Baby Milk Action Update
Rich Winkel
/** pn.alerts: 46.0 **/
** Topic: Baby Milk Action UPDATE 14 **
** Written 2:50 PM Oct 25, 1994 by gn:babymilkacti in cdp:pn.alerts **
This is an electronic text version of Baby Milk ActionUs magazine,
UPDATE. UPDATE 14 was written by Andrew Radford, Patti Rundall,
David Meiklejohn, Sonali Kumarakulasinghe and Lisa Woodburn.
Baby Milk Action is a non-profit organisation which aims to halt
the commercial promotion of bottle feeding and to protect and
promote good infant nutrition. It is a member of the International
Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) which is made up of more than 140
groups in 70 countries.
Our address is:
Baby Milk Action
23 St. AndrewUs Street
Cambridge
CB2 3AX
United Kingdom
Phone: (+44) 1223 464420
Fax: (+44) 1223 464417
E-mail: babymi...@gn.apc.org
BOYCOTT NEWS
Demonstration
Nestle boycotters presented more than 50 000 signatures of
protest from around the world at the companyUs annual general
meeting in Lausanne on 26 May. On 21 May, the anniversary of the
Internatio-nal Code, over 80 Baby Milk Action supporters
demonstrated outside NestlUs UK head office in Croydon. The events
were linked by a tandem ride of over 400 miles by Baby Milk
ActionUs Andrew Radford and David Meiklejohn.
On the way, the cyclists were welcomed at a civic reception in
Newhaven and by UNICEF in Luxembourg. They also visited IBFAN
groups in Strasbourg and Berne and received press and TV
coverage.
Baby Milk Action, IBFAN supporters and the Grim Reaper
TwelcomedU Nestl shareholders as they arrived at the AGM. Inside
the meeting, Nestl Chief Executive Helmut Maucher was asked
questions about NestlUs marketing tactics, including the dumping
of radioactive formula in Sri Lanka. Mr Maucher said there would
be no change in NestlUs strategy and implied that Sri Lanka should
conform to lower European Union standards. The demonstration was
also attended by over 400 French Perrier workers protesting
against the loss of jobs following NestlUs hostile takeover of the
company last year.
Thank you to everyone who attended the Croydon
demonstration and the following people along the way - Kathryn
Dally, Sarah Hale, Maryse Lehners, Annie Cheney and Pascale
Walter, Philippe Ammann, Edith & John Radford, Rachel OULeary,
Patti Rundall, Gill Wright, Jackie and Peter Leevers, as well as
the support crew of Lisa and Cessi Woodburn.
More boycott endorsers
New Nestl boycott endorsers include Victoria Wood,
Christopher Timothy, Tony Robinson, Glenda Jackson MP, Charles
Kennedy MP, Green and BlackUs Organic Chocolate, Longden Green
General Store (Shrewsbury), trade union IPMS (Museum of London
Branch) and Bourne-mouth Town Council. Thank you to everyone who
helped to get those endorsers. Why not ask your union, church, MP,
shops and local council to join the boycott?
Nestl links up
Companies are often unaware of NestlUs record when
entering into joint ventures. Letters of complaint have been
effective in ending such connections and making a company think
twice before linking with Nestl in the future.
Mount Pleasant Farm Dairy in Oxfordshire received
complaints from boycott supporters after samples of Nesquik and
Nestl breakfast cereals were delivered with their morning milk.
The company has now said it will not enter into such a promotion
with Nestl again.
Other companies criticised for associating with Nestl include the
Early Learning Centre, the Post Office and Disney. Please keep
your eyes peeled for any others.
Nescaf ad spend rises again
Nestl has spent a record amount on advertising to boost
sales of Nescaf. The company spent #6 million in the three summer
months, on top of a 15% hike in advertising spending for 1994.
Nestl misleads Synod in disinvest-ment debate
Following a large-scale PR exercise by Nestl, the Church
of England General Synod has narrowly voted to suspend its support
of the Nescaf boycott in order to review the latest evidence. A
motion calling on the Church to sell its #1.4m shareholding in
Nestl was defeated by 180 votes to 168 in favour of the motion to
suspend the boycott.
Nestl must have spent thousands of pounds lobbying to
reverse the SynodUs previous boycott endorsement: as well as
writing to all Synod members, the company hired, carpeted and
furnished a room at the debate, gave out food and drink and
brought in top executives from the USA, Switzerland and London.
Full colour displays were produced and glossy brochures were given
to delegates. During the debate, Nestl misled delegates by
incorrectly claiming that many churches had dropped their boycott
support.
