The week before I had been shopping for popsicles and could not find a single kind that did not have corn syrup or was not made by Nestlé (which in the ice cream/popsicle aisle masquerades as Edy’s and Dreyer’s and Häagen-Dazs among others.) It’s time for me to start making my own popsicles again! In the past I’ve used an ice cube tray and cut straws or popsicle sticks. Anyone have a suggestion for a good popsicle mold — a metal or BPA-free plastic one?

Why Boycott Nestlé?

For some history and reasoning behind the Nestlé boycott, see “Should You Boycott Nestlé?”

The #NestleFamily Controversy

Recently Nestlé invited a group of bloggers out to California to learn more about the company. In a whirlwind of #NestleFamily debate on Twitter, many breastfeeding advocates expressed disappointment that people were accepting a free trip and gifts from Nestlé in spite of the company’s history of unethical marketing practices. Some bloggers defended their decision as being open to a dialogue with the company. I would not have been interested in hearing what the company had to say at such a one-sided publicity event, but I have found Nestlé’s answers to some questions posed by Annie at PhD in Parenting to be fascinating and informative (well, Annie’s discussion is informative; Nestlé’s answers are a bunch of double-speak.)

Which Products are Nestlé Products?

Nestlé owns many brand names and it can be tricky to keep up with all of them. Check out this Nestlé product boycott list compiled by Amy at Crunchy Domestic Goddess.

Post from: Breastfeeding 1-2-3

Whose responsibility is it to control the advertising, marketing and promotional activities which may create a market in spite of public health considerations?

In the hearing itself, Senator Kennedy put a Nestlé executive through a very pointed line of questioning on the company’s social responsibility in countries where poverty and the lack of a sanitary water supply make f*ormula-feeding particularly dangerous. Watch this fascinating clip:

Patti Rundall, Policy Director for Baby Milk Action and Co-coordinator of the WABA Advocacy Task Force, highlighted Kennedy’s contribution:

Senator Edward Kennedy cared not only for US citizens but also for international health. It was his vision, as Chairman of the US Senate Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research, which instigated the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, which was adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1981. This Code is a benchmark for good practice and is used by governments all over the world to protect infant and young child health from unethical marketing.

The question in my mind is, who will take up the torch now? Who in the United States will hold f*ormula companies to the standards of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes?

Post from: Breastfeeding 1-2-3

Baby Milk Action operates as a non-profit seeking to protect mothers and babies from irresponsible marketing of artificial baby milks. The group supports breastfeeding and safer formula feeding. Baby Milk Action plans to target Nestlé with a demonstration on Saturday May 16, 2009 at the Nestlé headquarters in Croydon in the United Kingdom. If you can’t make it there, organizers suggest you protest outside your local Body Shop (PDF). Body Shop was recently purchased by L’Oreal, of which Nestlé owns 28.8%. A third option is to join the virtual protest on Facebook.

The details for the protest at the headquarters:

Date: Saturday, May 16, 2009
Time: 11:00am – 12:00pm
Location: Nestle HQ, Croydon
Street: St. George’s House, Park Lane, Croydon, CR9 1NR, UK
City/Town: Croydon, United Kingdom

There is a Facebook page for the demonstration as well.

Do you boycott Nestlé? Do you plan to attend the protest at the headquarters, at a Body Shop, or on Facebook?

Post from: Breastfeeding 1-2-3

Myths about Breastfeeding and Poverty

1. Myth: If a breastfeeding woman is malnourished due to poverty, she should be told to wean and be given formula for her baby.

The truth is that a malnourished mother still produces sufficient breast milk, and breast milk is the perfect food for an impoverished baby who desperately needs the immune protection that breast milk provides. The Breastfeeding Answer Book explains:

Research from developing countries and other parts of the world indicates that even mothers who are mildly malnourished produce an adequate supply of good quality milk for their babies and that only under famine or near famine conditions will a mother’s nutrition affect her milk supply or the composition of her milk (Perez-Escamilla 1995; Prentice 1994). Even in famine conditions, milk production may be only slightly affected if the mother has body stores from which to draw energy for milk production (Smith 1947). In some developing countries where food supplies are limited, babies of women given nutritional supplements have not been found to gain more weight than babies of women whose diets were not supplemented (Prentice 1983).

