loophole in adverts that are ostensibly for follow-on formula, but promote the full range and direct parents to websites where infant formula is promoted. They also make health claims that are not substantiated by evidence, for example, claiming that formula builds the immune system whereas babies fed on it are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies (we have won cases at the voluntary Advertising Standards Authority, but that system does have serious flaws - another story).
Now, Ofcom had rejected a complaint about Heinz Farley's formula advertising (strapline 'closer - by nature') appearing on the Discovery channel and elsewhere, claiming it was clearly for follow-on formula. We said this was ridiculous as the only clue was the colour of the packshot in the advertisement.
The FOI Act led to a stack of document on the case (including copies of the letters I had sent to Ofcom), which included an email from Hillingdon Environmental Health (the home authority for Heinz) to Ofcom saying:
“I was unable to work out the precise product pictured in the video footage.”
There was also a reply from Ofcom’s investigator agreeing:
“I don’t know what product appears in the credits as no information is given on the pack shot. Discovery have told us that the product was follow-on formula.”
So Ofcom had let Heinz through the loophole, even though their own expert was confused. In its written response Ofcom had suggested it was obvious what product was being advertised : “...the purple background correlated with follow-on products. We do not see therefore where the connection to infant formula can be made.”
As a footnote, following on from this and other examples of the loophole being exploited, all UK health bodies and the government's own Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition called for follow-on formula to be treated the same as infant formula as regard advertising. However, the government refused these requests when introducing new legislation in 2007, instead following the industry line.
We continue to monitor and expose how the law is failing mothers and babies and call for the international standards introduced by the World Health Assembly to be implemented in the UK. See:http://www.babyfeedinglawgroup.org.uk/ var sc_project=1935474; var sc_invisible=0; var sc_partition=17; var sc_security="650a9fb1";