The displays and brochures are of particular concern -
they not only negate the dangers of bottle feeding and minimise
the value of breastfeeding, they also contain defamatory and
misleading remarks about Baby Milk Action, IBFAN, UNICEF and the
Catholic Institute for International Relations. However, the fact
that Nestl was prepared to go to such lengths demonstrates its
worry about the strength of boycott - sadly, many Synod members
assumed that Nestl would show the same level of concern in its
baby milk marketing all around the world.
The Synod declared that it will reconsider the boycott "if
Nestl does not comply with the World Health Assembly Resolution of
May 1994." This is the first time that the Synod has called on
Nestl to abide by the entire Code. The company has not
acknowledged the WHA Resolution: in order to comply, it will have
to make substantial changes to its marketing policy.
Following the vote, many Synod members have expressed their anger
and dismay at NestlUs misinformation. We expect the boycott to be
raised again at a future meeting. It still has the support of
several dioceses as well as the Baptist, Methodist and United
Reformed churches.
Rowntree factory occupied
Earth First! demonstrators, protesting against NestlUs
infant formula marketing tactics, hung banners down the side of
the Rowntree factory in Norwich on 17 August and gave leaflets to
the workers. The action received extensive local media coverage.
Farmer rejects Nestl
With the break-up of the Milk Marketing Board, Nestl is
trying to buy milk directly from dairy farmers. However, not all
farmers are rushing to take up NestlUs offer. Dumfries farmer Tom
Lochhead decided not to sell his milk to Nestl after reading about
the baby milk issue.
BREAKING THE RULES
New report shows blatant aggression by baby milk pushers
Hundreds of examples of aggressive baby milk marketing are
recorded in Breaking the Rules 1994, a report on company
compliance with the WHO/UNICEF International Code published in
August. The activities of 74 baby food and bottle manufacturers in
62 countries show that no company complies fully with the Code and
that Nestl again tops the list as worst violator (with twice as
many complaints as any other company).
The report, compiled from surveys carried out between
August 1993 and July 1994, shows that free supplies of baby milk
are still given to hospitals in at least 41 countries, 28 of which
have government bans against the practice. Nestl free supplies
were found in 22 countries with bans, including China, Zimbabwe
and Bangladesh.
Many of the violations have already been reported to governments
and companies by the monitors in the countries concerned. Baby
Milk Action has sent a copy of Breaking the Rules 1994 to each
company and, along with our sister organisations around the world,
is sending more detailed information to encourage changes.
Mixed response from companies
Six weeks after receiving the reports, most companies have
not replied. Letters from the 3 companies which have responded in
any detail show major differences in attitude towards their
responsibilities.
Milupa is the only major manufacturer to respond to the
complaints and has commented in detail on the report. However,
while Breaking the Rules compares company activities with the
International Code, Milupa has responded only from a point of view
of national Codes. It claims to have made some changes and to have
withdrawn from the market in Bangladesh, Cameroon, Cte d'Ivoire
and Pakistan.
Bimbosan, a small Swiss company, rather misses the point:
RWeUd like to ask whether you have ever heard of a free market
economy? We have read of planned economics and discover that this
was so good that it doesnUt exist any more.S
Glaxo has responded much more positively: criticised for
selling
a cereal in Ghana for use from 4 months (and without marking the
age clearly on the label), without the label text in the local
language, and advertising the product on television, the company
has replied Rin the light of your report, we are considering
changing the recommended age from 4-6 months onwards to 6 months
onwards.S
Acknowledgments have also been received from Boots, Galactina and
Nestl.
Breaking the Rules 1994 is illustrated throughout and includes
company addresses to encourage letters from readers. It is
available from Baby Milk Action, price #3.50 including postage.
COMPANY NEWS
Boots sells FarleyUs
FarleyUs baby milks and cereals have been sold by Boots to
US food company Heinz for #94m. 70% of FarleyUs sales are in the
UK. Other important markets are Ireland, Pakistan, New Zealand and
east Asia. Boots still holds its own brand follow-up milks, baby
foods, bottles and teats.
Unreliable Views
A Nestl publication sent free to thousands of health
workers worldwide has illustrated the baby milk industry's
penchant for misusing research material to deflect criticism of
its marketing practices. The June edition of Nestl Worldview
highlights unpublished research on malnourished mothers' ability
to
breastfeed: A Nestl-sponsored study alleges that the breastmilk of
severely malnourished mothers in Zaire is very low in volume and
fat content. The article proposes a Nestl supplement for the
mother as a solution. The research may prove to be sound, but
Nestl's reasons for publishing it in this way are highly
questionable.
A misconception common amongst health workers is that
mothers need a good balanced diet to breastfeed successfully.
