Search This Blog

Showing posts with label INFACT canada. Show all posts
Showing posts with label INFACT canada. Show all posts

Friday, February 10, 2012

INFACT-Urgent Action!!


My Friends, Nestle is at it again, and this time it's truly disgusting!!!!  Haul out your computers and fire up your emails!!!



Urgent Action

No honour for Nestlé!

INFACT Canada is deeply concerned that the University of Alberta is planning to award Mr. Peter Brabeck-Latmathlé, the Chair and former Chief Executive Officer of Nestlé, an honorary degree for contributing to “the preservation, distribution and management of one of humanity’s most vital resources: water.”
Protests are coming on from all over the world. Nestlé, which has been designated as the “Least Ethical Company” globally, is infamous for practices including destruction of water resources; aggressive marketing of infant formula and other baby foods in violation of the World Health Organization’s International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent WHA resolutions; trade union busting and infiltrating public interest organizations critical of Nestlé’s predatory practices.
INFACT Canada joins the Council of Canadians in condemning University of Alberta’s plans to award Mr. Peter Brabeck-Latmathlé an honorary degree. Instead, the University should criticize Nestlé’s destructive business practices and inform the company that there is no honour for the CEO!
Swiss journalist Robert James Parsons has been writting about Nestlé since 1997. Read his brilliant letterto the University of Alberta heads.

Send your message today to:

Copy to:

Council of Canadians’ online form

You can also use the Council of Canadians’ online form to send a message to the University of Alberta President and Chancellor.
Elisabeth Sterken
Director INFACT Canada/IBFAN North America
esterken@infactcanada.ca

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

IBFAN: The Business of Malnutrition


The Business of malnutrition: breaking down trade rules to profit from the poor

Guidelines for a new range of products for babies ‘at risk’ of malnutrition was the topic at the annual meeting of Codex, the UN body that sets food standards. In the press release below, learn about how the mass marketing of these products may create the scary new ‘business of malnutrition’ where the developed world makes big profits from the malnutrition and poverty of the developing world.

Press Release

The Business of malnutrition: 
breaking down trade rules to profit from the poor

Codex Nutrition Committee: Bad Soden, Frankfurt, Germany
12-18th November 2011
Health campaigners, led by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) and representatives from a dozen developing countries attended the Nutrition Meeting of Codex, the UN body that sets international food standards These attendees achieved partial success in the Codex Guidelines by calling for strict controls on the marketing of a loose range of processed fortified products for babies that were never clearly defined. The objective was to provide nutrients which are “either lacking or are present in insufficient quantities,” with the clear aim of targeting all those ‘at risk’ of malnutrition.
The countries, Brazil, Nigeria, Chile, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Gambia, Togo, Cameroon, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, South Africa and Bolivia, fearing that uncontrolled marketing would undermine breastfeeding, increase family poverty and create dependence on products that are expensive and often unnecessary, called for several key World Health Assembly Resolutions to be mentioned in the guidelines. The United States and the European Union initially opposed this move saying that because the Resolutions stand on their own there was no need to refer to them. Australia and Botswana suggested that paragraphs from the relevant WHA texts could be referenced and, after the World Health Organisation (WHO) explained the importance of the Resolutions, the EU and the US agreed to a compromise.
Experts from the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), led by Elisabeth Sterken of INFACT Canada, suggest that as the EU and US economic crisis continues, the new ‘business of malnutrition’ – which has the potential for multi-billion dollar profits from exports to the developing world and is portrayed as a win-win solution for the economy and development – could lead to a marketing bonanza that, instead of improving infant and young child health, could harm it and drain family budgets.
. . . .
Elisabeth Sterken
Director INFACT Canada/IBFAN North America
esterken@infactcanada.ca

Friday, September 9, 2011

INFACT- WHO Code: Action Alert

Time to rally together again to stop another Infant Formula manufacturer from blatantly breaking the World Health Organizations International Code of Marketing Breastmilk Substitutes.  This time it's Mead Johnson who is trying to pretend that they are educating about infant health, when in fact it is just a marketing and sales ploy for their company.

Please take the time to write a letter or email to the powers that be at the Royal Victoria Hospital- tell them that we are watching them and that this can not and WILL NOT be allowed!! Take the time to do this because every single voice counts.  We have rallied together many times in the past and stopped this sort of sneaky marketing by Infant Formula companies before- the voices of the masses start with just one voice- YOURS.  It all starts with one, and every single voice makes a difference.
Beautiful breastfeeding baby




Royal Victoria Hospital in Barrie:

Seminar Would Promote Infant Formula to Paediatrics Department Staff

In marketing, recruiting new customers is important. If you’re in the business of marketing infant formula one of the best ways to recruit new customers is a hospital paediatrics department: where new mothers come looking for guidance. And how could you influence the doctors and nurses, make them think that your product is scientifically advanced, that it’s getting closer to breastmilk, and that it’s OK. How about a one-hour infant formula infomercial masquerading as a scholarly seminar?
Well, that’s what infant formula maker Mead Johnson was thinking when they arranged for Dr. Marianna Mitchell to speak at the Barrie Royal Victoria Hospital paediatrics department.
Have a look at an excerpt from the seminar flyer:
Please join us as we welcome our speaker:

Dr. Marianna Mitchell, FAAP, FRCP(C), Lakeridge Health Corp., Oshawa site, Department of Paediatrics

The topic:

“Leading the Way: Bringing Infant Nutrition Closer to Breast Milk Function and Composition”

