IBFAN 2005 Breastfeeding calendar now available in the on-line Virtual Shop.

• to everyone who has responded to our action alerts by sending messages to baby food companies which are Breaking the Rules (page 4), to governments which need encouragement when their laws are under attack (page 6) and to support Nestlé whistleblower Syed Aamar Raza (www.supportaamirraza.org).

• to everyone who has turned up to demonstrations at SMA training days, the Nestlé Perrier Awards (page 8), Nestlé HQ, Vote for Trade Justice and your own actions (page 7).

• to everyone who has supported boycott motions at universities and alerted us when Nestlé was trying to speak without us hearing about it (page 7) and to everyone campaigning in schools, such as against Nestlé box-tops for education scheme (page 7).
  

“Can the Commission give assurances that World Health Assembly Resolutions will be integrated into the current review of directive 91/321/EEC on infant formulae and that the European Parliament will be consulted on the matter? What assurance can the Commission give that the safeguards recommended by the WHO, which are minimum requirements for the protection of health, will be fully implemented in Europe and that the Directive will not be weakened in any way, for example by permitting health and nutrition claims on these foods? In the interests of transparency will the proceedings of all the Expert meetings in Brussels be fully noted and open to the public?”

"The Blueprint will be made available to all those Governments, institutions and organizations who are willing to work together for the protection, promotion and support of breastfeeding. I invite them to use the Blueprint and translate its proposals and recommendations into action."

"We have 712 pictures of actual violations in the report. There is no way that the companies can deny that they were found in flagrant violation of the Code and Resolutions.”

• 'Functional' claims. Adding optional ingredients and claiming performance benefits for them.

• Free and low-cost supplies continue.

• Exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months continues to be undermined by most companies (including Nestlé, despite a policy change).

• Information to health professionals. Companies fail to restrict information to scientific and factual matters.

• Health facilities and health workers still targeted.

• Sponsorship of medical seminars, conferences and associations of medical professionals widespread.

The Food Standards Agency (FSA), the Department for International Development and the Department of Health took part in a training day on the Code and Resolutions at the Centre for International Child Health in March 2004. Baby Milk Action was joined by UNICEF’s Legal Officer, David Clark, and author of the Politics of Breastfeeding, Gabrielle Palmer.

A two-day training course for monitors followed, funded by the King’s Fund. The UK monitoring, together with reports from the public using the Baby Feeding Law Group website contributed to the Look What They’re Doing in the UK report (available as a download on the BFLG site and to purchase in the Virtual Shop). Health and nutrition claims are common – despite being illegal. Promotion of infant formula in supermarkets, which is also illegal, is rapidly stopped when reported to Trading Standards Officers, but promotions linked to follow-on formulae, permitted by UK legislation, are harder to stop (see Update 34 and our briefing paper Follow-on formula: why they are not necessary and should not be promoted).

The TV advertising regulator, Ofcom, failed to act over advertisements from SMA and Cow&Gate and a month-long campaign by Farley’s on the cable Discovery Health Channel because they were ostensibly for follow-on formula. We have asked the authorities to require the companies to release the sales figures for their full range of formulas before and after the campaigns. If it is true the advertisements only promote the follow-on formula (in itself a violation), we would expect sales of infant formula to fall as the government is investing in promoting breastfeeding and has targets to increase breastfeeding rates.

The Advertising Standards Authority refused even to investigate a Nestlé Nan HA promotion in a health worker journal, claiming it was not qualified to do so (click here for details of our complaint to the ASA).

These failings have been passed on to the FSA.

• Nestlé is entering the UK by promoting Nan HA through its medical delegates and is forging links with health workers, offering ‘educational’ materials on infant feeding (also see below).

“Further action will include the review of the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations (1995) with a view to further restrict the advertising of infant formula. We will continue to press for amendments to the EU Directive on infant formula and follow-on formula.”

• The Department of Education has now added the reference to the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes to the Curriculum as first called for last year by member Julie Dyball and Annette Brooke MP (see Update 34).

• We are a member of Sustain’s Children’s Food Bill campaign (www.childrensfoodbill.org.uk)

---

Questions over Nestlé researcher

Hypoallergenic (HA) claims which are common in Europe are not permitted in North America following legal action after infants suffered anaphylactic shock. The Latvian pack on the right says: “Recommended by the Latvian Paediatric Association.” While following complaints from the Baby Feeding Law Group, UK tins carry a warning on the lid NOT to feed the product to allergic babies. There have been concerns for many years about the research base for HA claims. Recently Canadian medical journals have called for an investigation into the entire body of research of Dr. Ranjit Chandra – the researcher used by Nestlé to support its HA claims – after allegations that his research on vitamins is fundamentally flawed. The British Medical Journal refused to print Chandra’s work saying the paper had: “All the hall marks of being entirely invented.” Chandra has failed to provide his raw data on vitamins, has left Canada and has refused to be interviewed.

