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.

Read Robert James Parsons’ letter: 
http://www.infactcanada.ca/whatsnew/rjparsons-letter-u-of-a.doc

Send your message today to:

• University of Alberta President, Indira Samarasekera: uofapres@ualberta.ca
• University of Alberta Chancellor, Linda Hughes: senate.office@ualberta.ca

Copy to:

• INFACT Canada: esterken@infactcanada.ca
• Baby Milk Action: prundall@babymilkaction.org and mikebrady@babymilkaction.org

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.

Use the Council of Canadians’ online form: 
http://canadians.org/action/2012/nestle.html

Elisabeth Sterken
Director INFACT Canada/IBFAN North America
esterken@infactcanada.ca

"15 Tricks of Formula Companies"

This is oh so brilliant that I have nothing to add- The Alpha Parent has covered pretty much every single thing that needs to be said!!!! This long article outlines EXACTLY what Infant formula companies do to convince you to use their product.  Unethical marketing of infant formula has been going on a lot longer than most people think!!!!

It's Halloween!!  Please Boycott Nestle!!! 


"15 Tricks of Formula Companies"

 

Infant formulas were originally designed to be a medical nutritional tool for babies who are unable to breastfeed due to unfortunate circumstances such as maternal death or illness. Nowadays the formula industry accounts for US$20.2 billion (data for 2010). It doesn’t take Einstein to figure out that formula is now being used by more than the 2% of women who physically can’t breastfeed. What went wrong? Formula companies got greedy and laws didn’t keep up, that’s what. The greedier the company, the more strategic and underhanded their marketing becomes. This article exposes 15 tricks of the most popular formula companies, illustrating how greed is more powerful than concern for infant welfare.

Trick #1: Get your logo everywhere

FACT: Exposure to formula promotion increases significantly breastfeeding cessation in the first 2 weeks. Also, among women with uncertain goals or breastfeeding goals of 12 weeks or less, exposure to formula promotion results in exclusive, full, and overall breastfeeding duration being shortened (Howard C et al. Obstetrics and Gynaecology Vol 5, No 2, Feb 2000 p296-303).

This is bad news for babies, but great news for formula companies. The less women who breastfeed – the more formula is purchased. This means lots of wonga for the shareholders. To put this scenario in context, check out the following stats:

The advertising spend for formula companies in 2006/07 was £7,626,847, an increase of 36.6% on the previous year.

The UK Government budget for promoting breastfeeding was £729,011 in 2006/07, a decrease on the 2004/05 figure of £747,000.
(Figures published by Save the Children).

The key to successful product marketing is to get as much exposure as possible, and the formula companies have got this down to a tee. They’ve been churning out hard sell marketing for decades. Here’s a Cow & Gate advertisement published widely in 1940s and 1950s UK:

 

 

“The best possible start in life”? Looks like formula companies’ lack of accuracy is nothing new. Nowadays they just find more covert and underhanded ways to mislead parents. They advertise in parenting magazines and, more recently, fashion and celebrity magazines. Here is an advertisement from Aptamil (right) featured in Pregnancy Magazine April 2008. It is a stitched insert so that the magazine naturally falls open at that page. I’ll talk more about advertising to pregnant women bellow.

With so many formula companies paying vast amounts of money to parenting magazines, is it any wonder the deputy editor of Mother and Baby magazine wrote an article describing breastfeeding as “creepy” (The Guardian ).

Along with magazines, formula companies also place their advertisements on third-party websites, forums and blogs, promoting their infant formula brand name and encouraging mothers to visit their company website. One of the reasons I am reluctant to activate advertising on this blog is the inevitability that a formula company will detect the parenting content and submit their advertisements to the server.

Not content with bombarding your computer when you’re online, formula companies want dibs on it offline too. The idea is that every time you switch on your PC or laptop you’ll see their brand. Here’s Aptamil’s free desktop calendar:

 

You’ll also be targeted in supermarkets, where Cow & Gate branded gifts such as dummies and growth charts are distributed. This photo was taken in Sainsbury’s, September 2007:

 

And here they are at it again in Tesco, August 2011:

 

Aside from these examples, there’s also leaflets in health centres, email spam, snail-mail spam, supermarket ‘shelf talkers’ (plastic signs that flop out at you), pamphlets in Bounty packs, billboards, posters on public transport, internet pop-ups, TV commercials, radio advertisements, text messages, newspaper ads, social network advertising, YouTube video advertising, and several other gems I shall reveal bellow. Formula companies have an array of arsenal in their fight to line your baby’s gut, and more importantly, their pockets. The more cash they make, the more surplus funds they have to pump into their marketing arsenal. At this point you may wish to ponder what arsenal the breastfeeding movement has, and whose interests it serves.

