asked in 2005,
answered by Annelies Allain

1.  What is the most disturbing example of a breastmilk substitute and its effects on babies’ health?

In developing countries the formula fed baby has a 16 to 25 fold risk of dying of diarrhoeal disease and subsequent dehydration compared to breastfed infants. Following recent reports of potential intrinsic contamination with Enterobacter sakazakii or other pathogens, a baby fed with such powdered infant formula may develop meningitis, sepsis or necrotising enterocolitis.  4 infants died in Belgium, New Zealand and France recently and we can only guess at how many more died in developing countries where no analysis can be made of the formula.


2.  What do you blame multinational companies like Nestlé for?

Such companies promised to follow the International Code but do not abide by all its provisions. They exploit loopholes, develop new products and practices and lobby governments and WHO to weaken regulations. They use health and nutrition claims to entice more mothers to artificially feed their babies.


3.  What does breastfeeding have to do with ecology?

If more mothers breastfed, there would be less waste of packaging, feeding bottles, fuel to boil water and sterilize bottles; less medication to heal sick babies, less need for transportation to health centres, etc.
Breastfeeding is the normal means to feed babies. It is a unique, natural renewable resource. It requires no sterilizing, packaging or transporting and is thus an ecologically sustainable activity.


4.  Your members are mainly women activists. Isn’t breastfeeding an issue that men should care about just as well?

Absolutely, many men are active in IBFAN, especially those working in health care systems. About one-third of our members and leaders are men.  


5. Nestlé says it follows the Code. Why are you still boycotting the company?

Nestlé limits its marketing, as required under the Code, selectively in countries and with products only when it is forced to by law. It still aggressively promotes its infant formula, and other breastmilk substitutes, such as baby juices, teas and cereals where there are no laws or where the enforcement is weak. Nestlé claims the Code only applies in developing countries but the Code itself clearly says it is meant for all countries regardless of national measures taken to implement its provisions. Nestlé claims the Code covers only infant formula but why would the Code be called Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes if it did not cover all substitutes? With 40% of global market share, Nestlé sets the marketing trends for all companies. As long as the market leader does not behave, we must continue to boycott. Nestlé is the company that works most extensively round the world to block and undermine efforts to implement the International Code and its subsequent, relevant WHO resolutions.


6. You have the Code; what else do you want ...?

Meaningful breastfeeding protection legislation in all countries. Enforceable national measures that are in step with current marketing practices and will put an end to constant commercial pressures that undermine breastfeeding and mothers’ confidence. Broad social awareness that corporate accountability must be proven, not flouted as empty gestures. As well, social and cultural measures to ensure adequate maternity protection in the workplace and the return of breastfeeding as the cultural norm.


7. What effect has the Right Livelihood Award had on your work?

The Right Livelihood Award lifted our battle to a higher level by making more people aware of the issue, by publicly recognising our actions and thus giving small IBFAN groups more standing. We made copies of the Award and put a mention of it on our letterheads and newsletters. We are proud to be a recipient and in continuing our struggle with new vigor, we hope to make RLA proud of us as well.