Search This Blog

Showing posts with label infant formula companies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label infant formula companies. Show all posts

Monday, October 17, 2011

Disney and Similac join forces to ruin breastfeeding.


Yep, Disney has joined forces with Similac, to put together pediatric kits to be sent out to OB/GYN offices across america.  These kits will of course contain samples of infant formula and baby bottles and coupons and some sort of Disney promotional paraphernalia.  Over 2 million of these kits are heading out to mothers leaving the hospital with their new babies.

When I read this article I just about had a conniption.  I"m not a Disney fan at the best of times, but now that they've joined forces with Similac, I've just discovered a new company to boycott!!!




..... Similac's latest conniving plan to interfere with breastfeeding mothers.  I'm so mad.

I strongly suggest that we start a writing campaign to Disney.  Unfortunately, after 30 minutes of searching, this is the ONLY way I've been able to discover to contact them in any way: https://register.go.com/disney/corporate/corporatecitizenship/index


In their 2010 Corporate Citizenship Report, on the topic of "Human Rights" Disney says:



In implementing our human rights commitments, we will focus on the following four areas.
  • Policy Statement:
  •  Our policy statement is a first step in articulating our commitment. Our priority over the next year is to communicate this policy more widely within the Company and further engage our employees in upholding and implementing it.
  • Assessment:
  •  We are enhancing our assessment of potential human rights impacts in targeted areas including our workplace practices, labor conditions in the supply chains making Disney-branded products and our role in promoting the well-being of children. Over the next year, we will refine our assessment process to ensure we are continuing to focus on the areas of greatest importance to our business.
  • Implementation:
  •  We seek to identify ways in which we can adopt best practices and new approaches that enable us to enhance human rights considerations.
  • Reporting:
  •  We will continue to share our progress in our biennial citizenship report.
I think that we can agree that jumping into bed with Similac pretty much goes
 against their "role in promoting the well-being of children".

I think that "Jenn's World" gives a great run down of all that's wrong with this whole mess. 

Disney and Similac Team Up to Undermine Breastfeeding for Moms


Reading this, I am absolutely horrified.  First of all, the so called “Pediatric Kits” are nothing more than items designed to undermine breastfeeding.  These kits are given out with coupons and formula and bottles so that mothers have them within ready access.  If something is difficult with breastfeeding and the mom does not have the help they need to breastfeed, these “kits” come in handy.   The middle of the night desperation is exactly what the formula companies are banking on.
The partnership idea is particularly gross to me because these companies add something else to the kit – something that is appealing to an even wider group. Breastfeeding mothers who would otherwise refuse the kit, may take it because of cereal, clothing, or Disney coupons or samples (things that have nothing to do with breastfeeding).  Once that kit is in the house, the undermining of breastfeeding happens.
Finally, it is clear that this is all revenue driven because the release discusses the money that they are making!  These kits are not about helping out new moms, they are about selling a product.  The only way to sell formula is if people are not breastfeeding.  A way to stop people from breastfeeding is to market formula in sneaky and underhanded ways like giving out “pediatric kits” in hospitals full of formula and coupons to Disney.

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Occupation in Canada: Stand Up.

With Occupy Wall Street well into it's third week, and Occupy Canada gearing up, I know that many of you in Canada might not think that "Occupying" Canada is important.  Many here in Canada might think that since our government has policies in place to (hopefully) insure that our banks and money machines don't fall apart like has/is happening in the US that there is no reason to protest,  that the protests planned in Canada's major cities are just an excuse to go out on the streets and wave signs and beat drums.  Talking about  the "Occupations" are not the usual topics that I tend to focus on, but I'd like to take a moment to explain WHY you should be standing up and telling the government that we're pissed off.

As a mom of 5, a breastfeeding and natural child birth advocate, and someone who spends hours a day researching subjects to do with health and family, I can tell you that we have a LOT to protest about. With two little sick boys today, I won't be able to get into huge details with lots of links, but I'd like to give you some basic thoughts to mull over and perhaps research for yourself.

I'm not an economist or a political science graduate, so I'm not going to get into those deep dark details of money and inflation.  I want to point out  those things that directly effect me and my family, and perhaps effect your family as well. I want to talk about what pisses me off and what's wrong with our current system.

Mega corporations are running our government.
  