Trick #2: Exploit the lazy

The rise of the bottle-feeding culture has fundamentally distorted our perception of the normal biology and psychology of new motherhood. It has produced a growing number of women who do not want babies’ feeds to dictate their lives. They cannot cope with the frequency of feeds required to maintain a good milk supply; that is, they cannot content themselves to sit and feed.

Why do a significant proportion of women now find that they 'can't cope' with something that's a biologically normal part of parenting? Women coped sufficiently well until formula marketing kicked off in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They also coped during the Second World War when formula was unavailable.

 

By claiming convenience, formula companies tap into the psyche of the lazy parent. However as I described in my article “10 (Selfish) Things I Love About Breastfeeding ”, formula feeding is anything but convenient and in many cases it’s tantamount to a pain in the arse.

No time is formula feeding more of a pain than during the night. Kettles to boil, powder to mix, milk to cool - it’s enough to wake the neighbours; so formula companies have produced ‘Goodnight Milk’. The name itself is an idealizing claim, as it suggests the milk is necessary for babies to sleep through the night. The suggestion itself is concerning, as sleeping deeper puts babies at higher risk of cot death. UNICEF has maintained that “Goodnight Milk is not necessary for any baby and there is no independent evidence to support the claim that they help babies settle or that they are easy to digest.” (UNICEF 2010 ).

 

 

Goodnight milks are thickened with cereals to make them harder to digest. Aside from the risk that they will be used to replace a night time breastfeed, another worry is that the products could encourage parents to put their baby to bed immediately after bottle-feeding which would rot a baby's developing teeth.

As with goodnight milk, the following SMA television advertisement plays on mothers’ insecurities and concerns about night feeding. It features a voice over from a man promising not to pretend to be asleep when his young baby wakes up and promising to do his share of night feeding. A scene from the ad shows a dad falling asleep next to a boiling kettle and a tin of SMA Progress in the middle of the night:



I’m sorry to burst SMA’s bubble but as Gabrielle Palmer (The Politics of Breastfeeding , 2009) has pointed out, “The reality is that few fathers actually do take the whole responsibility of infant care and most artificial feeding is still done by mothers”.

Click HERE to read the entire article on The Alpha Parent

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.

From India Today - http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/131314/columns/a-sweet-move-from-unicef-to-nestle.html

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.

Read the full article online at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/131314/columns/a-sweet-move-from-unicef-to-nestle.html

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.

Read the full article online at: http://www.wphna.org/2011_mar_hp0_news.htm

Elisabeth Sterken
Director INFACT Canada

Winning the "breastfeeding prize".... can you guess what it is?

I just read this guest blog on PhD In Parenting, and before I was even 1/4 of the way through steam was venting from my ears!!!!

Short version: mom busts her ass to exclusively breastfeed her baby, at 4 weeks post partum appointment she's told congrats for exclusively breastfeeding: she wins a prize!!!

.... wanna guess what it was?!?

A lovely bag with bottle nipples, assorted baby paraphernalia, and of course, a great big can of baby formula!!

Who's formula was it you ask?  I'll give you three guesses but I think you'll only need one.

Nestle
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!

...and people still think that they are giving away all these freebees for the greater good of the world?  That they are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts?  NO people.  They do this to undermine breastfeeding mothers where ever they can.  Do you really think they WANT you to breastfeed?  This one mother figured out exactly why Nestle gives out these "freebees" and more importantly learns that Nestle/Gerbers "helpful" breastfeeding information is full of lies, and designed to sabotage breastfeeding.

A booby-trapped breastfeeding prize

....“I got this really cute, sporty black diaper bag full of all kinds of stuff. There were Nuk bottle nipples, some breastfeeding pamphlets that look to be full of lots of information, and, oddly enough, a huge can of formula. I mean, I won’t use that… no clue why that’s in there, but the rest seems cool. Can’t believe I got a prize!” she giddily reported.
“Laura, do you remember what brand of formula it was?” I asked.
“Oh, sure. It was Good Start, I think,” she replied.
Of course it was.
It was at that moment that I had to explain Booby Traps to my best friend, and I had to let her know that she had been handed one of the worst Booby Traps I’d ever heard of- a Nestle/Gerber sponsored diaper bag filled with formula, disguised as a “prize” for a mother who has busted her ass to exclusively BREASTFEED her son for the past 4 weeks.....

