But why should they if no UK based formula company is behaving in such a fashion as Nestle does? The BMA isn't picking fights with formula companies because it disagrees with ffing, they are leading citizen action against a company who puts profit before lives.
Say Nestle didn't make formula at all, they made dialysis machines that were too expensive to run for the majority of the world and were sold with incomplete instructions so they were used improperly and Nestle knew it.
However, knowing this they still ran massive campaigns in developing nations to persuade people from using their own kidneys, installed sales nurses in hospitals to encourage healthy people to use dialysis for spurious reasons and spread misinformation about how using your own kidneys to filter urea from your blood was inefficient and archaic, etc, etc.
Would you be horrified if you found that out and want to do something? Or would you say, well we have dialysis machines in the UK and only patients with renal failure use them so I don't think it's important that people are dying in other places because of Nestle's actions?
Why can't people who are passionate about bfing be fine about ffing in the UK (which I am) but still want corporations to behave ethically in countries where in the absence of bfing (excluding medically indicated ffing) ffing could lead to death.
I'm not saying mothers shouldn't have the choice of bfing/ffing but if ffing safely uses half the money they have each month (not watering down formula/having enough boiled clean water/etc) then if they can be enabled to bf and they want to then they shouldn't have their choice taken away from them by an company that doesn't have their or their baby's best interests at heart.
Please note I said could not will or should or would and I am referring ONLY to developing nations not the UK.
Oh, and on the twin point, did you read the blurb alongside the postcard?
This picture tells two stories: most obviously, about the often fatal consequences of bottle-feeding; more profoundly, about the age-old bias in favour of the male. The child with the bottle is a girl - she died the next day. Her twin brother was breastfed. This woman was told by her mother-in-law that she didn't have enough milk for both her children, and so should breastfeed the boy. But almost certainly she could have fed both children herself, because the process of suckling induces the production of milk. However, even if she found that she could not produce sufficient milk - unlikely as that would be - a much better alternative to bottle-feeding would have been to find a wet-nurse. Ironically, this role has sometimes been taken by the grandmother. In most cultures, before the advent of bottle-feeding, wet-nursing was a common practice.
"Use my picture if it will help", said the mother. "I don't want other people to make the same mistake."