For reports see:

• http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/06/10/sci-tech/chandra040610/

• http:// www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040511/02/

• http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/328/7431/67#48196/

Julie Crawford Award goes to Deana Vearncombe

Gail Cartmail, National Secretary of Amicus presented the 2004 Julie Crawford Award for Breastfeeding Support at the Community Practitioners’ and Health Visitors’ Conference in Harrogate in October. From 7 excellent candidates, nominated by parents, the judges chose Deana Vearncombe, a Health Visitor from Fylde, as this year’s winner. Deana not only supports breastfeeding but has been outspoken against the promotion of artificial feeding in the health care system. In a letter to the Baby Feeding Law Group Deana writes: “Our Nursing and Midwifery Council Code of Professional Conduct, which I frequently refer to, takes the firm ethical stance of not accepting sponsorship from a baby-milk manufacturer. Many of us would welcome our professional organisations, training establishments and Trusts taking this same ethical decision.”

There were 3 runner’s up: Elizabeth Capon, Chris Mitchell and Rachael Windsor. Last year’s winner was Gill Rapley. Julie Crawford was a health visitor and Director and Area Contact for Baby Milk Action who died at the age of 42.

“Justice denied” at World Health Assembly

Baby Milk Action attended this year’s World Health Assembly in May, where a strong draft Resolution was tabled calling for a ban on health claims on infant foods, strict controls on sponsorship and explicit warnings on product labels about possible contamination by pathogens such as Enterobacter sakazakii (see above). Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, Russia and the USA said that they needed more time for discussion and successfully requested postponement of the draft Resolution until next year. Brazil and Iran requested that their objections to postponement be recorded. Dr Caleb Otto of Palau, a sponsor of the Resolution, cautioned: “Justice delayed is justice denied to these children who need help.” (You will find further details on the IBFAN website).

• WHO’s Global Strategy on Diet and Physical Activity was eventually passed after fierce lobbying by the sugar industry and substantial weakening of the text. The Strategy lacks accountability procedures and safeguards against undue commercial influence, but is still critically important. It stresses the long-term benefits of breastfeeding in addressing obesity, diabetes and other food -related problems.

• Following the BBC’s Panorama exposé of the influence of the World Sugar Research Institute and the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) on the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), FAO has suspended joint activities with ILSI.

• WHO has since been accused by the Centre for Science in the Public Interest of suppressing a paper outlining actions that Codex could take to implement the Strategy. (See reports in The Guardian and on the BBC).

• The FAO/WHO Codex Guidelines on Health and Nutrition claims, adopted in July, state in Article 1.4: “There shall be no health or nutrition claims on foods for infants and young children unless permitted by relevant codex standards or national legislation.” This is a useful tool, although, because of EU objections, we failed to have the last 9 words deleted.

Environment, the EU and WHO

With IBFAN Luxembourg we joined the Civil Society delegation to WHO Europe’s 4th Ministerial Conference on Environment and Health in Budapest in June 2004. The Children’s Environment and Health Action Plan for Europe, (CEHAPE) which was adopted, includes measures to protect exclusive breastfeeding. See http://www.euro.who.int/eprise/main/WHO/Progs/CHE/Policy/20030217_1/

• In Budapest WHO launched its Atlas: Inheriting the World on environmental contamination. We complained that the Atlas gave the impression that breastfeeding is harmful. WHO has now improved the text in the web version. See http://www.who.int/ceh/publications/en/15food.pdf

• See new policy brief by Judith Richter funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland: Public-private Partnerships and Health for All: How can WHO safeguard public interests? Available at http://www.gaspp.org/publications/

European Commission – transparency issues

Robert Madelin, Director General of the European Commission’s Health and Consumer Protection DG has raised questions about the references in Update 34 to the independence of EU scientists. We have reassured him that our aim was to question the lack of transparency and extent of industry influence on EU policy-making, not to undermine the good work of specific individuals.