.....It also includes several pamphlets of information. The back of each one lists a 1-800 number for a line staffed by “registered dieticians” to discuss “breastfeeding and infant nutrition.” The main number is 1-800-811-7500, the Spanish number is 1-800-511-6862. The website given on the back is www.gerber.com.
The pamphlets are titled “Breastfeeding Basics,” “Gerber Generation Health Record,” and “Gerber Generation Nutrition Guide.”
I didn’t have time to discuss the content of each one with her, but we did go through the last one, “Gerber Generation Nutrition Guide,” pretty thoroughly because I was interested to see when they suggested parents begin babies on solids. This pamphlet is dedicated to discussing feeding “stages,” though they don’t break down the stages by assigning an actual age to each one. Instead, they break them down into Birth, Supported Sitter, Sitter, Crawler and Toddler.
The first mention of introducing solids (rice cereal) is made in the Supported Sitter section, specifically stating, “by around the middle of the first year almost all babies can start solid foods…Breastfed babies need certain nutrients from food to compliment breastmilk, such as iron and zinc. These nutrients can be found in fortified infant cereal. Zinc can also be found in pureed meats.”
There is also a handy chart in this section titled, “Transitioning From Breastmilk To Formula,” and breaks it down, eliminating a nursing session and adding a bottle of formula each day over a course of 14 days.
In the Sitter section there is an interesting bit about nursing strikes, titled “If Your Baby Loses Interest In Breastfeeding.” It states, “It may be weaning time if your repeated efforts to get your baby re-interested in breastfeeding don’t succeed. It may be that she’s ready to give up nursing.”
In the Crawler section breastfeeding isn’t even mentioned except on the food groups chart where it recommends 24 oz of breastmilk or formula a day or on demand. It goes on to also recommend 1 oz at 2 times a day of grains and cereal, 1/2cup of veggies, ½ cup of fruit and 1 oz of meat or beans.
Throughout the entire pamphlet there is a lot of emphasis put on the importance of iron, and it states over and over that iron can be found in their formula and iron fortified cereals.  Laura even remarked, “As an uniformed consumer of formula, and all around new parent, the impression I get is they are really trying to push the extra iron in their foods and formulas, and make me feel like breastfeeding won’t provide enough (iron).”
I guess I can’t say I’m surprised, but I sure am disheartened to see something so blatantly underhanded given to a good friend who is doing everything in her power to ensure her own breastfeeding success. I’m glad we had the chance to chat while her little boy was nursing. I’m glad I had the opportunity to tell her all about Booby Traps. And though she may have felt a little embarrassed at first, she is empowered and informed now. She’s even taking the Nestle Boycott to heart and anxious to learn more about it… when she comes up for air (a.k.a. when her son starts sleeping more than 3 hour stretches).

HERE to read the entire article on PhD in Parenting

It's Halloween weekend, so don't forget to boycott Nestle

For more articles and information on the evils of Nestle:

Informed Parenting: Nestle: the McDonalds of baby foods!

Informed Parenting: THIS is why we boycott Nestle...

More Nestle lies and political double talk

 

Informed Parenting: Who do you trust? 

Nestle: the McDonalds of baby foods!

PhD in Parenting writes about the fact that Nestle and the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) have jumped into bed together and are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the citizens of the States. What drives me nuts is that the average joe blow actually BELIEVES that Nestle is doing this out of the goodness of their heart and not for material gain.  Yes, that's right sheeple:  Nestle is a fuzzy warm hearted company that is only looking out for the good of you and your family, they would never do ANYTHING to lead you astray.

NEW AAP INITIATIVE: HEALTHY ACTIVE LIVING FOR FAMILIES (HALF): RIGHT FROM THE START

HEALTHY ACTIVE LIVING FOR FAMILIES (HALF): RIGHT FROM THE START is a program of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). It is sponsored through the generous support of the Nestlé Nutrition Institute (NNI). The goal of the HALF project is to develop and test a series of positive, family-focused messages specific to obesity prevention and care for the following developmental stages: infancy, toddlerhood, and early childhood/preschoolers, which can be used at pediatric well-child visits. These messages and materials will be unique from those already in existence because they will be crafted using the medical home framework, a developmental approach to children’s care, and parent-tested.