Objectives:
  1. Explore the role of prebiotics in supporting GI health in infants
  2. Examine advances in infant nutrition to more closely approximate the nutritional and functional properties of breast milk
  3. Review the importance of DHA and ARA in cognitive and visual development and in immune health
The words ‘infant formula,’ purposely do not appear, but in fact the seminar is all about infant formula. Prebiotics, ‘approximating breastmilk,’ DHA and ARA, with bogus unsubstantiated claims, are all infant formula marketing strategies. Throughout the flyer ‘infant nutrition,’ is simply a euphemism for ‘infant formula.’
This seminar is clearly a violation of section 6.2 of the World Health Organization International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes and Resolution 63.23(4).
So, if Mead Johnson can make the doctors and nurses who work with new mothers think their formula is OK, or at least a viable alternative to breastfeeding, that thinking will affect the mother’s decision to breastfeed and her breastfeeding duration.
Help cancel this very blatant violation of the WHO Code and WHA Resolutons. Send a letter to Janice Skot, Executive Director, President and CEO of the Royal Victoria Hospital and ask her to cancel the Mead Johnson promotion of formula to pediatric staff. Let her know that you expect the Royal Victoria Hospital to abide by the World Health Organizations recommendations banning formula promotions in health care facilities and that she has a pubic mandate to protect the highest attainable standard of health for mothers and children in the facility she manages.
Ms. Janice Skot Executive Director, President and CEO North Simcoe Muskoka Royal Victoria Hospital
Mailing Address: Royal Victoria Hospital 201 Georgian Drive Barrie, ON L4M 6M2
Elisabeth Sterken
Director INFACT Canada/IBFAN North America
esterken@infcatcanada.ca
Donate button

Thursday, August 25, 2011

INFACT Canada:UN and baby food industries


Stop Unhealthy Partnerships

Ask the UN to stop partnering with the baby food and junk food industries

Everyday we read or hear about unhealthy foods - foods like infant formula, processed/packaged industrially made infant foods, junk foods, foods with high levels of starch, transfats, highly processed foods, which increase our risk of getting cancer, heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and other non- communicable diseases (NCDs). We also know that breastfeeding of children for two years, with exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months, significantly reduces the risk of NCDs.
CLICK here if you want to protect your and your children’s health. Ask the UN to stop partnering with manufacturers of unhealthy foods to develop strategies to control NCDs.
Yet makers of infant milks, infant foods and other unhealthy foods bombard us every day with unethical advertising and false health and nutrition claims - images and words presenting their foods as safe, as healthy, as good, as the right choice.
TAKE ACTION TO STOP PROMOTION OF UNHEALTHY FOODS. Ask the UN to stop partnering with the baby food and junk food industry.
Click here to send the petition to the President of the United Nations General Assembly!
The UN is currently developing a “Political Declaration” and preparing for the High Level UN Summit on NCDs to be held in September in New York. The declaration proposes partnerships with the private sector for its future work. That means manufacturers of unhealthy foods including infant foods and junk foods will be able to influence future strategies. That is an UNHEALTHY PARTERSHIP, you need to take action to stop it.
We believe that the strategies to prevent NCDs should put strong emphasis on support to women to continue breastfeeding up to two years, especially exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months and end promotion of all foods for infants, and children. Therefore manufacturers who market unhealthy foods should not be allowed to participate in developing strategies or making decisions regarding healthy foods and prevention of NCDs, as it is a clear case of conflict of interest.
TAKE ACTION TO STOP UNHEALTHY PARTNERSHIPS. Ask the UN to stop partnering with the private sector to develop strategies to control NCDs. Click here to send the petition.
Thanks!!
Elisabeth Sterken
Director INFACT Canada/IBFAN North America
esterken@infcatcanada.ca

Thursday, March 17, 2011

INFACT Canada: Fed up with Formula Promotion

INFACT Canada sent out two updates this week- both about infant formula promotion.


Are you fed up with formula promotions?

Let the Minister of Health know that you want Health Canada to support mothers to breastfeed without commercial intervention.
Let the Minister of Health know that formula promotions threaten mother and infant/child health.
Let the Minister know that you want all formula promotions to stop; that formula promotions mislead and falsely claim to have attributes similar to breastmilk; that formula promotions undermine breastfeeding and are purposely targeted at pregnant women and breastfeeding mothers.
Let the Minister of Health know that when Canada endorses the World Health Organization’s International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes and all the World Health Assembly resolutions on infant and young child nutrition, we expect these protective measures to be implemented in Canada. Canadian mothers, babies and families deserve supportive environments to enable all mothers to nourish their children optimally.
Let the Minister know that breastfeeding is normal and should be the fundamental principle for all policies relating to maternal and child health.
Let her know that Canada’s breastfeeding rates remain far from optimal; that the exclusive breastfeeding rate for the first six months is just over 16% (Canadian Perinatal Health Report, 2008). How is it that 84% of mothers fall short of Health Canada’s recommendations for infant feeding?
Let the Minister know that mother’s health and children’s growth, development and health are far more important that the profit interests of the infant formula companies. Formula industries should be held accountable, financially and morally, for the increased deaths, illness and chronic diseases linked to formula feeding.
Let the Minister know that the costs of the increased hospitalizations, the increased need for medical interventions, the increased costs of the cancers, diabetes, obesity, and the cardiovascular diseases are in the billions annually when children are not breastfed.

Let her know that you want her to STOP ALL FORMULA PROMOTIONS!

Write To:

Leona Aglukkaq, Minister of Health: Aglukkaq.L@parl.gc.ca.