• We await a reply to our letter to the EU Commission’s Research DG about its policy on funding which encourages applicants to collaborate with ‘small medium enterprises’ (SMEs). An SME is defined as having an annual turnover of less than 40 m euros yet the Danone Institute, fully owned by the Danone company (turnover of 13 billion euros) is a partner in the Commission-funded Chopin project which aims to develop a formula with a new lipid profile. André Bronner (the Secretary of International Association of Infant Food Manufacturers, with 15 transnational baby food company members) represented SMEs in one of the project’s meetings.
  

• IBFAN and over 100 NGOs have written to the EU President, Mr Barraso, calling for greater transparency and curbs on corporate lobbying power. See http://www.corporateeurope.org/barroso.htm

HIV and infant feeding discussion group

Keep up-to-date on this topic by joining the WABA Yahoo Groups website. Contact Ted Greiner.

Nestlé sales fall as Indian law kicks in

India’s newly strengthened law which came into force in 2004 is having a clear effect on the promotion of breastmilk substitutes and sales. As an article in the Hindu Business Line (15 August 2004) states:

“a wide-ranging ban on advertisement and promotion of infant foods and milk substitutes, which took effect from January this year, has forced Nestlé to look for alternate distribution channels for the business — hitherto its key cash cow. The company has embarked on a revamp of its distribution. But given the wide-ranging restrictions on promotions and even point-of-sale displays, pushing sales growth in this category may prove a challenging task.”

Sales of breastmilk substitutes will inevitably fall if breastfeeding is protected.

China tragedy

12 babies died from malnutrition in East China’s Anhui Province after being fed milk powder with little, if any, nutritional value, the China Daily reported in May. While people have been detained for making fake milk powder, Chinese authorities are concerned about the emergence of a bottle-feeding culture. An IBFAN country report shows blatant violations of the marketing requirements. An official with the Ministry of Health is quoted as saying: “The health of following generations of the Chinese nation might be threatened if breastfeeding is replaced by milk powder.”

• Nutricia has gone ahead with using a free gift CD to promote its Kissing my baby range of breastmilk substitutes in China, despite earlier promising to review it. IBFAN’s campaign continues. (See the December 2004 Campaign for Ethical Marketing action sheet).
  

Soy formula offensive

For the third year running the industry-dominated Codex Alimentarius Commission (which sets global food standards) failed to address the risks of soy for infants. The UK’s Chief Medical Officer reiterated his warning that soy formulas “should not be used as the first choice for the management of infants with proven cow’s milk sensitivity, lactose intolerance, galactokinase deficiency and galactosaemia. Soy formulas have a high phytoestrogen content, which could pose a risk to the long-term reproductive health of infants.” CMO Briefing No 37 (January 2004).

Soy should only be used in exceptional circumstances, when other alternatives are unacceptable as soy formula contains aluminium and glucose syrup and babies exclusively fed on it are estimated to receive an amount of oestrogen equivalent to five birth control pills every day.

• In the USA, where 26% of babies are fed soy, 89-90% of which is genetically modified, companies compete for the market unabashed, with discounts and aggressive promotion. Launching its new soy formula Nestlé claims that: “..moms who cannot or choose not to breastfeed will be comforted to know that now there is complete iron-fortified nutrition in a milk-free, lactose-free formula that uniquely combines both Supreme Soy Proteins specially designed to be easy-to-digest and DHA & ARA for healthy brain and eye development.”

See:

• They hailed it as a wonderfood (The Observer 7 November 2004)

• http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/

Deaths settlement

Humana/Remedia has reached an out-of-court settlement (allegedly worth £9m) with the Israeli parents of two infants who died and dozens more who were harmed after being fed Tzimchit Super Formula - a soya formula presented as kosher, which contained no vitamin B1. Israeli Police recommended indicting Remedia executives on suspicion of causing death through negligence. (See the British Medical Journal 7 August 2004).

Vitamin D

A new report, Sunlight Robbery, calls for dark skinned breastfed infants who do not receive enough sunlight to be supplemented with Vit D. See: http://www.healthresearchforum.org.uk/ and http://www.infactcanada.ca/InfactHomePage.htm (search vitamin d)

NO to sponsorship

The International Society for Research in Human Milk and Lactation (ISRHML) did not seek funding from the baby food industry for its 2004 Conference. Several members had not attended in previous years because of the sponsorship.

Baby Milk Action will list corporate-free events on its website. Contact us with details of your event.

Laws under attack

Baby Milk Action has helped to defend legislation implementing the baby food marketing requirements:

• In South Africa legislation doing just the bare minimum required by the Code and Resolutions was attacked by the industry as a infringement on the freedom of commercial speech. Many supporters sent letters to the government and the new law is expected to appear shortly. (See Campaign for Ethical Marketing action sheet February 2004).

