Nestlé welcomes dialogue, which can lead to resolution of differences between NGOs and industry, which stand in the way of effective implementation of the International (WHO) Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes. While the WHO Code gives governments the responsibility for monitoring Code compliance and for deciding what is an appropriate implementation of the WHO Code in each country, NGOs and companies are asked to collaborate with governments in monitoring efforts. To that end we publish the following unedited correspondence between Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Co-ordinator of Baby Milk Action (UK), and Niels Christiansen of Nestlé S.A., Public Affairs.

Dear Editor,

Nestlé's activities in the Philippines

Baby Milk Action stands by its allegations regarding Nestlé's baby food marketing malpractice in the Philippines and elsewhere, including the picture of a "Health Educator" reproduced in the November 1999 edition of Nestlé's "Action" Report.

Contrary to the suggestion in Nestlé's article Code compliance - myth and reality, Nestlé S.A. has been directly informed of violations in the Philippines a number of times. Indeed, a doctor travelled from the Philippines to Switzerland to raise her concerns with the Board of Directors at Nestlé 1996 shareholder meeting. The Ministry of Health in the Philippines has also been informed of violations.

Nestlé S.A. did indeed write to Baby Milk Action, on 27th September 1999, concerning the "Health Educators." From the letter it appears that Nestlé S.A. has not directly investigated reports of the "Health Educators," but has accepted the "assurance" of Nestlé Philippines that it does not have such a practice. Baby Milk Action responded to the letter on 13th October 1999, asking Nestlé S.A. to release its audit report on Nestlé Philippines, if any exists. Nestlé's Chief Executive Officer, Peter Brabeck, claimed in Nestlé's October "Action" Report that over 130 audits have been conducted and stated: "I personally review any hint of wrongdoing that the auditors uncover."

Nestlé implied in the article that we had not responded to its request for further information on the identity of the "Health Educator" in the picture. This is incorrect. We wrote to Nestlé on 13th October as follows:

"We are not at liberty to disclose further details of the "Health Educator" pictured due to the serious attacks Nestlé has made in the past on employees who have spoken about its baby food marketing malpractice. For example, Ms. Kennedy [Nestlé (UK) Corporate Affairs] has suggested that a former employee in Pakistan "attempted to blackmail the Company". I have written to Ms. Kennedy on two separate occasions asking her to substantiate this serious and defamatory statement and she has not even acknowledged my letters, which were sent by recorded delivery. I would be grateful if you could instruct her to either substantiate her statement or issue an apology and correction."

In Nestlé's October "Action" Report Mr. Peter Brabeck claimed: "We now have 54 countries verifying our compliance, with only 1 government writing to say that we don't follow the Code." Baby Milk Action has concerns that letters used to back this claim, reproduced by Nestlé in its book Nestlé implementation of the WHO Code: official responses from governments, are being misrepresented. For example, the letter from Denmark only sets out how certain EU Directives have been implemented and does not comment on Nestlé's activities. The letter from the Cook Islands is based on a report from the Ministry of Health Nutritionist, which states: "I have not noticed any of their products being sold here."

This is in response to your letter of December 6, entitled "Nestlé's activities in the Philippines".

The need for verifiable evidence of WHO Code infringements

Your note on the Philippines gets to the heart of what is limiting more effective implementation and monitoring of the International Code - the need for verifiable evidence of allegations so that companies can take action, where justified.

Unfortunately, standing up at the annual Nestlé Shareholders meeting and making allegations, or posting them on a website does not usually give us adequate information to verify the allegations and take action. We doubt that this is what the writers of the International Code had in mind when they said that "Nongovernmental organisations...should have the responsibility of drawing the attention of manufacturers or distributors to activities which are incompatible with the principles and aim of this Code so that appropriate action can be taken. The appropriate government authority should also be informed." (Article 11.4).