CC To:

*     *     *     *    *   *    

EU opposes misleading and deceptive health claims for infant formula and baby foods

INFACT Canada congratulates our partner group the UK-based Baby Milk Action and is pleased to have been able to support its work to inform and lobby the European Parliamentarians to oppose the misleading claims made by the infant formula/baby food industries.

European Parliamentarians oppose bogus baby food health claim

March 16, 2011 - Brussels
Members of the European Parliament have moved to block a baby food company from using a health claim on labels of follow-on formula.
The European Parliament’s committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee (ENVI) today voted to stop the claim that DHA, a long-chain fatty acid found in breastmilk, when added to follow-on formulas and baby foods improves babies’ vision. A Resolution will now go to the full Plenary in Strasbourg in April and if it is passed there, the claim will not be allowed in EU countries from 2012, or on exports from the EU. Baby Milk Action is lodging an official complaint about misinformation put out by the European Commission in trying to influence the votes of MEPs.
This is first time since the 2006 European Health and Nutrition Claims Regulations came into effect that MEPS have used their right to block a claim and the news was greeted with huge relief by thousands of health professionals and public health campaigners both in the EU and globally who have been fighting to protect parents rights to truly independent information about infant feeding.
Socialist MEP Glenis Willmott, Co-Chair of the Health Working Group, who led the MEPs veto said: “The European Parliament delegated the power to make decisions about infant feeding to the Commission and a specialist committee, which meets behind closed doors. However MEPs have an important role to play in scrutinising these decisions as this claim shows. Independent studies say there is no proven link between artificially added DHA and eyesight, and some studies have found possible negative effects of DHA supplementation. As the scientific evidence is still inconclusive, we cannot allow parents to be misled. Babies’ health is too important to be left in the hands of a multinational company’s marketing department.”
. . . .
Elisabeth Sterken
Director INFACT Canada
esterken@infactcanada.ca

Saturday, March 5, 2011

Former Executive Director of Unicef, joins Nestlé Board

I just received this update from Elizabeth at INFACT and thought that many of you would be interested to read this little bomb.


Sweet move:

Ann Veneman, controversial former Executive Director of Unicef, joins Nestlé Board

Ann Veneman, Unicef executive director from 2005 to 2010, will join the Nestlé board of directors next month. In the articles below understand the implications of her shocking career move from an organisation that supports breastfeeding to one that undermines breastfeeding.

A ‘sweet’ move from Unicef to Nestle

DINESH C. SHARMA
March 3, 2011
The United Nations Children’s Fund (Unicef) has just released a glossy report on the state of the world’s children. Senior officials of the UN body made the right noises about children, the need to improve their nutritional status and so on, at media dos in several important capitals across the globe.
At a similar occasion a couple of years ago, Ann Veneman - who was Executive Director of the agency till April 2010 - had articulated Unicef’s position on how exclusive breastfeeding for toddlers is critical to combat hunger and promote child survival. Post-retirement the UN official has undergone a change of mind.
She will now be on the board of a company which has been accused of subverting efforts to promote breastfeeding by flouting laws in order to market its formula foods. Yes, Veneman is joining the Board of Directors of Switzerland-based food giant - Nestlé.
From World Public Health Nutrition Association - http://www.wphna.org/2011_mar_hp0_news.htm

Ann Veneman. USDA. UNICEF. SCN. Nestlé Public-private partnerships personified

March, 2011
Ann Veneman, UNICEF executive director 2005-2010, is to become a member of the main board of Nestlé, effective next month. This news has shocked some in our profession, and has confirmed the cynical opinion of others. Her appointment in 2005 to head UNICEF as its executive director was at the time welcomed by some senior UNICEF staff, who saw her as a political heavy-hitter, able to lever support on behalf of the world’s children at the highest level. Between 2006 and 2009 she was also chair of the UN System Standing Committee on Nutrition (SCN), with which many Association members are or have been associated.
In December 2009, when she was about to step down from the UNICEF post, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said: “She has fulfilled her mandate with immense dedication, and I have been impressed by her extraordinary energy and determination to improve children’s health, education and well-being around the world. Under her leadership, UNICEF has become a catalyst for global action to help children reach their full potential, promoting collaborations that deliver the best possible results for children based on expert knowledge, sound evidence and data... Her legacy is an organization that is financially and intellectually strong and well-equipped to meet the challenges children face in the twenty-first century”.
Dr Ban might not be quite as fulsome now, knowing that she will now be playing a leading part in the policies and strategies of the world’s biggest manufacturer of artificial baby formula. There again, as a fervent supporter of public-private partnerships, maybe he would not cool any of his warm words.
Elisabeth Sterken
Director INFACT Canada

Thursday, January 20, 2011

INFACT Canada- Online Petition to Health Canada

Attention Canadians! Please take a moment and read and sign the petition to Health Canada linked below!!  This is very important as Health Canada has not given enough time to the public to respond to the changes they are making to the draft nutritional guidelines for children from birth to six months.  The public needs a chance to review these changes and make their voices heard by Health Canada!!



Sign the online petition to Health Canada to broaden consultation on infant nutrition recommendations

As of course you know, Health Canada has opened up its draft nutritional guidelines for children from birth to six months in an online consultation. The period of time for response is very short, Feb 3 is the deadline. There are no cross-country consultations or opportunities for input beyond this online consultation.
A letter has been drafted asking Health Canada to extend the deadline for the online consultation and to implement cross-country consultation meetings as they have done recently for revisions to Canada's Food Guide and Canada's Physical Activity Guideline.
Please consider signing this letter personally or on behalf of your organization.
Thanks,
Jodine Chase
Help INFACT Canada to promote, protect and support breastfeeding.

