|
This
page was last updated on 26 October 2001.
Please
keep writing to the companies concerned (background information,
contact details and suggested letters are given on the action
sheet). Please forward any responses you receive to us,
even if they are the same as the ones given here.
Responses
to:
-
-
Nestlé
plays word games with Cameroon violation (coming soon -
we hope!)
Will
companies now please change their labels!!
See the action sheet
for full details. Baby Milk Action's suggested letter was as
follows:
|
Your company
has been violating Resolution 47.5 of the World Health
Assembly for the past seven years by labelling complementary
foods for use before 6 months of age. As you know this
Resolution was based on the scientific evidence of the
harm caused by early introduction of complementary foods.
The World
Health Assembly has this year again indicated that complementary
foods should not be promoted for use before 6 months.
Resolution 54.2 calls for action to "protect,
promote and support exclusive breastfeeding for six
months as a global public health recommendation... with
continued breastfeeding for up to two years of age or
beyond." Will
you now give a clear public undertaking to change your
complementary food labels so that none promote complementary
feeding before 6 months of age and do not undermine
breastfeeding in any other way?
Will you
also state clearly that your company will do nothing
to try and undermine or weaken the recommendation of
the World Health Assembly?
The International
Association of Infant Food Manufacturers attempted to
block this Resolution from being discussed at this World
Health Assembly. Did your company support this strategy
and, if so, why?
|
Abbott's
response
Abbott's
email response to a letter writer on 30th May 2001 (given in
its entirety below) avoids answering any of the questions raised.
We asked campaigners to keep sending messages to Abbott to demonstrate
the level of concern over its potentially dangerous labels.
Abbott responded to a letter writer on 10th October 2001 with
the second message.
 |
|
Abbott
Laboratories agrees with the American Academy
of Pediatrics (AAP) and all other leading medical
societies that breastfeeding is the ideal choice
for feeding a baby. However, if a mother cannot
breastfeed, discontinues breastfeeding prior
to 1 year or she chooses to supplement, iron-fortified
formula is recommended. The choice of feeding
should be made by the mother in consultation
with her health care professional.
Abbott
responsibly provides educational materials and
products for health care professionals and mothers
to support successful breastfeeding.
Abbott
supports the World Health Organization's (WHO)
goals to increase breastfeeding. However, there
must be alternatives to breast milk to meet
the needs of some infants and mothers. We will
continue to support mothers and health care
professionals in a responsible manner by providing
educational materials and products.
Ross
Consumer Relations
|
|
 |
Abbott's
second response
This
response was sent to a letter writer on 10th October 2001. It
is reproduced in its entirety.
Abbott
attempts to justify ignoring Resolution
47.5 which called for complementary feeding to be fostered
"from the age of about six months" over 7 years
ago and indicates that it will also ignore Resolution
54.2 adopted in May 2001 unless governments introduce "local
regulations or standards."
It should
be remembered that the World Health Assembly gives 6 months
as the appropriate age for introducing complementary foods as
a "global public health recommendation". This
does not stop health workers advising mothers to introduce complementary
foods earlier if this is necessary. It is disappointing that
Abbott intends to undermine the global public health recommendation
by continuing to promote complementary foods for use at 4 months
of age.
Please
keep pressing Abbott to put infant health first by changing
its labels in accordance with Resolution WHA54.2
and Resolution WHA47.5,
adopted in 1994.
Please also contact your politicians to encourage them to implement
these Resolutions if they are not already implemented in your
country (over 60 countries already have policies promoting exclusive
breastfeeding to 6 months).
|
|
I
am writing in response to your letter to Miles
White regarding Abbott's position to World Health
Assembly (WHA) Regulations 47.5 and 54.2.
Abbott
Laboratories supports science that demonstrates
breastfeeding is the best way to feed an infant.
No infant formula or complementary food will
ever be able to duplicate the composition or
benefits of breast milk. However, numerous circumstances
may necessitate the initiation of infant formula
feeding or the introduction of complementary
foods.
Abbott
takes its responsibility to upholding the 1981
International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk
Substitutes very seriously. Abbott supports
and abides by the Code in developing countries,
including those developing countries where the
WHO code has not been locally adopted. In addition,
where developing countries have a more rigid
promotional standard than the WHO Code, we recognize
these standards supersede the WHO Code and we
adjust local promotional efforts accordingly.
[Baby
Milk Action comment: "Promotion" of
breastmilk substitutes is specifically banned
by Article
5.1 of the International Code].
