[IN the Science column of SO no. 70…]

Scan page 11

IN the Science column of SO no. 70, Davy Jones highlighted the dangers to the health of babies who are bottle fed rather than breast-fed. Especially in the Third World infants are suffering and dying from malnutrition, and from infection while multinationals are raking in the profits. Nestle, for example, had total sales worth £7 billion in 1980, of which £170 million was from baby foods.

The formula for the multis is easy.

*Take a picture of a bonny (preferably white) baby sucking • at a bottle with your firm's name on it, put it in a glossy magazine, and give it to mothers in the Third World as an 'educational aid' *Give hospitals and clinics posters, literature, and plenty of free samples of milk substitute emphasising how modern and Western bottle-feeding is.

*Dress your salespersons up as nurses and doctors and send them out to local villages (but don't mention the cost of the products).

These high-pressure sales techniques shocked and disgusted many people in Europe and the US. So loud was the protest that the World Health Assembly in May 1981 overwhelmingly approved an international code of marketing, calling for bans on direct advertising to the public, on distribution of free samples, and on use of health care facilities to promote breast-milk substitutes.

Nestle responded that their marketing policies already conformed to the "aims and principles" of the code. However, the International Baby 1 Food Action Network (IBFAN) and War on Want have hounded the company mercilessly over its sales practices. For example, IBEAN exposed thousands of violations throughout the world, including Britain, and through the action in North America where millions of people have been boycotting Nestle products for four years.

The company felt its corporate image had been tarnished and so recently appointed Mr Helmut Maucher, "a marketing wizard" as Managing Director. On March 16 this year, shortly after he arrived, Nestle announced their intention to implement the code and laid down guidelines for use by marketing personnel. They offered to rewrite and redesign product labels and 'educational materials' and to alter many of their sales techniques. It remains to be seen whether these instructions are a serious attempt to show responsibility to mothers, or whether they are tactical concessions in the face of public outrage.

Indeed, Nestle's 32-page pamphlet is worth reading as an exercise in studying the fine print. For example, they crawl through a loophole in the code which prohibits "advertising" but allows 'informal material". They interpret this to mean that "information of a general educational nature" (such as breastfeeding charts and vaccination a product by name but tion cards) must not menmay mention the corporation ...e.g. Nestle.

And throughout their document they conflate 'information' and 'education' with 'advertisement' and 'promotion'.

Further, Nestle arbitrarily and inappropriately restrict the code's scope to food for babies up to four months old, so allowing WELL OF COURSE, THAT WAS ALL PRE-BI SUENCE advertising and promotion of many other bottlefeed products.

Finally, Nestle still support the practice of giving free samples and even free gifts to the medical profession as inducements to use and promote their products. This is a sales pitch wholly contrary to the code and all efforts to promote breast-feeding.

The US-based International Boycott Committee invited Maucher to a meeting on April 7 (World Health Day) to discuss the implications of Nestle's latest instructions and

Scan page 12

Socialist Organiser no.85 May 20 1982 Page 12