Indeed, many of the baby milk industry's publications reinforce
this view. Worldview will increase the likelihood of health
workers recommending bottle feeding.
Professor Andrew Tomkins, Director of LondonUs Centre for
International Child Health, said, RIt is in my view unfortunate
and unacceptable that conclusions are published in journals such
as this without being subjected to peer review.S It is widely
accepted that feeding the mother is a safer, cheaper and more
sensible option than bottle feeding.
A second article in Worldview - on allergies - has also
been
criticised. It claims that sensitive babies can suffer allergic
reactions if their breastfeeding mothers consume dairy products,
and that it is very difficult for breastfeeding mothers to get
enough calcium without drinking cowUs milk. Dr. Andrew Porter, a
Consultant Paediatrician, has complained: RAlthough breastmilk can
certainly contain trace elements of cowUs milk protein, it
obviously does not contain nearly as much as the pure product or
even the modified versions present in baby milk formulas... It is
perfectly possible on a dairy product-free diet for mothers to
consume enough calcium. There is plenty of calcium in meat, fish,
eggs, vegetables, etc.S
Neither of the Nestl articles has references to other studies.
Three health workers cancelled their subscriptions to
Professional Care of Mother and Child after the journal
distributed Worldview to its subscribers.
Paddington sells out to Mead Johnson
US baby milk company Mead Johnson has launched its
Prosobee and Nutramigen formulas in the UK. It is providing
unrequested free samples to doctors' surgeries and to hospitals
and is promoting the milks with inserts in health journals. The
labels carry a picture of Paddington Bear dressed as a doctor,
even though a forthcoming law will ban the use of pictures which
idealise the use of baby milk.
Marketing law gets wide support
A draft law which should ban baby milk advertising in the
UK has received overwhelming support from health
professional bodies and the public. During a consultation period
on the proposals, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
received over 200 letters of support. 48 health, development and
consumer bodies were in favour of the proposed law, the majority
suggesting that the advertising ban be extended to follow-up
milks. The Ministry received only 13 letters opposing the ban, 10
of which were from company and advertising sources.
Campaign magazine has reported that Health Secretary
Virginia Bottomley opposes the advertising ban. Baby Milk Action
hopes that this is a reporting error and has written to Mrs
Bottomley for clarification. Adoption of the law is not expected
before the end of the year.
BPA in funding row
The British Paediatric Association has become embroiled in
a row over sponsorship after accepting a gift of #140 000 from
Nestl. Forty paediatricians wrote to the British Medical Journal
accusing the BPA of taking the money covertly. The money was
listed in the BPA annual report as an anonymous donation: the
International Code requires that payments from companies are
declared.
The letter to the BMJ states "It is true that a number of
paediatric research projects are funded, directly or indirectly,
by Nestl. However, individual paediatricians can choose whether
to work with such projects. In contrast, the British Paediatric
Association is our only professional body; we have no choice but
to back it."
In a letter to the association, BPA member and Baby Milk
Action director, Dr. Anthony Costello, stated that many members
were opposed to links with companies which break the International
Code and that BPA members should have had a chance to debate the
issue.
Breaking The Rules 1994 shows that neither Nestl nor any other
major infant formula manufacturer comes near to being in full
compliance with the Code.
Although Nestl does not sell baby food in the UK, BPA
Treasurer Dr. Christopher Nourse told the British Medical Journal
there was Rcorrespondence between Nestl and the BPA, making us
think it was behaving quite properly in this country.S BPA policy
refers only to national legislation, not the International Code.
The BPA has now convened a working group to study the question of
sponsorship.
By contrast, in February, the Indian Academy of
Paediatrics refused a $500 000 donation from Nestl and resolved
not to accept future payments from the baby milk industry. In
Britain, the National Childbirth Trust has developed strict
guidelines which ban the acceptance of money from any company
involved in the bottle feeding industry.
If any doubt remains about the intention of companies
sponsoring doctors, a survey reported in Marketing Globe magazine
has found that doctors who accept drug company research money are
19 times more likely to recommend that companyUs product.
PhysicianUs pledge
UNICEF Executive Director, James Grant, has written to
doctors throughout the world asking them to sign a pledge against
free supplies of infant formula to hospitals and in support of
breastfeeding. Grant compares bottle feeding with smoking and
writes "Study after study now shows, for example, that babies who
are not breastfed have higher rates of death, meningitis,
childhood leukaemia and other cancers, diabetes, respiratory
illnesses... Despite these facts, today too few health care
providers inform their patients about a mother's extraordinary
capacity to sustain and protect human life - her children's and
her own." If you want to ask your doctor to sign up, copies of the
letter and pledge are available from Baby Milk Action.
