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.

I just wonder.....

Why is it that we are told that breastfeeding halves the rate of cot death?

Why are we not told that formula feeding doubles it?

Surely education should be based on the fact that breastfeeding is the norm and not the other way around. I think this approach makes the benefits of breastfeeding and the burdens of formula much clearer. Also as the (breastfeeding) mother of twins I found immense pressure to bottlefeed as my twins didn't put on weight quickly starting with my GP who said "my children were bottle fed and it didn't do them any harm". The education of the medical profession remains poor.

Kiwi Rose

Kiwi I haven't find this to be the case .I found that if you made it clear you wanted to bf it was excepted very swiftly. I never got bullied into ff. There was just an incorrect assumption that as I'd made the choice to bf I needed no actual support to enable me to do that.

I suspect we are not told formula doubles the risk of cot death as there are other factors that play a far bigger role such as smoking. Is it not likely that smoking parents are simply less likely to bf not that f directly causes it?

hello mila still here and watching the bashing you have taken today!

Looked at the link provided by KellyBronze and really don't think any of us here have an issue with the argument against big formula companies in the third world.

Just think that BMA has it's messages mixed. On the one hand it appears to support UK based mums whether they FF or BF, yet their site is stuffed to the gills with posters of BF mother vs posters of how FF will make your baby obese.

On the other it is taking Nestle to task over second/third world formula advertising. What about UK based companies? (I suspect they are whiter than white given the plethora of legislation in this area}

Am really not sure what they are trying to do here. I suspect while their intentions may be honourable, their methods are naive in the extreme.

Maybe a rethink of BMA's aims are in order?

Almost takes me back to the Nestle babymilk boycott in the 80's. Thought we would have become more sophisticated!

funnys - "I suspect they are whiter than white given the plethora of legislation in this area"

The formula companies are FAR from whiter than white with regards to their practice in the UK. I'm sure there are posters further up this very thread talking about the flouting of advertising laws etc.

then why don't BMA take them to task, and not Nestle. It would be far more relevant to the UK debate.

That is what I don't get about BMA. Are they a UK based organisation deal with domestic issues, or are they a global organisation dealing with global issues? They seem very confused in their aims

Why can they not work both nationally and internationally?

Oxfam, Red Cross, Help the Aged - just off the top of my head, they all do so, and I can't imagine anyone would call them confused in their aims?

just after a quick search on the BMA website, taking UK companies to task

Caz10 I have read your link, it just seems that BMA is rather looking for the 'shock' reaction by making the boycott against Nestle the first thing you come across when entering their website. I have no doubt that Nestle are a bigger news story than Aptamil, or their ilk, possibly not following the follow on guidelines, but it all seems a bit grasping for an angle to me. I think they need to decide what their campaign is, and be clear about it.

They do themselves a disservice. If they are campaigning against the promotion of formula in the third world, then fine, do that. But to also include a 'FF may make your baby obese' poster weakens their credibility. They need to decide what they are campaigning for and include their target audience, not alienate them.

They are for babies ergo the name Baby Milk Action.

"Baby Milk Action is a non-profit organisation which aims to save lives and to end the avoidable suffering caused by inappropriate infant feeding. Baby Milk Action works within a global network to strengthen independent, transparent and effective controls on the marketing of the baby feeding industry.

The global network is called IBFAN (the International Baby Food Action Network) a network of over 200 citizens groups in more than 100 countries."

Emphasis mine.

The inappropriate infant feeding could encompass such issues as overfeeding (can happens with bottles regardless of substance contained in said bottles), it could also included heavy promotion of ffing in a society where it is not safe to do so (e.g. lack of clean water/financial wherewithal ot purchase formula/ecological concerns), it could cover introducing complimentary foods at too young an age (not talking 4-6 m/o but foods marketed as suitable from birth).

None of that excludes the others, does it? Does Age Concern only worry about, say, people of 90 in nursing homes? No they fight for the rights and dignity of all older citizens.

Why can't BMA, in conjunction with a global network of like minded charities, fight for the rights of babies to have safe, healthy infancies through appropriate feeding practices?

Baby Milk Action works in the UK andinternationally; it is part of IBFANwww.ibfan.org/.

The Nestle boycott is international.

Baby Milk Action is also the face of code monitoring in the UK. UK formula manufacturers break the law and the Code, every day.

They are also members of the Baby Feeding Law Group www.babyfeedinglawgroup.org.uk/.

It is normal for charities/NGOs to work nationally and internationally - as well as the examples already mentioned, UNICEF works in the UK as well as worldwide.

Seems to me that Baby Milk Action has a consistent message - formula feeding marketing needs to be ethical, wherever it happens to be in the world.

There is an IBFAN poster on infant feeding and obesity for sale at the BMA shop, but the site is hardly 'stuffed to the gills' with it, and it does not say formula will make your child obese. I don't suppose everyone would agree with every aspect of this or any other poster, but that's inevitable.

Funnys, Baby Milk Action would be very foolish to take advice from you on what would be an effective campaign.

You don't agree that ethical marketing of formula is an issue worthy of consideration, so you're unlikely to have anything sensible to say on the matter.

it does seem clear to me, esp from reading the quote above, what they are campaigning for! True it's not as simple to understand as "save the whales", but it's a (relatively) complex issue!

and to be strictly factual, ff may make ur child obese. If they are overfed etc. And so might many other things. But they're not lying!

tiktok am so tempted to say a big WHATEVER to you, but obv won't since I am an adult.