This is not simply an issue in developing countries. The Breastfeeding Answer Book continues:

Some low-income mothers are discouraged from breastfeeding by health professionals, social workers, and others who question whether their diets are adequate. But if the mother is malnourished to the extent that it affects her milk supply, it is much less expensive to feed the mother nutritious food than to buy formula for her baby. Human milk is also healthier for the baby and increases his resistance to illness.

So what should a malnourished and/or low-income mother do if she is given free formula? Consume it herself! Dr. Jack Newman says she can add it to baked goods so she will receive extra nutrition and the baby will still benefit from human milk.

2. Myth: Poor people are more likely to breastfeed.

Given that it costs an average of $1,200 to $1,500 per year to feed a baby formula, it is tempting to assume as a pure function of economics that mothers living in poverty are more likely to breastfeed. Unfortunately that is not true. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 1999-2006 found:

Breastfeeding rates were lower for infants in low income families. Breastfeeding rates were examined by income status group. Income status was defined using the poverty income ratio (PIR), an index calculated by dividing family income by a poverty threshold that is specific for family size (3). Low income was defined as PIR less than or equal to 1.85, and high income was defined as PIR greater than 1.85. For the total population, the proportion of infants who were ever breastfed was lower among infants whose families had lower income (57%) compared with infants whose families had higher income status (74%).

Those statistics are for babies who were “ever breastfed.” When you look at data for the percentage of babies being breastfed at six months of age, the numbers are even worse. Childtrendsdatabank.org summarizes information from the National Immunization Survey:

Mothers living below the poverty line were less likely to breastfeed in 2004. At six months, 30 percent of mothers living below the poverty line breastfed their six-month-old infant, and of those living between 100 percent and 185 percent of the poverty line, 33 percent breastfed. In comparison, mothers living at 185 percent to 350 percent of the poverty line and those above 350 percent of the poverty line breastfed at rates of 38 percent and 46 percent, respectively.

The U.S. Breastfeeding Committee reports that $578 million per year in federal funds is spent by the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) to buy formula for families who could be breastfeeding.

But surely the impoverished in less industrialized nations are breastfeeding? An article in the International Breastfeeding Journal answers that question:

Although there is a conventional wisdom that poverty ‘protects’ breastfeeding in developing countries, poverty actually threatens breastfeeding, both directly and indirectly. In the light of increasingly aggressive marketing behaviour of the infant formula manufacturers and the need to protect the breastfeeding rights of working women, urgent action is required to ensure the principles and aim of the International Code of Breastmilk Substitutes, and subsequent relevant resolutions of the World Health Assembly, are implemented.

Read on to learn more about the insidious use of formula marketing around the world.

3. Myth: Formula is marketed only to those who can afford it.

Many people boycott the formula maker Nestlé in protest of its marketing practices. The original Nestlé boycott started in 1977 in response to Nestlé’s unethical, aggressive and patently harmful marketing of artificial baby milk in Third World countries. The company engaged women to dress up like nurses and distribute free samples that lasted just long enough to dry up a mother’s own breast milk. Impoverished women who could not afford to purchase enough of the expensive artificial milk would resort to diluting it with excess amounts of water which led to infant malnutrition. Furthermore, artificial milk prepared with unsanitary water supplies led to unnecessary illness. Add in the fact that the infants were not protected by the antibodies present in human breast milk and children were suffering and dying needlessly as a consequence of Nestlé’s deceptive marketing tactics. While the boycott was suspended temporarily in the 1980s, renewed efforts are underway in 20 countries around the world. Nestlé’s marketing practices continue to violate the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Code of Marketing Breast-milk Substitutes (PDF document).

UNICEF states: “If all babies were fed only breastmilk for the first six months of life, the lives of an estimated 1.5 million infants would be saved every year and the health and development of millions of others would be greatly improved.” I repeat: 1.5 million innocent lives per year.

For more on the harm from unethical marketing of formula, read the policies of the International Baby Food Action Network and Baby Milk Action.

4. Myth: Breastfeeding is expensive and requires a lot of special equipment and clothing.

When it comes right down to it, all breastfeeding requires are mother and baby. No one needs special nursing pillows, foot stools, clothing, covers, or breast pumps in order to breastfeed. If a mother wants such things, there are free and low-cost options. Hand-expression of breast milk is quite effective as an alternative to pumping. There are several money-saving substitutes for traditional nursing clothing, and many do-it-yourself breastfeeding projects. If a woman needs help with breastfeeding, there are many free resources around the world. Accredited volunteer breastfeeding counselors offer free breastfeeding support through La Leche League in 68 countries!