Abbott
adheres to regulations and policies of regulatory
agencies worldwide that govern the marketing
of infant formulas and complementary foods.
The
WHA Resolution 47.5 (May 1994) urged governments
to "foster appropriate complementary feeding
from the age of about six months." WHO
reconfirmed in April 1995, that to cater to
the needs of individual infants, an age range
(four to six months) is an essential element
of its Infant Feeding Recommendation. WHO pointed
out that starting complementary feeding too
early or too late are both undesirable.
As
WHA Resolution 54.2 has just recently been adopted,
governments must now decide how to incorporate
this resolution into local regulations or standards.
Abbott will comply with any regulation or standard
that prohibits the marketing of complementary
foods before six months of age.
Abbott
Laboratories is not a member of the International
Association of Infant Formula Manufacturers
and, therefore, cannot comment on their strategies.
Abbott is committed to the health and welfare
of infants around the world and strives to provide
the best products at the medically appropriate
time.
I
hope this information helps you to understand
Abbott's commitment to responsible marketing
for infant formula and complementary foods throughout
the world.
Sincerely,
Laureen
M. Cassidy
Director, International Communications
LMC/fmc
|
|
|
Dumex's
response
Dumex
Potimex cereal labels carry the photo of a young baby
and state the product is for babies from four months of age.
In its
response (sent to a letter writer on 14 August and reproduced
in its entirety below with stresses as in the original) Dumex
indicates that it will not change its labels in response to
Resolution WHA54.2. Dumex
states it will change its labels once local laws and regulations
change, which tends to be a long, slow process and one opposed
by the baby food industry.
While
Dumex highlights concerns over too late introduction of complementary
feeding, it does not acknowledge that all of these issues were
considered by the WHO Expert Consultation and the World Health
Assembly before the adoption of the Resolution.
Exclusive
breastfeeding for 6 months is a 'global public health recommendation'
which is undermined if products are labelled and promoted for
use from 4 months of age. The recommendation does not prevent
health workers supporting and advising mothers who need or wish
to introduce complementary foods earlier than 6 months, but
attempts to ensure that this is free of commercial pressure
from companies with a vested interest in selling more baby food.
Please
keep pressing Dumex to put infant health first by changing its
labels in accordance with Resolution WHA54.2
and Resolution WHA47.5,
adopted in 1994.
Please also contact your politicians to encourage them to implement
these Resolutions if they are not already implemented in your
country (over 60 countries already have policies promoting exclusive
breastfeeding to 6 months).
|
|
Copenhagen,
August 14, 2001
Subject:
WHA Resolution 54.2
With
reference to your letter addressed to the Chief
Executive Officer of DUMEX/International Nutrition
Company (INC) I am pleased to inform:
In
accordance with WHO Note for the Press No. 7:
'The Optimal Duration of Exclusive Breast-feeding'
- Results of WHO systematic review 2 April
2001-04-27, DUMEX/INC fully acknowledge that
breast milk is the preferred food for infants
and that exclusive breastfeeding is the best
choice of feeding regime for an infant for as
long as exclusive breastfeeding can sustain
adequate growth and development.
In
accordance with WHO Regional Publications, European
Series No. 87: 'Feeding and nutrition of
infants and young children', DUMEX/INC also
acknowledge that there is individual variation
in the optimal time for introducing complementary
foods, due both to individual variation in infants'
physical maturation and eating readiness and
individual variation in the adequacy of breast-milk
to provide sufficient energy and nutrients to
maintain growth and prevent nutritional deficiencies.
The
WHO Review 'The Optimal Duration of Exclusive
Breastfeeding: Results of a WHO systematic review'
also recognises that 'some mothers will
be unable to or choose not to follow this recommendation
and that these mothers should also be supported
to optimise their infant's nutrition'.
For
many reasons complementary foods should not
be introduced too early, but there will also
be problems if complementary foods are introduced
too late (Ref. WHO Regional Publications, European
Series No. 87: 'Feeding and nutrition of
infants and young children)':
"Inadequate
provision of energy and nutrients from breastmilk
alone may lead to growth faltering and malnutrition'.
WHO
Document 54/INF.DOC/4 (page 3, item 10) states:
'In summary, the expert consultation concludes
that exclusive breastfeeding to six months confers
several benefits on the infant and mother. However,
exclusive breastfeeding to six months can lead
to iron deficiency in susceptible infants. In
addition, the available data are insufficient
to exclude several other potential risks associated
with exclusive breastfeeding for six months,
including growth faltering and other micronutrient
deficiencies, in some infants.'