Big Pharma: We are constantly bombarded with the government pushing the agenda of the mega corporations and we are faced with policies and regulations that have been set up to herd the public to do what the Mega Corps want.  Examples?  How about Big Pharma?  You all know that I'm not a supporter of the vaccine schedule that Health Canada is pushing.  But have you thought about the influence that Big Pharma has on our government- at all levels from municipal to federal?  Have you thought about how their money and power is used to bend the government to push their agenda?  Let alone the fact that  Big Pharma has convinced Canada to add more and more vaccines to the "schedule" (the number of vaccines  scheduled has doubled since 1980), lets talk about the massive waste of money of the H1N1 vaccine.  Through the machinations of the major power players of the pharmaceutical world, the Canadian Government spent $1.5 Billion on Vaccines between Oct and Nov of 2009 alone! ... and near half of those doses sit expiring in storage. Oh and that doesn't include the money spent on the Tamiflu medication that (doesn't work) was stockpiled by the government. The taxpayers paid for those vaccines. Vaccines that were suppose to save us from a "Pandemic" that never happened and was a nothing more than a money grab for Big Pharma from  countries all over the world.
...sorry, I'm ranting.  The topic of Vaccines does that to me.

Lets talk about how the government lets Big Pharma get away with charging unbelievable amounts of money for life saving drugs.  5 years ago I had some serious migraine headaches and my doctor gave me a sample pill to take- she saved these samples for patients like myself who don't have drug coverage/insurance- because these pills were $75 EACH!!  Even if these tiny pills were made with pure gold, they couldn't possibly be worth that much money!  Cancer drugs, heart medications, drugs for debilitating diseases..... family loose their homes to save the lives of their loved ones.  Yes, In Canada.

How about the pressure of Big Pharma to get the government to ban health foods and alternative medicines? They don't want you to know about simple cures that they can't make money on, and our government follows along in their agenda by creating laws that make health foods and alternative medicines difficult if not impossible to buy/market/use.

Infant Formula companies: Canada signed the World Health Organizations International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes  when it was adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1981.  Since then the Canadian government has done absolutely NOTHING to promote the Code, or to protect the Code through the creations of laws.  Infant Formula companies, like Nestle, give millions of dollars to our government, major health agencies and hospitals, and they use the power of their money to influence government policies. Earlier this year I organized a working group that wrote a detailed response to Health Canada's call for submissions on their Draft Document "Infant Nutrition- birth to 6 months".  One of our biggest concerns, echoed by INFACT Canada, was that three of the members of the Committee in charge of writing and editing this draft doc were in the pay of infant formula companies!!!  When Infant formula companies are allowed to do whatever they want, the health of our youngest citizens are in jeopardy.

Mega corporations are raking in the money hand over fist, and paying their upper management and CEOs ludicrous amounts of money..... that we pay for.  Take a look at what the Ontario Hydro companies are paying and then ask yourselves why your electric bill so high.  Take a look at what your banking executives salaries are and ask your self why you still have to pay fees every month for the banks to use YOUR money to make money.

Our provincial health care coverage is being chipped away every year.  The cost of living is going up almost as fast as the cost of gold, yet our salaries pretty much stay the same.  Our farmers are going out of business, yet the cost of flour has doubled in the last 3 years.  The price of buying a house anywhere near a major population centre has increased to the point that only the rich can afford to even think about buying a house.  The cost of rent has risen to reflect these costs and many families can barely afford to put a roof over the heads of their children.  The price of gasoline continually jumps higher and higher making it harder and harder to afford to drive to work from outlying regions (but you can't afford to move any closer to work because the prices are too high).  Food costs are soaring.  Energy costs are soaring..... everything is soaring except the money in your wallet...... and taxes just keep going up and up.

Canada has the largest freshwater stores in the world, produces the most wheat, has more oil that Saudi Arabia, more arable land per capita than any other country. We have natural gas coming out the wazoo, every precious mineral known to man, the best fresh produce and livestock in the world.....
  

....Yet we are in debt up to our eyebrows, and one in 6 children in our great nation lives in poverty.

Now I don't know  how you feel, but in my opinion this is WRONG.  I don't know about you, but I'm planning on standing up to my government and telling them that I don't believe in them anymore, I don't want them any more, and things HAVE to change. 




Thursday, September 15, 2011

More Babbling about the Babble Debacle

Yesterdays article "Breasts, Babble, Boycotts and Bashing: Baffled?" was a long one, and after many hours of reading, researching and writing I finished it up.... even though I hadn't really said all that I wanted to say on the topic.  I woke up this morning, toying with the idea of writing a second article to further expand on my  thoughts..... but not today.