Visit Kellymom and check out the “Financial costs of not breastfeeding . . . or the cost benefits of breastfeeding.”

5. Myth: Breastfeeding only saves the cost of formula.

There are all sorts of savings attributable to breastfeeding. I already mentioned the obvious — that breastfeeding actually saves babies’ lives. It also saves the cost of additional health care expenses, lost work hours, and environmental impact. The U.S. Breastfeeding Committee’s paper on the Economic Benefits of Breastfeeding (PDF) contains these amazing facts:

For private and government insurers, a minimum of $3.6 billion must be paid each year to treat diseases and conditions preventable by breastfeeding.

If a parent misses 2 hours of work for the excess illness attributable to formula feeding, greater than 2,000 hours—the equivalent of 1 year of employment—are lost per 1,000 never-breastfed infants.

110 billion BTUs of energy ($2 million) used each year in the United States for processing, packaging, and transporting formula.

550 million formula cans, with 86,000 tons of metal and 800,000 pounds of paper packaging, added to U.S. landfills each year

Conclusion

In conclusion, I offer this quote from the late James P. Grant, past Executive Director of UNICEF:

Breastfeeding is a natural safety net against the worst effects of poverty. If a child survives the first month of life, the most dangerous period of childhood, then for the next 4 months or so, exclusive breastfeeding goes a long way towards cancelling out the health difference between being born into poverty or being born into affluence. It is almost as if breastfeeding takes the infant out of poverty for those few vital months in order to give the child a fairer start in life and compensate for the injustices of the world into which it was born.

Other Carnival Entries on Poverty and Breastfeeding

Please enjoy these carnival entries as they become available:

~ Motherwear Breastfeeding Blog: How Breastfeeding Fights Poverty
~ BreastfeedingMums: Lack of Knowledge Affects Breastfeeding Rates
~ Babyfingers: Interview with a WIC Counselor
~ Mama Knows Breast: Breastfeeding Can Fight Poverty

Post from: Breastfeeding 1-2-3

Are you participating in the Nestle-Free Week starting today, October 4, 2008? For more on the why and how of the Nestle Boycott and Nestle-Free Week in particular, visit Baby Milk Action’s Nestle-Free Week planning page.

Post from: Breastfeeding 1-2-3

Baby Milk Action is planning Nestle-Free Week surrounding this coming October 4, 2008. For more on the why, when and how of the Nestle Boycott and Nestle-Free Week in particular, visit Baby Milk Action’s Nestle-Free Week planning page.

Post from: Breastfeeding 1-2-3

~ Author Sean Taylor refused to accept the prize money for the Nestlé Children’s Book Prize 2007 after he learned about Nestlé’s unethical marketing practices. Thanks to Bliss-Breastfeeding for the heads-up on that story.

The Canadian Press interviewed stand up comic Kate Davis about her new book, Breastfeeding Diaries (Let’s Dish). The article shares a funny incident that took place when Davis went to the gym: “Adhering to the club’s no bathing suit policy, she slipped out of her workout gear and into the crowded hot tub with six other women. ‘I took off all my clothes, jumped in and, literally, I was a little cherub fountain just spraying,’ recalled Davis, laughing. ‘I wasn’t due to nurse or anything. I think it was just the hot water that triggered everything, but the women were not happy – especially when I hit (one).’ ”

Post from: Breastfeeding 1-2-3

Please take a moment to vote in the new poll in the sidebar. To see all prior poll results, click here.

Post from: Breastfeeding 1-2-3

The acquisition helps further Nestle’s recent focus on health and nutrition, following its purchases of U.S. weight control company Jenny Craig and [Novartis Medical Nutrition]….

“The acquisition of Gerber is the perfect complementary fit,” said Nestle Chairman and CEO Peter Brabeck-Letmathe. “It not only gives Nestle the leadership position in baby food, but it also constitutes a decisive step to establish Nestle Nutrition as the undisputed global leader in the nutrition field.”

And here I thought “Nestle Nutrition” was an oxymoron….

