Q and A with Mike Brady from Baby Milk Action

[RachelMumsnet]

We're inviting you to send in your questions to Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator at Baby Milk Action.

Mike graduated in Electrical and Electronic Engineering and has worked in Africa as an engineer and science teacher. At Baby Milk Action, he monitors the baby food industry and campaigns to hold them to account.

Baby Milk Action is a non-profit organisation which aims to save lives and to end the avoidable suffering caused by inappropriate infant feeding. It is the UK member of the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), a network of over 200 citizens groups in more than 100 countries.

Baby Milk Action's slogan is: "Protecting breastfeeding - Protecting babies fed on formula". It is perhaps best known for promoting a boycott of Nestlé, but also works with national governments and international bodies on regulations and marketing standards.

Mike was seen earlier this year outside Nestlé (UK) HQ in the guise of [[http://info.babymilkaction.org/emailnestle
Mr. Henry Nastie]], explaining Nestlé's marketing practices.

Send your questions in to Mike before midday on Friday 9th December and we'll link through to his answers from this thread later the following week.

Hi Tiktok,

Sorry probably not expressing myself too clearly. My point was in reply to Lagrandissima's explanation of the baby milk issue, which seemed to be a story of traditional=good, external influence = bad, and a simple conflict between exclusive breastfeeding and formula. My point was that the reality of the situation is more complex than that.

The thing is complex realities don't often make for good campaigns. You are right that the campaign is called Baby Milk Action and is about the milk, but what supporters ultimately care about is babies and their health which is complex (unless what they really care about is bashing Nestle and/or big biz in general which is a simpler game of black hats and white hats, but which may not necessarily lead to the best outcome for infant health).

yes, himalaya very interesting point. I have always felt there must be more to the debate than the polarised BF/FF when it comes to developing countries.

Interesting to hear you view point.

himalaya - thanks for clarifying. The baby milk issue is of course more complex that 'a simple conflict between excl bf and formula' but not more complex in the way you mean.

The introduction of traditional foods (pre-lacteal feeds like honey, other animal milks alongside bf, grains, cereals) to an infant is common in the developing world but while they do interfere with health in various ways, they don't threaten the primacy of breastfeeding, or the total cultural acceptance and integration of breastfeeding - that threat comes from formula, which is powerful enough (because it comes backed with enormous commercial resources) to destroy this cultural and social integration of bf and the knowledge of how bf 'works' disappears.

So you can't equate traditional non-bf infant foods with formula in the way (I think) you are doing - a bit of goats milk which has been traditional for possibly 1000s of years is no real challenge to bf, and it is a lesser threat to infant health, compared to formula which can quickly take the place of breastfeeding, both in an individual baby and in a culture.

I think Funnys is seeing Reds under the Bed, and imagining some sort of anti-big business conspiracy. This is in her head only.

Big business does need challenging from time to time, and in some cases, it needs to be told to stop what it's doing. But Baby Milk Action is not an ideologically-driven campaign in the way Funnys is suggesting - at least I have never seen any evidence of this.

re: "I have always felt there must be more to the debate than the polarised BF/FF when it comes to developing countries."

@Funny. Would you mind expanding on your ideas of the 'more to the debate' here?

Tiktok - I have mixed feelings about the Nestle boycott.

I do think the WHO code should be upheld, and certainly believe that we should hold big biz to account, but I am not sure the boycott tactic is working at this point.

Boycotts depend on a clear story of victims, harm and bad guy. I'm not sure that a simplistic story is really helpful for understanding the complexity here.

The simple story about exclusive breastfeeding being the norm and being undermined by formula is not quite the full story. This does not mean equating traditional non-bf food with formula. But it does mean judging all the factors that prevent good nutrition and safe infant feeding in each community.

In terms of the bad guy, I don't know if Nestle have been the worst offender in every year of the boycott, or why other companies that have not met BMA's four requirements are not boycotted. This matters, not because we should be to 'fair' to Nestle, but because boycotting one company and asking them to do something while not holding their competitors to the same standard doesn't work -- the pressure to avoid loosing out to their competitors is usally stronger than the pressure of the boycott.

In this respect the Baby Milk campaign has been quite different from the campaigns on child labour, sweatshops etc.. which started at around the same time, initially focused on Nike but broadened out to more companies and also became more collaborative between the NGOs and the businesses in trying to work out how to solve the problems on the ground. I think the child labour campaigns have been more sucessful.