Then I fired up my computer this morning and the first thing I read on my Facebook feed was this post by Emma Kwasnica:


"‎Jamie called the Similac hotline just to see, folks. Nice "support" she got from them. :/
"So, just now out of curiosity, I looked up the "Similac Feeding Hotline" number, and gave them a faux compliant. I said my 8 month old (true) isn't seeming satisfied after nursing (false). Their immediate solution? "Why don't I take your address and we can overnight you some samples, and then we can put in an order to ship direct to you? Then its just as convenient, you won't even need to leave the house!" When I said that I wanted to continue breastfeeding, they said (direct quote here): "Your baby has all the benefits breastfeeding offers. After 6 months, breastfeeding and feeding quality formula are exactly the same."

 WTF!?!?!

This, my friends, is why I am so outraged at Babble and their never ending infant formula ads that are all over their website.  As I said yesterday, Babble owners Alisa and Rufus might want to claim that the Similac ads on their breastfeeding and infant feeding sections are allowing women to make a choice on how they will feed their infant, but I will point out that making a choice based on an ad by a company is NOT making an Informed Choice.  And saying that women can make a choice based on receiving so called "breastfeeding advice" from a company that makes money off of women that don't breastfeed...... well that just plain stupid.

As Jamie learned this morning, Similac's  so called "breastfeeding experts" have no interest in helping women breastfeed.  Why would they?  They are being paid out of the money that Similac makes from selling families infant formula.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in Never Never Land and sniffing too much pixie dust.

THIS is WRONG!!! 
THIS does NOT help women breastfeed.
THIS is one reason that North America's breastfeeding rates are so pathetic.







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

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, September 29, 2010

Replacing the Mother: Dangers of DHA & ARA in Formula

Yesterday I was commenting on a Facebook group about the dangers of DHA & ARA additives in Infant formula. Last night as I wandered through the grocery store I stopped in the infant formula aisle and curiosity go the better of me:  I HAD to look! WOW! Do you know I couldn't find a single infant formula that did NOT contain added DHA & ARA?!?  I know that some parents might be fooled by the marketing ploy of the infant formula manufacturers with their fancy health claims "closer than ever to breastmilk"  because DHA & ARA are naturally occurring in human breastmilk.  The marketing is sneaky and underhanded and designed for one purpose only:  To sell more formula.

Even the FDA refuses to say that DHA & ARA oils added to infant formula been proven to be safe.
"The FDA did not affirm the safety of Martek’s DHASCO and ARASCO for use in infant formula. Among its reasons: stud-ies showing adverse events including diarrhea in infants."

The quote below is from an extensive pdf document put out by the Cornucopia Institute.  It gives extensive information about the so-called DHA and ARA that is being added to infant formulas-which at the time including organic formulas- and discusses the process that is used to create these chemicals, the marketing effect on the general public, the illegal aspects of the usage of these chemicals in organic products, the studies that disprove the formula companies claims and show the dangers of these additives.  Recently the USDA has banned the use of these chemical oils DHA & ARA in organic labled products.

If you know anyone using infant formulas to feed or supplement their babies, please be sure to pass this information to them. Print off a copy of the pdf document and take it in to your doctor, your midwife, your local hospital, and public health offices: Every parent needs to be aware of the dangers of these chemicals and medical personnel that parents might turn to for information on supplementing and formula feeding need to be fully informed to be able to give their advice. 

Replacing Mother — Imitating Human Breast Milk in the Laboratory
Novel Oils in Infant Formula and Organic Foods:
Safe and Valuable Functional Food or Risky Marketing Gimmick?