All the more reason to make your own baby food when the time comes to start solids.

Post from: Breastfeeding 1-2-3

Let me put it this way instead: if you aren’t boycotting Nestlé, why not? Do you know:

~ The original Nestlé boycott started in 1977 in protest of Nestlé’s unethical, aggressive and patently harmful marketing of artificial baby milk in Third World countries. The company engaged women to dress up like nurses and distribute free samples that lasted just long enough to dry up a mother’s own breast milk. Impoverished women who could not afford to purchase enough of the expensive artificial milk would resort to diluting it with excess amounts of water which led to infant malnutrition. Furthermore, artificial milk prepared with unsanitary water supplies led to unnecessary illness. Add in the fact that the infants were not protected by the antibodies present in human breast milk and children were suffering and dying needlessly as a consequence of Nestlé’s deceptive marketing tactics.

~ While the boycott was suspended temporarily in the 1980s, renewed efforts are underway in 20 countries around the world. Nestlé’s marketing practices continue to violate the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Code of Marketing Breast-milk Substitutes (PDF document).

~ If you think Nestlé’s aggressive advertising practices only affect people in Third World countries, think again. A full 25.7% of surveyed adults in the United States recently agreed with the false statement that artificial baby milk is “as good as breastmilk.” Where do you think they got that mistaken impression?

~ UNICEF states: “If all babies were fed only breastmilk for the first six months of life, the lives of an estimated 1.5 million infants would be saved every year and the health and development of millions of others would be greatly improved.” I repeat: 1.5 million innocent lives per year.

Breastfeeding and the Artificial Baby Milk Industry

~ A 12-ounce can of powdered artificial milk costs U.S. $12-$15.

~ The artificial milk industry is big business–$3.5 billion per year in the United States alone.

~ Studies repeatedly demonstrate that offering free hospital gift bags containing powdered milk samples results in lower breastfeeding rates. Several major hospitals, including all 11 public hospitals in New York City, have begun banning the freebies.

~ While 70% of U.S. women initiate breastfeeding, only 13% are exclusively breastfeeding at six months.

~ Every 30 seconds a baby dies from unsafe bottlefeeding. Every day, 3,000 to 4,000 babies die without breast milk to safeguard their health.

Why Nestlé in particular?

It’s the most egregious marketing offender according to independent monitoring of WHO Code violations by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN). Nestlé is the world’s largest food manufacturer. It controls 40% of the baby food market around the world and operates in over 80 countries worldwide.

While Nestlé started as an artificial milk producer the 1860s,  its business now includes coffee, chocolate, water, ice cream, household staples, pasta, pet food and more! For a full list of major brand names to boycott, see this list of main brands.

What do other leading experts think?

La Leche League International does not explicitly endorse the boycott but does support it in the sense that the organization and its volunteer leaders provide information about the boycott when asked as part of their efforts to promote breastfeeding and respect for the WHO Code.

Just a few months ago pediatrician Dr. Jay Gordon lambasted Bill Gates for his Nestlé investments.

What does Nestlé have to say?

You can read some of the company’s rebuttal to the boycott arguments on Baby Milk Action’s debate page. Here is the extent of what Nestlé has to say about the boycott on its corporate website:

Nestlé managed to put an end to a serious controversy over its marketing of [artificial baby milk] in the Third World. This debate had led to a boycott of Nestlé products by certain lay and religious organizations. This issue is still alive in some quarters, but there is no longer any significant boycott activity.

Okay…. Anyone have anything to say about that?

Personally I don’t have any problem–ethical or practical–boycotting Nestlé. I eschew processed foods in favor of locally-grown organic foods as much as possible anyway. It’s all part of setting a good example for my children and helping them develop healthy eating habits right from the start. What do you think?

[Edited to link to poll results here].

Feel free to leave a comment as well!

Sources: Baby Milk Action; Breastfeeding.com; INFACT Canada Nestlé Boycott Fact Sheet (PDF); Gentlemothering.ca (PDF); Zimmerman, Rachel, “Baby Goody Bags May Be on the Way Out.” Wall Street Journal (Feb. 27, 2007).

For more posts on global science and health issues, check out the b5media Science and Health Theme Day round-up hosted by Jul at VeggieChic.

Post from: Breastfeeding 1-2-3