United Reformed Church Assembly 2010 backs Nestlé Boycott

By Baby Milk Action, 4 July 2010
http://info.babymilkaction.org
The United Reformed Church Assembly meeting on 4 July 2010 has given its support to continuing to boycott Nestlé over its aggressive marketing of baby foods. Baby Milk Action has welcomed the decision of the URC to continue its long-running support for the campaign.
Nestlé has tried hard to overturn URC support for the boycott. Last December Nestlé sent a team led by Vice President, Neils Christiansen, to try to persuade URC and other church representatives that the company had changed its business practices. However, Nestlé continues to reject the four-point plan put to the company by Baby Milk Action for saving infant lives and ending the boycott. Monitoring conducted by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), shows Nestlé continues to systematically violate World Health Assembly marketing standards. It is a requirement of the four-point plan and the criteria of ethical investment listings, such as FTSE4Good, that Nestlé accepts the marketing standards and brings policies and practices into line.
FTSE4Good confirmed last week that Nestlé continues to be excluded from its list. According to the report from the URC Assembly “General Assembly resolves that if Nestlé obtains listing on the FTSE4Good Index, Mission Council be instructed to rescind the boycott on Nestlé products outlined in the Assembly 1992 resolution.”
The FTSE4Good criteria have similarities with Baby Milk Action's four-point plan, requiring companies to accept World Health Assembly marketing standards (which Nestlé currently refuses to do) and to bring policies and practices into line. The key difference is that FTSE4Good looks to company reports on marketing practices, whereas Baby Milk Action looks to the independent monitoring conducted by IBFAN partners on the ground. A new monitoring report is due in 2010. Current concerns include Nestlé claiming its formula 'protects' babies and promoting it to health workers as 'The new "Gold Standard" in infant nutrition' (see image with online version of this press release).
Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator at Baby Milk Action, said:
"Nestlé appears to have taken a turn for the worse since Mr. Paul Bulcke took over as Chief Executive Officer in 2008. Although his predecessor, Mr. Brabeck, was bad at least he paid lip-service to the World Health Assembly marketing standards - the Nestlé line now is that they do not apply to the company. It is also rolling out a global campaign claiming its baby milk 'protects' babies and reduces diarrohea. Its claims do not stand up to scrutiny, endanger health and violate the marketing standards. We have stopped such strategies in the past through pressure from the boycott, but Nestlé keeps coming back with new strategies to boost sales regardless of the impact on infant health."
"We hope the United Reformed Church decision will add to the pressure from our current 'email Nestlé' campaign to persuade Nestlé to drop its 'protect' claims and accept our four-point plan for ending the boycott."
For further information, contact Mike Brady on 07986 736179.
Click here for Baby Milk Action's Email Nestlé campaign.
Click here for details of the four-point plan and FTSE4Good criteria and Nestlé's response to it.
Click here for Baby Milk Action's briefing prepared for the URC Assembly, with images, links and references.
Point 1 of the four-point plan states that Nestlé must state in writing that it accepts that the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and the subsequent, relevant World Health Assembly Resolutions are minimum requirements for every country.
In its response to members of the public calling on it to respect the Code and Resolutions, Nestlé claimed in July 2010: "For your information, the World Health Assembly does not formulate marketing standards – rather it makes health policy recommendations to Member States. It is up to each Member State to determine how it implements these policy recommendations in their own country, according to their development goals and their social and legislative framework."
In truth, the International Code was adopted in 1981 and article 11.3 is clear:"Independently of any other measures taken for implementation of this Code, manufacturers and distributors of products within the scope of this Code should regard themselves as responsible for monitoring their marketing practices according to the principles and aim of this Code, and for taking steps to ensure that their conduct at every level conforms to them."
The World Health Assembly restated in May 2010 (Resolution 63.23) that it “CALLS UPON infant food manufacturers and distributors to comply fully with their responsibilities under the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent relevant World Health Assembly resolutions;” and expressed "deep concern over persistent reports of violations". Improvements to breastfeeding rates and complementary feeding practices “could save annually the lives of 1.5 million children”.
Nestlé's refusal to accept the validity of the Code and Resolutions is also preventing it from being included in the FTSE4Good ethical investment list. See, in particular, points 3 and 4 of the Policy Criteria of FTSE4Good Breastmilk Substitutes Marketing Criteria.

Nestle challenged over health claims

By James Achanyi-Fontem,
Coordinator, IBFAN Cameroon Group
Nestle has been challenged over health claims which tell mothers that its baby milk will 'protect' their babies. Nestle Annual Shareholder Meeting took place on 15th April 2010 at the Palais de Beaulieu, Lausanne, Switzerland.
According to Patti Rundall of Baby Milk Action UK, who attended the meeting, it was probably one of the most dramatic Shareholder meetings that she could remember - though the time that the Tom Butler, the Bishop of Leicester in 1993 challenged them comes a close second.
The brilliant Greenpeace stunt certainly lifted their spirits and caused a major headache to Nestle. It started with a horrendous drilling sound that almost blocked out Peter Brabeck's speech during the session. Pat Venditti of Greenpeace was sitting in front of Patti Rundall who tapped him and asked: "Is this Greenpeace?" and Pat answered, "Maybe". Then sawdust started to trickle down from the ceiling, thousands of leaflets followed by two absailers with huge banner. Fantastic!
As Greenpeace activists cut through the ceiling and absailed into Shareholder Meeting with huge banners and leaflets, Nestlé was held to account for its exploitation of rainforests, for its spying activities and for its failure to abide by baby food marketing standards adopted by the World Health Assembly.
Patti Rundall OBE, Policy Director at Baby Milk Action, picked up on the Chairman, Peter Brabeck's remarks that Nestle considers regulations to be much less important than principles and core values and appealed for shareholders to help in holding management to account for the harm it continues to cause to breastfeeding and infant health, contributing as it does to the needless death and suffering of babies around the world.
She highlighted the deception of the strategy that had been on display at the shareholder meeting the previous year: logos on formula labels claiming the product will 'protect' babies. It is undisputed that babies fed on formula are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die.
She also challenged Nestle's policy on sponsorship which targets mothers, health workers and children - for example, TV shows in Egypt, baby clubs in the Philippines, school education schemes in India, Health Conference Street banners in Cameroon, websites, medical seminars etc - schemes which are in many instances in violation of World Health Assembly Resolutions and national legislation.
Nestlé Chair, Mr. Peter Brabeck-Letmathé, said that because Ms. Rundall did not trust him, Paul Bulcke, CEO and Richard Laube, Head of Nestle Nutrition should respond in detail. Richard Laube defended the 'protect' logo and admitted the practice was being used in 120 countries on cereals and formula, showing it to be a global strategy. He indicated the marketing practice had been going on for some years and will continue, dismissing the suggestion that it was harmful or a violation of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes. For more information, click on the following links - www.babymilkaction.org www.ibfan.org www.babyfeedinglawgroup.org.uk