Nestlé Examines Report on Alleged WHO Code Violations

Nestlé has made an initial examination of a newly released document from the campaign group IBFAN entitled "Breaking the Rules, Stretching the Rules 2001". The document makes allegations about 16 companies' compliance with the International (WHO) Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes in 14 countries.

As always, Nestlé will examine each allegation related to Nestlé in detail, and if there are legitimate violations of the International (WHO) Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes, we will correct them.

However, it appears that most of the allegations about Nestlé are practices that are entirely in keeping with the International Code, as originally drafted and as implemented by each government in question. It is important to note in this context that the Code was passed as a recommendation to governments to implement according to their own legislative and regulatory frameworks. Nestlé voluntarily and unilaterally applies the Code in its entirety in all developing countries (over 150 nations).

It is also important to note that most allegations are not about infant formula (baby milks) at all, but about infant cereals and baby foods which are not marketed as breast-milk substitutes. This appears to be an attempt to apply the International Code to products for which the Code was not intended, or apply the Code to an age range not agreed to by the governments in question.

Examples of mistaken allegations include:

• A Nestlé-produced breastfeeding promotion poster in the Ivory Coast with the Nestlé corporate logo. This is entirely permitted by the International Code. Part of our commitment is encourage breastfeeding.
• Growth charts with the Nestlé company logo (no product name) in Russia. This is entirely permitted by the Code.

Examples of the misapplication to products not marketed as breast-milk substitutes include:

• Billboards in Mexico carrying the Nestlé "Blue Bear" logo - Contrary to the assertions of IBFAN, these are in line with the International Code and Mexican national law. The Blue Bear logo only appears on cereals and other baby foods, not breast-milk substitutes.
• An advertisement and coupon for cereals in Singapore - Contrary to the claims of the IBFAN report, these are in line with the International Code and Singaporean national law, as they fall outside the scope of the International Code as implemented by Singapore.
• The campaign report also cites as violations infant formula marketing practices in the U.S. and Canada that are entirely in accord with decisions of the U.S. and Canadian governments about the application of the International Code in these respective countries.

Other areas

While there are mentions in the IBFAN campaign report of samples of infant formula being given to health professionals and facilities in developing countries, the report fails to mention quantities. Nestlé gives samples to doctors in extremely restricted quantities: 2 cans of infant formula during the lifetime of the health professional when a new product is introduced; in situations of social need (triplets, etc,), and for clinical validation studies.

Conclusion

The IBFAN report appears to ignore the application of the International Code by governments, and applies standards out of keeping with the decisions of the members states of WHO. The report apparently seeks to extend the Code application to products that are not marketed as breast-milk substitutes.