Nestlé faces a grilling at TUC fringe meeting 10 September 2003 Nestlé's performance in a debate with Baby Milk Action at a TUC fringe meeting on 10 September 2003 prompted the question to Nestlé from the floor, "Why do you come here? You are not wanted." Nestlé's Head of Corporate Affairs, Hilary Parsons, denied Nestlé is guilty of violating the marketing requirements for baby foods adopted by the World Health Assembly. Mike Brady, Baby Milk Action's Campaigns and Networking Coordinator, strongly denounced Nestlé management for using a strategy of denials and deception to divert criticism whilst continuing with business as usual, putting company profits before the health of infants. He put forward documentary evidence of Nestlé malpractice (read Mike's opening statement by clicking here). A member of the TUC General Council who had opposed Nestlé having a stand at the conference as in previous years spoke from the floor of her own investigation, including contact with UNICEF and examination of research published in the British Medical Journal. Ironically, the day after Hilary Parsons assured the trade unions that Nestlé does nothing wrong and that concerns are only ever voiced in the UK, German NDR television's respected Panorama programme ran a documentary on Nestlé malpractice in the Philippines. Germany and the Philippines are amongst the 20 countries where the boycott has been launched by national campaigners (click here to see the German TV programme). Nestlé's Senior Policy Advisor and Director of Communications sat in the audience with Lord Nazir Ahmed. Lord Ahmed claimed that he had found Nestlé was doing nothing wrong in Pakistan and alleged that Nestlé whistle blower, Syed Aamar Raza, had launched his campaign against Nestlé in a bid to seek asylum outside the country and was now living happily in another country. Mike Brady responded: "That is a terrible thing to say. Aamar has not been able to see his two young children, his wife and family for four years. We are in regular contact with him and he definitely is not happy." Lord Ahmed was then questioned on his role as a paid 'advisor' to Nestlé and the fact his 'fact-finding' trip to Pakistan had been paid for and organised by Nestlé. Lord Ahmed had not mentioned this when introducing himself. Admitting the financial links to Nestlé, he asked: "Why should I be out of pocket?" Lord Ahmed has made similar allegations in the past, prompting Aamar to write to him two years ago, stating: “You seem to assume that my purpose from the beginning was always to leave Pakistan. I must ask you to stop making such a claim which bears absolutely no relation to the facts. I have not seen my wife or two young children for over two years and my present living conditions are very difficult as I try to support myself and my family in Pakistan through hard work. It is a great insult that you suggest this is my choice. If I could safely return to Pakistan I would do so immediately.” Lord Ahmed and Hilary Parsons were asked by Mike Brady why Nestlé continues to refuse to release a tape recording which the company claims shows Aamar attempted to blackmail the company. Aamar claims the tape proves a senior Nestlé executive attempted to bribe him to keep quiet. (Click here for an earlier head-to-head radio interview involving Lord Ahmed and Mike Brady). The decision of the TUC General Council to refuse Nestlé a stand at the TUC's Brighton Conference this year prompted the world's largest food company to back down on its earlier refusal to debate issues of concern with company critics at a fringe meeting. The meeting, held in the Brighton Centre, was hosted by trade unions which represent workers in Nestlé. Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator at Baby Milk Action, said: "The unions representing Nestlé staff are concerned about the impact of the Nestlé boycott, the UK's best supported consumer boycott. Nestlé's bad reputation is due to the malpractice of its executives - Baby Milk Action is the messenger. Trade unions are very successful at prompting management to change policies and we ask them, and Nestlé employees, to help us to call management to account." Brian Revell, T&G, National Organiser, Food and Agriculture, also on the panel, said he was unsure who to believe and criticised the campaign against Nestlé for effectively barring Nestlé from membership of the Ethical Trading Initiative. ETI requires member companies to sign up to and abide by a code of conduct relating to labour conditions. While trade unions representing Nestlé workers have supported Nestlé being invited to join ETI, NGOs with experience of the company's malpractice have voiced their concern and Nestlé has not made an application to join (see Boycott News 27). Mike Brady commented that there is no company presently in ETI with a record as bad as that of Nestlé. More importantly, Nestlé's record in violating the marketing code for breastmilk substitutes, whilst claiming it is complying, demonstrates its bad faith. Nestlé opposes independent monitoring of its baby milk marketing and coffee purchasing. Nestlé's record suggested the company would undermine ETI's strategy and use its membership for public relations purposes. Mike Brady said of the fringe meeting: "Nestlé's contempt for the World Health Assembly requirements was effectively exposed at the meeting. Hilary's denials of wrong doing in the face of documentary evidence