A report on a survey conducted by the industry body, IGD, suggests that the Fairtrade brand has been harmed by it being added to Nestlé products.
As followers of this blog will know, Nestlé has received Fairtrade certification for two products. Partners' Blend coffee, involving just 0.1% of the coffee farmers dependent on it has been used in national advertising campaigns since it was awarded in 2005, diverting attention from criticism that Nestlé's predatory pricing practices drive down farmers' income, sometimes below the cost of production. Suggestions that the award would be a Trojan horse, transforming Nestlé's relationship with coffee farmers have so far proved unfounded.
This month it was announced 4-finger KitKats in the UK and Ireland will be Fairtrade certified in January, representing just over 1% of Nestlé's cocoa purchase. Media coverage generally failed to mention how small a percentage was involved or the fact that Nestlé has been taken to court in the US for failing to act on a 2001 agreement to end child slavery within its cocoa supply chain within five years. Indeed, media coverage has implied Nestlé's Fairtrade move is addressing the problem of child slavery, rather than being a token move that is diverting attention from the broader concerns.
The amount Nestlé is spending on the Fairtrade Premium for the cocoa it will buy in 2010 (less than £400,000) is less than 1% of its expenditure on its current UK Nescafé advertising campaign (£43 million). Not only has it generated unwarranted good publicity, a UK Minister has used Fairtrade KitKat to dodge a question at a UN press conference on Nestlé's negative impact in developing countries. See:http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2009/12/nestle-kitkat-minister.html
According to the Food and Drink Digital report on the IGD poll, entitled Food shoppers sceptical of ethical shopping influence:
---Extract beginsThere are several forms of certification that food and drink products can be accredited with, such as Fairtrade, the Rainforest Alliance or Freedom Foods.
However, many of these labels have attracted controversy, damaging consumer confidence. Fairtrade certification applies to products, not to companies, recently allowing Nestle to gain Fairtrade certification for the Kit Kat, despite ongoing allegations about its business practices relating to other brands.---extract ends
US Fair Trade organisations have questioned Nestlé's commitment to sourcing cocoa more responsibly. See the press release at:http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2009/12/nestle-fairtrade-kitkat-usresponse.html
---Extract beginsBama Athreya, Executive Director of the International Labor Rights Forum, said, "Nestlé cannot claim to be sourcing responsible cocoa by using a small amount of Fair Trade Certified cocoa when the majority of its cocoa could be produced by forced labor and child labor. As the largest food company in the world, Nestlé must make a stronger commitment to protecting worker rights in its cocoa supply chain as well as in its production facilities and in the sourcing of other agricultural products."---extract
When Nestlé received its Fairtrade coffee certification from the UK Fairtrade Foundation for a product representing just 0.02% of its coffee purchase, another Fair Trade organisation suggested that a far greater commitment should have been extracted from Nestlé before giving it the right to use the logo:http://www.equalexchange.coop/fair-trade-coffee-pioneer-questions-nestles-entry-into-market
---Extract beginsEqual Exchange's co-director, Rob Everts said, "We understand what it takes to commit to more equitable relationships with small coffee farmers. We have long recommended that for large corporations the Fair Trade starting point should be 5% of their total imports. Given Nestlé's dismal track record on many fronts in the developing world, they have an even steeper credibility hill to climb than most, and should in fact begin even higher than 5%. Large companies tend to subsidize their modest Fair Trade purchases by paying farmers much lower prices on the rest of their coffee imports." ---extract ends
A quick survey of Baby Milk Action supporters in 2005 found that 47% incorrectly thought the award of Fairtrade certification signified the Fairtrade Foundation had verified that there are no serious ethical concerns with a company. Only 17% realised there could be concerns and the mark relates only to the suppliers of the product that bears it and not all suppliers to the company. Many said their view of the mark would change if Nestlé received an award.http://www.babymilkaction.org/action/fairtradeqs05analysis.html
This misunderstanding of the limited scope of the Fairtrade mark that has presumably led to the damage to its reputation as it does not compute that a company with such an appalling record as Nestlé should receive it.
Nestlé is one of the four most boycotted companies on the planet, according to GMIPoll (as reported in The Guardian in 2005), over it aggressive marketing of baby foods.
An international coalition of civil society organisations is currently campaigning for Nestlé to be excluded from the UN Global Compact for bringing this voluntary corporate social responsibility initiative into disrepute by using it for Public Relations purposes while continuing with egregious violations of the Global Compact Principles in various aspects of its business. See:http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press17june09.html
Even Nestlé's Global Public Affairs Manager has admitted Nestlé is widely boycotted.
It is, therefore, perhaps not surprising that the good reputation that the Fairtrade mark has built up over years through the hard work of grassroots supporters (including my own small personal involvement in the campaign to earn Cambridge certification as a Fairtrade city) has been damaged by being handed to Nestlé for so little while Nestlé's systematic breaches of baby food marketing requirements and human rights abuses continue. var sc_project=1935474; var sc_invisible=0; var sc_partition=17; var sc_security="650a9fb1";