Bedtime for Bed Timers
FarleyUs has stopped the production of Bed Timers, its
chocolate drink for infants which contains 43% sugar, after a
two-year protest by the Baby Drinks Campaign. The families of 1200
children who suffered painful dental caries after bottle feeding
with sweetened baby drinks are suing the 5 major drink
manufacturers.
The Baby Drinks Campaign aims to combat the health risks
posed by sugared drinks for infants and toddlers. It is led by
Action
& Information on Sugars (AIS) and includes Baby Milk Action, the
NCT and several other health groups. Since the campaign's launch,
sales of sugared drinks have fallen by 22%. A training &
information pack is planned for the immediate future.
AIS, PO Box 190, Walton on Thames KT12 2YN.
RELIEF AID
Concern over inappropriate food aid
Baby milk being provided as relief aid is of such concern
to agencies such as UNICEF, WHO and UNHCR that it was the subject
of a three-day debate at MayUs World Health Assembly. Guidelines
drafted by internationally respected infant feeding experts
discourage the distribution of breastmilk substitutes and state
that cups should be used rather than feeding bottles.
Baby milk companies ignore these guidelines, donating milk
and bottles which carry brand names and which are often labelled
in an inappropriate language. Well-meaning but inexperienced
relief agencies, who are willing to transport and distribute these
products, are a natural target for companies eager to open up new
markets.
Japan pushes its baby milks
Japan may be pressuring the Red Cross to distribute infant
formula in order to support the Japanese formula industry in
central Asia, despite Red Cross policy against the inappropriate
use of baby milk. In 1993, the Japanese government gave 1566
tonnes of breastmilk substitutes, worth US$5.4m, for distribution
in Eastern Siberia and the Far Eastern region, and 1344 tonnes
($4.4m) for the Central Asian Republics (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Tadjikistan, Turk-menistan and Uzbekistan). The Red Cross/Red
Crescent has a long-held policy of using breastmilk substitutes in
emergency situations only when absolutely necessary. However,
Japan appears to have made it clear that any objections to the
free infant formula will jeopardise funding for essential hospital
kits containing pharmaceuticals and basic medical appliances.
One maternity in Kazakhstan with 3400 births per year
received 140 cartons of Snow Brand infant formula in June 1993, of
which only 22 had been used by January 1994, mainly for abandoned
babies. The free supply of milk is not appreciated as the hospital
is committed to promoting breastfeeding.
A workshop on UNICEFUs Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative
in St. Petersburg in 1993 concluded that RDonors should be
urged not to send breastmilk substitutes indiscriminately to
countries in central and eastern Europe.S
Charity changes damaging TV ad
Feed the Children, a charity which provides aid to eastern
Europe, has changed a TV advertisement, shown on Channel 4 in
Scotland, after complaints about its negative portrayal of
breastfeeding. The ad carried the logo of baby milk company Cow
& Gate (which paid for the broadcast).
Although Feed the Children claims that baby milk forms
less than 5% of its aid, the advert focused on infant feeding. It
included a shot of a Bosnian mother breastfeeding her
healthy-looking baby, with a voice-over saying, RHow must that
mother feel, knowing her baby is aching with hunger?S The ad
suggested that breastfeeding does not protect against infection
and that there is an urgent need for baby milk. Boxes of food were
shown being unloaded while the voice-over claimed "#20 can supply
a life saving baby box for Bosnia." All the baby boxes contain
bottles, teats and branded baby foods. Some contain baby milk.
The charity has now apparently changed the ad and removed the Cow
& Gate logo.
Breast still best
As breastfeeding saves the lives of many babies, agencies
such as WHO, UNICEF and UNHCR are working hard to discourage
bottle feeding in emergency situations. They are providing
breastfeeding training for health workers and have asked other
agencies to limit their donations of baby milk.
The UN agencies are sending breastfeeding experts to
former Yugoslavia in an effort to address the problems arising
when food, water and energy supplies are disrupted. In 1987, less
than 30% of Sarajevo's mothers started breastfeeding. Following
the UN initiative, 60% of babies are now breastfed for 12 months.
Aileen Robertson, a WHO nutritionist working in Bosnia since
October 1992, reports that there is no evidence of widespread
malnutrition and that mothers want to breastfeed. They need
support and encouragement for this, not donations of baby milk.
INTERNATIONAL NEWS
World Health Assembly U94:
Global consensus on Code as industry is defeated
After 13 years of opposition, the USA has joined the rest of the
world in an historic consensus decision to support the
International Code. A resolution condemning company donations of
baby milk to all parts of the health care system worldwide
followed a heated three-day debate at the World Health Assembly in
May. Countries representing the industry view had attempted to
weaken the resolution.