Finally, I also have mixed feelings about the campaign because I do think it is motivated not just by a desire for ethical marketing of formula but a desire to see breastfeeding win out against formula. Although breast is clearly best nutitionally, maximising long term breastfeeding rates may not be the best thing for women economically. And that matters because where women can and do work outside of the home, they are in a better position to make choices, have power at home and outside, stand up for themselves against domestic violence, get more education, and to provide for their families. These things are also important for their health and that of their children. So with economic development does come rising rates of bottle feeding and falling rates of longer term breastfeeding, and if this is done safely it may not be a bad thing.

Anyway, will be interested to see Mike Brady's answers.

HImalaya - the best route out of poverty and inequality everywhere is to empower women - enable reproductive choices, fertility control, better access to health, education and employment.

Supporting breastfeeding is absolutely part of this; there does not need to be any tension between enabling breastfeeding and supporting women's empowerment to better themselves (and by extension their children).

Part of this is biology - breastfeeding contributes to better female health and in poor conditions this is true in the short term as well as the long term (bf suppresses periods so less anaemia; contributes to contraception and child spacing, and has a role to play where artificial contraception is not acceptable/liked/affordable). Part of it is protecting flexible working everywhere so women do not have to choose between i) paid employment away from the home shortly after birth without their babies, and ii) no paid work and staying at home to do infant care.

Any society should be aware that protecting maternal and infant health is an investment worth financial support.

I could extend this argument and clarify, but no doubt Mike Brady will.

The Nestle boycott does not let other manufacturers off the hook - Baby Milk Action also campaigns for the WHO code.

Himalaya, there are countries such as Norway where women are supported to breastfeed because it is valued and recognised as an enormous contributor to a country's wealth - it is health giving in so many ways and therefore economically a good investment. The amount of money that a country would save on a whole array of infant illnesses not to mention diseases such as breast cancer would be enormous. If the governent invested just half this money into helping companies to support their female employees to breastfeed, it would have a whole load of money left over. Total no brainer to me but there we are.

"Part of it is protecting flexible working everywhere so women do not have to choose between i) paid employment away from the home shortly after birth without their babies, and ii) no paid work and staying at home to do infant care."

Excellent post, tiktok. As a card carrying feminist, and current BF-er, I find the argument that FF-ing is an instrument of female emancipation really heartbreaking.

I think a mother can have very good reasons for FF-ing even if she is physically capable of BF-ing. And I know that some women have no choice but to FF because of their work and personal circumstances. But the idea that competing as a pseudo-male in a male oriented workforce is the only choice working mothers have (or should have) is wrong, and miserably so. It isn't a necessary consequence of 'economic development.' That's an insidious idea, which implies that BF-ing is somehow backward, and should be on the wane in a developed country.

Tiktok, barkfox and rubyblackberry, I completely agree that women should be empowered and supported to breastfeed. But to suggest that there is no economic trade off for women to take time off work to breast feed for 6 months to 2 years in emerging economies is naive. It may be heartbreaking for us, but it is reality for women in countries where there is little/no benefits system, 12 weeks maternity leave, low women's rights in divorce, low women's status in society, already a suspicion that women who work outside the home may have 'low morals'etc...It would be nice if all countries were like Norway, but they are not. We are talking about countries that may barely have decent publicly funded primary care, so saving money by avoiding the costs of breast cancer care does not really come into the equation. For market traders in Nigeria, teachers in Bangladesh, factory workers in Vietnam, business administrators in Brazil taking 6 to 2 years off repeatedly to breastfeed means giving up their business, source of independent income and quite possibly chance of going back (and convincing
husband and MIL to let them go back). Of course these
choices don't apply to all, but the more a country develops economically the more there will be these choices for women who previously would have worked at home on the farm.Telling them there is no tension
and it works in really well on Norway is not all that
realistic.

Norway not a good example, I agree, himalaya - sorry, barkfox :)

Women do not need to take up to two years away from work anywhere in order to bf. It is disingenuous of you to apply this broadbrush notion to back up your point.

Women all over the world, in all sorts of economies and situations, work and breastfeed. If you read abut Brazil - one of the countries you mention - there has been legislation backed up with real, practical interventions, to enable more women to bf for longer - even if they work away from the home and cannot take their babies with them or have them cared for nearby (though both of these supports are possible in some places, with some types of job).

Western-style industrial revolution where economies went from largely rural to largely urban made huge errors with regard to maintaining human needs - developing countries don't need to make the same mistakes and it is not necessary in order to compete - if the support and the infrastructure is there.

It is very costly for an economy and for an individual family for breastfeeding to dwindle - the long term costs and pressures are great. This is not the thread to go into detail, but bf is especially precious in developing countries, for the protection of maternal and infant health, and it is not in opposition to female economic empowerment - but posts like yours saying women need to take time away from paid work for 2 years in order to bf don't help, I have to say. Big Myth.