Babies who are fed infant formula with Martek’s DHASCO and ARASCO are consuming novel foods, never before incorporated into the human diet, which are extracted with the use of the toxic chemical hexane. DHASCO and ARASCO are derived from fermented algae and fungus.
While allowed on the market, the FDA has not approved or affirmed the safety of DHASCO and ARASCO that are added to infant formula. Scientists and pediatricians question the adequacy of the premarket testing that was performed on DHASCO and ARASCO for infant formula, and the National Academies of Sciences has published these concerns.
While infant formula manufacturers claim that DHASCO and ARASCO are “proven to aid in brain and eye development,”171 scientists do not agree—DHA and ARA in a mother’s breast milk may benefit brain and eye development, but studies on adding DHASCO and ARASCO to formula show inconsistent and inconclusive results.
To extract DHASCO and ARASCO, Martek uses hexane, a toxic chemical by-product of gasoline refining that is classified by the EPA as a toxic pollutant.172 Martek also claims that it has developed an extraction process that does not use hexane but has been unwilling to say anything more on the subject. Trace amounts of hexane have been detected in some foods where it has been used as a processing agent. Adequate testing has not taken place to determine whether this is a risk to infants, children, or adults.
The National Organic Program regulations prohibit ingredients that are extracted with organic solvents such as hexane, nor do the regulations allow the inclusion of “by-products of microorganisms” in organic foods. The Cornucopia Institute has filed a complaint with the USDA, alleging that the addition of Martek’s DHASCO and ARASCO to organic foods is a violation of the national organic standards.
Most importantly, this report provides an alternative source of information regarding DHASCO and ARASCO in infant formula for parents, children’s caretakers, and medical professionals. Infant formula manufacturers have consistently given only one side of this story; claims that DHASCO and ARASCO make formula “closer than ever to breast milk” and have been “proven to aid in brain and eye development” abound, while making no mention of safety concerns regarding the oils themselves and the possible processing contaminants. Moreover, members of the scientific community doubt the benefits to infant development of adding DHASCO and ARASCO to infant formula. Parents and caretakers who are either considering switching to infant formula or are already feeding their infants formula can use this report to make more informed health and nutritional decisions on behalf of their babies.

 Click HERE to read the entire report by the Cornucopia Institute

Friday, July 16, 2010

Baby Milk Action News Update

Baby Milk Action

Email update : 16 July 2010

  • New t-shirts for summer
  • NestlĂ© responds to email campaign
  • United Reformed Church Assembly backs the NestlĂ© 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!
Apricot t-shirt
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

Sunday, July 11, 2010

Melamine in baby formula.....Again

My cousin, who spent several weeks in China this past year just forwarded this news story to my attention.

I wonder how many people will be beheaded this time?


China dairy products found tainted with melamine


Li Xiaoquan and wife Li Aiqing with picture of twins, one of whom 
died from melamine-tainted milk, 2008 Six babies died and 300,000 were ill during the 2008 melamine scandal
Chinese food safety officials have seized 64 tonnes of raw dairy materials contaminated with the toxic industrial chemical melamine.
The Chinese state news agency, Xinhua, reported that the quality watchdog in Qinghai province took the material from a dairy plant there.
Test samples showed the milk powder carried up to 500 times the maximum allowed level of the chemical.
The use of melamine in milk in 2008 killed six babies and made 300,000 ill.
The latest batch of contaminated powder was first found in Gansu province and traced back to the Dongyuan Dairy Factory in Minhe Country, in neighbouring Qinghai.
Another 12 tonnes of finished milk powder products, also found to be tainted, were seized.
The owner and a production manager at the factory have been detained.
Around 38 tonnes of the raw material were bought from Hebei province, the source of the 2008 scandal, police said.
This means traders may have bought tainted milk that should have been destroyed in 2008 with the intention of processing it and reselling it, Wang Zhongxi, deputy chief of Gansu's quality control bureau, was quoted as saying.
Serious concern Melamine is used to make plastics, fertilisers and concrete.
When added to food products it indicates a higher apparent protein content but can cause kidney stones and kidney failure.

In 2008, melamine was found in the products of 22 Chinese dairy companies - one out of every five suppliers in China.
The scandal caused outrage among consumers and fraught parents and led to an international outcry about the standards of food safety in China.
More than 20 people were convicted for their roles in the scandal, and two people were executed.
Despite a crackdown on melamine-laced milk products, some batches of tainted supplies have been found on sale since 2008.
It is not clear whether any powder from this new discovery has been sold on the open market or if anyone has fallen ill, but the fact melamine is still being used illegally will be a cause for serious concern, the BBC's Damian Grammaticas in China says.


  • 10 Sept 2008: 14 babies reported ill in Gansu province
  • 15 Sept: Beijing confirms first deaths from the contamination
  • 22 Sept: Number of ill babies soars to tens of thousands
  • 23 Sept: Other countries start to recall Chinese dairy products
  • 23 Dec: Main dairy firm involved, Sanlu, goes bankrupt
  • 31 Dec: Four senior Sanlu executives go on trial
  • 22 Jan 09: Two men sentenced to death and 19 jailed in Hebei

Friday, July 9, 2010

THIS is why we boycott Nestle...

...among many other reasons. 

For me, it was the first time I saw this picture that I made the decision to never buy a Nestle product again.  When I saw this picture and read this woman's story, I cried for days. (yes, I was pregnant at the time, but hormones aside- can YOU look at this picture and not get teary?).
Infant formula KILLS babies in these third world countries. (Hell, Infant formula kills babies in North America too! And infant formula companies just keep mass marketing their product to these unsuspecting mothers regardless of the death toll. Sick.