Learn more about the HALF project

 HERE to read the original press release

"sponsored through the generous support of the Nestlé Nutrition Institute (NNI)".....are they kidding?  They actually expect us to take them seriously- believe that the AAP really cares about the health of our children by accepting blood money from NESTLE?!  Nestle?....... The most boycotted company in the world, the company that had done the most amount of harm to infants and young children through unethical promotion of it's infant formulas and deliberate sabotage of breastfeeding mothers world wide?  The company that has created a mega food conglomerate that has cornered several markets and saturated them with products that are simply unfit for human consumption, or at least: unfit for healthy consumption.  To make matters even worse, Nestle, and it's sister company Gerber, manufacturer baby formula (which I'm not even going to get into here) and baby & toddler foods, foods that they are trying to market as healthy:

GRADUATES LIL’ ENTRÉES* are nutritious mealtime combinations in one convenient ready-to-serve tray for your toddler. They are as delicious as they are nutritious, carefully cooked for just the right taste and texture. Each LIL' ENTRÉE contains a full serving of veggies. Plus, there are no added preservatives or artificial flavours. Each entrée provides protein, vitamins and minerals.

 ...the also contain enough salt to stop the charge of a stampeding rhino.  Really. Let's look at what Nestle/Gerber calls "Nutritious" and make some comparisons.... just to put it into perspective

GERBER® GRADUATES™ LIL' ENTRÉES™ Chicken & Pasta Wheel Pick-Ups in Sauce with Peas gives your toddler a full serving of vegetables and is made with white chicken meat and wholesome pasta. It has no added preservatives or artificial flavours and is a good source of iron – helping your toddler grow with every nutritious bite.

 The chicken and pasta wheel meal also contains 550mg of sodium- McDonalds large fries contains 430 mgs of sodium.



GERBER® GRADUATES™ LIL' ENTRÉES™ Pasta Stars in Meat Sauce with Green Beans
contains 4.5 mg of fat and 400mg of sodium- almost as much fat  and over twice as much sodium as a KFC drumstick!!

....yea, they are making products that are just soooooooo healthy for your children.


PhD in Parenting comments:

Healthy Active Living Initiative.  According to the news release:

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), with support from the Nestlé Nutrition Institute, has established the Healthy Active Living for Families (HALF) Project to help identify and develop patient and family educational tools and materials. The materials will be specific to obesity prevention and care targeted to the following developmental stages: infancy, toddlerhood, and early childhood/preschoolers. These unique materials will be scientifically validated and crafted using a developmental approach to children’s care, with special attention on creating culturally appropriate materials and incorporating plain language to make it easy for all families to understand best health practices.

The press release also provides data from a Nestlé study on feeding of infants and toddlers that was conducted in 2002 and 2008:

Last year, the 2008 FITS data revealed that toddlers and preschoolers in particular had diets high in saturated fat and sodium, and lacking in fruits, vegetables, and fiber. The researchers noted that caregivers have made significant improvement in infant feeding compared to the first FITS study in 2002, but may need more guidance and diligence to improve the diets of toddlers and preschoolers who are mirroring the often unhealthy eating patterns of American adults.

The press release is full of language underscoring the unhealthy food and lifestyle habits of American families, but interestingly no criticism of the processed food industry. Instead, the press release talks about how the Nestlé Start Healthy, Stay Healthy™ Nutrition System will help parents raise healthier children and how the “partnership with AAP is truly a natural and cohesive collaboration, as Nestlé research and GERBER® product development focus specifically on the healthy growth and development of children from birth up to age four.”
Sounds great, right?

WRONG

The problem with this scenario is that Nestlé is one of the companies pushing unhealthy food.

 HERE to read the entire article on PhD in Parenting

As I said at the beginning, I'm rather shocked that the AAP would align itself with a company with such a blackened reputation like Nestle who has a long history of leading people astray.

Or perhaps I should spell that A-S-H-T-R-A-Y.

KELLY D. BROWNELL and KENNETH E. WARNER of Yale University; University of Michigan have written a very interesting paper that compares the food industry with the tobacco industry.  I strongly recommend reading the entire paper as the information is highly relevant to  this topic of childrens health. The paper is long, but I will quote below their final paragraphs:

The Perils of Ignoring History: Big Tobacco Played Dirty and Millions Died. How Similar Is Big Food?

