Corporate Crime and Violence Page 1 of 5

The Multinational Monitor

APRIL 1987 - VOLUME 8 - NUMBER 4

CORPORATE CRIME & VIOLENCE

Infant Formula
Hawking Disaster in the the Third World
For an overwhelming majority of new born babies, breast milk is the most
nutritious and wholesome baby food. Unsupplemented, it is all that is required to
sustain growth and good nutrition for the first six months of life in the babies of
well nourished mothers. Even in poorly nourished mothers, the volume and
composition of breast milk are usually surprisingly good. And breast milk contains
quantities of enzymes, antibodies, and immunizing agents that protect an infant's
ultra-sensitive digestive tract from a wide range of diseases.

Breast-feeding has natural advantages for the mother, too. Breast-feeding helps to
stimulate contractions of the womb and thus helps it return to its normal size. In
addition, breastfeeding acts as a natural contraceptive. Recent studies show that if a
woman does not breast-feed her baby, she begins to ovulate about two months after
the birth of her baby. By breast-feeding, the woman can extend the time of the first
ovulation from five months to two years.

For centuries, these natural advantages allowed human breast milk to retain a
monopoly in the infant food market. There was no competition because there was
no need for an alternative - breast milk satisfied the needs of billions of babies and
their mothers. Then came Henri Nestle.

During the late 1800s, Nestle and the company he founded developed infant
formula as a substitute for human milk, ostensibly to "save the life of an infant who
could not be breast-fed." But the percentage of women throughout the world who
bore children incapable of being breast-fed was small, and Henri Nestle, an
entrepreneur, could not expect to make much money selling his substitute for
human milk.

So, from the beginning, Nestle's corporation made its pitch not only to mothers
who couldn't breast-feed their infants but to a much larger market - mothers who
were perfectly capable of breast-feeding their babies. Nestle had to convince
millions of mothers that breast-feeding was not as good for the baby as bottle-
feeding. And it did.

Nestle became the number one manufacturer of infant formula, cornering 50

percent of what is today an estimated $2 billion market. Today, Nestle is one of the
world's largest multinational corporations. And millions of mothers, perfectly
capable of breast-feeding their babies, are feeding their babies infant formula out of

http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1987/04/formula.html 5/18/2011
Corporate Crime and Violence Page 2 of 5

a bottle.

The promotion and sale of infant formula has had repercussions around the globe.
Thirty years ago in Chile, 95 percent of the one-year-olds were being breast-fed.
By 1970, only 20 percent were being breast-fed at two months. Breastfeeding in
Singapore declined 30 percent between 1951-60; declined 31 percent in the
Philippines between 1958-68; and 22 percent in Mexico from 1960-66. Other
countries around the world experienced similar declines.

Mothers, especially mothers in the Third World, were bombarded with

advertisements on radio, television, and in newspapers from infant formula
companies extolling the alleged benefits of infant formula. The virtues of breast-
feeding were rarely noted. In August, 1974, for example, Nestle broadcast 135 30-
second advertisements for its infant formula Lactogen in Sierra Leone, while in
December, Unigate, another infant formula company, ran 45 30-second
advertisements for its Cow and Gate brand, and Abbott ran 66 promoting Similac
in the same month.

A World Health Organization (WHO) study reported that between 1975 and 1977
in nine countries the "overall exposure of mothers to industrially processed and
commercially marketed infant foods was extensive. Knowledge of brand names
was almost universal throughout the economically advantaged populations in all
nine countries." The WHO study also found that, in the Philippines, all mothers
from poor communities knew infant formula products by their brand names. In
Nigeria, 72 percent of the urban poor mothers knew formula products by their
brand names.

"The reason for the progressive decline in breast-feeding," observed WHO

nutrition specialist Dr. J. Kreysler, "is the massive propaganda of the milk
companies which is particularly effective in poor sectors of the population. The
milk companies are creating a magic belief in the white man's milk powder."