• Brazil strengthened its legislation last year, requiring ‘Ministry of Health Warnings’ on labels. This was due to come under attack in the Parliament by deputies representing the dairy industry. After an email campaign, the industry’s attempts failed. (See Campaign for Ethical Marketing action sheet June 2004).

• Bulgarian milk banks saved. IBFAN successfully mobilised health experts around the world, persuading the Bulgarian authorities not to close their human milk banks.

Brain food?

In the USA in June, a Mead Johnson Enfamil infant formula promotion gave parents of 20 infants prizes of US$25,000 towards future college tuition. This scheme was apparently so successful at generating publicity for Enfamil (click here for an example), Mead Johnson has launched it again for Christmas (click here for the company press release).

In Canada Mead Johnson’s claims that its modified Enfamil A+ formula enhances the mental development of infants have been withdrawn because they have no scientific basis, are “deceptive and misleading” and are in violation of Canada’s Food and Drug regulations.

Nestlé boycott news

Guardian talkboards: Join the debate about the Nestlé boycott. Click here to download this great new logo donated to us by graphic designer, Rebecca Clark. Thanks Rebecca!

Cancer charity turns down Nestlé million

The decision by charity Breakthrough Breast Cancer to turn down the offer of a £1 million deal for a ‘cause-related marketing’ scheme prompted front-page media coverage (see The Guardian and The Independent). The deal was designed to promote Nestlé cereal brands and the charity consulted its staff before making its decision. This prompted debate among professional fundraisers, and concern that businesses might lose enthusiasm for cause-related marketing, not wanting their ethical records scrutinised so closely. In response to the Guardian’s front-page story, Nestlé (UK) Chief Executive Alastair Sykes wrote a letter to the paper, claiming that Nestlé was a force for good in the world, citing its support for good causes such as famine relief efforts, yet failing to mention the controversy behind these. For example, in the Ethiopia case Nestlé was shamed by Oxfam exposing its attempt to extract US$6 million from the government as compensation, so offered to donate the money back. (Click here for a reminder of Nestlé's retreat on taking money from Ethiopia at a time of famine).

• Nestlé’s donations to charities such as Cats Protection and links to celebrities such as Sadie Frost continue to backfire, generating negative media coverage and highlighting the baby milk campaign. (See, for example, Claws out for Nestlé over its £1 million deal with Cats Protection and Sadie get more than she bargained for with Nestlé). Many boycott supporters were disappointed by Trinny and Susannah (from TV’s What Not to Wear) linking with Nestlé.

• The Norwegian Nutrition Society decided not to apply to Nestlé for funding for the 8th Nordic Conference on Nutrition in June 2004.

Nestlé in Iraq

While campaigners appeal for Iraq’s foreign debt to be scrapped, Nestlé has joined with other transnationals in claiming compensation for losses suffered when deposed dictator, Saddam Hussein, invaded Kuwait. Iraqis have so far had to pay US$2.6 million to Nestlé reports The Guardian.

• Baby Milk Action has met with the Department for International Development over reports that UK troops have been handing out formula.

Nestlé junk food

As Nestlé continues to promote itself as a ‘nutrition’ and ‘health’ company – and an eductator – the UK Consumers Association reports that 7 of the 15 breakfast cereals with the highest levels of sugar, fat and salt were Nestlé products.

Nestlé lost a legal case in Russia where it was accused of hiding GM ingredients.

Download Baby Milk Action’s briefing on Nestlé in Schools, which exposes claims on a pamphlet in Russiafrom which the image shown right is taken. A mother says to her daughter who is leaving for school: “Before an exam its best to eat a piece of chocolate, not a sandwich - sweets help you handle the difficult exercises” The briefing paper also exposes how Nestlé pushes junk food in its supposedly healthy Refuel Pod vending machines.

Theatre at WOMAD

Baby Milk Action, with support from the Reading and Berkshire group, had a stall and ran a theatre piece at the World Organisation of Music and Dance Festival (WOMAD) in Reading in July. The script and streaming video is available in the broadcasts section of our website. Contact us for ideas to address human rights issues through theatre and video.

Demonstrations

IBFANers from around the world joined UK campaigners at the annual demonstration at the Nestlé (UK) HQ on 15 May. A film of the event can be viewed in the broadcasts section of the Baby Milk Action website. A boycott petition with over 10,000 signatures was handed in. The 2005 demonstration will take place on 23 May and we are gathering signatures once more. You can download a petition form or contact Baby Milk Action for printed copies.