A Question of Priorities
Today 50 Americans will be murdered; 89 will take their own lives;
40 will succumb to HIV/AIDS; and 112 will die from motor vehicle
injuries. This sums to 291 deaths, compared to the 1,200 people who
will die as a result of their smoking. But one act might have saved even
more lives: an honest approach by the industry, one consistent with the
industry’s pledge in the 1954 “Frank Statement” and precisely opposite
the disastrous route it chose to follow (Cummings, Morley, and Hyland
2002).
Food industry versions of the “Frank Statement” and its aftermath are
unacceptable. Americans now realize there is a serious problem with the

nation’s diet, physical activity, and weight. There is growing awareness
of who is selling what and to whom they are selling, coupled with
mounting insistence on corporate accountability. A survey of California
residents found that 92 percent believe childhood obesity is a serious
problem. Eighty percent believe it has worsened more than other issues
such as drinking and drug abuse; 65 percent believe that advertising
for food and beverages contributes to the problem in important ways;
64 percent believe that advertising has a big impact on food choices of
young children; and 66 percent feel the best way to solve the problem
is through actions such as changes in school policies and labeling at
fast-food restaurants, rather than leaving matters solely to parents and
children (California Endowment 2003).
In the 1950s, cigarette advertisements claimed, “More doctors smoke
Camel than any other cigarette.” Ronald Reagan was well known for his
endorsement of Chesterfield cigarettes. The world was not then aware
of the havoc that cigarettes could visit on the body. Only recently have
we become truly aware of the catastrophic impact of the modern food
and physical activity environment. Now we must wonder how history
will view Shaquille O’Neal promoting Burger King, Britney Spears
and Beyonc´e Knowles working with Pepsi, and Cedric the Entertainer,
Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, Serena and Venus Williams, and Donald
Trump all endorsing McDonald’s.
To protect profits, the food industry must avoid perceptions that it
is uncaring and insensitive, ignores public health, preys on children,
intentionally manipulates addictive substances, and knowingly, even
cynically, contributes to death, disability, and billions in health care
costs every year. Stated another way, it cannot afford to look like tobacco.
Whether it is like tobacco is a question of central importance.
The food industry is more complex than tobacco, with scores more
players and thousands more products. Some companies, such as fruit and
vegetable sellers, promote inherently good products, while some like the
candy companies do the opposite. Most companies, especially the major
players such as Nestle, Unilever, and Kraft (the world’s three largest
food companies), do a great deal of both. Such companies have many
ways to leave a better health footprint on the world (reformulating their
products, selling fewer calorie-dense foods and more healthy choices,
curtailing marketing to children, and withdrawing from schools). The
question is whether they will behave in honorable, health-promoting
ways or will sink to the depths occupied by tobacco.
286 K.D. Brownell and K.E. Warner
There are perils for both industry and the population of ignoring
tobacco’s history. The tobacco industry embraced political and public
relations strategies that were effective initially and continue to thwart
needed change, particularly in the developing world. However, the industry’s
deceit, its ostensible but not genuine commitment to public
health, and its manipulation of scientists and politicians created an antitobacco
mentality that swept the United States and opened the door for
legal, public health, and legislative actions that have helped cut smoking
in the United States by more than half.
That such strategies tempt the food industry is not surprising, and in
fact we seemany similarities in the behavior of tobacco and food industry
players (table 1). The food industry playbook suggests maneuvers to
thwart changes that would benefit public health—strategies that may
ultimately be self-defeating. Laying claim to concern for the public while
continuing its destructive practices (e.g., selling calorie-dense foods in
schools and marketing unhealthy foods to children), paying scientists to
do research that helps the industry, funding front groups, using money to
influence professional organizations, failing to rein in trade associations
that distort science and make doubt one of their deliverables, and perhaps
formulating products in ways that maximize their addictive potential
all make industry vulnerable but, most important, hurt the public.
A number of threats lie in the food industry’s future. If the industry
does not make change preemptively, public opinion may turn against
it, as it did against Big Tobacco. The turn may occur more rapidly
with food because of the cynicism bred by tobacco and a general antiindustry
outlook inspired by players such as Enron, Tyco, WorldCom,
and subprime lenders (Vogel 1989). Litigation could be one source of
shifting opinion, with addiction potentially a looming target. Whether
food companies are ever found responsible for health damages may be
less important than the disclosure of internal documents generated by
the discovery phase of the legal process. Tobacco was seriously wounded
when its tactics became public knowledge. As an example, U.S. District
Judge H. Lee Sarokin said in a 1992 pretrial ruling ordering the tobacco
companies to turn over internal research documents:
All too often in the choice between the physical health of consumers
and the financial well-being of business, concealment is chosen over
disclosure, sales over safety, and money over morality. Who are these
persons who knowingly and secretly decide to put the buying public
The Perils of Ignoring History 287
at risk solely for the purpose of making profits and who believe
that illness and death of consumers is an apparent cost of their own
prosperity?
Above all, the experience of tobacco shows how powerful profits can
be as a motivator, even at the cost of millions of lives and unspeakable
suffering. There is ample indication that giving industry the benefit of
the doubt can be a trap. To avoid this trap, industry must meet clear
expectations, complete with benchmarks and timetables and with an
objective evaluation of the impact of the industry’s actions. Malfeasance
should be addressed swiftly, so that change is made necessary within
weeks or months, not years.
The food industry could make needed changes through voluntary selfregulation,
or the changes could be mandated by regulation or legislation
or prompted by litigation (or some combination of all three). Food
industry players have promised a number of self-regulatory changes,
including pledging to market better foods in schools and to scale back
their marketing to children (Sharma, Teret, and Brownell 2008). Hard
lessons were learned in the tobacco arena when voluntary actions by
industry appeared helpful but were not and served to stall government
action for many years. This reality suggests that the food industry
should be held to a high standard, which includes nonindustrydetermined
benchmarks for success and an objective evaluation of their
impact. Failure to achieve public health goals should trigger mandated
action.
Will the food industry adopt a playbook that promotes public health,
or will its future come to rival tobacco’s past? Certainly there is an
opportunity if the industry chooses to seize it—an opportunity to talk
about the moral high ground and to occupy it.