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

INFACT Canada- Health Canada revises their recommendations for feeding Infants

Attn: Canadian Parents- please take the time to read this message from INFACT Canada and respond to Health Canada's request for submissions and comments about their revision of Nutrition for Healthy Term Infants: Recommendations from birth to six months.  It is vitally important that parents exercise their Right to tell the government that we have expectations that they must live up to.  Please Read and share this widely!


Health Canada revision of Nutrition for Healthy Term Infants: Recommendations from birth to six months

Health Canada is planning the revision of Canada’s infant and young child feeding policy statement: Nutrition for Healthy Term Infants.
The first draft revision makes recommendations for infants from birth to six months.
It is critical that Canada’s revision reflect the evidence based, optimal feeding practices as recommend by the World Health Organization (WHO), and the WHO/UNICEF Global Strategy on Infant and Young Child Feeding.
INFACT Canada urges all those working with infants and young children to respond to the on-line request for comment. The time line to respond is very short: January 6 to February 3, 2011.
INFACT Canada has prepared general comment on the overall draft revision and also specific comment to the proposed principles and the recommendations.
You may wish to use the INFACT Canada comment or add to it, or prepare your own comment. Any way, we urge you to submit your comment to ensure that optimal infant feeding recommendations are protected. “As a global public health recommendation, infants should be exclusively breastfed for the first six months of life to achieve optimal, growth, development and health. Thereafter, to meet their evolving nutritional requirements, infants should receive nutritionally adequate and safe complementary foods while breastfeeding continues up to two years or beyond.” (WHO/UNICEF Global Strategy for Infant and Young Child Feeding, 2003)
The proposed draft revisions and comment form can be accessed at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/consult/infant-nourrisson/index-eng.php.

INFACT Canada’s General Comments on the Proposed Draft

January 2011
Prepared by Elisabeth Sterken, BSc,MSc,Dt
  1. Conflict of Interest declarations provided by the Expert Advisory Group

    INFACT Canada’s position is that those with conflicts of interest should not be working on infant and young child public nutrition policies and should not be participating in this process.
    The list of the members of the Infant Feeding Expert Advisory Group can be seen at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/nutrition/infant-nourisson/eag-gce-inf-nour-membership-membres-eng.php.
    James Friel: Serves on the advisory boards of Heinz and Danone (Both Heinz and Danone are manufacturers of complementary food products and infant formulas and are in serious violation of the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes and relevant resolutions of the World Health Assembly).
    Sheila Innis: Researcher in infant feeding and infant formulas. Receives research funding from infant formula manufacturers Mead Johnson, Abbott Laboratories and the from Martek Biosciences the maker of fungi and algae sourced fatty acids, DHA and ARA. (All three industries are in serious violation of the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes and relevant resolutions of the WHA).
    Daniel Roth: Is a researcher in vitamin D and has received a travel grant to attend the International Congress of Nutrition from the Organizing Committee sponsored by Coca Cola.
    The remaining five members of the Advisory Group have no competing interests.
  2. Breastfeeding is the normative way to feed infants

    Industrially manufactured infant formulas differ very significantly in nutritional and chemical content as well as the means of feeding. The lumping these two into one document creates a flawed impression that breastfeeding and formula feeding are similar and interchangeable.
    INFACT Canada recommends that Canada’s Nutrition for Health Term Infants should make recommendations about the biologically normal way to feed infants.
    The feeding of other manufactured “milks” should be dealt with as an intervention and the conditions for the use of these products should be addressed either in an appendix or in a separate document on the use of artificial feeding methods and products. Full information about the risks of the use of these products and the feeding methods needs to be stated. Parents should be fully informed when making infant feeding decisions.
  3. The International Code and WHA

    Canada’s government through its delegations to the World Health Assembly have endorsed the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes and all the relevant WHA resolutions on Infant and Young Child Nutrition. It is vital that Health Canada take responsibility and leadership in realizing the implementation of the WHO provisions they have endorsed.
    The International Code and WHA resolution measures are critical to protect the ability of mothers to fully breastfeed their children as recommended. The undermining interference on optimal breastfeeding practices resulting from the continued violations of the provisions of the International Code and resolutions, are extremely costly in personal loss, in health outcomes and in health costs. We all benefit when our children are breastfed.
For INFACT Canada’s detailed, formal comments on the proposed draft see: http://infactcanada.ca/nutrition-healthy-term-infants-new.html#comment.
For more information contact:
Elisabeth Sterken, MSc, Dt
Director INFACT Canada
esterken@infactcanada.ca
Telephone: 416 595-9819
Donate button Help INFACT Canada to promote, protect and support breastfeeding.

Friday, January 14, 2011

INFACT: WHO Breastfeeding Recommendations under attack

INFACT Canada Release: January 14, 2011

WHO breastfeeding recommendations under attack from industry-funded scientists.