The infant formula companies also reached mothers indirectly through doctors,
nurses, and other medical professionals. One Nestle representative noted, "the
health services are recognized as the main intermediary between the manufacturers
and the mothers." The companies greased this pipeline of intermediaries by
providing free samples of infant formula to doctors, donating expensive equipment
to needy hospitals, sponsoring professional symposia on infant health care,
organizing conferences for pediatricians, befriending doctors and giving them gifts,
and paying for their expenses to and from conferences.

Dr. Leonard Barrion, chief of clinics at a hospital in the Philippines told a U.S.
Senate health subcommittee that "health professionals who otherwise know the
benefits of breast-feeding often succumb to the gimmicks of milk advertisements."

Infant formula companies also hire "milk nurses" to visit patients in the maternity
wards of hospitals to promote bottlefeeding. The business of these "so-called
nurses is to sell milk, not look after the health of the children," said Dr. Cicely D.
Williams, a British doctor who worked in hospitals throughout the Third World.
"In Africa, I wouldn't let them in. They came to me about it, but I said no, not as

http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1987/04/formula.html 5/18/2011
Corporate Crime and Violence Page 3 of 5

long as I'm here." Williams said she found the same thing in Singapore where
Nestle used women dressed as nurses to convince new mothers to use infant
formula.

By 1980, mothers in developing countries were paying an estimated $1 billion to

Nestle, Unigate, Bristol Myers, Abbott, Wyeth, Glaxo and other infant formula
companies for products which, in most instances, the mothers did not need.

In the context of the developing world the marketing of infant formula through the
mass media has significant ramifications. Unlike mother's breast milk, infant
formula does not come ready to use. It must be prepared. And a product which
requires clean water, good sanitation, adequate family income and a literate parent
to follow printed instructions cannot be properly and safely used in areas where
water is contaminated, sewage runs in the streets, poverty is severe and illiteracy is
high.

Formula requires mothers to read and understand instructions for preparing the
formula, yet, in many of the developing countries where infant formula is
marketed, mothers can't read. Even where the mother can read her native language,
in many instances she is faced with a foreign script. In Dar es Salaam, Tanzania,
for example, where Nestle's Lactogen is widely marketed, a local doctor reported
that the instructions were in English even though most of the women were fluent
only in Swahili.

Even where a mother can read and understand printed instructions, she is ill-
equipped to follow them adequately and safely. Formula preparation re quires
clean water to mix with the formula. Yet boiled water is a luxury to many Third
World women.

Thus, Third World mothers often mix the formula with unclean water, and fail to
sterilize the bottles. As a result, the babies drink the contaminated formula and
become ill. The UN's Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) reported in 1977
that "under the unfavorable economic and sanitary conditions found in low income
urban groups, the consequences of bottle feeding is a high prevalence of diarrhea
and gastrointestinal tract infections which, coupled with frequent over-dilution of
the milk, leads to increased incidence of Protein Energy Malnutrition (PEM)."

For its part, the infant formula industry has repeatedly denied that there is
widespread abuse in the marketing of infant formula in the Third World. In 1978,
Nestle asserted that "the formula products are usually purchased by people who can
afford them. It is the working women and the women in the upper income groups
who are most likely to use formula products." But health professionals throughout
the world have testified otherwise.

On May 23, 1978, health professionals from around the globe came to Washington
to testify before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Health about the problems they
faced with infant formula marketing in the Third World. A nurse from Yemen
testified that although the country is rapidly taking to the bottle, the country does
not have "an environment compatible with safe use of the bottle" since only 10
percent of the population has easy access to water.

http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1987/04/formula.html 5/18/2011
Corporate Crime and Violence Page 4 of 5

Because infant formula is a costly item in the developing world, mothers often try
to stretch their supply by over diluting the product, thus increasing the potential for
high malnutrition rates.

It has been estimated that 15 million children under the age of five die every year,
partly from malnutrition. The vast majority of these injuries occurs in the
developing world and the causes are widespread, but more and more specialists
within the infant nutrition and health care community are focusing their attention
on infant formula use as an important causal factor in the high levels of infant
diarrhea, malnutrition, and mortality.