It has been proven time and again that pressure from the individual and public outcry can bring changes.  I personally think it's time to tell the AAP that we don't appreciate their choice of partners and that choosing to align themselves with a company with the wretched reputation like Nestle only soils their own standing in the publics eye.  Because truly, who can trust any organization that affiliates themselves with Nestle?

Power of the Blogging mum!

Last week The Toronto Glove & Mail released a news story on the Old Navy "formula powered" onsie shirt fiasco. While I was pleased that this article at least mentioned the WHO Code (World Heath Organizations International Code of Marketing Breastmilk Substitutes), it just skimmed over the greater issues involved:  That any marketing and promotion of Infant Formula is wrong.

   New resolutions by WHO on the Code are working hard to strive to end all infant formula advertising, marketing and promotion, and encouraging all governments to put the Code into federal laws to protect infant health.

The WHO resolutions go on to URGE countries to:

  -to develop and/or strengthen legislative, regulatory and/or other effective measures to control the marketing of breastmilk substitutes in order to give effect to the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and relevant resolution adopted by the World Health Assembly;
- to end inappropriate promotion of food for infants and young children and to ensure that nutrition and health claims shall not be permitted for foods for infants and young children, except where specifically provided for, in relevant Codex Alimentarius standards or national legislation.

Sadly though, marketing gurus and advertising moguls do not seem to understand the devastating effect that mass marketing of infant formulas have on the health of infants.  They do not see that marketing baby T-shirts with logos like "Formula Powered" are a desperate attempt by formula manufacturers to continue the social delusion that feeding infants formula is normal. 

Sadder still is the fact that there are those out there that would argue that the company has a right to promote whatever they want on their t-shirts.  Really? Would people be as complacent if the t-shirt read "Beer Powered"?  or "Ritalin Powered"?

The article in the Globe & Mail does point out something that is very important though:  The power of the written word.  The power of moms (and dads) to influence companies and to bring about change through blogging, chatting, texting, and emailing about companies that are not toeing the line and in need a wake up call.

A number of mom bloggers have linked to the $5 (U.S.) item on Old Navy’s website while calling for a boycott of the chain, casting the item as a propaganda tool of the formula industry.
Cate Nelson of the green parenting blog ecochildsplay.com wrote about the outfit on Sept. 13: “As if the formula industry didn’t have enough power … now your baby can empower it with this adorable onesie. Yuck, right?”
She and others are posting both the Old Navy corporate contact information for complaints and the form letters they have received back from the company.
Canadian breastfeeding expert Jack Newman has also waded into the controversy. A letter he wrote last week about being “shocked” by the logo is being circulated on websites including iinformedparenting.blogspot.com and drmomma.org.

And formula companies are often under fire, with activist bloggers reminding them of the World Health Organization’s international code urging member states to curb the advertising and promotion of “breast-milk substitutes.” In a recent case, alarm bells were sounded by blogs - such as the Canadian phdinparenting.com - after formula samples were included in gift bags given to guests (including several mom bloggers) at an event hosted by StrideRite/Robeez last month in New York.
It’s a climate that presents a major challenge for companies, observers say. A few years ago, social media was considered the new frontier for effective viral marketing. Now, the virus can infect back.
“This is handling fire. It’s not just a cheap, easy way to get to your customer, but it’s a very volatile medium,” said Jay Handelman, an associate professor of marketing at the Queen’s University School of Business.

