More on Nestle
In response to my post on Nestle, Glen posted a comment on my site, and on his blog. Glen’s wife is a medical researcher and she disagreed with saying Nestle is “an evil” company. She cited lack of clean water sources, lack of adequate nutrition and HIV as reasons mom’s can’t breastfeed. All of which are valid concerns.
However, this does not negate Nestle’s role in undermining breastfeeding in women who SHOULD be breastfeeding. I would like to cite some sources to back this up.
The International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes
Nestlé’s violation of international marketing code
From WHO:
Difficult circumstances refer to situations faced by particularly vulnerable groups such as:
* HIV-infected mothers and their infants
* People suffering the consequences of complex emergencies, including natural or human-induced disasters such as floods, drought, earthquakes, war, civil unrest and severe political and economic living conditions.
* Low birth-weight or premature infants
* Infants and young children who are malnourished
* Adolescent mothers and their infants
* Children living in special circumstances such as foster care, or with mothers who have physical or mental disabilities, or children whose mothers are in prison or are affected by drug or alcohol abuse.
WHO is working on technical guidelines and materials for infant and young child feeding for vulnerable groups, in particular as it relates to HIV and infant feeding, infant feeding in emergency situations, feeding of malnourished children and feeding low-birth weight and premature infants.
The contribution of breastfeeding to mother-to-child transmission of HIV is an area of considerable concern. Evidence shows that up to 20% of infant born to HIV-infected mothers may acquire HIV through breastfeeding, depending on duration and other risk factors. Recent studies indicate a heightened risk of transmission during the early months. However, evidence from one study shows that exclusive breastfeeding in the first three months of life may carry a lower risk of HIV transmission than mixed feeding does. WHO is supporting research to estimate risks of transmission associated with exclusive breastfeeding and early cessation, as well as to develop interventions to ensure safe replacement feeding. Pending new information, the UNICEF/UNAIDS/WHO guidelines issued in 1998 remain valid. For more information on available guidelines and tools, please refer to the page on HIV and Infant Feeding.
In WHO’s most recent guidelines (2003) on HIV and breastfeeding it states
Exclusive breastfeeding during the first 4-6 months of life carries greater benefits than mixed feeding with respect to morbidity and mortality from infectious diseases other than HIV.
Replacement feeding carries an increased risk of morbidity and mortality associated with malnutrition and associated with infectious disease other than HIV. This is especially high in the first 6 months of life and decreases thereafter. The risk and feasibility of replacement feeding are affected by the local environment and the individual woman’s situation.
HIV, lack of proper nutrition, and no access to clean water are CLEAR issues that must be addressed when we are looking at poverty. However, corporate greed, as has been evidenced by Nestle, must be stopped as well. Nestle continues to violate the code, not only in third world countries, but also in second and first world countries as well.
If you are still reading, here are more issues with Nestle….
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCHDOG SUES NESTLE, ADM, CARGILL FOR USING FORCED CHILD LABOR
Most Wanted” Corporate Human Rights Violators of 2005 from Global Exchange
Corporations and Worker’s Rights
UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR APPALLED WITH THE DECEPTIVE TACTICS OF MILK
COMPANIES IN THE PHILIPPINES
>
