Haiti - F*****g Nestle is at it already.

[foxytocin]

here now what can I do about it?

'it's quite a luxury to be able to sit at a computer outside Haiti and consider the actions of one multinational.

stepaway - every single one of us is living in luxury now compared to what is happening in Haiti.

Right, Babieseverywhere...So we just need to find a wet nurse for each baby and then wait 3 weeks for a relative to relactate.

Great if it works, but I suspect that in quite a lot of cases it might be impossible.

Then the formula might be useful, maybe?

$1 million worth of bottled water along with the liquid meal supplements.

That is one mother for 8 babies and milk can be in as early as 2 days.

very good information on relactation in parent speak. also lots very good information on breastfeeding for pregnant women or first time mums - in any country.

infant feeding in emergencies

Please remember that in a country like Haiti where the extended family is the only type of social security that exists, it is not difficult to find that most women will be very willing ot look after a child because culturally they do it without the 'what is in it for me' questions that many of us in this country would ask.

Do not judge Haitians on what you expect are the general mores in your society.

I come from another Caribbean country, not Haiti, I don't know very much but I know taht some of what we armchair philosophers are talking about just won't apply to their society like it does with this one.

paisley leaf, i read that too.
but it won't sway 'em.
it's nestle.
therefore bad.

winnybella, perhaps you'd better find the addresses of the relevant people in the relief organisations and explain to them why they're wrong then. It's they who don't want uncontrolled formula donations - not just people on mumsnet with opinions.

You can probably find their addresses on their websites.

Yes, literacy is important. as well as the correct language as the butterfly effect pointed out.

Nestle in Africa has contravened these 2 things on the packaging in Mozambique or Malawi in the recent past.

they claimed that it is too expensive to change the packaging.

That's right stepaway. We want people to suffer because we don't like Nestle. You got it.

Winnybella, a lot of women in haiti are already lactating. it is the norm. they have lots of children. if she is feeding a toddler and she starts to wetnurse a baby, in about 2 days when her supply will 'catch up.' neither of them will starve for those 2 days. they will feed more often and maybe get less for 2 days but it is better than giving them 1 feed made with dirty water.

veryquickly- but I thought they will donate through some relief organization- or are they just sending Nestle plain and its employees to distribute?

plane

Puzzlerocks, well I certainly think that some people's intense dislike of Nestle leads them to think that their actions are always suspect, regardless of the situation.

There isn't too much point continuing on this thread as neither 'camp' is likely to change their minds. Armchair philosophising is always a bit like that, I suppose.

I guess everyone should just make sure that their Haiti donation is to an organisation whose practices they are comfortable with.

Poor Haiti.

foxytocin, I totally agree, I was only wondering about babies for whom it will be impossible -babies with no relatives or neighbours alive, babies in the destroyed orphanages who were on the formula before-there will be cases of that, no doubt- and for them formula will be a necessity.

A lot of people in our society see breastfeeding as a 'luxury' (nice if you can do it but not essential), and therefore understandably think it's ridiculous to push it on people who are in dire straits like the people in Haiti. We should presumably be happy for them to have the 'basic and adequate' option that is formula and not be fussy about trying to get them to breastfeed.

But it's the other way round really. In countries without much clean water, it's formula that's the unaffordable 'luxury' - not because it's better, but because without expensive (and hard to obtain) clean water, it most likely means possibly fatal diarrhoea. It's a luxury most people simply daren't risk and can't afford.

So formula donations have to be managed very carefully, that's all people are saying. They can be good, but they can be bad. And a lot of companies have a bad record for distributing formula for less than altruistic reasons.

Personally I don't have strong opinions about Nestle or any of their products.

But I do know that donations of formula in disaster situations lead to death for many babies. I also know that babies who cannot be BF by their mother or a wet nurse will die. I do not want either of these things to happen.

That is why I agree with and support the international protocols which have been put in place by experts who have experience in dealing with these sorts of situations.

If Nestle or anyone else do not respect these protocols then I disagree with their actions. If they do respect them then I agree with their actions.

It is actually a simple nobrainer and has nothing to do with likes or dislikes.

Oh gosh, why did I open this thread?

Sure, there is clean water being sent now, but what happens in a couple of weeks when the water begins to run out and the infrastructure hasn't been put in place to provide clean drinking water? Formula made up with dirty water (as happened in Africa thanks to Nestle) is a killer.

This is why Aid Agencies and the like have procedures to follow vis-a-vie the giving of formula milk. It must be the last resort after bfing options are exhausted (wet-nurses, relactation etc) No-one here is suggesting that formula milk shouldn't be given if there is no other option but to give formula where there is the possibility of it causing harm/death (through dirty water/inability to understand instructions in a foreign language/ignorance of formula preparation in countries where bfing is very much the norm) is inexcusable. No Aid Agency, though, would sit around and watch children starve through lack of lactating women!

I just wish I could donate my milk, as am bfing atm.

Oh and I love Kitkats btw, was brought up in York and worked for Nestle many years ago.

But Nestle's tactics in Africa wrt formula milk was despicable and I refuse to purchase their products.

Winny your point was answered further up the thread - babies who need formula either because there is no wet nurse, or because that's what they had before, will get it.

Thanks for this thread foxytocin, tiktok and everyone. I started reading with the attitude of "what's the problem - they're sending clean water?" But now I totally get it. I've really learnt something today, thank you .

It's formula that requires the extra clean water, not relactation (except in the sense that the wet nurse would need water for herself - but then she'll need that regardless of what the baby gets).

She wouldn't need clean water any more than anyone else, riven. Not to relactate, at least. Making up bottles, on the other hand...

Help would be available not just from aid agencies but also from extended family/friends/community. It's what happens. Not necessarily that big a deal, and certainly not diverting aid resources as you seem to be suggesting.

I understand about Nestle and Africa, clean water etc.
But if we can just keep these babies alive for these early days weeks - it can hopefully buy some time to get infrastructure, water supplies, wetnurses, relactation etc into place.
I imagine that many women will be helping, feeding babies camping near to them where they can

Riven - the point about relactating (which is actually only one way of supporting the bf of vulnerable orphaned babies) is that it does not need clean water and plenty of food.

In a society where bf is the norm, and feeding other women's children not unusual, it will take a lot less time to support this than to explain how to use formula safely.

paisleyleaf - are you saying that formula somehow buys time? Not sure what your post means, sorry.

Diarrhoea can kill a young baby in hours or days.

You don't need infrastructure to support breastfeeding. It is there, in the women.

It needs no roads to transport it to the babies. It requires no pipelines or taps to produce water to mix and to clean bottles. It needs no fuel to boil the water. It needs no bottles or teats (which also need to be transported). It leaves no empty packets or cans which then have to be disposed of. It does not mean dependence on a consumer product which (when the aid runs out) has to be paid for.

To repeat - in other disaster situations, relactation is not the primary response to the need for the babies to be breastfed. It is one of a range of ways breastfeeding can be supported in the short and long term. I don't know enough about Haiti to predict what role relactation would play, but it is there, as a possibility, for some.

It is not hard to envisage situations where infant formula is needed, because none of these ways of getting a baby breastfed is available quickly enough. Of course these babies should get it, and as safely as possible. But on past performance, no one should be confident that distribution and decisions should be in the hands of manufacturers.

Paisleyleaf, only 35 percent of haitians had potable water before the earthquake. I think by the time potable water gets to anyone, it is already time (now) to start relactation. it will be a long time - weeks - before 35 percent of haitians see any aid at all, never mind water aid.