Are the infant formula and baby foods industries attempting to undermine the World Health Organization and globally accepted recommendations that infants be exclusively breastfed for the first six months of life?
The BBC, the Guardian and other media are carrying stories about a new review which is published in the British Medical Journal: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/doi/10.1136/bmj.c5955.
The authors, of the article entitled, Six months of exclusive breastfeeding: how good is the evidence?, led by Dr Mary Fewtrell, a consultant paediatrician at the UCL Institute of Child Health in London, have reviewed the evidence behind the current guidance and say the time is right to reappraise this recommendation.
Three of the four authors of this study, Mary Fewtrell, Alan Lucas and David Wilson, receive funding from the baby food industry.
Prof Lucas in particular plays a key role in advising the UK baby food industry, and has opposed the WHO recommendation for many years. In 2003 he went so far as to appear for the defence when one of the largest baby food companies, SMA Wyeth, which was successfully prosecuted for illegal advertising by the UK Trading Standards.
INFACT Canada is concerned that this review, of which three out of the four authors receive funding from the infant formula and baby foods industries, and the media coverage it is generating is being used by the infant formula and baby foods industries in their attempt to weaken national policies and legislation recommending exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life.
Exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life has been demonstrated to reduce respiratory and gastro infectious diseases, childhood obesity, optimize brain and neurological development, and reduce the risk of chronic diseases such diabetes, breast cancer and heart disease in later life.
In Canada, complementary foods are already labeled to imply that these foods be used before the age of six months. This is in contradiction to Health Canada’s infant feeding policy of exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life.
In response to the article in the British Medical Journal, the World Health Organization’s Head of Nutrition, Francesco Branca stated:
“WHO’s global public health recommendation is for infants to be exclusively breastfed for the first 6 months of life to achieve optimal growth, development and health. Thereafter, infants should be given nutritious complementary foods and continue breastfeeding up to the age of 2 years or beyond.
WHO closely follows new research findings in this area and has a process for periodically re-examining recommendations. Systematic reviews accompanied by an assessment of the quality of evidence are used to review guidelines in a process that is designed to ensure that the recommendations are based on the best available evidence and free from conflicts of interest.
The paper in this week’s BMJ is not the result of a systematic review. The latest systematic review on this issue available in the Cochrane Library was published in 2009 (“Optimal duration of exclusive breastfeeding (Review)”, Kramer MS, Kakuma R. The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 4). It included studies in developed and developing countries and its findings are supportive of the current WHO recommendations.
It found that the results of two controlled trials and 18 other studies suggest that exclusive breastfeeding (which means that the infant should have only breast milk, and no other foods or liquids) for 6 months has several advantages over exclusive breastfeeding for 3-4 months followed by mixed breastfeeding. These advantages include a lower risk of gastrointestinal infection for the baby, more rapid maternal weight loss after birth, and delayed return of menstrual periods. No reduced risks of other infections or of allergic diseases have been demonstrated. No adverse effects on growth have been documented with exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months, but a reduced level of iron has been observed in developing-country settings.

Notes

When assessing the BMJ - Fewtrell data the following points should be borne in mind:
  • this is not a report on new data - it is observational only.
  • WHO’s policy arose from a review of 3,000 studies on infant feeding.
  • Keeping recommendations under review and randomised controlled trials in progress is good practice; this paper is pre-empting the results of these.
  • The study implies that delayed introduction of solid foods may be linked to increased obesity - this is total conflict with the studies which show that early introduction - particularly of sugary foods is an important factor behind the obesity epidemic. Breastfeeding may actually help in the development of taste receptors.
  • The argument to introduce solids at 4 months to prevent coeliac disease and allergies was summarised by ESPGHAN in late 2009 and was considered by many to be flawed. see press release: http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press23dec09.html.
  • the UK Scientific Committee on Nutrition (SACN) and the Committee on Toxicity (COT) are reviewing the evidence on solid foods and coeliac disease. The draft opinion is NOT FINAL BUT is on the SACN website with the Agenda papers for next week’s SACN meeting. See paper SMCN/11/01 downloadable from http://www.sacn.gov.uk/meetings/sub_groups/maternal_child_nutrition/19012011.html
  • SACN use international growth charts to describe the optimal pattern of infant growth in the UK (UK-WHO charts). These are based on studies of babies in 7 countries around the world and no significant difference was found between their growth profiles. The proposal from the four scientists that babies are treated differently depending on where they live conflicts with the findings of this research. The mean age at introduction of solids to this cohort of breastfed infants in the WHO studies was 5.4 months (or “..about 6-months”).
  • The UK policy is to introduce complementary foods at around 6-months and progress responsively, in line with individual babies’ progress and acceptance. Not all babies need solids at the same time: in every aspect of infant development there is a wide range of normal. Very importantly the introduction of the new policy in 2003 has been associated with a marked reduction in the numbers of mothers giving solids very early (i.e. before 4-months). Since it is widely accepted that very early introduction carries greater risk (particularly of coeliac disease), the UK policy could be considered from this perspective a success.
  • The practice of ‘baby-led weaning’ is becoming more widespread, where babies are allowed to experiment with appropriately prepared family foods and decide for themselves when to eat. Experience in this area suggests that babies naturally start to ingest complementary foods at around 6 months of age, when various developmental factors (hand-eye coordination, mastication ability etc) come together. This may be an evolved natural behaviour that has been lost through the practice of spoon feeding prepared cereal paps. Further research is required in this area.
  • Marianne Monie, Chair of the UK Breastfeeding Network, made an important point about the risk of swine flu: The evidence supports introducing food when a baby is developmentally ready at around 6 months. Introducing food or infant formula before that time increases the risk of infections. Questioning the wisdom of the six-month guideline at a time when babies are at risk of catching swine flu is unfortunate, because exclusive breastfeeding reduces the risk of secondary infections that can be serious enough to need hospital admission. Parents should not feel pressured into rushing their baby onto solid food. Waiting until around six months gives another two valuable months of additional protection against chest and stomach infection.”
For more information contact:
Elisabeth Sterken, MSc, RD
Director INFACT Canada
esterken@infactcanada.ca

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

INFACT Canada: Health Canada's advisory lacks scientific basis

Mother’s milk and safe milk sharing: Health Canada’s advisory lacks scientific basis

December 7, 2010
The recent media focus on the mothers’ movement Eats on Feets has resulted in a Health Canada advisory warning mothers against the use of another mother’s milk unless it comes from a donor milk bank.
Health Canada’s advisory raises some important questions about the lack of scientific basis for their claims regarding the “risks” of human milk sharing.
The Health Canada advisory flies in the face of the recommendations by both UNICEF and the World Health Organization, that when a mother is unable to provide her own breastmilk, the milk of another mother is safer than the use of an infant formula. These principles are outlined in the World Health Organization and UNICEF Global Strategy on Infant and Young Child Feeding and the Baby-Friendly Initiative. Although these initiatives were endorsed by Health Canada, why are these important principles now deemed “risky”?

