We have received a number of questions about Nestlé government-based monitoring process and its results, which are answered below.

Q : Does your Report to the Director General of WHO based on this process claim that you do nothing wrong?

A: Not at all. The current process is aimed both at verifying where we are doing right and identifying where changes need to be made. We do not live in a perfect world, and some infractions will inevitably take place. We believe that what the results do indicate, when taken as a whole, is that many (now over 60) governments acknowledge that the overall pattern of Nestlé implementation is in accord with the WHO Code, and we have corrected problems when they occur.

Q: Isn't your monitoring based on national codes, rather than the WHO Code itself?

A: Our monitoring process is based on the WHO Code, as WHO itself defines it. One of the most common misconceptions about the WHO Code is that it is an inflexible international regulation, and what governments do in implementing the WHO Code is secondary to the original WHO Code recommendations. WHO confirms that this is not true. Dr. Brundtland, the Director General of WHO, reaffirmed shortly after assuming office that "neither the Code nor any resolution has a real impact and a lasting meaning unless countries implement them according to their national laws and practice. Member States are sovereign, they may, if they choose, implement WHO's recommendations to the letter, they may actually go beyond these recommendations, or they may simply ignore them altogether. What we should all be striving for in this context is the translation of these recommendations, in all 191 Member States, into national policy and practice, based on WHO's principled, evidence-based public health stand".
Thus, the WHO Code as implemented by the European Union, for example, is quite different from the implementation in Zimbabwe, which is different from that of South Africa. A prerequisite for effective enforcement of the Code is that there is a standard in the country, which the government is willing to stand behind, and governments have differed in how they have implemented the Code. If a Code doesn't exist in a developing country, Nestlé presents its own written implementation of the WHO Code to the government for approval or modification. If the government does have a Code, but provisions are weaker than that of Nestlé, we follow the Nestlé implementation.

Q: What is the one country which has written to say they can't verify Nestlé compliance, and why?

A: A member of the Health Ministry Staff on the Island of Samoa has written to complain about the labelling of our infant cereals. (Nestlé has imported to Samoa 6 cases of infant cereals, which indicate starting age as 4-6 months, using the same label as on other islands and in keeping with current WHO Infant and Young Child Feeding recommendations). We have requested a meeting with the health authorities to understand how this issue can be resolved, as the labels clearly state that mothers should "continue giving milk feeds, ideally breast milk", when using the product.

Q: Have any other countries refused to provide evidence verifying Nestlé's WHO Code compliance?

A: A handful of governments have said that it is not their policy to judge companies regarding Code compliance one way or another. The most common position in these cases is that if a company is not complying with the law (as with the EU Directive in force in European Union Countries), they will inform only in the case of non-compliance if and when it occurs. We welcome receiving notification of non-compliance, and request that government tells us what we have done wrong, and what must be remedied in order to receive verification of compliance.

Q: Why do the letters and certificates vary in language, and don't they also vary considerably in how much government monitoring is actually being done?

A: The letters vary in language because each government was free to express itself as it wished, or to follow some standard language if they so chose. Regarding government monitoring, in the text of our Report we indicated that governments vary a great deal in how much monitoring they do, and it is our hope that as many governments as possible will establish government monitoring mechanisms where allegations are brought forth by NGO's and companies allowed to examine them, with required reports to the government. (We are pleased that the 6 countries with formal monitoring mechanisms all provide evidence of Nestlé compliance).

Q: The letter you received from Denmark only sets out how certain EU Directives have been implemented. And the Cook Islands government verifies that you comply with the Code because they haven't noticed your products being sold there. How can you call this verification?

A: In the case of Denmark, we indeed should have stated that the government of Denmark only indicated that "the public food control system makes sure that, on an ongoing basis, that legislation is adhered to". We thus do not count this as confirmation of satisfaction with Nestlé's implementation of the WHO code. Apologies have been made to the Danish authorities. In the case of the Cook Islands, we do have infant food products there, but our marketing is so minimal, it is not surprising that the government official was not aware of them.

Q: Why do you have letters of WHO Code Compliance verification from countries (e.g., Peru, Philippines) where campaign organizations report multiple Nestlé infractions?

A: If the campaign organizations have reported these violations to the government, we assume that the governments have not found them to be convincing in showing that Nestlé has a pattern of violating the WHO Code. We openly acknowledge that individual mistakes are made by our employees, but we correct them if given adequate information to verify them and to take action.

Q: Haven't Nestlé personnel previously stated that you have received verification from over 70 countries?

A: Statements about "70 countries" made by Nestlé UK and Nestlé S.A. personnel in April-May 1999 have been misinterpreted by campaign organizations. We were referring to the fact that in 1996, our Instructions to implement the WHO Code were reissued and reviewed with over 70 governments, who indicated they were satisfied that our Instructions were in keeping with the WHO Code. This had nothing to do with the current monitoring process asking for official written response, which was first reported to the public in September 1999.

Q: From how many governments do you believe you will receive Code compliance verification?

A: At this point, it is difficult to tell, and much depends on how much attention governments are willing to devote to the question of marketing of infant formula. It is our intention that this process, which has both its strengths and weaknesses, will be regarding as a stimulus for strengthened government-sponsored monitoring, where both NGO's and companies collaborate with governments for effective implementation.