One baby lived.
The other died.
(This is a TRUE photgraph and a true story.  In some countries, women are told not to fully nurish girls, because the governments do not want them to live.  Boys are a much more valuable asset, especially in countries where they control the population.  This photo shows the difference between a baby boy being breastfed and a baby girl being forumla fed.  Formula feeding babies in other countries without clean water sources, access to more forumla, or the proper serving sized proves, as in this photo, to be deadly. Boycott NestlĂ©!)
"Use my picture 
if it will help" said this mother.  The children are twins, the 
bottle-fed child is a girl who died the day after this photograph was 
taken by UNICEF in Islamabad, Pakistan.  Her brother was breastfed and 
thrived.   The mother was incorrectly told she could not breastfeed both
 children. This horrific picture demonstrates the risk of artificial 
infant feeding, particularly where water supplies are unsafe.  The 
expense of formula can lead to parents over-diluting it to make it last 
longer or using unsuitable milk powders or animal milks.  In all 
countries breastfeeding provides immunity against infections.  Despite 
these risks the baby food industry aggressively markets breastmilk 
substitutes encouraging mothers and health workers to favour artifical 
infant feeding over breastfeeding.  Such tactics break marketing 
standards adopted by the World Health Assembly. Nestlé, the world's 
largest food company, is found to be responsible for more violations 
than any other company and is the target of an international boycott.
"Use my picture if it will help" said this mother.  The children are twins, the bottle-fed child is a girl who died the day after this photograph was taken by UNICEF in Islamabad, Pakistan.  Her brother was breastfed and thrived.   The mother was incorrectly told she could not breastfeed both children.  This horrific picture demonstrates the risk of artificial infant feeding, particularly where water supplies are unsafe.  The expense of formula can lead to parents over-diluting it to make it last longer or using unsuitable milk powders or animal milks.  In all countries breastfeeding provides immunity against infections.  Despite these risks the baby food industry aggressively markets breastmilk substitutes encouraging mothers and health workers to favour artifical infant feeding over breastfeeding.  Such tactics break marketing standards adopted by the World Health Assembly. NestlĂ©, the world's largest food company, is found to be responsible for more violations than any other company and is the target of an international boycott.
SCN News May 1991

This picture tells two stories: most obviously, about the often fatal consequences of bottle-feeding; more profoundly, about the age-old bias in favour of the male. The child with the bottle is a girl - she died the next day. Her twin brother was breasfed. This woman was told by her mother-in-law that she didn't have enough milk for both her children, and so she should breastfeed the boy. But almost certainly she could have fed both her children herself, because the process of suckling induces the production of milk. However, even if she found that she could not produce sufficient milk - unlikly as that would be - a much better alternative to bottle-feeding would have been to find a wet-nurse. Ironically, this role has sometimes been taken by the grandmother. In most cultures, before the advent of bottle-feeding, wet-nursing was common practice....

HERE to read the entire article

Thursday, June 3, 2010

Formula does not help make breastfeeding easier

I've said it all before and with some bits of news that have been floating around recently, I can only hope that the "powers that be" might be finally listening.  (not that that guarantees that they'll do any thing about it...some pockets are pretty deep).  An insider in the “Recommendations for a Provincial Breastfeeding Strategy for Ontario” work group has just told me that they are bringing their recommendations to the Government.... we shall have to wait and see just how much they will water it down (because they will...I have a nice shiny dollar that says there is no way they won't meddle with it!!).

But in the mean time, I don't have much else to add to the topic ...  this picture says it all:

Saturday, May 29, 2010

World Health Assembly adopts two landmark Resolutions on the promotion of junk foods and baby foods

I just received this news from Mike Brady of Baby Milk Action.  While it is very exciting, and the best new resolutions to be passed in the past 30 years since the original launch of the World Health Organization's (WHO)International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, it still is not LAW.  Much works needs to be done to encourage Canada and the US to adopt these amendments and to put "The Code" into federal laws to protect our children and families from unethical marketing of Infant Formulas and baby foods. Francesco Branca,  WHO,  Director of Nutrition for Health and Development, said:
"We look forward to an increased commitment of governments and civil society to enforce the Resolution, developed thanks to the leadership of the government of Peru and other countries who have successfully tackled nutrition challenges".
WHO Secretariat Report,stated: "Breastfeeding is today the single most effective preventive intervention for improving the survival and health of children"  