Health Canada claims

There is a potential risk that the milk may be contaminated with viruses such as HIV or bacteria which can cause food poisoning, such as Staphylococcus aureus. In addition, traces of substances such as prescription and non-prescription drugs can be transmitted through human milk. Improper hygiene when extracting the milk, as well as improper storage and handling, could also cause the milk to spoil or be contaminated with bacteria and/or viruses that may cause illness.
When mothers need a breastmilk replacement how does Health Canada consider the use of commercial infant formula products to be safer that the use of peer-to-peer informed milk sharing?
INFACT Canada is concerned that the Health Canada warning will dissuade mothers from providing human milk for their infants and encourage the use of commercial infant formula. The other alternative when mothers need a replacement for their own milk is the use of commercially produced infant formula. The risks associated with the use of infant formula products have been well documented. Mothers aware of these risks do not wish to expose their infants to such risks. These include increased prevalence of a range of infectious diseases and health conditions – ear infections, gastrointestinal infections respiratory infections, necrotizing enterocolitis, sepsis, meningitis, diabetes, childhood cancers, obesity, allergies – formula fed infants grow and develop differently from breastmilk fed infants, including cognitive and neural development.
While implying that formula is a preferable alternative to shared human milk, Health Canada fails to inform mothers that the risk of contamination by lethal and dangerous bacteria may exist in all powdered infant formula currently marketed in Canada. Has Health Canada warned parents that tins of powdered infant formula are not sterile and may contain Enterobacter sakazakii, a virulent and highly pathogenic contaminant that can lead to serious infections causing meningitis, necrotizing enterocolitis, sepsis and even death? Has Health Canada mandated that infant formula labels have warnings about the lack of sterility and that products must be carefully reconstituted at 70 degrees C to destroy the lethal Enterobacter sakazakii as recommended by the World Health Organization?
Additionally the Health Canada warning does not address the presence of the bacterium Salmonella species, a major cause for gastrointestinal infections, present in powdered infant formula. Should parents not be informed of the rather frequent recalls of infant formula products – the most recent for the presence of beetle parts in the formula? Furthermore there are many industrial contaminants found in infant formula such as heavy metals, plasticizers, including the plastic BPS present in concentrated formula.
Infant formula does not have the immunological constituents to alleviate against the risk of the built-in microbiological contaminants and the bacterial and viral contaminants related to formula preparation, handling, storage and feeding.
Health Canada’s advisory does not provide mothers with the information needed about the safe peer-to-peer informed sharing of milk. Nor does Health Canada provide access for mothers to the donor milk from milk banks that it deems safe and acceptable.
Currently there is only one milk bank in Canada at the BC Women’s Hospital and Health Centre in Vancouver. Donor milk from the BC Milk Bank has very limited access and is available on prescription only for high needs infants.
Although Health Canada’s policy statements recommend that infants be exclusively breastfed for the first six months of life and sustained breastfeeding to two years and beyond, adequate support systems need to be in place for mothers to achieve optimal breastfeeding practices. Mothers need to be able to access supplementary human milk for their infants for the full recommended time that infants and young children require human milk for optimal health, growth and development. A variety of social, cultural, health or economic reasons may necessitate that mothers have access to human milk in order to achieve this.
Mothers who wish to provide only human milk for their infants have no other means to access human milk than to establish their own method of safe milk sharing. Eats on Feets is a community-based movement of mothers meeting the needs of their infants based on a health screened and informed decision making process. Importantly many women have more than enough milk and have a deep desire to share with mothers and infants needing their milk.

Conclusions

Assessing and analyzing the risks (see ANNEX) of peer-to-peer informed milk sharing demonstrates the risks to be negligible. Peer-to-peer informed milk sharing is by far the safer means to provide replacement feeding when mothers own milk is unavailable.
However the risks of feeding infant formula to infants are well documented. Many mothers do not wish to expose their infants to the increased risks of infectious diseases, chronic diseases and growth and development anomalies, which have lifelong implications.
INFACT Canada urges Health Canada to provide guidelines to address the need for mothers who wish to donate their life giving milk to mothers who know this to be critically important for the health and well-being of their infants. Health Canada must recognize that informed milk sharing is not “dangerous” and must recognize that the alternative of using infant formula comes with a long list of documented negative consequences.
INFACT Canada urges Health Canada to facilitate a milk banking system across Canada that will provide full access for all mothers who wish to donate their milk and to mothers who need to make use of donated milk beyond the current limited “on prescription only.”
INFACT Canada urges Health Canada to establish centres where mothers can go to have their milk screened so they can feel comfortable and confident sharing their milk. As well Health Canada should review the capacity of blood banks to also screen human milk.
INFACT Canada urges Health Canada to provide the necessary funding and programme leadership to improve support systems for the establishment of lactation in the early weeks and months to help mothers overcome difficulties they may encounter.
Mothers need effective support systems to achieve the Health Canada recommendations for exclusive and sustained breastfeeding to ensure the highest attainable standard of health for their children. We will all benefit.
Elisabeth Sterken, MSc, RD
Executive Director
INFACT Canada
esterken@infactcanada.ca
With thanks to:
Jennifer Abbass Dick RN, BNSc, MN, PhD student, IBCLC, RLC
Linda Smith, BSE, FACCE, IBCLC, FILCA for their helpful comments.