 We do have the power to bring about change.  Thanks to the internet we have voices that can be spread far and wide and be heard by thousands, if not millions, of people world wide.  Breastfeeding activists have managed to get Nestle sponsorship of Health conventions cancelled, they have gotten formula samples pulled from gift bags, they have worked tirelessly to change societies perception that formula feeding is a "choice" and that breastfeeding is a "choice".  Breast is not best- breastfeeding is normal.  You don't "Choose" to do something that is completely normal- you just do it.  Like Hearing.  Seeing.  Walking.  It's normal.  There may be those out there that can not do it for medical or physical reasons, but that doesn't mean that they "choose" not to. Yet Formula companies lead people to believe that they can choose.  They lure the unwary parent with statements like "Closest to breastmilk" or "Only you can decide how to feed your baby. Talk to your physician and the people you trust. Get the information you need, and feel good about every decision you make - because you'll always do what's best for your baby. After all, only the best is good enough."... this last one is from the breastfeeding page on Nestle.ca.   With every piece of breastfeeding advice that Nestle offers, there's their comments about how their formula can also offer wonderful benefits for babies. 

"DHA and ARA (omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids) are nutrients naturally found in breast milk, or made naturally by baby (and you) from two essential omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids: alpha linolenic and linoleic acids. These essential fatty acids are also found in breast milk and are currently added to all infant formulas so that babies can make their own DHA and ARA.
Experts believe that DHA and ARA are essential for healthy brain and eye development. In fact, long-chain fatty acids like DHA and ARA accumulate in the brain and eye tissue of babies before birth - especially during the last trimester of pregnancy. For these reasons, in addition to the added alpha linolenic and linoleic acids that babies use to make their own DHA and ARA, some infant formulas are now enriched with pre-formed DHA and ARA....
Some studies have shown that infant formulas enhanced with DHA and ARA have positive effects on mental and visual development over the short term.(1, 2, 3) But other studies do not show any additional benefit compared to infant formulas without added DHA and ARA.(4, 5) And long-term effects have not yet been reported. What this means is: DHA and ARA enriched infant formulas may be beneficial to infants' mental and visual development over the short term". 

Strange, I thought I was reading an article on Breastfeeding ?  Why is it all about Formula? Did you notice the subtle twisting of the words in the last sentence? "DHA and ARA enriched infant formulas may be beneficial to infants' mental and visual development over the short term".  Nestle seems to forget that DHA & ARA are naturally found in Breastmilk, so shouldn't that sentence read "DHA and ARA are beneficial to infants' mental and visual development"? I mean, it is an article in a section of their website that is supporting breastfeeding, right?


...You didn't really think that Nestle was going to write something to encourage women to breastfeed, did you?   But apparently many people think it's a good place to get breastfeeding advice. Strange. Maybe they'll start up their own clothing line too!


But I digress (as usual.... you know me, can't stand to let an opportunity to bash Nestle go by!)


We have voices and our voices can be heard EVERYWHERE!!!  So next time you see a flagrant violation of The WHO Code, or a horrifying example of formula marketing, let the world know!!  If you don't have the time, shoot it over to me and I'll yell it from the rooftops for you! Seriously! Let me know!

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.

Download the IKEA Social Initiative Brochure!

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

Baby Milk Action News Update

Email update : 16 July 2010

• New t-shirts for summer
• Nestlé responds to email campaign
• United Reformed Church Assembly backs the Nestlé boycott

New t-shirts for summer

Our popular breastfeeding fridge magnet t-shirt is now available in apricot. And our baby at the breast t-shirt is now available in Kiwi. Fruity!

View and order at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/tshirts.html

Nestlé responds to email campaign

Have you emailed Nestlé about its latest baby milk marketing strategy? Nestlé is claiming its breastmilk substitutes 'protect' babies and are 'The new "Gold Standard" in infant nutrition'.
Let us know if you have had a response from Nestlé. At the moment it is refusing to stop pushing its baby milk in this way and is ignoring the marketing standards adopted by the World Health Assembly.
As we say, Nestlé puts its own profits before infant health and the rights of mothers. We need to increase the pressure.
For our analysis of Nestlé's response and a suggested reply see:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/cem/cemjul10

United Reformed Church Assembly backs the Nestlé boycott

The United Reformed Church Assembly restated its support for the Nestlé boycott on 4 July.
Many thanks to everyone who supported the boycott. We look forward to continuing to work with URC in encouraging Nestlé to make the changes set out in our four-point plan for ending the boycott.
For our press release see:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/
pressrelease04jul10

More Nestle lies and political double talk

In  June 2010, Baby Milk Action director Mike Bradey called for the public to contact/email Nestle:  "Nestle is promoting its baby milk with the claim it 'protects' babies and that it is, 'The new "Gold Standard" in infant nutrition'."  I wrote an email to Nestle with regards to their extremely misleading advertising campaign, and HEY!  they finally responded to it!