You can download our latest newsletter as a pdf file by clicking here:http://www.babymilkaction.org/pdfs/update42.pdf
Here's the overview of what is in the newsletter - and our stop press news that after 7 years of campaigning we have finally prompted the formula companies to warn people on the labels of their products that powdered formula is not sterile and so steps to reduce the risks of possible contamination with bacteria should be followed.
Also in the newsletter: It was 30 years ago that six citizen’s groups, including a member of the Baby Milk Action Coalition, formed the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN). A celebration in Geneva (pg 3) recalled how this came about and honoured the many people who gave pivotal support to its aims.
After celebrating the successes and the many lives the campaign has undoubtedly saved, IBFAN Europe’s conference focused on planning and training to meet the latest challenges. As industry analysts have stated: “The industry is fighting a rearguard action against regulation on a country-by-country basis.” (pg 6) In the UK the industry has been winning. The UK has some of the lowest breastfeeding rates in Europe and, with the help of the European Commission, the industry is successfully blocking implementation of the International Code, despite every health worker and mother support organisation, the Government’s own advisors and enforcement bodies calling for stronger measures. A draft report of an ‘Independent Review’ of the 2007 Regulations shows that the Independent Review Panel has wasted public money asking the wrong question (“Are babies under six months being fed follow-on formula by mistake instead of infant formula?”) rather than examining whether the regulations are fulfilling their stated purpose of protecting breastfeeding. We examine how the Government has got it so wrong and what needs to be done to protect infant health, and ensure that all mothers - those who breastfeed and those who use formula - do so on the basis of truly independent information (pgs 9 - 10).
At an international level we look at the policy changes in the USA that are coming in under the new administration (pg 7). We also examine how UN Business ‘partnerships’ are influencing health policies and threatening food security. Under the banner of ‘enlightened self interest’ and ‘wellness’ the industry is now on ‘a noble cause’ and is fuelling a craze for branded fortified foods with health and nutrition claims - a key marketing strategy for ‘adding value.’ (pgs 8 & 17) We examine the weaknesses in European process for authorising claims. Our position on formula is that if an ingredient is necessary to reduce its shortcomings, it should be a requirement for all formula, without claims being made. (pg 12) Through the Baby Feeding Law Group we are helping to close loopholes in the marketing regulations in the Philippines (pg 15).
Worryingly, Nestlé launched a new strategy at its AGM, claiming its formula ‘protects’ babies (pg 19) - it doesn’t, babies fed on it are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies, and in conditions of poverty, they are more likely to die. The boycott is part of our strategy to force Nestlé to respect the marketing standards (pg 19 - 23). We invite you to send a message to Nestlé and help us stop Nestlé’s ‘protect’ claims. Campaigns like this really work as our latest victory in the UK demonstrates.
Safer formula campaign victory: Finally! In 2002 the tragic death of a five-dayold child in Belgium highlighted that powdered formula is not sterile and may contain harmful bacteria, such as Enterobacter Sakazakii. Simple steps reduce the risks, but companies refused to warn parents or update their labels - until now. After seven years of campaigning, new warnings that powdered formula is not sterile have started to appear on SMA, Cow & Gate, Aptamil, Nurture and Hipp branded formula in the UK. The instructions and health claims are still not right - but it’s progress!
var sc_project=1935474; var sc_invisible=0; var sc_partition=17; var sc_security="650a9fb1";