"-Mindful of the fact that implementation of the global strategy for infant and young child feeding and its operational targets requires strong political commitment and a comprehensive approach, including strengthening of health systems and communities with particular emphasis on the Baby-friendly Hospital Initiative, and careful monitoring of the effectiveness of the interventions used;
-Recognizing that the improvement of exclusive breastfeeding practices, adequate and timely complementary feeding, along with continued breastfeeding for up to two years or beyond, could save annually the lives of 1.5 million children under five years of age.
-Aware that multisectoral food and nutrition policies are needed for the successful scaling up of evidence-based safe and effective nutrition interventions;
-Recognizing the need for comprehensive national policies on infant and young child feeding that are well integrated within national strategies for nutrition and child survival;
-Convinced that it is time for governments, civil society and the international community to renew their commitment to promoting the optimal feeding of infants and young children and to work together closely for this purpose;"
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.

Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi of South Africa stated last week:  "I think they (infant formulas) must be banned altogether, throughout the whole world," he said, adding that he might propose the idea during discussion of the millennium development goals (MDGs)at the World Health Assembly. He knew that he would shock people with his proposed ban, but formulas were "no different from skin lightening creams", which are banned in South Africa.

Now is the time for us to bring pressure onto the governments to finally make the WHO Code into laws and to enforce those laws to protect our next generations. Leading developed countries like Canada and the US need to set the example for the rest of the world.  How sad is it that several  impoverished African countries  (I'm currently trying to find my list, and will post it as soon as I do) have instituted The Code into laws, yet Canadian and American governments are still allowing the formula manufacturers to control them. Unfortunately, in our western society, money talks.... and there are no rich companies that champion Breastmilk.



World Health Assembly adopts two landmark Resolutions on the promotion of junk foods and baby foods
21st May 2010
Palais des Nations,  Geneva 

Tonight, 29 years after the adoption of the landmark  International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, the World Health Assembly adopted two new historic Resolutions which should have long lasting impact on child health.

First a Resolution proposed by Norway called for Member States to implement a set of recommendations which aim to reduce the impact on children of the marketing of 'junk' foods.  They call on Governments to restrict marketing,  including in 'settings where children gather' such as schools and to avoid conflicts of interest.

The 'junk food code' (1) as many refer to it - was closely followed by a Resolution on Infant and Young Child Nutrition, which also highlighted the impact of commercial promotion  of baby foods on the health and survival of children, including the rise in childhood obesity, which is now known to be closely linked with artificial feeding, (2)

The baby food Resolution was debated over three days and tackled several controversial issues including,  firstly the need to protect promote and support breastfeeding in emergencies and the need to minimise the risks of artificial by ensuring that any required breastmilk substitutes  are purchased, distributed  and used according to strict criteria.  Member States were urged to follow the  Operational Guidance on Infant and Young Child Feeding in Emergencies for Emergency Relief Staff. (3)

Secondly -  a policy change  that has been resisted  by the baby food industry for three decades  - that there should be an 'end to all forms of inappropriate promotion of foods for infants and young children and that nutrition and health claims should not be permitted on these foods'. The Resolution should stop the widespread use of claims about better IQ, better eyesight or protection from infection, which are so misleading to parents. The misleading advertising and labelling of baby foods also entices parents to use them before recommended age of 6 months.

The baby food industry were out in force to witness as Member State after Member State highlighted their continued irresponsible and inappropriate promotion.  Thailand,  expressed "deep concern over the ineffectiveness of voluntary measures' and called for legislative measures to control the marketing."  The Delegate of Swaziland, Thulani Maphosa,  highlighted his country's concern about the unethical sponsorship of health workers by baby food companies and the need to address conflicts of interest.
Francesco Branca,  WHO,  Director of Nutrition for Health and Development, said: "The World Health Assembly has recognized the importance of nutrition for the achievement of the health Millennium Development Goals and the need to scale up nutrition interventions but first of all exclusive breastfeeding. We look forward to an increased commitment of governments and civil society to enforce the Resolution, developed thanks to the leadership of the government of Peru and other countries who have successfully tackled nutrition challenges".
 Dr Elizabeth Mason, Director of Child and Adolescent Health said,  " We are very excited about  this Resolution and the renewed commitment for  the protection of breastfeeding and will continue its support to Member States on this very important issue."