• Baby Milk Action took part in the Vote for Trade Justice rally in Brighton in September. Find out more on the Trade Justice Movement website.

Ethical investors shift the goalposts

Baby Milk Action was disappointed to find that the FTSE4Good ethical investment index changed its criteria on baby food companies to evaluate company reports instead of using IBFAN monitoring as previously. However, the requirement that companies accept the Code and Resolutions are minimum requirements for all countries and apply to all breastmilk substitutes means that none qualifies. Baby Milk Action has been assured that company claims of adherence to the marketing requirements will continue to be evaluated in the light of IBFAN monitoring. This raises the possibility that companies will be marked down for dishonesty. (Click here for further details).

Swedish firm, GES Ethical Standard, has no such safeguards, however, and we were surprised to learn that it re-admitted Nestlé to its listing after accepting ‘clarifications’ from the company. When Baby Milk Action asked for further information, we were directed to Nestlé’s own discredited public relations materials as proof that the company had changed. We have asked GES if it will examine the evidence of what Nestlé does, not just what it says, and review its decision, but it has refused.

Time for a tribunal

Nestlé continues to lose debates with Baby Milk Action – following a November debate in Edinburgh, students voted overwhelmingly to keep the boycott. However, there is never enough time to address all of Nestlé’s claims, so Baby Milk Action is calling for an in-depth public meeting to go over the case to draw out the truth. Why not write to Nestlé asking it to accept the idea? See our suggested letter with the Edinburgh debate report.

Nestlé refused to attend a Public Hearing at the European Parliament in 2000, but now the EU may strengthen legal controls over transnationals. See the Campaign for Ethical Marketing for suggested letter to the EU.

Nestlé’s headache with Perrier – and the rise of Tap Water

Nestlé Chief Executive, Peter Brabeck, appeared so disgruntled with trade unionists at the French Perrier water bottling plant criticising his management methods in front of shareholders at the company’s Annual General Meeting in April that he announced he might sell the company. His employees are asking him to stop devaluing the Perrier brand – Nestlé dumped the recyclable glass bottles and switched to plastic some time ago and instead of focusing on the quality market are going for expansion into China. Brabeck wants the unions to accept redundancies and a revised pension plan.

Campaigners in the historic spa town of São Lourenço, Brazil, who won a court victory against the environmental impact of Nestlé’s bottling operations in the water park which fell into Nestlé’s hands when it took over Perrier in 1992, are also watching developments with interest. Nestlé fended off immediate closure of its illegal operation by claiming it needed until October 2004 to move out without causing redundancies. It then tried to go back on this agreement and was criticised at a public hearing in the House of Representatives in July. Whether it leaves or not, campaigners are still concerned as Nestlé has taken over water parks in four neighbouring spa towns and may simply move operations until the law catches up with it once more (for further information see Corporate Watch Magazine). Franklin Fredrick of the Citizens Movement for the Water of Minas Gerais, Brazil, spoke at a Baby Milk Action meeting at the European Social Forum in London in October, inspired by the Swiss meeting mentioned below.

Targeted in Switzerland

At the Nestlé shareholder meeting in Lausanne, cameras and recording equipment were banned for the first time. Baby Milk Action asked Peter Brabeck about the problem of contamination with Enterobacter sakazakii and whether the company would put warnings on labels that formula is not sterile. Nestlé sidetracked the question and is opposing efforts to address this issue at the World Health Assembly and Codex Alimentarius.

In June, Baby Milk Action spoke in Nestlé’s home town of Vevey at a meeting organised by the Berne Declaration, Greenpeace Switzerland and Attac Switzerland. The meeting focused on the baby milk issue, trade-union-busting activities in Colombia, use of Genetically Modified Organisms, environmental degradation with Nestlé’s water-bottling activities in Brazil and the United States and the company’s exploitation of suppliers. The Swiss meeting endorsed a letter calling for Nestlé to be excluded from the United Nations Global Compact as evidence shows it breaks all of the Compact’s principles of respect for human rights and the environment. Attac Switzerland launched a book Attac Contre l’Empire Nestlé (Attac against the Nestlé Empire).

Nestlé is the target of a boycott in 20 countries as monitoring by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN - Baby Milk Action is the UK member) finds Nestlé is responsible for more violations of the World Health Assembly marketing requirements for baby foods than any other company.