Delegates to the WHA (the decision-making body of the
World Health Organisation) were debating a resolution urging
governments Rto ensure that there are no donations of free or
subsidised supplies of breastmilk substitutes and other products
covered by the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk
Substitutes in any part of the health care system.S The European
Commission and the USA, protecting their industry interests,
initially tried to weaken the resolution with suggestions that it
would cause legal problems. They proposed amendments mirroring the
industryUs position, which would have allowed supplies to be
channelled into hospitals and made the monitoring of donations
impossible.
Speaking on behalf of all African countries, the Swaziland
delegation called for the original resolution to be strengthened.
African delegates vehemently rejected the assumption that Africa
needs donations from baby food companies, stressing that such
donations are nothing more than a promotional technique. Kenya
stated that if the issue came to a vote, it would insist on a roll
call of member states Rso that those who are unfair to babies
would be known by name.S
Baby Milk ActionUs Patti Rundall represented Save the
Children at the debate: speaking on food aid and free
supplies, she told delegates, RThe real need for breastmilk
substitutes is greatly
exaggerated by the companies who need to convince us all that
health services cannot manage without their help and that
lactation
failure is normal. Donations of proprietary brands are an
excellent way to open up new markets and create dependency on
imported products.S
The African position was supported by several European
countries including the UK, as well as by UNICEF, UNHCR and the
pro-breastfeeding NGOs. The mounting concern resulted in a
compromise whereby all sides withdrew their amendments and agreed
to the original text. This led to a vote in favour of the
International Code by the USA, the only country to vote against
when it was adopted in 1981, moving the issue into a new era of
global consensus. The resolutionUs adoption was greeted with near-
universal applause - only the industry lobbyists remained silent.
To date, the baby food industry has failed to respond positively
to the resolution, which clarifies the International Code. Nestl
has failed to mention it at all in the huge volume of new
literature it has produced.
Insufficient milk or insufficient support?
Disturbing press articles and television programmes are
appearing in the USA and the UK, linking breastfeeding with
dehydration of babies and even death. The first such article
appeared in the Wall Street Journal just before World
Breastfeeding Week in August, highlighting what was termed the
Ryuppie syndromeS of mothers harming their babies who didnUt
receive enough milk from breastfeeding before being RsavedS by
infant formula.
This was followed by similar pieces in the Mail on Sunday,
Time magazine and on US TV. While the stories state that
breastfeeding is best, the underlying message is so horrific that
it promotes bottle feeding. The media coverage focused on US
mothers who had little or no support from the health care system
after leaving hospital. Such care is provided free to all mothers
in the UK by health visitors and community midwives.
One alarming consequence of the absence of post-natal care
was that mothers did not know to check the wetness of their
babies' nappies. Dry nappies are a warning sign that something is
wrong.
Dow Jones - the parent company of the Wall Street Jour-nal, whose
article sparked the other stories - uses the same public relations
firm as US formula companies, Mead Johnson and Abbott Ross.
Another story in the Sunday Times reports that a US mother
has been accused of murdering her baby by breastfeeding while
taking drugs. No test was carried out to check for the presence of
drugs in the mothers' milk, while the autopsy found that the baby
suffered cot death. The case will make legal history and is likely
to frighten mothers who smoke, drink alcohol or use drugs.
This spate of stories can only undermine breastfeeding. It
appears at the same time as the baby milk industry has abandoned
any pretence of supporting the Code in industrialised countries,
continuing to perpetuate the myth of the bottle being the solution
to insufficient milk. In the US, companies have threatened legal
action against hospitals considering Baby Friendly Hospital
status, citing breach of contract.
Cairo supports breastfeeding
International Baby Food Action Network campaigners from
Swaziland, the Philippines, Guatemala and Switzerland attended the
recent International Conference on Population and Develop-ment in
Cairo, succeeding in having the contraceptive effect of
breastfeeding recognised in the final document.
Sandoz buys Gerber and introduces double standards
Swiss pharmaceutical company Sandoz has bought US baby
food company Gerber. Sandoz already makes Wander and Sandoz baby
milks, sold primarily in Switzerland and Spain: this acquisition
makes the company a much larger player in the world market.
Sandoz also sells Parlodel, its brand name for bromocrip-tine, a
drug used to suppress lactation. In August, Sandoz announced that
it would no longer indicate that Parlodel could be used for
lactation suppression in the USA because of the danger of
hypertension, seizures and stroke. However, this step has not been
taken in any other country except Canada. RIf this drug is too
risky for US women, it is also too risky for European, Latin
American, African and Asian women,S said Barbara Mintzes of the
rational drug use campaigning network Health Action International.
