Nestlé cares about mothers

Which is why they have most graciously agreed to sponsor the Canadian Perinatal and Pediatric Nutrition conference. Naturally, some people aren't convinced of their altruistic motives. However, as in other Mommy Wars issues, others are finding ways to change the focus of the debate from conflict of interest to formula vs. breastfeeding.

In her blog post, Racheal at Yummy Mummy Club says she doesn't understand why the "lactivists" are so upset about Nestlé sponsoring the conference. She says

Nestlé's is sponsoring a conference. It's being put on by Alberta Health Services, and they would not be able to do it without Nestlé's help. Why is that wrong? It should also be noted that the conference is for healthcare professionals. Clearly the lactivists didn't read that when they started sending me messages like:

"there's an inherent conflict of interest and a real danger of women getting mixed health messages"

Some people only use cloth diapers. Should they be boycotting those mommy movie matinees because they're sponsored by Huggies?

It is interesting that she writes that lactivists apparently don't "get it" that Nestlé, a company which holds a significant portion of the world's market share for artificial infant nutrition, is sponsoring a conference about pediatric nutrition, which would be their target consumer base. Perhaps the analogy she should have used is this:

Some people only use cloth diapers. Should they be boycotting a symposium on cloth diapering that is sponsored by Huggies?

And of course, the answer to that question, is YES! It isn't that Company A is sponsoring a random conference for Issue B. It is that Company A has a specific and vested interest in capturing the consumer base for Issue B. Let me put it another way: Should Budweiser be allowed to sponsor a conference for Alcoholics Anonymous?

Conflict of interest is defined as "when an individual or organization...has an interest that might compromise their actions...More generally, conflict of interests can be defined as any situation in which an individual or corporation (either private or governmental) is in a position to exploit a professional or official capacity in some way for their personal or corporate benefit." (ref) This situation looks like a pretty cut-and-dry conflict of interest to me.

(In fact, conflict of interest is a serious problem in Big Pharma in general. Drug manufacturers often sponsor conferences for their target consumer base, and even sponsor studies that are intended to prove the safety of their own drug that they want approved. This is also true for infant formulas. As it stands right now, many health care professionals and law makers in our country are more influenced by sponsorships and lobbyists than they are by evidence-based medicine or public health and welfare. But I should write more about that another day.)

Okay, so it seems that Nestlé may have more interest in the matter than just promoting public health. But surely Nestlé isn't nefarious in their dealings. After all, we are talking about the health of the world's children. Well, there was that one thing in the 70s, but that was years ago, surely they have cleaned up their act by now? Not so, according to the International Baby Food Action Network, in their publication, Breaking the Rules/Stretching the Rules 2004, which outlines violations of the WHO's International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and details the ways in which infant formula manufacturers, including Nestlé, are operating illegally and unethically to undermine the health of the world's children TODAY.

So the question that we "lactivists" have is this: Why is Nestlé, a company known for injuring and killing millions of babies worldwide by intentionally and dishonestly marketing its baby milk substitutes, being allowed to sponsor a conference about pediatric nutrition? I believe it is a valid question to ask.

Sadly, this is not the same conclusion Racheal came to:

So to the lactivists out there: hug your children tight and be grateful that you could give them your milk, but please don't come down on those who couldn't or chose not to.

I guess I missed the part where actively fighting to hold corporations responsible for their unethical and harmful actions equals being judgmental towards mothers who use infant formula?

Okay, everyone knows I don't have a terribly high opinion of women who don't think that using formula is any big deal. However, I understand as well as anyone that the majority of women, rather than not wanting to make the healthiest choice possible for their children, are misled into less-healthy choices because of the aggressive and unethical business practices of formula manufacturers, as well as our non-breastfeeding-friendly culture. Ladies, the answer to that is not to be angry at each other, but to be angry at the culture and government that allows this to occur.

This issue of Nestlé sponsoring an infant nutrition conference isn't about breast vs. bottle at all. It is about trying to raise awareness and rally women together to protect our children and the children of the world by refusing to allow corporate greed to dictate public health policy. Put down the bingo card and pick up your activist hat, and get to work!


For more information on the campaign to boycott Nestlé and unethical infant formula manufacturer practices, please visit the following sites:

Nestlé - The Baby Killler?
Baby Milk Action
International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN)
INFACT Canada