ANNEX

It is important to compare the perceived risks and dangers of peer-to-peers informed milk sharing to the risks of providing infant formula as a replacement for a mothers own milk.

Peer-to-peer informed milk sharing

Viral and microbiological risks

  • Mothers are screened and share their health data.
  • The numbers of Canadian women of child bearing age who are HIV+ are few.
  • The probability of an HIV+ mother, who has given birth, breastfeeds and donates her milk, is highly improbable. Moreover HIV+ mothers receive anti-retro-virals which significantly reduce the viral count.
  • Human milk contains a multitude of complex antiviral and immune substances demonstrated to inactivate viruses such as HIV and reduce microbiological contaminants.
  • Providing human milk exclusively is the best protection against viral and bacterial contaminants passing via the infant gut. Human milk provides a protective layer in the infant gut. It is in fact the introduction of infant formula into the infant gut that creates the risk of transmission. Mixed feeding of formula and human milk has been shown to be the greatest risk for viral transmission. The cow’s milk proteins in infant formula are a cause of gut damage providing a passage for viral (HIV, hepatitis B and C, HTLV 1 and 2, syphilus) and bacterial contaminants.
  • Mothers can flash pasteurize donated milk to ensure that there are no viral or bacterial contaminants.(ref: Israel-Ballard K, Donovan R, Chantry C, Coutsoudis A, Sheppard H, Sibeko L, Abrams B. (2007). Flash-heat inactivation of HIV-1 in human milk: a potential method to reduce postnatal transmission in developing countries. J Acquir Immun Defic Syndr. 45: 318-23.)

Passage of prescription and non prescription drugs

  • There are very few drugs that are contra-indicated during lactation. Most drugs do not enter her milk.
  • Eats on Feets advises mothers on how to screens donors for prescription and non prescription substances.
  • If a mother is breastfeeding her own child she will be aware of any contra-indicated substances. If her milk is safe for her own child it will be safe for the child she is donating her milk to.

Improper hygiene, storage and handling

  • Human milk is the most effective and efficient protection against microbial contaminants. It contains, IgA, IgM, IgG, IgE, IgD factors, lactoferrins, lysozymes, oligosaccharides, immunoglobulins, interferon, mucins, bifidus factors, to name a few and many as yet undiscovered factors. It takes a lot to “spoil” human milk.
  • Mothers are aware of the normal principles of hygiene, storage and handling.
  • INFACT Canada • info@infactcanada.ca

Sunday, July 18, 2010

IKEA and Nestle

Well I must say that I'm seriously disappointed.  Yesterday our family went to IKEA and while we were there we hit their restaurant for a bite to eat.  I went through the line and there it was in the drinks cooler:  Nestle Pure Life Water. My heart thudded to my feet and my love of IKEA wavered almost to the breaking point.  Nestle water.  And that was the only choice. Almost.  We drank tap water instead, and I told the restaurant manager exactly why.

What is the most disappointing thing about this is that IKEA well publicizes their Social Initiatives.

IKEA Social Initiative


IKEA Social Initiative sides with the many children

IKEA believes that home is the most important place in the world, and children are the most important people in the world.

That’s why IKEA Social Initiative wants to make a difference for millions of children in need around the world by reducing malnutrition and infant disease, and by dramatically improving literacy.

IKEA Social Initiative works together with partners such as UNICEF and Save the Children. We support projects that benefit an estimated 100 million children!

Together we create a better everyday life for the many children.

Background


In the mid 1990s, IKEA and many other companies became acutely aware of wide-spread child labour in South Asia. This was the starting point for IKEA’s fight against child labour in the supply chain. As a first step, IKEA worked with Save the Children to help formulate a child labour code of conduct, "The IKEA Way on Preventing Child Labour," which clearly states that all actions taken shall be in the best interests of the child. With that in mind, IKEA knew it was not enough to simply monitor compliance at IKEA suppliers but wanted to extend its commitment to the communities beyond the factory gates.

The approach


The IKEA Social Initiative is focused on children's right to a healthy and secure childhood with access to quality education. Our main partners are the two leading global organisations for children's rights, UNICEF and Save the Children.

IKEA Social Initiative shares common values with its partners and those values begin with children. The IKEA Social Initiative invests in a range of programmes with a holistic approach to create a substantial and lasting change in the lives of children and women; improving their health, enabling access to a quality education for children, and empowering women to create a better future for themselves and their communities.

We are in this for the long haul with substantial and long-term investments in children, believing that we must work for the many children, and the needs of the children who are most in need must be addressed.

The IKEA Social Initiative believes that many small steps yield big results and takes its lead from IKEA’s core values in striving to invest in simple, cost effective and meaningful approaches.