In the last decade infant formula companies have modified their marketing
behavior due in large part to pressure from health care professionals. Unigate
cancelled advertising of its infant formula in Africa until the ad copy was approved
by local pediatricians. The company later cancelled all advertisements. Abbott
adopted a code of marketing practices that prohibited the use of mass media to
market its infant formula, and Nestle cancelled all radio advertisements in Nigeria.

Despite these intermittent reforms, however, marketing abuse remained widespread

within the industry. In response, a coalition of health, religious, labor and citizen's
groups organized a worldwide boycott of Nestle, the largest infant formula
company. In addition, many countries have imposed marketing restrictions on
Nestle and other infant formula companies.

Although Nestle claimed it abided by these laws, it refused to agree to abide by the
World Health Organization/United Nations International Children's Emergency
Fund (WHO/UNICEF) Code of Marketing for Infant Formula. Instead, the industry
pushed the idea of "selfregulation."

In May 1981, despite industry opposition, the WHO/UNICEF code was passed by
118 national governments with only the United States, at the behest of the Reagan
administration, voting against it. The WHO/UNICEF code calls upon the baby
formula industry to: stop giving free Formula samples, eliminate "Milk Nurses,"
halt direct promotion to mothers, place warning labels on their products, end
commissions to sales people, and restrict promotion to the health professions.

Serious application of the WHO code poses a sizable threat to infant formula
company profits. The dilemma, which pits babies against shareholders, was
crystallized when a group of nuns concerned about Abbott's marketing tactics in
the Third World paid a call on company executives. According to one observer,
one of the nuns said, "Tell me, if you stop selling to people who are too poor to use
the product safely, will you still make a profit?" After a pause one of the corporate
executives said: "That is the crux of the problem."

In 1983, Nestle was cited by the Infant Formula Action Coalition (INFACT), a
public interest group based in Minneapolis, Minnesota for disregarding key
sections of the WHO code. The company had provided bulk supplies of free infant
formula to a Kuala Lumpur hospital, far in excess of the special needs of infants
who have to be bottle-fed and it had distributed leaflets in Taiwan in which the "for
medical profession only" was in English, but the rest of the text was in Chinese and

http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1987/04/formula.html 5/18/2011
Corporate Crime and Violence Page 5 of 5

directed to mothers.

INFACT urged consumers around the world to continue the boycott against
Nestle's Taster's Choice coffee, chocolate, and other products until the corporation
agreed to redirect its marketing priorities. The boycott, launched in 1977, had
blossomed into the largest worldwide citizen's effort of its kind, mobilizing more
than 100 consumer, religious, health and women's groups in 65 countries.

After six years of boycott Nestle slogans, pickets, and press conferences around the
world, Nestle finally gave in to INFACT"s demands in April 1984, agreeing to
abide by virtually every detail of the WHO Code. The concessions by Nestle
surprised boycott organizers.

"If Nestle abides by the agreement," said Doug Johnson, the leader of the Nestle
boycott in the United States, "it will do a lot to contribute to the lives of children.
We now share with Nestle a mutual interest in seeing other infant formula
companies bring their marketing practices into line with Nestle's."

But three years after the boycott ended, little has changed. According to the United
Nations, one million infants died in 1986 because they were bottle-fed, rather than
breast-fed. Nestle had not fully implemented the policy changes it promised in
1984, and three U.S. companies, American Home Products, Bristol Meyers, and
Abbott/Ross Laboratories, maintained policies that did not conform to the U.N.'s
International Code.

"During the past year," said Carol-Linnea Salmon, associate director of Action for
Corporate Accountability, "we have found that while some life-saving changes
have been made, the corporate onslaught of baby milk promotion continues,
particularly through deliveries of massive quantities of free infant formula supplies
to maternity wards."

Table of Contents

http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1987/04/formula.html 5/18/2011