The UK Fairtrade Foundation press release regarding the certification of 4-bar Nestlé KitKats in the UK and Ireland, includes the following:
---Extract begins
Rt Hon Gareth Thomas MP, the UK government’s Trade and Development Minister, says: "I am glad to see Kit Kat become Fairtrade certified, giving more British shoppers the chance to improve the lives of some of the world’s poorest people. This will give thousands of Ivorian cocoa farmers better opportunities to trade their way out of poverty."
---extract ends
This has appeared in many of the media reports about the launch. I emailed Mr. Thomas to ask if he was aware of the context of this announcement: 99% of the cocoa Nestlé sources is outside the Fairtrade scheme and that Nestlé has been taken to court in the US for failing to act on its 2001 commitment to address child labour and slavery in its cocoa supply chain from Ivory Coast.
I'll give the full text below. I am still awaiting a reply. But it seems I am not alone in questioning the Minister of his uncritical support. A press release from the United Nations Department of Public Information regarding a press conference Mr. Thomas gave today (9 December) contains the following:
---Extract begins
Mr. Thomas was also asked to comment on his praise for Nestlé UK, whose Kit Kat chocolates would be Fair Trade-certified in Britain beginning in 2010, although Nestlé had faced controversy in the past for its marketing tactics in developing countries. He stressed that, under the Fair Trade deal, cocoa farmers from Côte d'Ivoire earned additional money on top of the agreed price of the cocoa bought by Nestlé, to be used for development purposes. At the moment, the United Kingdom was pursuing the goal of doubling the number of supermarket goods sourced from Africa.
---extract ends
This is exactly what Nestlé was buying with Fairtrade certification for its 4-bar KitKat - a diversion from other issues. Including the fact that 2-bar KitKats and all other Nestlé chocolate is outside the scheme.
From the Fairtrade Foundation we see that the additional money is US$150 per tonne and Nestlé is to buy 4,300 tonnes in 2010, which is US$645,000 (about £400,000).
Great for the farmers, but small change for Nestlé - in August, Nestlé launched a Nescafé promotion in the UK costing £43 million.
So by investing just 1% of a UK Nescafé advertising campaign in sourcing Fairtrade cocoa for 4-bar KitKat, it has generated stories around the world suggesting it is doing something significant to improve the lives of farmers in Ivory Coast and has a UK Government Minister spreading the same misinformation to the media and at the UN. The logo on the KitKat and associated advertising will do the same job in the longer term.
It would have been welcome if the Minister had said something like:
"Fairtrade certification is making a real difference to people's lives. This example is good news for the 6,000 farmers involved, but Nestlé still has to change how it deals with the farmers providing 99% of its cocoa which is outside the scheme and it should live up to its commitments to the Harkin-Engel Protocol. It promised to end child labour and slavery in its cocoa supply chain by 2006, but has not done so. It has been taken to court in the US, but has repeatedly argued that it is just buying a product when it comes to cocoa and is not responsible for egregious labor rights violations involved in its production. If it changed that position it would have a far wider impact than the Fairtrade certification for one product sold in just two countries."
If he was really interested in shifting Nestlé's corporate ethos, he could have added: "We should also not lose sight of the fact that Nestlé continues to violate the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant Resolutions of the World Health Assembly and that complaints about this and alleged human rights abuses have been filed with the UN Global Compact Office by experts on its practices, calling for it to be excluded."
Is it too much to expect the Minister of State for International Development to see the broader picture and not act as an unpaid Public Relations spokesperson for Nestlé?
If our leaders were prepared to speak the truth then campaigners would not have such a tough job forcing changes on corporations such as Nestlé.
This was the message I sent to Mr. Thomas on Monday (bad grammar corrected):
---Dear Mr. Thomas MP,
I have seen your comments regarding the award of Fairtrade certification to some Nestlé KitKats (4-finger products only). In making your comment I wonder if you are aware of the context? Nestlé has been taken to court in the US for failing to act on a 2001 agreement to end child slavery in its cocoa supply chain and in the past has boycotted a meeting by Senator Horkins (co-sponsor of the Horkins-Engel Protocol in the US) called to examine lack of progress. There are 11 million people dependent on cocoa farming in West Africa, many of them dependent on Nestlé. The KitKat products involved in this scheme will benefit only 6,000 farmers. There is a danger that the improved conditions for the 6,000 farmers will divert attention from the many others outside the scheme, and be used deliberately to this end by Nestlé.
Stop the Traffik, founded by Steve Chalke, the United Nations Special Advisor on Community Action Against Human Trafficking, said in response to the announcement that ‘two finger’ Kit Kats and all of Nestlé's other chocolate products: “"will continue to exploit the chocolate slaves of the Ivory Coast from where Nestlé source most of their cocoa"”. See:http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/10757
I am trying to find out how many cocoa farmers are dependent on Nestlé specifically to see if this is a similar situation to its Fairtrade coffee, which involves just 0.1% of the coffee farmers dependent on it, but is used to suggest it is making a huge difference, providing cover for continued unethical practices.
In addition, Nestlé is the most boycotted company in the UK and one of the four most boycotted companies on the planet according to GMIPoll because of the way it pushes its breastmilk substitutes. Nestlé systematically breaches the baby milk marketing standards adopted by the World Health Assembly, undermines breastfeeding and contributes to the unnecessary death and suffering of babies. According to UNICEF, 1.5 million babies die around the world every year because they are not breastfed. Even Nestlé's Global Public Affairs Manager, Dr. Gayle Crozier Willi, admitted in 2007 that Nestlé is 'widely boycotted'.
Fairtrade KitKat will be added to the boycott list. The boycot has forced some changes in Nestlé marketing practices and policies, but the company, the market leader, refuses to make all necessary changes and is still the worst of the baby food companies. At the present time it is being targeted for practices that include claiming its infant formula 'protects' babies - it does not, babies fed on it are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and in conditions of poverty, they are more likely to die.
Its Fairtrade product should be seen in this context.
Please see my blogs on this topic, which includes a quote from me:http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2009/12/nestle-fairtrade-two-fingers.html
Best wishes,
Mike Brady var sc_project=1935474; var sc_invisible=0; var sc_partition=17; var sc_security="650a9fb1";