Other Resolutions, on the Millennium Development Goals and the Prevention Pneumonia, adopted today,  recognised the core importance of breastfeeding in reducing child mortality.  As the WHO Secretariat Report,stated: "Breastfeeding is today the single most effective preventive intervention for improving the survival and health of children"


Below and Attached  is an unedited version of the new Resolution which contains some minor mistakes. The Official  text will be on the WHO website early next week : http://apps.who.int/gb/e/e_wha63.html



1 Marketing of food and non-alcoholic beverages to children.

2 Children who are breastfed are at reduced risk of obesity.77 Studies have found that the likelihood of obesity is 22% lower among children who were breastfed.78 The strongest effects were observed among adolescents, meaning that the obesity-reducing benefits of breastfeeding extend many years into a child’s life.Another study determined that the risk of becoming overweight was reduced by 4% for each month of breastfeeding.79 This effect plateaued after nine months of breastfeeding.  SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF CHILDHOOD OBESITY  WITHIN A GENERATION  White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity Report to the President   May 2010 http://www.letsmove.gov/tfco_fullreport_may2010.pdf

3  Operational Guidance on Infant and Young Child Feeding in Emergencies for Emergency relief staff. V 2.1) (www.ennonline.net/resources/6

For more information contact:
Patti Rundall, OBE, Policy Director, Baby Milk Action  prundall@babymilkaction.org   +44 (0) 7786 523493
Annelies Allain,  Director, International Code Documentation Centre  annelies.allain@gmail.com
Dr Arun Gupta, Breastfeeding Promotion Network of India: arun@ibfanasia.org


SIXTY-THIRD WORLD HEALTH ASSEMBLY WHA63.23
Agenda item 11.6 21 May 2010
Infant and young child nutrition