did not seem to convince the audience, judging from the grilling she received. Nestlé executives need to drop this discredited and dishonest public relations strategy and bring their baby food marketing policies and practices into line with international standards." Baby Milk Action is the UK member of IBFAN, the International Baby Food Action Network, consisting of over 200 groups in more than 100 countries. IBFAN works with policy makers around the world to bring in legislation regulating the marketing of baby foods. Half of the world's population now has some degree of protection and breastfeeding rates are increasing in many countries. Where companies are left to self regulate, violations remain rampant. For further information contact Mike Brady by email at mikebrady@babymilkaction.org or on 07986 736179. Notes for editors: A similar fringe meeting was organised by the SE Region TUC Women's Committee in 1997, the main difference being that Nestlé refused to attend, despite being present with a stand at the conference (see Boycott News 21). Nestlé said then: "It is not our policy to participate in public meetings with campaigning groups such as Baby Milk Action since this is unlikely to be helpful in resolving the conflict." Hilary Parsons has previously accused whistleblower Syed Aamar Raza of attempting to blackmail Nestlé and claims the company has a tape recording of a telephone conversation proving this. Aamar says the tape implicates Nestlé executives in attempting to bribe him. For four years, Nestlé has refused to substantiate its allegation and refuses to provide a copy of the tape to enable Aamar to defend himself. Nestle Pakistan has no trade union representation. See Update 27 for an overview of Aamar's evidence. The Nestlé boycott has been launched in 20 countries and is the UK's best supported consumer boycott. Earlier this year readers of Ethical Consumer magazine voted Nestlé the 'least ethical company'. Nestlé is targetted as monitoring conducted by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), consisting of more than 200 groups in over 100 countries, finds Nestlé to be responsible for more violations of the World Health Assembly International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent, relevant Resolutions than any other company. In January 2003, the British Medical Journal published a study exposing Nestlé marketing malpractice in Togo and Burkina Faso (see press release). In May 1999 the UK Advertising Standards Authority upheld all of Baby Milk Action's complaints against a Nestlé anti-boycott advertisement in which the company claimed to market infant formula 'ethically and responsibly'. Although Nestlé cannot repeat its discredited claims in advertisements, it does so in publications and public pronouncements. Following the ruling, Saatchi and Saatchi advised Nestlé to go on the offensive, making donations to charities, particularly those linked to children, to divert criticism. Nestlé is doing just this. (see the 'sponsorship' section). The European Parliament conducted a Public Hearing into Nestlé practices in Pakistan in November 2000. Nestlé boycotted the hearing, objecting to the presence of IBFAN and UNICEF. Nestlé claimed afterwards that none of its 230,000 staff was available (see press release). Nestlé sent auditors it had contracted to produce a report praising the company, but the auditors where unable to answer questions on behalf of Nestlé. Nestlé has said that no member of staff has lost their job as a result of the boycott, but attempts to use this possibility to gain support from trade unions. For years Nestlé employees have been laid off because of restructuring and other economies and just now, since taking over in 1997 Nestlé Chief Executive, Peter Brabeck-Letmathé, has been pursuing an efficiency drive to increase profits. Over US$2.8 billion has been saved by factory closures (Time, 3 February 2003). Former employees in Fulton, New York State, whose families have worked for Nestlé for generations, are said on the International Union of Foodworkers website to have lost their jobs because this was cheaper than honouring pension commitments (click here). Nestlé is currently locking workers out of its factories and offices in South Korea in a dispute over contracting out of sales staff. Nestlé is threatening to shift production to China in response to a strike (see report Nestlé may pull out of South Korea over strikes). A series of debates have taken place at universities over the past two years. Nestlé similarly refused to even speak at public meetings at universities if Baby Milk Action was present, but backed down after students targetted Nestlé graduate recruitment events. The debates have served to strengthen support for the boycott amongst students (see Boycott News 33). At these debates Ms Parsons has been questioned on Nestlé's trade union busting activities in countries such as Colombia (see Boycott News 32) and the Philipines (click here). While refusing to be drawn on this issue, has used Nestlé's presence at the TUC Conference to claim the company has good relations with trade unions. The boycott in the Philippines is coordinated by IBFAN group ARUGAAN (Support System for Women with Young Children). Striking Nestlé workers in the Philippines have called for people to support the Nestlé boycott as well, in protest over heavy handed tactics used against trade unionists (click here).