Baby
Milk Action (BMA) confuses whole-milk with
infant formula
[Baby
Milk Action comment: It is poor mothers who
are using inappropriate whole milk for infant
feeding. Rather than taking appropriate action
to reduce such occurrences, Nestlé
hides behind its bogus interpretation of the
World Health Assembly's marketing requirements
to continue with business as usual, putting
its own profits before infant health.]
In
its latest website release, the Non Governmental
Organisation Baby Milk Action (BMA) has again
provided misleading information about Nestlé
infant food marketing.
BMA
states that, in Argentina: Nestlé's
Sustainability Review shows the company's
internal auditors standing in front of a shop
display for baby food which includes whole
milks. Why do the auditors do this?.
The
product branded Nido to which BMA refers is
, in fact, a whole milk for children, and
not an infant formula according to the international
Codex Alimentarius food standards. Pediatric
authorities indicate that, past the age of
10 to 12 months, children are able to digest
whole cow's milk. According to international
pediatric consensus, no specially formulated
breast milk substitute is needed past this
age.
More
importantly in this case, Nido whole milk
is not promoted at all as a breastmilk substitute,
as 1) the graphic on the front of the label
clearly shows a glass of milk, not a feeding
bottle or infant feeding cup or anything picture/symbol
that can suggest to the consumer that the
product is suitable for babies; and 2) the
child shown on the back of the label is well
over the age of 1, when breast-milk substitutes
are not necessary. The product contains no
instructions for converting the product to
a breast-milk substitute, nor in any way infers
that it is appropriate as a breast-milk substitute.
[Baby
Milk Action comment: The picture in Nestlé's
publication shows the whole milk alongside
Nan infant formula in a section labelled 'baby
food'. Nestlé knows mothers are using
it in place of the much more expensive infant
formula, but refuses to remove it from the
baby food section.]
The
WHO Code Publication (WHO, 2000)* states that
products must be specifically marketed as
breast-milk substitutes in order to be considered
as such. "During the first four to six
months of life, breast milk alone is usually
adequate to sustain the normal infants
nutritional requirements. Breast milk may
be replaced (substituted for) during this
period by bona fide breast-milk substitutes,
including infant formula. Any other food,
such as cows milk, fruit juices, cereals,
vegetables, or any other fuuid, solid or semi-solid
food intended for infant and given after this
initial period, can no longer be consider
as a replacement
for breast milk (or as its bona fide substitute).(
)
So long as the manufacturers and distributors
of the products do not promote them as being
suitable for use as partial or total replacements
for breast milk, the codes provisions
concerning limitations on advertising and
other promotional activities do not apply
to these products."
Unfortunately,
Baby Milk Action continues to attempt to apply
the WHO Code to products which are not marketed
as breast-milk substitutes, in contradiction
to the WHO Code itself.
[Baby
Milk Action comment: Nestlé makes no
reference to World
Health Assembly Resolution 49.15, which
refers to complementary foods - see Janaury
- March 2003 action sheet].
In
addition, BMA states that Nestlé is
trying to promote whole cows milk as
a breast milk substitute.. This is non-sensical.
Nestlé manufactures and sells infant
formula (breast-milk substitutes) and follow-on
formula starting at 6 months. Why would the
company want to promote other non-suitable
products to feed infants in competition with
its own products?
[Baby
Milk Action comment: A study in Brazil, where
Nestlé's promotion of whole milks alongside
much more expensive infant formula is commonplace,
found that 70% of poor mothers who use powdered
milk for infant feeding are using whole milk,
rather than infant formula. Why does Nestlé
refuse to take the whole milk out of the infant
feeding section as we are requesting? Presumably
because it welcomes these extra sales to mothers
who cannot afford infant formula, regardless
of the impact on health. The use of any powdered
milk is symptomatic of the destruction of
the breastfeeding culture that has taken place
in Brazil over decades since the entry of
Nestlé into the country.]
Nestlé
calls on Baby Milk action to stop this misleading
campaign which undermines governments and
companies in their efforts to advance the
implementation of the WHO Code, based on the
decisions which governments have made regarding
what is a breast milk substitute.
[Baby
Milk Action comment: It is curious that Nestlé
makes its 'call' via its website without writing
to us directly on the issue. Our campaign
will continue until Nestlé decides
it will take action to protect infant health
rather than resorting to bogus and misleading
arguments to defend its practices.]
*
The Code is currently printed by WHO exactly
as it was in 1981, when it was first published.
[Baby
Milk Action comment: Here Nestlé confirms
its refusal to respect or even acknowledge
Resolution 49.15 adopted by the World Health
Assembly in 1996.]
|