Nineteen US women have died since 1989 after using bromocriptine.
Cow & Gate claims to be better than the breast
Cow & Gate/Nutricia is promoting its baby milk to health
workers and the public in the Cayman Islands using inaccurate
information on vitamin D. A leaflet promoting Nutrilon baby milk
is riddled with false claims such as RBreastmilk always contains
too little vitamin DS, RWhen only breastfeeding is given, it is
absolutely necessary to give a vitamin D supplementS but RVitamin
supplementation is not necessary when using Nutrilon premiumS.
Despite stating that RBreastmilk is perfectS, the leaflet makes
the extraordinary claim that Nutrilon is superior: RNutrilon
premium is a complete alternative, as it closely resembles
breastmilk, not only in composition, but also in absorption
characteristics. The only important difference, which makes
Nutrilon premium the perfect complete infant formula, is the
optimal vitamin D content.S
In fact, vitamin D is a hormone which is activated by sunlight -
exposure to the sun for 30-120 minutes a week will provide enough
vitamin D (meaning that deficiency is virtually unknown in the
Caribbean). Dietary sources may provide too much of the vitamin
and can lead to illness. Please complain to Cow & Gate, Newmarket
Avenue, Trowbridge BA14 0XQ, UK.
Gabon bans baby milk imports
The Government of Gabon has banned the importation of
foods for babies under 6 months old. The ban was provoked by the
Rextreme marketing tactics of the food multinationals and their
effects on infant malnutrition.S One hospital in the capital
Libreville reports Rthe total disappearance of diarrhoea and
general infections...S since introducing its policy of exclusive
breastfeeding, as well as Ra significant reduction in the rate of
digestive infections, which are very serious in preterm babies.
The rate has dropped from 25% to 1%.S
Breaking the Rules 1994 reports International Code violations in
Gabon by 5 baby milk and 2 bottle companies.
Malawi labels still in wrong language
Following requests from the Malawi Ministry of Health, and
after a long campaign by Jim Bloomfield, a Baby Milk Action
supporter in Malawi, Nestl has finally agreed to change the
language on its baby milk labels. However, Lactogen 1 & 2 are
still being sold with label text in English and Afrikaans rather
than Chichewa, the local language. The Ministry of Health has
requested that the text is in Chichewa and English. It is not
clear when Nestl will make the changes. The English/Afrikaans
labels originate in South Africa, where they may also violate the
CodeUs requirement that they should be in an appropriate
language.
In June 1994, S-26 infant formula made by Wyeth/SMA was
found in Malawi - the label text is in English and Swahili and
therefore incomprehensible to 75% of the population. The company
has not responded to complaints.
Breaking the Rules 1994 reports labels in an inappropriate
language by Nestl in 8 countries and by Wyeth in 6.
Doctors discourage breastfeeding in US
A US study has found that by providing free formula
samples and coupons, obstetricians unintentionally
discourage breastfeeding and Rare functioning as advertising and
marketing agents for a commercial product.S This practice also
implies to the mother that her doctor does not consider
breastfeeding to be important. The US
infant formula industry is now targeting health professionals to
help in the prenatal marketing of infant formula.
Howard FM et al., The physician as advertiser: the unintentional
discouragement of breastfeeding, Obstetrics and Gynecology 1993;
81: 1048-1051.
RESEARCH
Breast is best for 6 months
A study in Honduras has found that exclusive breastfeeding
for the first 6 months of life should be recommended in
low-income populations. There was no advantage indicated in
introducing complementary foods before 6 months, whereas there
were disadvantages in exposure to contaminated weaning foods.
(Lancet 1994; 343: 288-93) Commercial baby foods in sealed jars
are not expected to be contaminated, provided they are thrown away
after the first use. They are, however, very expensive. Cheaper
commercial weaning foods (such as NestlUs Cerelac or GerberUs baby
cereals), which are rehydrated with water in a similar manner to
baby milks, are more likely to present a contamination danger.
Breastfeeding protects US children
Health and feeding information drawn from a large
representative sample of US children shows that breastfeeding
protects against pneumonia in 1-2 year-olds and that early
introduction of solid foods increases the likelihood of pneumonia.
Breastfeeding was found to protect against ear infections in
children under one year old. A slight protective effect against
asthma was also shown.