The
WHA resolution 54.2 is aimed at populations
rather than individuals and is a recommendation
to be rectified by individual Governments. DUMEX/INC
has followed the local laws, regulations and
ethical marketing codes in markets. Hence, DUMEX/INC
will change labelling of products of complementary
feeding in line with local changes of labelling
requirements.
Yours
faithfully,
International Nutrition Co. Ltd. A/S
Per
Hermansen
Managing Director
|
|
|
Gerber's
response
Gerber
(whose parent company is Novartis) labels some baby foods for
use before 6 months of age.
The
following response (reproduced in its entirety), dated 29 August
2001, was received by a letter writer. Gerber indicates it will
not change its labels to comply with Resolution
47.5 and the new Resolution
54.2 by re-labelling products for use from 6 months, at
the earliest.
Gerber's
refusal to abide by these measures is particularly worrying
as it claims to 'help develop best practices for the infant
nutrition industry.'
The
letter states that the company: "...at no time, suggests
that Gerber products should be substituted for breastfeeding".
This is simply untrue. Exclusive
breastfeeding for 6 months is a 'global public health recommendation'
which is undermined if products are labelled and promoted for
use before 6 months of age. The recommendation does not prevent
health workers supporting and advising mothers who need or wish
to introduce complementary foods earlier than 6 months, but
attempts to ensure that this is free of commercial pressure
from companies with a vested interest in selling more baby food.
Please
keep pressing Gerber to abide by the Resolutions.
|
|
August
29, 2001
Thank
you for writing to Novartis and informing us
of your concerns regarding our Gerber infant
nutrition products. Your letter to our Chairman
& CEO, Dr. Daniel Vasella, has been referred
to me for response on behalf of Dr. Vasella
and Novartis.
It
is very important to us that communication like
this takes place because for more than 70 years,
Gerber has provided outstanding nutrition and
support services for babies and parents. We
continually evaluate our standards and practices
in light of evolving global guidelines.
One
of the reasons that Gerber is a global leader
in its field is because we listen very carefully
to consumers' concerns and suggestions. We adhere
to and, in many cases, help develop best practices
for the infants nutrition industry.
That
said, I would like to clarify our position on
breastfeeding for you. Novartis/Gerber supports
breastfeeding as the ideal way to feed infants
because it provides critical benefits nutritionally,
physically and emotionally for mother and child.
We
design and market our baby care products to
be complementary to breastfeeding and will continue
to do so. Our products are safe, nutritious,
age appropriate and backed by decades of research.
They support the transition of infants to solid
food. We are proud of our contributions to infant
nutrition and, from our consumer comments, we
know there are millions of healthy "Gerber
babies" around the world.
Regarding
your concerns, I would like to note that:
-
We
are aware of and participated in the discussion
of the WHO on the duration of exclusive
breastfeeding and the introduction of complementary
foods. [sic]
-
In
most of Latin America, Gerber jars have
"start feeding at six months"
printed on the labels, and in Brazil, the
traditional likeness of the "Gerber
Baby" has been removed from the label
in order to comply with Brazilian statutes.
-
Conditions
relating to advertising and labelling do
differ by region and different regulations
have been adopted around the world. For
example, Poland suggests four months and
the US between 4-6 months to begin complementary
foods.
I
can assure you, however, that Novartis/Gerber
follows all laws and guidelines within each
country and, at no time, suggests that Gerber
products should be substituted for breastfeeding.
It
is our strong belief that every child is an
individual and should be treated as such. For
us that means the timing of complementary foods
must be based on an assessment of the individual
infant's circumstances, needs and risks. Gerber
believes that the role of parents and health
care providers is paramount and educates parents
to look for a child's developmental cues and
confer with health care providers before introducing
any complementary food. In our opinion, it is
not a contradiction to say that we support breastfeeding
and also believe that the best judge of infants'
nutritional needs are their parents and health
care providers.
Internally,
we are continuing this discussion and monitoring
this complex issue to ensure that our actions
reflect the very best interests of our customers
around the world. As we go forward, we will
remain mindful of Gerber's leadership responsibilities
and will continue to hold our actions to the
highest ethical statements.