PRESS RELEASE FROM US FAIR TRADE ORGANISATIONS - FOR BABY MILK ACTION'S ANALYSIS SEE:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2009/11/nestle-fairtrade-kitkat.html

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEDecember 7, 200911:18 AM
CONTACT: Fair Trade OrganizationsTim Newman, tim.newman@ilrf.org, 202-347-4100 x113 or 617-823-9464Todd Larsen, toddlarsen@GreenAmericaToday.org, 202-872-5310Adrienne Fitch-Frankel, Adrienne@globalexchange.org, 415-255-7296Paul Hong-Lange, paul@oasisusa.org, 626-584-0800
Organizations Question Nestlé’s Commitment to Fair Trade Cocoa

WASHINGTON - December 7 - Nestlé SA announced today that it would begin to source Fair Trade Certified cocoa for its Kit Kat bars in the United Kingdom and Ireland.

Since stories about the use of child, forced and trafficked labor and the widespread poverty among farmers in West Africa's cocoa industry surfaced in 2001, organizations in the United States and around the world have been campaigning to convince major chocolate companies, especially Nestlé, to commit to sourcing Fair Trade Certified cocoa. A lawsuit filed in 2005 in US courts against Nestlé on behalf of Malian children who were trafficked to Cote d'Ivoire to harvest cocoa is still ongoing.

While Nestlé's announcement may be a very small step toward supporting a more sustainable and labor-friendly system of cocoa sourcing, the company's history and practices around the world raise questions about its commitment to Fair Trade. Additionally, Nestlé has not announced any plans to use Fair Trade Certified cocoa in its products in the United States.

Nestlé is one of the most boycotted companies in the world. Trade unions have criticized the company for a range of labor rights abuses including in Colombia, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, the Philippines and Tunisia. Nestlé has also been a target of campaigners concerned about its impact on access to water and baby food marketing, among many other issues.

Nestlé's minimal investment in Fair Trade Certified coffee also provides reason to be skeptical about its commitment. Nestlé's Fair Trade line is only a marginal part of its coffee products and it has not increased its purchasing of Fair Trade coffee despite its promises to do so. In October 2009, Nestlé launched a new program related to their global cocoa sourcing called "The Cocoa Plan" which does not include investing in Fair Trade cocoa, suggesting that the company does not intend to shift toward more equitable trading relationships through the Fair Trade system and it is unclear if Nestlé plans to expand Fair Trade cocoa beyond the UK.

Bama Athreya, Executive Director of the International Labor Rights Forum, said, "Nestlé cannot claim to be sourcing responsible cocoa by using a small amount of Fair Trade Certified cocoa when the majority of its cocoa could be produced by forced labor and child labor. As the largest food company in the world, Nestlé must make a stronger commitment to protecting worker rights in its cocoa supply chain as well as in its production facilities and in the sourcing of other agricultural products."

Todd Larsen, Corporate Responsibility Programs Director at Green America, said, "We urge Nestlé to go beyond this token commitment to Fair Trade and to take steps to end all sourcing from child labor and pay a living wage to its workers worldwide. Consumers the world over are increasingly concerned that their chocolate purchases are supporting slavery and misery, and are increasingly purchasing Fair Trade chocolate as a result. They will be looking to Nestlé to do far more to support farmers worldwide."

Adrienne Fitch-Frankel, Fair Trade Campaign Director at Global Exchange, said, "While we thank Nestlé on behalf of the thousands of cocoa farming families who will begin to thrive by receiving the Fair Trade price for their cocoa, we also ask, ‘How can Nestlé leave so many thousands of children languishing in child slavery and abusive labor conditions, and keep so many farming families mired in poverty while growing cocoa for the rest of Nestlé's products?' Nestlé's profits depend on the hard work of cocoa farmers, and justice will only be done when those farmers can live in dignity."