Sorry, it was ruby who used Norway as an example.

It's not an example which can be held up as a model for the developing world, as I said - but on reflection, it's not a bad example in every way.

Norway was very poor indeed after WW2 (by European standards). It was a small, scattered population, largely rural, and of course a long way from the centre of Western Europe. For these reasons it largely escaped the marketing of infant formula, while not being poor enough (cf African countries) to be an attractive dumping ground for formula 'donations' from manfacturers.

However, by the 1970s, formula was still widely enough used for the government to take action to protect bf (everyone still began bf but supplementing and early weaning to the bottle was common). And legislation and employment protection and so on was put in place to ensure bf became easy and ubiquitous.

Norway was never in receipt of massive imports of 'free' formula via aid agencies, so bf never came under attack in that way.

The developing world has a different feeding history, largely for that reason.

Fair points people, fair points. Countries can find their own way, surely, and including support of women breastfeeding surely can be a part of that as they emerge as economically prosperous nations. Or maybe not. Maybe you are right. There is SO much money involved that obviously it will take a blardy miracle for governments and companies alike to actually change things. I just think that it is too tragic to just sit back and say, well, low breastfeeding rates are a product of good economies and that is the way it will stay. There has to be another way.

this book has some great ideas - childcare on site. Female employees encouraged to breastfeed. If only every businessman were like this one.

Thanks for all the questions. We've sent a selection over to Mike Brady this morning and will be linking from this thread to a transcription of the Q and A hopefully by the end of the week.

@ Kiwirose, I think you will find this piece interesting, it is a particular fave of mine
www.bobrow.net/kimberly/birth/BFLanguage.html

Tiktok, I would just like to say that I have always foudn your posts to be informative, insightful and interesting. In fact you are the first person I think of when I have a BFing issue "I must ask Tiktok". Thankyou for being such an available fount of knowledge !

On your point about BFing mothers having to be available full time for their babies for up to 2 years, I work 27 hours a week and still manage to BF my 10 month old and I doubt I am unusual. I think a lot of people seem to mistake extended breastfeeding for exclusive breastfeeding and imagine that our babies only get breastmilk.

I would be interested to hear views on my own thought on infant formula, that it should be produced by the government to ensure that it is not subject to profiteering. It could still be available in supermarkets, maybe in 2 or 3 different formulations. As nobody would be profiting from it there would be no need for insidious advertising and accurate, non biased information could be published which allowed FFing parents to do so safely.

sorry, that should have read "people thinking BFing mothers have to be available full time"

@MilaMae

I also think Mumsnet should be inviting a spokesperson in favor of supporting formula feeding mothers to do a Q&A to even things up a bit.

Maybe we should have Nestle on for a chat to face the music... what do others think?

Justine, yes, get someone from Nestle on.

Fibilou, kind words, thank you.

There used to be a 'government formula' - National Dried Milk. Intro'd in 1940s, ceased in 1970s.

There could be a UK generic formula - non-branded, rather in the way you can buy non-branded ibuprofen rather than Nurofen.

The argument against this is that private business and competition spur research and development and better products. I am unconvinced by this - 'better' does not have to mean 'better for health' but 'better for the bottom line'.

My view is that the formulation would benefit from unbiased research where those undertaking it weren't beholden to any commercial interest.

Fibilou,I understand, but any formula would still be subject to the economics of making something for a negotiated price.

Might be something Mike Brady could address.

Or it cost the cost of making it, transporting it. So if each tub cost 75p in raw ingredients, the logistical costs to get it to the consumer was £1 and the cost of sundries 20p, the total cost would be £2. If £2.50 was charged 50p per tub could go into funding research and supporting educational programmes.

Although I am sure the real costs are a fraction of those I have plucked from the air !

Justine - yes get someone from Nestle to answer questions - I think the person to invite is Janet Voute VP for Public Affairs.

Tik tok, am also a fan (really!).

Why are there no generic fomulas by the way - e.g. Tesco value brand?

Yes it would be interesting.So many people have questions re Nestle.

However I was actually wondering if we could also have Joan Wolf the writer featured in Helen Rumbelow's article Exposing the Myths of Breastfeeding,Helen Rumbelow or somebody similar to get some balance.

They have raised several points I'd like to see in a discussion which often get shouted down for even being mentioned.

Or somebody not selling formula but actively supporting the needs/views of formula feeding mothers would be good. Is there anybody?

MilaMae, UK breastfeeding rates show that 65% of babies are getting formula at only 1 week old. Don't try to pretend you are in some sort of persecuted minority.