Hi, There are 3 main parts to this (i) Is the Nestle Boycott needed? (ii) Does it work? (iii) What about corresponding with the formula industry?
i) Yes, it the Nestle Boycott is needed. The Code was created to protect breastfed and non-breastfed infants in developed and developing countries from morbidity and mortality (remember the Code does not say that formula should not be used, it says that if formula is required it should be provided under these stipulations in order to protect all infants). The need to protect infants continues today and the evidence of the risks of formula feeding continues to be obtained.
(ii) Does the boycott work? This question was answered by Mike Brady who works for Baby Milk Action (IBFAN in UK) on a UK website webchat [url]http://info.babymilkaction.org/mumsnetanswers#answer14[/url] see below: (Note: Look at website for other posts on shouldn't there be boycott of other formula companies, and other examples of where Nestle changed practice, etc)
Do you think the boycott of nestle is having an impact. I haven't brought nestle products for 10 years but sometimes wonder if its worth it as they are such a huge company - not sure if little old me makes much of dent (not that I'll stop the boycott)..
From everyone who has made a dent, we have collectively sculpted Nestlé into the most boycotted company in the UK by far and one of the four most boycotted companies on the planet - according to independent analysts GMI.
I find people tell me one of two things: either they are surprised how many people know about the boycott, or the opposite.
The boycott is an effective tool for getting this issue into the media and raised elsewhere. It was instrumental in defending the regulations that the Philippines was trying to introduce in 2006/2007. It was our way to interest people in the situation in the Philippines. Nestlé marketed its formula with the claim it contains 'brain building blocks', implying it make children more intelligent. At the same time, we exposed marketing malpractice by all the main companies who were misbehaving. Do not underestimate the importance of action here in the UK. We asked people to send messages of solidarity to campaigners in the Philippines and some of these ended up on the front page of the main national newspaper - when editors are concerned about pressure from companies and may be scared to run stories, being able to report on something happening internationally is a way to speak out. This successfully negated the pressure from the industry lobby on the media, the President and the Supreme Court.
We are in regular communication with Nestlé, which is a bit of a thankless task because the executives who write to us make statements that might sound good but do not stand up to scrutiny. For the few years when Nestlé agreed to debate with us in public, principally at universities and schools, we were able to expose its dishonesty before the audience - and so Nestlé kept losing the debates and subsequent votes on the boycott. Now Nestlé refuses to speak if we are even present in the room. When you communicate with Nestlé executives directly, you realise how entrenched the profits-first, do-as-they-like management culture is - and it stretches across all business activities, not just formula. We set up the Nestlé Critics website to link people in to other campaigns which are trying to stop human rights and environmental abuses.
What makes Nestlé take notice is a hit to its profits and public image. Our job is to increase the pressure and exposure to force movement - which has happened time and again. We will eventually stop the 'protect' logos we are calling on Nestlé to remove from its formula labels. But the executives try all they can to divert criticism and have a big budget to link their name with good causes, so people look on them favourably.
Nestlé has also tried to improve its image by launching a Fairtrade KitKat. This involves just 1% of the cocoa Nestlé purchases. At the same time, it has failed to deliver on a promise made in 2001 to stop child slavery in its cocoa supply chain within 5 years (by 2006). Campaigners in the US have taken Nestlé to court on behalf of children who were trafficked to farms supplying the company. There are also concerns over the source of palm oil in Nestlé products and the destruction of Indonesian rainforests to produce it. This was targeted in a Greenpeace campaign this year and Nestlé has said it will change its suppliers of palm oil - within 5 years.
The more people who boycott Nestlé and tell the people who run the company, the more influence we have.
(iii) What about corresponding with formula industry? As Mike says above there is correspondence and I know of many other attempts over the years. Remember that the 1981 Code was developed with formula industry, so they knew what they were signing up to! One of the problems is that the aim of the formula industry is to sell more formula (- and hence have to persuade breastfeeding mothers to reduce/stop breastfeeding), while the aim of public health/breastfeeding advocates is to ensure mothers breastfeed optimally for 2 years or more (and hence don't need to use formula). Therefore the aims of these two groups is completely opposite.
Finally, in the UK there is huge concern by health / nutrition professionals about the governments engagement with the food industry with many believing that this is unethical and will increase obesity/diabetes, etc. Please don't use the UK as an example of good practice - at least until the research has been done, which of course is likely to take many years to see the outcome!
Best, Ali