Paul Hong-Lange, Director of Oasis USA, said, "This step by Nestlé guarantees that no slave labor or exploitation will be used in the production of one line of chocolate in one region of the world. This is a good start but it still leaves the conscientious American wondering if Nestlé chocolate on the shelf in their grocery store is tainted with slave labor. We urge Nestlé to do better by more farmers and more consumers."

Over 60 organizations and chocolate companies have endorsed a "Commitment to Ethical Cocoa Sourcing" that sets a higher standard for sustainable and responsible cocoa sourcing than Nestlé. The commitment can be found online:http://www.laborrights.org/stop-child-labor/cocoa-campaign/resources/10656.

###

Global Exchange is a membership-based international human rights organization dedicated to promoting social, economic and environmental justice around the world.www.GlobalExchange.org

Green America is a non-profit organization whose mission is to harness economic power-the strength of consumers, investors, businesses, and the marketplace-to create a socially just and environmentally sustainable society. www.GreenAmericaToday.org

The International Labor Rights Forum is an advocacy organization dedicated to achieving just and humane treatment for workers worldwide. www.LaborRights.org

Oasis USA is a non-profit organization committed to developing communities where everyone is included, making a contribution, and reaching their God-given potential. Oasis USA is the West Coast Office for Stop the Traffik Campaign in the USA.www.OasisUSA.org.

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

According to the Ekklesia news site, there will be an announcement on Monday 7 December that in the UK four-finger KitKats are to be Fairtrade certified. See "Campaigners give two finger salute to Nestlé":http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/10757
Great news for the farmers in the scheme if properly independently audited, but raises questions about why Nestlé has not lived up to its promises to end child slavery in its cocoa supply chain more broadly.
As Ekklesia reports:
---Extract beginsStop the Traffik say the good news is only partial, as this will only apply to their ‘four finger’ product.
‘Two finger’ Kit Kats and all of their other chocolate products “will continue to exploit the chocolate slaves of the Ivory Coast from where Nestlé source most of their cocoa” they said in a statement.---extract ends
For details of Nestlé's failure to live up to its 2001 promise to end child slavery in its supply chain and a reminder of Nestlé's token Fairtrade coffee and how it has used that to try to divert criticism of its coffee trading and to undermine the boycott over its baby milk marketing, see my earlier blog:http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2009/11/nestle-fairtrade-kitkat.html
Here's the quote from the page with my full analysis - see that for links to supporting documents and images:
Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator at Baby Milk Action, said: "Nestlé is already using a Fairtrade mark on a token product representing just 0.02% of its coffee purchase to try to divert criticism of its trading practices, which have been blamed for driving down prices for millions of coffee farmers. While the coffee and cocoa farmers in Fairtrade schemes should benefit, if proper independent audits are done, that provides little comfort to the vast majority of suppliers outside the schemes. Legal action has been taken against Nestlé in the US over its failure to act on child slavery in its cocoa supply chain, despite public claims that it is doing so, and we have already seen it trying to divert this criticism by, for example, sponsoring an event on the abolition of slavery at the Labour Party Conference.
"When Nestlé is on the record as saying that charitable contributions should benefit its shareholders, we should not be too excited by one of the world's most boycotted companies pursuing something like this. We will continue to include Kit Kats on the list of boycott products and recommend that anyone who is concerned about promoting real change for people in developing countries support the boycott and buy their products from companies with positive business values, not just token initiatives. There are companies whose entire output is Fairtrade certified after all. Nestlé systematically violates baby food marketing standards, undermining breastfeeding and contributing to the needless death and suffering of babies around the world - the changes we have been able to force on Nestlé are because of the boycott and it will continue until Nestlé brings its policies and practices into line." var sc_project=1935474; var sc_invisible=0; var sc_partition=17; var sc_security="650a9fb1";