IKEA Social Initiative has chosen to concentrate its long-term commitments on South Asia, and especially India, where the needs of children and women are great, and where IKEA has long business experience"


HERE to view the original web page 

Besides their so called "Social Initiatives", IKEA also proclaims that enforces a strict code of conduct on themselves and their suppiers . Claiming that IKEA:
"works proactively to prevent corruption and illegal activities and disassociates itself from corruption in any form, whether direct or indirect. We have a corruption policy, Rules of Prevention of Corruption, and an investigation policy that clearly states what co-workers should do if they suspect corruption, fraud or other illegal behaviour. Our position is clarified in a vendor letter which must be signed by our suppliers and an IKEA representative. 
 Well it would seem that IKEA's idea of corruption and safe working conditions,including the prevention of child labour, isnt' the same as mine.
 
How can a company, like IKEA, that proclaims that they side with the children and are opposed to child slavery in developing nations allow a black listed company like Nestle- the most Boycotted company in the world!- to market their water to families and children in their stores?!  I can not fathom their reasoning, nor how they can consciously create this sort of marketing tie between themselves and Nestle, and yet still expect us to believe that their social initiatives are real and not just some marketing scam.... like the types of scams and spin doctoring utilized by Nestle to try to convince the world that they "care"!!!!

I think that another letter writing campaign is in order- one geared towards getting IKEA to remove Nestle from their shelves. Starting with deluging IKEA with emails about their choice of bed mates by choosing Nestle as their water supplier.  |Unfortunately I was unable to get an email address, but here is the link to the "contact us" page on the IKEA website:

http://www.ikea.com/ms/en_CA/customer_service/contact_us/info.html

If you write to IKEA, be sure to forward a copy of your email to:
Canada: INFACT Canada  www.infactcanada.ca
USA: IBFAN  www.ibfan.org
UK: Baby Milk Action  www.babymilkaction.org

For more information on the Nestle Boycott please visit these links:

http://www.infactcanada.ca/Nestle_Boycott.htm
http://www.babymilkaction.org/pages/boycott.html
http://www.ibfan.org/fact-nestle.html

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Botulism spores found in 7 of 9 samples of Infant Formula

Another scary study on the topic of tainted Infant Formula, "Presence of Soil-Dwelling Clostridia in Commercial Powdered Infant Formulas," will appear in the March 2010 Journal of Pediatrics.

Researchers studies samples from 30 infants in California that were infected with Botulism, and took samples from market purchased powdered infant formula.  7 of 9 of the samples of formula were shown to contain multiple strains of Botulism.

Because spores were linked to infant formula that caused botulism in an infant in the UK, researchers tested formula from sick US babies and store shelves and found disturbing results.
Researchers studied formula obtained from the families of nineteen babies in California who had been diagnosed with botulism.  They also purchased containers of powdered infant formulas from other sources.
Five of the 30 samples from the sick infants contained clostridial botulinium spores. Spores were also found in 7 of 9 market-purchased formula samples.  Multiple types of soil-dwelling strains of botulinum were identified.
Many types of botulinum spores are commonly found in dust and soil worldwide.  However, the strain Clostridium botulinum is particularly harmful to infants and can cause severe illness.  This strain can colonize in the intestine and produce neurotoxins leading to paralysis, a need for ventilation and even death.
Milder symptoms of botulism include constipation, a weak cry, lethargy and bulbar palsies.
 What is scarier is the fact that researchers are now looking at the link between Botulism poisoning and SIDs.

Botulism is also suspected to be linked to some infant deaths that are officially classified as SIDS.
The University of Minnesota Extension Service reports:
Because breathing is affected in the most severe stage of botulism-induced paralysis, researchers suspect a link between infant botulism and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), also known as crib death. One study done 15 years ago showed that about 5 percent of children in California whose deaths were attributed to SIDS actually had died from infant botulism. Because of the difficulty of conducting such studies, the link between SIDS and infant botulism remains poorly understood.

Other harmful pathogens have been found in US formula in the past, as well.  In 2001, a baby in Tennessee died and 10 other premature babies were sickened by formula contaminated by the bacteria Enterobacter sakazakii, which led to a recall.  Another recall was issued related to the bacteria in 2002, in which 1.5 million cans of formula were recalled.  This bacteria, which causes Cronobacter Infection, has sickened many US babies over the years.  The Enterobacter Sakazakii Watch writes "Powdered infant formula (PIF), which is not sterile, has been implicated repeatedly as a vehicle of Cronobacter infection."
The FDA stresses that at-risk infants such as premature babies should not be fed powdered infant formula because of the risks of these contaminants.  You can read more about the FDA's concerns with powdered formula here.
 So.... the FDA is recommending that "at risk" infants and premature babies should not be fed powdered infant formula.  Yet I have never once read a warning on a powdered formula label, nor seen any sort of warnings in their advertising campaigns.  Further, EVERY formula fed baby is "At Risk"!!  Multiple studies have shown that all babies that are not exclusively breastfed for the first 6 months are at a much higher risk of Gastrointestinal infections/problems, asthma, ear infections, cancer, and death, to name but a few!!!

See INFACT Canada's "Fourteen Risks of Formula Feeding" for further information.

 So we have to wonder why Doctors and hospitals and various major medical organizations are not taking a stronger stance to stop the wide spread use of infant formula.  We know the Dangers- the information is there for anyone to read- yet only a small percentage of babies born in Canada and the US are exclusively breastfed as per the recommendations of WHO and the Canadian and US paediatric societies.


Could this be because " Money Talks"?!

Infant Formula manufacturers are notorious in their flagrant disregard of the WHO International Code of Marketing Breastmilk Substitutes, and Governments are famous for ignoring these breaches of ethics, and accepting funding from these companies.

So where does this leave the innocent babies that are born in our society?  Unprotected and ignored.  Because the medical machine and the government would rather take the blood money from dirty corporations than put the health and safety of their smallest citizens first. 



HERE to read the original article