In the case of the Philippines, you indicate that you will not provide such verifiable evidence because you "are not at liberty to disclose further details of the 'Health Educator'". So we are at a stalemate which prevents effective Code implementation. You claim the picture shows a person employed by Nestlé. We, knowing who our employees are, conclude that the lady in the picture is not our employee. Wouldn't it be better if we, the Philippines government, and yourselves could look at the evidence together so that we can at least agree on the facts?

You state your reason for not giving us information due to alleged "attacks Nestlé has made in the past on employees who have spoken about its baby food marketing malpractice", and refer to a former employee in Pakistan whom Nestlé has stated had attempted to blackmail the Company.

In fact, the former Nestlé Pakistan employee in question never made allegations about Nestlé when employed, so there can be no question of an "attack" of any kind on an employee making allegations. More than 6 months after leaving the company, he did make financial demands on the company which Nestlé Pakistan clearly understood as being a demand in exchange for his remaining silent. Nestlé rejected his demands. We have written and auditory evidence which back up our statements, and have shared this information with media organisations which had a legitimate interest in establishing the credibility of that former employee. We have also since discovered that this employee had falsified his educational qualifications to obtain employment with Nestlé in the first place. Despite the circumstances of his allegations, we investigated them in detail, and took action on the small number which had merit, which we would be glad to share with you.

Swift action promised

I can assure you that Nestlé is serious about taking action about Code violations, when we are able to obtain verifiable proof. Most recently, in 1999, we dismissed an infant foods manager with over 30 years of service to Nestlé because we felt that an Article of the Code was not being adhered to properly. But without such basic facts as to place and time when alleged violations have occurred, the impact of your organisation's efforts are severely limited. Also, as the Code gives governments the responsibility for monitoring, their involvement is key so that all companies are held to the same rules, and so there is a legitimate authority overseeing the process.

Nestlé's Report to the WHO

Concerning your comments about our Report to the WHO Director General, we will respond to these and other questions we have received in the Nestlé Action Report. We have received the recent. Briefing Paper you have produced which seems to us to be an attempt to discredit the majority of the letters we received as official responses from governments regarding their satisfaction with Nestlé's implementation of the WHO Code. It may be difficult for you to see when so deeply engaged in a long-standing campaign, but the picture presented by the set of letters from governments (now over 60) is so markedly different from the picture presented by your campaign material. We are therefore happy for objective individuals to look at both sides of the story and make up their own minds.

As we said in the conclusion of our Report to the WHO Director General, our monitoring process has both strengths and weaknesses. We also indicated that to strengthen it, we hope that more governments will develop formal monitoring bodies, where adequate information about alleged violations can be brought to the attention of governments and companies concerned for examination and correction. This is an evolving process, rather than an end point.

An invitation from WHO

As you know, WHO Director General, Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, has invited both the industry and advocacy NGO's to engage in dialogue to resolve differences which block effective implementation of the WHO Code in countries. Nestlé, both directly and through the industry association IFM, has fully agreed to such discussions. We understand that after waiting a year, WHO is yet to receive an affirmative reply from the organisations with which you are associated.

At this point, it appears that Baby Milk Action has a choice to make. It can either continue to devote its energies in an attempt to reunite public interest in a 25-year-old debate through the campaign tactics referred to above. Or, it can respond to the WHO's request to find ways to work together with governments, industry, and the WHO to more effectively implement the WHO Code.

Working together with governments

The WHO Code gives governments the responsibility for monitoring, and asks NGO's and companies to collaborate with governments to this end. I realise that it may be difficult for you to envisage Baby Milk Action and Nestlé working together to further the implementation of the WHO Code, or that you could have greater success in reaching your objectives by participating in agreed-upon processes, which allow verification of allegations under the watchful eye of national governments.

Rather than devoting continued resources in trying to maintain a public confrontation, let's use them, instead, to work together with WHO and governments, as the Code calls for, to develop verifiable processes of monitoring.

We are waiting at the table at WHO in Geneva.