Ford K, Labbok M, Breastfeeding and child health in the United
States, Journal of Biosocial Science 1993; 25: 187-194
Breastfeeding protects low-birth-weight babies
A study of 118 low-birth-weight babies showed that those
fed on infant formula were 13 times more likely to suffer
necrotising enterocolitis (a potentially fatal condition) than the
breastfed babies. The artificially-fed babies were 5 times more
likely to contract urinary infections, 9 times more likely to
suffer diarrhoea and 2.3 times more likely to need blood
transfusions.
Contreras-Lemus J et al., Boletin Mdico del Hospital Infantil de
Mexico 1992; 49: 671-677.
Breast cancer
Studies showing the protective effect of breastfeeding
against breast cancer (see Update 12) have been confirmed by a US
study. The cumulative period of breastfeeding was studied - women
who lactated for longer periods were the least likely to suffer
breast cancer. The younger a woman is when she first breastfeeds,
the lower the risk of cancer.
Newcomb PA et al., Lactation and a reduced risk of premenopausal
breast cancer, N. Engl J Med 1994; 33: 81-7.
Educate the fathers
A survey of 115 UK mothers has shown that the partnerUs
attitude to breastfeeding is the biggest factor influencing their
feeding decision. If the father approved of breastfeeding, three
quarters of infants were totally breastfed; if the father was
indifferent or disapproving, the proportion fell to less than
10%.
Clinical Paediatrics 1994; 33: 214-9.
Multiple sclerosis
An Italian study has found that patients with
multiple
sclerosis are less likely than a control group to have been
breastfed for a prolonged period of time.
Pisacane et al, Breastfeeding and multiple sclerosis, BMJ 1994;
308: 1411-1412.
Gaps in health workersU knowledge
A survey to assess whether parents would be likely to
receive the same sound and clear infant feeding advice
from different community health professionals shows that further
training and initiatives are required. A confidential
questionnaire was distributed to all clinical medical officers
(CMOs), health visitors and every second GP in south Derbyshire.
Of 200 respondents, 34 were in favour of complementary bottle
feeding in the establishment of breastfeeding and 75% of CMOs
agreed with the statement that infant formula is as good as
breastmilk (74% of GPs and 78% of HVs disagreed). However,
follow-on milks were not considered to play an important role.
Health visitors said that professional journals and
company information were the main sources of information. GPs said
that health visitors were their main source.
Hyde L, Knowledge of basic infant nutrition amongst community
health professionals, Maternal and Child Health 1994; 1: 27-32.
Breastfeeding literature compared
An evaluation of all breastfeeding literature distributed
to mothers in Ontario, Canada, has shown noticeable differences
between materials produced by non-profit sources and those given
out by infant food manufacturers. 12 company pamphlets and 10
non-profit pamphlets were compared against several criteria. The
non-profit sources scored higher in positive attitude, accuracy
and Code compliance, although one government pamphlet violated the
Code with its presentation of bottle feeding.
The reading levels were considered to be too high in both
sources, particularly in view of the 1.5 million Canadian women
with limited reading skills. The baby food company pamphlets,
which are abundant and often remain in circulation for long
periods, generally gave negative impressions of breastfeeding.
Health professionals are reminded of their responsibility to check
the information they distribute.
Valaitis RK and Shea E. Canadian Journal of Public Health 1993;
84: 24-27.
Baby Milk Action Area Contacts
SCOTLAND (1)
BORDERS: Maggie Ellis, PEEBLES (01721) 720195
FIFE: Patricia Hamilton, GLENROTHES (01592) 756 806. Katharine &
Matthew Herbert, ST. ANDREWS (01334) 77411
GRAMPIAN: Sheri Lowther, KINCARDINESHIRE (01561) 320498
HIGHLAND: Daphne Meacock, INVERNESS (01463) 792549
LOTHIAN: Frankie Taylor, LINLITHGOW (01506) 842286
SHETLAND: Kaye Sandison, LERWICK (01595) 2573
Jan Price, SCOUSBURGH (01950) 60725
STRATHCLYDE: Veronika Tudhope, KILMARNOCK (01563) 44084.
Kay McMeekin, DARVEL (01560) 321313.
Stewart & Ginny Graham, DUNBARTONSHIRE (0141) 775 0034
NORTHERN IRELAND (2)
COUNTY ANTRIM: Audrey Heaney, BALLYMENA (01266) 49933
BELFAST: Clare Moore, BELFAST (01232) 230220
Lesley Harvey, BELFAST (01232) 748194
NORTH WEST (3)
LANCASHIRE: Bernadette Walker, BURNLEY (01282) 831200.
Veronica Farrell, BLACKPOOL (01253) 396779
MERSEYSIDE: Isla Cameron, LIVERPOOL (0151) 733 2288.