Dear Mrs Arnold,

There is no question about breast-milk being the best start a baby can have in life. To emphasise this, the following statement, "Important notice: Breast-milk is best for babies. Before you decide to use an infant formula consult your doctor or clinic for advice", appears on all our infant formula products. However, for infants who, for whatever reason, cannot be breastfed, it is critically important that a safe, high-quality alternative be made available.

Nestlé makes significant investments in R&D and technology to continuously deliver innovative products with scientifically proven nutritional benefits. We continue to make scientific and technical advances in the area of nutrition and we make sure that our infant formula products are “best in class” to meet as far as possible the nutritional requirements of non-breastfed babies.

The functional benefits that are encapsulated in the “Protect” logo are scientifically substantiated – the result of many years of intensive research on how best to improve the formula composition to stimulate the infant’s immune system. The logo helps distinguish this particular formula from other less advanced products but does not claim in any manner that infant formula is superior or equal to breast-milk.

Infant formula products are reviewed, registered and/or regulated by governments to ensure that consumers have technically precise and accurate information. In all countries where the “Protect” logo is used, it is consistent with the local legislative and regulatory framework.

For your information, the World Health Assembly does not formulate marketing standards – rather it makes health policy recommendations to Member States. It is up to each Member State to determine how it implements these policy recommendations in their own country, according to their development goals and their social and legislative framework.

We hope to have answered your concerns. Do not hesitate to contact us if you have further questions.

Gayle Crozier-Willi
Public Affairs
Nestlé SA

As I am in Canada, I immediately contacted INFACT Canada  and forwarded them a copy of the email.  Elizabeth Sterken immediately replied that, Yep, it was the usual Nestle cut & paste letter of B*llsh*t.  So Here is my response I'm sending back to Nestle lackey Gayle Crozier-Willi

Dear Ms Crozier-Willi,

Thank you for your response to my email.  However your cut & paste reply does not answer the questions nor shed any truth on the subject.

The WHO Code in no uncertain terms states that regardless of national legislation, manufacturers and distributors of artificial feeding product are responsible to adhere to the provisions of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (which you ALL signed). In country after country nestle violates the Code and puts infants at risk for increased illness and death. The WHO notes that over 1 million infants die every year because of insufficient breastfeeding, hence the urgency as again this year by the World Health Assembly for increased implementation to the International Code and this was especially directed at the industry.

WHA resolution May 2010:

Infant and young child nutrition

The resolution urges governments and the baby foods industries to strengthen their efforts to implement the Global Strategy on Infant and Young Child Feeding, The Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative and the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes. Including :

- to strengthen and expedite the sustainable implementation of the Global Strategy for infant and young child feeding including emphasis on giving effect to the aim and principles of the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes, and the implementation of the Baby-friendly Hospital Initiative;
- to develop and/or strengthen legislative, regulatory and/or other effective measures to control the marketing of breastmilk substitutes in order to give effect to the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and relevant resolution adopted by the World Health Assembly;
-to end inappropriate promotion of food for infants and young children and to ensure that nutrition and health claims shall not be permitted for foods for infants and young children, except where specifically provided for, in relevant Codex Alimentarius standards or national legislation;


Nestle's nutrition and health claims are not scientifically substantiated as you claim. If you go to the Cochrane Reviews on the addition of fatty acids (DHA and ARA) to infant formula the meta analysis notes that there is no evidence for the claims and that further research is needed.

As well the WHO does in no way recommend that infant formula be the next best to mothers milk when unavailable. The WHO recommends expressed milk, donor milk and wetnursing as preferable before infant formula.

If Nestle wants to be truthful, then it should admit to violating the Code and make compensation to the death and illness this has caused to millions of mothers and babies.  It is about time that Nestle  policed itself with some ethical actions, instead of promoting a product that has caused irreparable damage to societies around the world with their unethical marketing claims and promotions.

Ahhhhh... the joys of dealing with Nestle.  If you were involved with the June Baby Milk Action contact Nestle Movement, have you received a response from Nestle?  And if you did, did you respond to it and tell them to stop their lies?