The Sixty-third World Health Assembly,
Having considered the report on infant and young child nutrition;
Recalling resolutions WHA33.32, WHA34.22, WHA35.26, WHA37.30, WHA39.28, WHA41.11, WHA43.3, WHA45.34, WHA46.7, WHA47.5, WHA49.15 and WHA54.2, WHA 55.25, WHA58.32, WHA59.21, WHA61.20 on infant and young child nutrition, and on nutrition and HIV/AIDS and the Codex Alimentarius Guidelines for use of nutrition and health claims;
Conscious that achieving the Millennium Development Goals will require the reduction of maternal and child malnutrition;
Aware that worldwide malnutrition accounts for 11% of the global burden of disease, leading to long-term poor health and disability and poor educational and developmental outcomes; that worldwide 186 million children are stunted  and 20 million suffer from the most deadly form of severe acute malnutrition each year; and that nutritional risk factors, including underweight, suboptimal breastfeeding and vitamin and mineral deficiencies, particularly of vitamin A, iron, iodine and zinc, are responsible for 3.9 million deaths (35% of total deaths) and 144 million disability-adjusted life years (33% of total disability-adjusted life years) in children less than five years old;
Aware that countries are faced with increasing public health problems posed by the double burden of malnutrition (both undernutrition and overweight), with its negative later-life consequences;
Acknowledging that 90% of stunted children live in 36 countries and that children under two years of age are most affected by undernutrition;
Recognizing that the promotion of breast-milk substitutes and some commercial foods for infants and young children undermines progress in optimal infant and young child feeding;
Mindful of the challenges posed by the HIV/AIDS pandemic and the difficulties in formulating appropriate policies for infant and young child feeding, and concerned that food assistance does not meet the nutritional needs of young children infected by HIV;
Concerned that in emergencies, many of which occur in countries not on track to attain Millennium Development Goal 4 and which include situations created by the effects of climate change, infants and young children are particularly vulnerable to malnutrition, illness and death;
Recognizing that national emergency preparedness plans and international emergency responses do not always cover protection, promotion and support of optimal infant and young child feeding;
Expressing deep concern over persistent reports of violations of the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes by some infant food manufacturers and distributors with regard to promotion targeting mothers and health-care workers;
Expressing further concern over reports of the ineffectiveness of measures, particularly voluntary measures, to ensure compliance with the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes in some countries;
Aware that inappropriate feeding practices and their consequences are major obstacles to attaining sustainable socioeconomic development and poverty reduction;
Concerned about the vast numbers of infants and young children who are still inappropriately fed and whose nutritional status, growth and development, health and survival are thereby compromised;
Mindful of the fact that implementation of the global strategy for infant and young child feeding and its operational targets requires strong political commitment and a comprehensive approach, including strengthening of health systems and communities with particular emphasis on the Baby-friendly Hospital Initiative, and careful monitoring of the effectiveness of the interventions used;
Recognizing that the improvement of exclusive breastfeeding practices, adequate and timely complementary feeding, along with continued breastfeeding for up to two years or beyond, could save annually the lives of 1.5 million children under five years of age.
Aware that multisectoral food and nutrition policies are needed for the successful scaling up of evidence-based safe and effective nutrition interventions;
Recognizing the need for comprehensive national policies on infant and young child feeding that are well integrated within national strategies for nutrition and child survival;
Convinced that it is time for governments, civil society and the international community to renew their commitment to promoting the optimal feeding of infants and young children and to work together closely for this purpose;
Convinced that strengthening of national nutrition surveillance is crucial in implementing effective nutrition policies and scaling up interventions,
1. URGES Member States:
(1) to increase political commitment in order to prevent and reduce malnutrition in all its forms;
(2) 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;
(3)  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;
(4) 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;
(5) to develop or review current policy frameworks addressing the double burden of malnutrition and to include in the framework childhood obesity and food security and allocate adequate human and financial resources to ensure their implementation;
(6) to scale up interventions to improve infant and young child nutrition in an integrated manner  with the protection, promotion and support of breastfeeding and timely, safe and appropriate complementary feeding as core interventions; the implementation of interventions for the prevention and management of severe malnutrition; and the targeted control of vitamin and mineral deficiencies;
(7) to consider and implement, as appropriate the revised principles and recommendations on infant feeding in the context of HIV, issued by WHO in 2009, in order to address the infant feeding dilemma for HIV-infected mothers and their families while ensuring protection, promotion and support of exclusive and sustained breastfeeding for the general population;
(8)  to ensure that national and international preparedness plans and emergency responses follow the evidence-based Operational Guidance for Emergency Relief Staff and Programme Managers  on infant and young child feeding in emergencies, which includes the protection, promotion and support for optimal breastfeeding, and the need to minimize the risks of artificial feeding, by ensuring that any required breast-milk substitutes are purchased, distributed and used according to strict criteria;
(9) to include the strategies referred to in subparagraph 1(4) above in comprehensive maternal and child health services and support the aim of universal coverage and principles of primary health care, including strengthening health systems as outlined in resolution WHA62.12;
(10) to strengthen nutrition surveillance systems and improve use and reporting of agreed Millennium Development Goals indicators in order to monitor progress;
(11) to implement the WHO Child Growth Standards by their full integration into child health programmes;
(12) to implement the measures for prevention of malnutrition as specified in the WHO strategy for community-based management of severe acute malnutrition,  most importantly improving water and sanitation systems and hygiene practices to protect children against communicable disease and infections;
2. CALLS UPON infant food manufacturers and distributors to comply fully with their responsibilities under the  International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes and subsequent relevant World Health Assembly resolutions;
3. REQUESTS the Director-General:
(1) to strengthen the evidence base on effective and safe nutrition actions to counteract the public health effects of the double burden of malnutrition, and to describe good practices for successful implementation;
(2) to mainstream nutrition in all WHO’s health policies and strategies and confirm the presence of essential nutrition actions, including integration of the revised principles and recommendations on infant feeding in the context of HIV, issued by WHO in 2009, in the context of the reform of primary health care;
(3) to continue and strengthen the existing mechanisms for collaboration with other United Nations agencies and international organizations involved in the process of ensuring improved nutrition including clear identification of leadership, division of labour and outcomes;
(4) to support Member States, on request, in expanding their nutritional interventions related to the double burden of malnutrition, monitoring and evaluating impact, strengthening or establishing effective nutrition surveillance systems, and implementing the WHO Child Growth Standards, and the Baby-friendly Hospital Initiative.
(5)   to support Member States, on request, in their efforts to develop and/or strengthen legislative, regulatory or other effective measures to control marketing of breast-milk substitutes;
(6) to develop a comprehensive implementation plan on infant and young child nutrition as a critical component of a global multisectoral nutrition framework for preliminary discussion at the Sixty-fourth World Health Assembly and for final delivery at the Sixty-fifth World Health Assembly, through the Executive Board and after broad consultation with Member States.
Eighth plenary meeting,  21 May 2010
A63/VR/8

[1] Document A63/9.
[1] Document CAC/GL/23.
[1] World Health Statistics, May 2010.
[1] Available online at http://www.ennonline.net/resources/6.
[1] Community-based management of severe acute malnutrition: a joint statement by the World Health Organization, the World Food Programme, the United Nations System Standing Committee on Nutrition and the United Nations Children’s Fund. Geneva, WHO, 2007.