Barbara Gleave, WIRRAL (0151) 625 5211
CHESHIRE: Lesley Byrne, FRODSHAM, (01928) 735939
GREATER MANCHESTER: Magda Sachs, OLDHAM (01457) 820083.
Joseph Ryan, MANCHESTER (0161) 872 4097.
Christopher Burke, STOCKPORT (0161) 431 5959
NORTH (4)
WEST YORKSHIRE: Janette Westman, BRADFORD (01274) 492802
Eunice Morton, LEEDS (0113) 2557221
Margaret Ritchie, HAWORTH (01535) 646689
Judith Fisher, PONTEFRACT (01977) 704632
Karen Carter, DEWSBURY (01924) 46161
SOUTH YORKSHIRE: Mary Tones, DONCASTER (01405) 815415
DURHAM: Ruth Taylor, CONSETT (01207) 583160
TYNE-AND-WEAR: Paula Thornton, NEWCASTLE (0191) 284 5865
LINCOLNSHIRE: Deborah Kitts, BOSTON (01205) 724054.
DERBYSHIRE: Edith & John Radford, CHESTERFIELD (01246) 270371
Sue Oosterwoud, WIRKSWORTH (01629) 824840
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE: Jane Tapp, NOTTINGHAM (0115) 981 8992
Tracy Lean, NOTTINGHAM (0115) 9585666
WALES (5)
CLWYD: Ian Day, MOLD (01352) 752960
GLAMORGAN: Lynda Duffy, MOUNTAIN ASH (01443) 478977.
Anne Dowden, CARDIFF (01222) 735060
DYFED: Maria Dowden, LLANELLI (01269) 841382
MIDLANDS (6)
CAMBRIDGESHIRE: Suzanne Angel, ELY (01353) 862602.
LEICESTERSHIRE: Steven Lee, COALVILLE (01530) 838287
NORFOLK: Linda Mitchell, NORWICH (01603) 742215.
Davida Higgin, Shotesham (01508) 50446
NORTHAMPTONSHIRE: Pauline Smith, NORTHAMPTON (01604) 27887
OXFORDSHIRE: Roger Jenking, OXFORD (01865) 62475
SHROPSHIRE: Phillip Lunts, SHREWSBURY (01743) 356886
STAFFORDSHIRE: Joy Shakespeare, TAMWORTH (01827) 61019
WEST MIDLANDS: Marion Perkins, SOLIHULL (0121) 742 1204
Sally Cook, Wolverhampton (01902) 713849.
SOUTH WEST (7)
AVON: Hugh Dowson, BATH (01225) 464234
Eve Bechmann-Johnson, BRISTOL (0117) 951 0591
DORSET: Tracy Stanton, POOLE (01202) 673941
Carl Richards, Bournemouth (01202) 533247
HAMPSHIRE: Christine Donovan, SOUTHAMPTON (01703) 236766.
Heather Wincott, GOSPORT (01705) 588780
ISLE OF WIGHT: Ian & Wendy Moth, NEWPORT (01983) 529628
SOMERSET: Karen Hole, WEDMORE (01934) 712922
WILTSHIRE: Amanda & Luke de Vial, MELKSHAM (01225) 791455
SOUTH EAST (8)
BEDFORDSHIRE: Jenny Bower, BEDFORD (01234) 357124
BERKSHIRE: Belinda Curran, NEWBURY (01635) 254635
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: Amanda Richards, AYLESBURY (01296) 432500
ESSEX: Nicolette & Paul Coleman, WEstcliff-on-Sea (01702) 431626
KENT: Carolyn Collins, FOLKESTONE (01303) 250122.
Joan Arthurs, SITTINGBOURNE (01795) 478443.
LONDON: Elaine Lawson, BALHAM (0181) 767 1396
Lin Redman, ILFORD (0181) 590 9188.
Alison Onyelekere, BARKING (0181) 591 8999
Maureen Purtell, HARROW (0181) 868 0506
Jean Rowe, CHISWICK (0181) 747 3848
SURREY: Kate Cox, DORKING (01306) 741260.
Patricia Wise, CROYDON (01737) 552295
SUSSEX: Jane Oakhill, BRIGHTON (01273) 541841.
Joanna Hargreaves, EASTBOURNE (01323) 410481
Sarah Hale, NEWHAVEN (01273) 517 585
Sheila Rosewell, HASTINGS (01424) 712038.
Ros Barber, Uckfield (01825) 890928
Ireland
DONEGAL: Jane Donegan, MOVILLE (077) 82670
** End of text from cdp:pn.alerts **
***************************************************************************
This material came from PeaceNet, a non-profit progressive networking
service. For more information, send a message to peacen...@igc.apc.org
***************************************************************************