New Baby Milk Action publication exposes Nestlé strategy of denials and deception over baby food marketing 14 April 2005 Nestlé’s Chief Executive, Peter Brabeck-Letmathé, misled shareholders at the company's Annual General Meeting today with a booklet called Nestlé's Commitment to Africa. The strategy of claiming the company abides by the World Health Assembly's International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, despite well-documented evidence to the contrary, is setting the world’s largest food company up for a public relations disaster reminiscent of his 1999 book of government letters. Baby Milk Action is today publishing a pamphlet Nestlé Public Relations Machine Exposed addressing the bogus arguments used by the company. The audtiors Nestlé commissioned to clear it of malpractice used Nestlé’s discredited interpretation of the International Code and subsequent WHA Resolutions and claim to have found only three minor violations, while evidence gathered by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) in 69 countries shows systematic and institutionalised malpractice . Nestlé has refused to attend a public tribunal proposed by Baby Milk Action, where both sides and supporting experts would present their cases before an independent panel. Dorothée Haller of Geneva Infant Feeding Action (GIFA) attended Nestlé's AGM and raised before shareholders the disparity between Nestlé's Instructions and the World Health Assembly measures. She questioned why the auditors had cleared Nestlé when IBFAN's Breaking the Rules, Stretching the Rules 2005 report documents systematic malpractice, including in Africa. Nestlé Public Relations Machine Exposed Nesté's baby food marketing malpractice and attempts to divert criticism through denials and deception cause serious harm to the company's image. Mr. Brabeck's past interventions (such as in 1999, from when the Marketing Week cover dates) have generated headlines such as 'Mr. Nestlé gets angry'. Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator at Baby Milk Action said: "Mr. Brabeck has a track record of shooting himself in the foot with his aggressive approach to the baby milk issue. If Mr. Brabeck really believes that the facts are on his side, why did he refuse to send a company representative to the European Parliament's Public Hearing into Nestlé in 2000 and why has Nestlé rejected our proposal for a public tribunal before an independent panel?" Until March 2001 Nestlé refused to even speak in public if Baby Milk Action was in the room, but due to pressure from a boycott (the best supported consumer action in the UK, according to Ethical Consumer Magazine) has been attending debates at universities and schools, all of which it has lost (click here). Baby Milk Action has proposed a public tribunal be held where each side could present its case at length to an independent panel which could, with the help of expert witnesses, ascertain who is telling the truth (click here). Nestlé has repeatedly rejected this suggestion at debates. Mr. Brabeck is concerned at the strength of the international boycott and the baby food campaign, which caused him to reverse the company’s policy on labelling of complementary foods two years ago. Nestlé had been refusing to abide by a 1994 World Health Assembly Resolution, which states complementary feeding should be fostered from ‘about 6 months’, and continued to label foods for use from 4 months or, in the case of some infant teas, from 2 weeks of age. UNICEF wrote to Mr. Brabeck in 1997 calling for him to change company policy (click here) and the World Health Assembly adopted a further Resolution in 2001. During national demonstrations in the UK in 2003, Nestlé announced it was ‘taking the initiative’ in changing labels. Monitoring shows this promise is not being kept everywhere. Nestlé malpractice came under further scrutiny when the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) launched its Breaking the Rules, Stretching the Rules 2004 monitoring report at the House of Commons on 13 May 2004, setting out evidence from 69 countries (click here for the report - click here for a DVD of the launch). Nestlé was again the worst of the 16 baby food companies profiled. An Early Day Motion from Lynne Jones MP calling for action was well supported. In a letter to IBFAN, Nestlé head office claimed it was not aware of the systematic malpractice documented in the report and requested information on where its own advertisements had been published, materials distributed and free supplies provided. IBFAN sent detailed information to Nestlé head office last year, but has still not received a reply. For further information contact Mike Brady, mikebrady@babymilkaction.org Tel: 01223 464420 Mobile: 07986 736179 Notes for Editors The Nestlé boycott has been launched by national groups in 20 countries on all continents. In 1999 Mr. Brabeck sent a hard-bound 183-page book of letters to policy makers and critics around the world claiming it contained ‘official responses from 54 goverments that verify Nestlé compliance with the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes.’ Many of the letters were clearly not the verifications Mr. Brabeck claimed and Nestlé soon had to issue apologies when some of the authors complained that their letters had been misrepresented and used without permission (click here for details). On this occasion, Mr. Brabeck was reacting to a ruling by the UK Advertisng Standards Authority against a Nestlé anti-boycott advertisement in which the company claimed to market infant formula ‘ethically and responsibly’. After a two-year investigation, the ASA upheld all of Baby Milk Action's complaints about the advertisement (click here for details of the complaints and here for the final ruling and here for the Chief Executive's response). A company Nestlé paid to conduct an audit in Pakistan, Emerging Market Economics, damaged its own reputation by clearing Nestlé after reporting only three minor violations, exactly the same claim as made in the African audits. EME used Nestlé discredited interpretation of the WHA marketing requirements and were forbidden from contacting monitoring organisations or a Nestlé whistle blower who had documentary evidence of malpractice, including the bribing of doctors. Baby Milk Action wrote to Nestlé offering to provide docuemntary evidence to the auditors and this was not passed on. Instead the auditors were limited to interviewing doctors and distributors from a list provided by Nestlé. In November 2000 the European Parliament conducted a Public Hearing into Nestlé’s baby food marketing activities. This was boycotted by Nestlé, who instead sent Mr. Sunil Sinha from EME to present the Pakistan audit. This became embarrassing when UNICEF’s Legal Officer, attending as an expert witness, indicated that Nestlé’s marketing instructions, used as the basis of the audit, were much weaker than the WHA marketing requirements (click here for details). Nestlé Vice President, Michael Garrett, presented Nestlé's report to institutional investors in London on 22 March 2005, where it was falsely claimed that Nestlé's Instructions are stronger than the International Code and Resolutions. Click here for details. The Boston Herald reported on Mr. Brabeck’s attitude to corporate social responsibility on 9 March 2005. See http://business.bostonherald.com/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=72326 "Companies shouldn't feel obligated to ``give back'' to the community, because they haven't taken anything away, the Austrian-born chief of the world's largest food company told local executives yesterday. In a stunning broadside to corporate citizenship as Bostonians have come to know it, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe - head of Nestle S.A. - said companies should only pursue charitable endeavors with an underlying intention of making money for investors."