For those of you who can't understand why so many of us get our knickers in a twist about formula marketing and advertising..Have a look at this and you will. Believe me,you will

[moondog]

Nestle and the way they operate on Bangladesh. From today's Guardian

of course, more support, better wages, more education, better water, not beign used as slaves by the western world etc etc etc would be good too. but in the meantime, what about the fact that these companies continue to flout the rules when they promote their product and in so doing are killing babies and wrecking families?

Clean water isn't the only problem with formula feeding in developing countries.

These babies are vulnerable in many ways and they really need the nutrients and immune factors in breastmilk - it's more critical for them than for babies in developed countries.

There's also a problem that formula costs money that people don't really have, so parents often make up very dilute feeds to stretch the formula a bit further which is very dangerous for small babies.

Even if you have clean water you still have to make sure bottles are clean, which means either sterilising or washing with hot soapy water, which in turn means using lots of fuel/water/soap which people can't afford.

Simply providing clean water - and actually there's nothing simple about providing clean water - isn't going to sort out the problems of formula for vulnerable babies.

let's not forget the Fact that if breast is best for babies in the developed world then it definitely bloody is in the undeveloped one.

I emailed netmums the other day complaining about their nestle sponsorship, and got a reply suggesting i write to one of the directors, which i've done, with a link to that guardian article.

It's disgusting, they're total crooks.

I have a dilemma now. I have boycotted Nestle for years and successully too although Smarties have acheived cult status in my family as they're as rare as rocking horse poo and DD pounces on them in party bags!

Anyway, I have found a fantastic salon with the best hairdresser in the world but they use Redken products. So morally should I boycott it?

In case anyone else wants to let netmums know what they think of their latest sponsors? Here's the email -

I am sorry that you feel so strongly about Nestle sponsoring our site. Our site is a lifeline to alot of women from all ages and backgrounds; our advice and support boards have helped a great many parents since they were first set up. Also please bear in mind that the Nestle sponsorship is a short-term deal lasting a maximum of about 6 or 7 months and that once this has come to an end, there is a possibility that it may not be renewed.

Obviously if you would like to discuss this matter further, please email [email protected] - Siobhan is one of our directors and I am sure she will be interested to hear your views.

thanks for that boco. bump for tibsy

I'm sorry, nestle do not put dirty water in the bottles, they do not put dirty bottles in babies mouths. They do market their product, which IF used CORRECTLY is a safe subsitute for breast milk, which if the mother is malnorished is better for the baby than poor breast milk.

The problem is the corrupt governments, which do not see providing clean water for their citizen a priority.

So before I will boycott nestle there are many other things I will lose sleep over! Sorry article just sooooo Guardian.

Deegward - I really am suprised that you cannot see how culpable Nestle are inthis sad situation?

deegward...the problem is that actually the milk of a malnourished mum owuld be healthier then Formula made up incorrectly in a dirty environment wiht dirty water....and obviously the malnourished 3. world woman is most likely to be poor, living in filth with no fresh water supply....!
It's ethically WRONG to target 3 world countries, for Formula as it IS killing Baby's!

Deegward - but surely the guilt of such companies lies in the fact that they KNOW that clean water and sanitisation is a problem in developing countries, and they KNOW their product is expensive and the potential clientèle so poor that the cost of it constitutes a third of their wages and yet they don't give a toss.

That's totally irresponsible and non progressive in my book.

deegward you're just plain wrong.

And to the OP...those fucking fuckers are fucking me off (sorry for strong language but I obviously feel strongly about it), and I will continoue to boycott Nestle till the day I die or to the day they stop marketing their stupid Product as aggressively and with false and misleading Info in 3. World countries, or preferable to anyone....whichever comes first!

But what I am saying it is NOT nestle's fault that it is made up incorrectly. If it is made up correctly then it IS better than malnorished woman's milk.

It IS however the fault of the health professional's in those countries not ensuring that it is explained correctly.

I also do not buy the notion that these woman just cause they are poor are unable to follow directions.

It is clean water + clean bottles = healthy babies. No matter what country!

dw - there is no 'if used correctly' if there is no clean water supply! They market it to a country where it cannot be used safely by the people they are targetting, where they will make money regardless of the cost to human life.

Oh sorry, so you are too poor so you don't get the choice/option

I get it!

We in the developed world will deceide for you

oh and deegwart...they may aswell do that directly...they know what they are doing, they know that their Formula is to blame for many deaths...and do they care...of course not, as long as they make their profits, it doesn't seem to matter to much to them to walk over dead Bodies...

deegward...do you know WHY those mothers in 3. world countries choose to Bottlefedd...not because they have hangup's like many western women, oh no, they are misled to believe that their milk is obviously worthless over a much supurior manmade product...much the same way that has made Formula popular in the western world, many years ago...did they do US a favour...of course not....

Oh don't be so Guardian! Do you think Nestle wants people to use their products incorrectly? I really think it is bizzare

you're being silly, deegward. if the water supply isn't clean then there's no making it up correctly.

No but Nestle don't care that people DO use their products incorrectly.

you're the one making out that they're too poor to follow instructions properly and that its as simple as having someone read the box!

It's not. It's not about it being fair that they're given the choice - if its being marketed as better for their babies, despite the huge huge risk that contaminated water will kill them, then it is not about informed choice, its about a multinational corporations manipulation of a lucrtive market.

So the woman there are too stupid to make up their own minds! How they must wish they lived in the western world so they could too look down on others as we do

deegwart...but clean water, etc....is impossible there...not sure if you realise just how many people still have to walk miles and miles each day to get some dirty water from some river, etc...just to have any water at all....mustn't forget that in 3. workld countries what we take for granted is not the norm...i.e. reasonable good Quality Drinkingwater from a tab

deegeeward, sorry, you are misinformed, but so are a lot of people. Breastmilk from poorly nourished mothers is better for the baby than formula milk. In addition, breastfeeding prolongs absence of menstruation, which is good for a malnourished mother's iron status, and acts as a de facto aid to child spacing.

What's not to like?

Do you not think ethical companies have a responsibility to ensure they market their products in a way that does not undermine the healthier alternative?

Perhaps you think it is ok for gun companies to market their products without restrictions, to people who are unable to use these products safely, on the grounds that it is not the manufacturers loading the bullets and pulling the trigger? Or that alcohol purveyors should deliberately market to young teenagers, even though they are the ones who are least able to use alcohol safely, because the alcohol purveyors are not the ones who are tipping the stuff down their throats?

Or maybe you do see the need for restrictions on rampant marketing, but not where the health of babies is concerned?