You have totally ignored my post when I said that none of us have issues with the unethical marketing of formula.

I think that BMA needs to be left to get on with it's 'campaign' safe in the knowledge that it has managed to alienate a huge majority of mothers, who, had it been more considered in it's public profile, would have been fully in favour of it and would have given whole hearted support.

and to be strictly factual, ff may make ur child obese. If they are overfed etc. And so might many other things. But they're not lying!

but why would you include a poster saying that on your supposedly pro FF and pro BF site? Totally unnecessary.

Funnys does being pro ff and pro bf mean that they're not allowed to talk about any of the potential health risks of ff? Surely in order to protect ff babies they need to make parents aware of potential risks so that these can be minimised eg. risk of obesity if parents don't feed on demand but try do get babies to finish bottles (you don't have to agree with this particular (obesity) point, though there are scientific studies to back it up, it's just an example)

There are clearly health risks associated with formula feeding, although these are minimised in developed countries (where families are more literate, can prepare the mix in more sanitary conditions, and have the funds to pay for the product).

BFing remains the best option for women and babies in developing countries, but this knowledge has been taken from them - firstly by the cultural imperialists who encouraged FFing as a more 'developed', 'modest' and 'modern' way of feeding babies in the 1950s/60s. This then paved the way for companies from those 'developed' countries to go in and market their products to huge populations. The whole story stinks.

Unable to turn back the clock, and being pragmatic, BMA strives to ensure that if a woman decides to FF, the product and information are optimal. I can't see what is so controversial about this. It is clearly more appropriate to re-establish BFing in developing countries. It is also appropriate to point out the potential risks to mothers in the 'developed' world (e.g. importance of making up correctly / following dosing instructions).

For individuals the whole subject of BF/FF is very emotive, and everyone who's ever had a baby will have their own experiences of one, other or both. That shouldn't detract from the fact that BMA is working against the disinformation circulated by global commercial organisations. It would be great to know what else individuals can do to help them in this aim.

FWIW, Tiktok, I'm glad you are not put off posting on MN because of comments of a personal nature. Your advice re. BFing is spot on, and you helped me keep going with my DS1 several years ago when I had mastitis and wanted to throw the towel in. For that I remain grateful.

Funnys, have you changed your mind from thinking that UK legislation to restrict the marketing of infant formula is wrong? From thinking that it 'demonises' formula?

If that's the case, I applaud your flexibility.

lagrandissima, thank you for your nice words.

I was not put off by personal comments, but I didn't want to be the subject of the discussion (how tedious for other people reading....) so I got out when that started happening!

Interesting that there is resistance to the idea that mothers who choose to formula feed/end up formula feeding/wondering whether to formula feed should not have information on the health effects of this decision.

BMA are not primarily a 'how to bf your baby' or 'how to ff your baby' organisation, and I think that's a sensible use of resources. But I also think it's ok to sell posters and factsheets - mostly, as far as I can tell, produced by other organisations who have done the research and production work - that are relevant to their campaigns for better information.

To want an organisation (whose aims include sharing information so people and public health agencies can make better decisions), to restrict information about say, obesity and infant feeding, seems perverse.

FunnysInTheGarden Fri 10-Dec-10 23:49:23 -
but why would you include a poster saying that on your supposedly pro FF and pro BF site? Totally unnecessary.

Did you know the Breastfeeding Network (a breastfeeding support charity) discusses which medications you cannot bf while taking? For example tetracyclines are contra-indicated if taking for acne or for courses longer than 1 month.

How very dare they! They shouldn't be telling women they can't bf while taking a drug that's anti-bfing.

No, of course it's not, it's providing information to mothers so they can make the choice that suits their family the best.

To be 'pro' something doesn't mean to be in favour of something at any cost or to pretend that there is never any drawbacks or side effects, it means to support it. BMA supports formula feeding but they are aware of the drawbacks of it too.

"BMA supports formula feeding but they are aware of the drawbacks of it too."

If I may, I would re-word it to say that BMA supports safe and informed FF.

Spot on OCC,much better worded. I was NAK so not fully paying attention (NAK now as well but different child)

lagrandissima I don't think the problem of infant feeding in developing countries is as simple as breast vs bottle and traditional knowledge vs cultural imperilalism. If you look at the UNICEF statistics for a lot of countries formula feeding is much less common than mixed feeding with something else - cows or goats milk, maize meal porrige, tea, millet, pounded yam etc...a lot of these are traditional practices and the evidence based WHO recommendations on exclusive breastfeeding are as much 'cultural imperialism' as formula is.

Not saying that enforcing the WHO code is not important, just that it is not the only thing needed. And I'm not sure the anti-corporate breast vs bottle narrative that BMA runs with is really best designed for solving problems so much as for best for appealing to supporters of the campaign.

Certainly true that non-exclusive breastfeeding in developing countries may well involve traditional foods and drinks - but there are other agencies (notably UNICEF, as you say, but many other NGOs, too) which work as health promoters to ensure families are educated with better, healthier infant feeding practices. I don't think it is fair to equate this work with 'cultural imperialism' - it's similar to work educating families in the importance of vaccination, of the harm done to girls by genital mutilation, of education in the use of contraception. Maybe I am misunderstanding your point here.

Baby Milk Action is 'about' formula milk, however (clue is in the name :) ) and how the marketing and distribution of it undermines breastfeeding. This requires different strategies, and does indeed include campaigning in countries where the Big Business behind the unethical distribition of formula resides. Not sure what's wrong with that?