In a recent column, Tom Levitt described how he and 3 MP colleagues had spent a few days in South Africa as guests of Nestlé, the parent company for Buxton Water. Whilst they were there the MPs questionned the company robustly on issues around the marketing of Infant Formula Milk. 30 years ago the marketing of this product was widely held to have been unethical. It led in some cases to children being weaned too early and there was a risk of water being used which was below drinking standard.

The MPs all accept that Nestlé put these matters straight and that their standards are now equal to if not more stringent than the International Codes that now exist (but which did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s when the concerns were raised). That was the evidence of what we saw, in community kitchens, health facilities and even the Infant Formula factory in Harrismith.

Nevertheless, there are some people who clearly cannot accept that multinational companies can ever get anything right and have an irrational distrust of them. A letter to the Buxton Advertiser in response to Tom's column, from Mike Brady of the Baby Milk Action campaign, read:

It would appear that Tom Levitt MP was taken in by Nestlé misinformation on his recent jolly to Africa as the company's guest. He writes: "Thirty years ago Nestlé's practices in marketing infant formula inappropriately were condemned across the world. Today they have cleaned up their act. Their marketing and distribution practices are tougher and tighter even than international agreements require." Sorry Tom, but this is utter rubbish as the results of a global monitoring project with evidence from 67 countries demonstrated in the report Breaking the Rules, Stretching the Rules, published in November 2007. This shows Nestlé continues to break international marketing standards in a systematic way and is the worst of the baby food companies. Perhaps you didn't notice and Nestlé didn't tell you, but as you were enjoying Nestlé hospitality, it was promoting formula with prohibited advertising in supermarkets in South Africa - I am sending you an example found in Johannesburg in December 2007. Such shelf talkers are a clear violation of the World Health Assembly marketing requirements for breastmilk substitutes, as are the health claims on the labels.

When Tom asked Nestlé to respond to these allegations, they replied:

Nestlé firmly believes that breastfeeding is the best way to feed a baby, and is strongly committed to the protection and promotion of breastfeeding.  However, when mothers cannot or choose not to breastfeed, infant formula is the only product recognised by the World Health Organisation (WHO) as a suitable alternative.

Nestlé was the first company to voluntarily adopt the WHO Code of Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes (the WHO Code) as a minimum standard in all developing countries.

Mike Brady, of Baby Milk Action, claims that the IBFAN report, ‘Breaking the Rules, Stretching the Rules’, published in Nov 2007, demonstrates that Nestlé does not abide by international marketing regulations.  Nestlé is rigorously checking all the allegations in this report.  However, it is important to point out that our analysis of IBFAN’s previous report in 2004 found that of the 200 allegations it contained only one which was an actual violation and this had been corrected by Nestlé in 2002, two years before the report was published.

Mike Brady also refers to what he describes as “prohibited” NAN advertising in South Africa.  This allegation is incorrect and the Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa has, in fact, already ruled that this advertising did not contravene any advertising restrictions.   Mr Brady’s final allegation that the health claims on the NAN labels are non-compliant is also incorrect as the health claims fully comply with the South African regulations that apply to this product.

Tom accepts the company's explanation as being consistent with what the MPs saw and heard in South Africa. Whilst the company has adopted the WHO code itself, enforcement is the responsibility of the South African authorities. South Africa has adopted the WHO code and does enforce it. "Where companies have adopted high standards of ethical behaviour and corporate social responsibility they should be praised for doing so, not condemned for past errors," he said.