Regards,
Al
Piergallini
CC:
Dr. D. Vasella
Mr. U. Barlocher
Mr. M. Kaufmann
Mr. F. Palantoni
|
|
|
Heinz
response
The
response from Heinz contains a number of factual inaccuracies
and false assurances,
including:
- Heinz claims not
to have violated Resolution
47.5, which calls for complementary feeding to be fostered
from about six months of age. This is untrue. Its labels and
advertising in some countries promote its baby foods for use
from as young as 3 or 4 months of age (see Breaking
the Rules, Stretching the Rules 2001).
- Like many companies,
Heinz attempts to justify ignoring the requirement of Resolution
47.5 on complementary feeding by referring to the WHO position
on exclusive breastfeeding.
- Heinz claims that
it is waiting for member states to review and approve the
recommendation that infants should be exclusively breastfed
until 6 months of age and that it will then comply. This misrepresents
the policy setting process of the World Health Assembly. Member
states have already reviewed and adopted the recommendation
at the May 2001 World Health Assembly under Resolution
54.2. Having been adopted it is now official WHO policy.
- Heinz claims that
the International Association of Infant Food Manufacturers,
of which Heinz is a member, did not attempt to block discussion
of the "6 month" recommendation. This is untrue.
Internal IFM documents reveal its lobbying position was to
delay discussion of the recommendation until 2002 (see the
British
Medical Journal report 9 September 2000).
|
|
September
13 , 2001
I
am replying to your letter dated August 11,
2001 to Mr. Johnson. Please be assured that
H.J. Heinz Company has not been in violation
of WHA Resolution 47.5.
WHA
Resolution 47.5, as enunciated in April 1995
in a WHO document entitled "Nutrition,"
states as follows:
"Infants
should be fed exclusively on breast-milk from
four to six months of age. After this period
children should continue to be breast-fed up
to two years while receiving nutritionally adequate
and safe complementary foods. Starting complementary
feeding too early or too late are both undesirable."
This
WHO position has been embodied in local and
national regulation and laws for the production
and marketing of complementary foods and Heinz
scrupulously adheres to such laws and regulations.
Within
recent months, the World Health Assembly has
recommended urging members to "support
exclusive breast-feeding for six months."
This is a somewhat revised position and has
been submitted for review and approval by member
states. At no time has Heinz opposed this recent
recommendation nor has the International Association
of Infant Food Manufacturers attempted to block
or change this resolution at the World Health
Assembly or elsewhere.
Understandably,
advocates of the new WHA recommendation are
eager for its worldwide adoption and implementation
by member states. Heinz is a strong supporter
of the work of WHO to promote global standardization
for infant feeding and will comply immediately
with a new, revised Resolution 47.5 upon its
adoption by member states.
Very
truly yours,
F.
Kerr Dow, Ph. D.
Vice President Nutrition and Technical Affairs
Chief Scientist
|
|
|
Nestlé's
response
Nestlé's
email response to a letter writer on 30th May 2001 (given in
its entirety below) avoids answering any of the questions raised.
A statement on Nestlé's
website similarly avoids stating if Nestlé will change
the age of use on its labels.
Why
is Nestlé not prepared to give an undertaking that it
will bring its labels into line with the World Health Assembly
requirements?
Nestlé
is a key member of IFM. Why will it not state its position on
the IFM initiative to stop the World Health Assembly discussing
the Resolution?
Please
keep sending messages to Nestlé to demonstrate the level
of concern over its potentially dangerous labels.
|
|
Thank
you for your letter expressing your interest
in the welfare of infants in the developing
world. Our commitment to infant nutrition began
in 1867, when Henri Nestlé developed
and introduced a special mixture of nutritious
natural ingredients for mothers who couldn't
breastfeed. Henri Nestlé maintained that
a mother's breast milk is best for her baby.
This foundation remains a core belief at Nestlé
today.
Nestlé's
marketing principles and practices throughout
the world comply with the laws of every country
in which it does business. We encourage mothers
to breastfeed as long as possible, with consideration
for their life circumstances. If a mother chooses
not to breast feed, we believe that formula
is the best alternative to breast milk.
The
best-known infant formula marketing guidelines
are the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk
Substitutes developed by the World Health Organization
in 1981, known as the WHO Code. For information
about how Nestlé complies with the WHO
Code in developing countries and in other countries
where the code is law, visit www.babymilk.nestle.com.
Although
the United States is not a signatory to the
WHO Code, Nestlé abides by the aim of
the Code and our advertising states that breast
milk is best.
We
appreciate you contacting us and we wish you
the very best.
Sincerely,
Robyn
Wimberly, R.D., L.D.
Manager,
Consumer Services
|
|
|
|
