The tables below give details of some recent violations. The date when the violation was last reported to Baby Milk Action or confirmed to be current is given. The violation reference is for Baby Milk Action's records. Please quote it if forwarding correspondence to us, if possible.

• Nestlé's PR Booklet Exposed - No. 4: 'instructions' not implemented
• Nestlé says that infant formula advertising 'benefits consumers'

Nestlé's PR Booklet Exposed - No. 4: 'instructions' not implemented

Company	Item	Date	Violation Reference
Nestlé	Nestlé's own 'instructions' not followed re: label of Piltti infant formula	January 1999	comp/99/01

On the December 1998 Campaign for Ethical Marketing action sheet we revealed that Nestlé was marketing infant formula in the Ukraine with an infant picture. We pointed out that Nestlé was doing this despite assurances in its Public Relations Booklet Nestlé: Complying with the WHO Code. The booklet states that, "Nestlé does not use pictures of babies on infant formula packages" and that "Nestlé international auditors regularly assess Code compliance around the world, reporting any breaches to Nestlé's top management who take swift, appropriate action." This booklet has already been exposed on past Campaign for Ethical Marketing action sheets. It shows the flags of 17 countries alongside quotes endorsing Nestlé's marketing activities. Closer inspection reveals that the quotes come from individuals or single organisations within the country. On past sheets we have focused on some of these countries and reported the violations found by monitoring conducted by IBFAN (the International Baby Food Action Network).

A freelance journalist contacted Nestlé after seeing the December 1998 action sheet to ask Nestlé about our claims. Nestlé admitted that the picture did appear on the pack of Piltti infant formula (shown below). Instead of attempting to justify this violation Nestlé stated, "Nestlé has a very strict policy on labelling of infant formula... the product in question was acquired from another company just last year and we are in the process of adapting the labels to meet Nestlé's stricter standards."

This may sound reasonable, but it does not acknowledge a key fact: the labels have clearly been re-printed at some time as they include the Nestlé name. Why wasn't Nestlé's "strict policy on labelling" followed when this was done?

Ask Nestlé to withdraw its booklet Nestlé: Complying with the WHO Code. The label on Piltti infant formula sold in the Ukraine (Batch No. 181) bearing the Nestlé name demonstrates that Nestlé's own 'instructions' regarding baby pictures have been broken.

Note This violation came to light at an NGO Capacity Building Seminar which Baby Milk Action conducted in Moscow in November 1998 with the support of UNICEF. It is hoped that a number of new IBFAN groups will be formed in the region as a result of the seminar and will commence work on implementing the International Code and Resolutions. Please send a donation to Baby Milk Action CIS Fund, 23 St. Andrew's Street, Cambridge, CB2 3AX, UK if you wish to support this work.

Violation	Complain to
Idealizing pictures are banned by Article 9.2. Companies "should regard themselves as responsible for monitoring their marketing practices" according to Article 11.3.	Mr. Peter Brabeck, CEO Nestlé, 55, av. Nestlé, 1800 Vevey, Switzerland. Fax: 41 21 922 6334

Nestlé says that infant formula advertising 'benefits consumers'

Company	Item	Date	Violation Reference
Nestlé	Advertising of Carnation infant formula and direct marketing to mothers	January 1999	comp/99/02

Nestlé has received acclaim from the marketing world for its campaign targeting new mothers in the United States.

According to a report in Direct Response magazine (January 1999) Nestlé's main competitors in the US infant feeding market are pharmaceutical companies (breastfeeding mothers are not even mentioned). Pharmaceutical companies have better contact with the medical community and hospitals in the US than Nestlé, so Nestlé decided to target mothers directly.

Nestlé's marketing techniques included advertising campaigns on television and radio. The advertisements "tapped into the intense excitement expectant parents and their families share" by portraying a couple breaking the joyous news of their pregnancy to the rest of the family.

Potential customers were offered complimentary subscriptions to a popular women's magazine. Along with the subscription, came a free sample of Nestlé's baby products. The report states: "This created a reason to communicate with the targets for the first time and constituted the first step in creating a relationship that could later be used to highlight the benefits of the full range of Carnation Baby Formulas. To pre-empt the competition, these sampling programmes were sent directly to the consumer at home, at the earliest possible stage within the woman's pregnancy. It was important for Nestlé to catch the mother before she gave birth in hospital and fell under the influence of the midwives, nurses and doctors."

These activities are blatant and shocking violations of the International Code, which applies in all countries.

Although the United States voted against the International Code in 1981 it supported Resolution 47.5 at the 1994 World Health Assembly which reaffirmed support for Resolution 34.22, under which the Code was adopted. In other words, the United States has supported the Code since 1994, although it has done little to implement it.

As well as undermining breastfeeding in the United States, these activities are a cautionary tale for other countries and give an illuminating insight into Nestlé's business philosophy.

We also featured Nestlé's activities in the United States on the May 1998 Campaign for Ethical Marketing action sheet and reported Nestlé's response in The Tip of the Iceberg Volume 2. When asked by letter writers to stop advertising infant formula Nestlé responded: "The US is not a signatory to the WHO Code... The US's decision not to sign the WHO Code is based upon the belief that the WHO Code infringes upon their basic constitutional rights of free speech. Marketing and advertising benefit the market place and consumers by increasing competition, lowering prices and helping to educate consumers on product choices."

This does not acknowledge the fact that the International Code was adopted because "the marketing of breastmilk substitutes requires special treatment, which makes usual marketing practices unsuitable for these products." (from the preamble).

Write to Nestlé and:

• Ask it to explain why it advertises Carnation infant formula in the United States when this is banned by Article 5.1 of the International Code.
• Ask if it is aware that the United States supported Resolution 47.5 at the 1994 World Health Assembly which included a statement of support for the International Code.
• Ask why Nestlé does not abide by Article 11.3 of the International Code which calls on companies to follow it "independently of any other measures."
• Ask if Nestlé plans to use similar direct marketing techniques in other countries.

Mr. Peter Brabeck,
CEO Nestlé,
55, av. Nestlé,
1800 Vevey,
Switzerland.
Fax: 41 21 922 6334

Violation	Complain to
Advertising of products within the scope of the International Code is banned by Article 5.1. Provision of gifts to pregnant women is banned by Article 5.4. Direct and indirect contact with pregnant women is banned by Article 5.5

You can be a Code Monitor.