first time I came across this website (must not swear)

[3andnomore]

Nestle Babymilk Issue Facts
I just sarched for the Babymilk action website, and this came up with teh search....
there are things I like to say...but it would be all swearing...so, I shan't....

[peanutbear]

if i cant swear i wont speak

actually words fail me anyway

[lissie]

ffs! (not actually swearing....)

[Spidermama]

[determination]

WTF is that all about and why is it rated 5/10 from google???

[3andnomore]

what does google rate...i.e..what criteria...clicks oi the site or quality...

Just thinking...I assume that Babymilk action org is aware of this webpage, or maybe one should E-mail the link anyway?

[whomovedmychocolate]

What a big pile of stinky brown stuff!

Evil swines. May they sit on sharpy pointy objects for eternity!

[determination]

i think they should be emailed just incase they are not aware..

I am unsure of what google rate.. i would imagine it be clicks, quality, optimisation, internal/external links, metatagging, overall design of the site. So to have a rating of 5 is fantastic.. but in this case it is a disgrace

Surely, this is just a new-ish site.. possibly launched around may/june time when the "proper campayning" kicked off against nestle- or am i somewhat oblivious to the "proper campayning" initiation date??!

[3andnomore]

I left a comment with a link to that website on teh contact part of Babymilk action website.Better safe then sorry, I think!

Nestle made really sure that it would come up in a search when you search for their enemies...hasn't it...I mean ratehr than using the word Formula they used Babymilk...clever *&$$£&....

[3andnomore]

just bumping it, because I think Hunker is about, she might know more about this!

[hunkermunker]

Yep, it's part of the smoke and mirrors that Nestle use to try to make out they're not evil.

Bless their foul stony hearts...

Most inaccurate use of the word "facts" I've seen in a long time, is all I shall say for now...

[3andnomore]

so it's not a new site hunker?
It's possibly known about in the right circles and can't be dealt with as yet?

[moondog]

Ive seen that shit before.
Nasty fuckers aren't they?

[hunkermunker]

I've certainly seen it in the past.

I don't know how it could be "dealt with" really. Trading Standards, Advertising Standards - they're not that interested, it would seem.

So they can spend unlimited cash saying whatever they like about breastfeeding, their practices abroad, their own products - be as damaging, disingenuous and dishonest as they like - and there's not a jot anyone can do about it, except try to raise awareness of that.

But then you get told you're "making women feel bad" and to "let other women make their own choices" and that people "can't understand why anyone cares how other women feed their babies". Oh, and my favourite "advertising should be allowed because it helps women find out what's in formula" [yeah right]

And you wonder why the f you bother, really.

[3andnomore]

know what you mean Hunker
And moondog...I was thinking along the lines of what you said!

[3andnomore]

As I said I had contacted the Babymilk org website, and yes they were aware of it already and he also send me a link to teh page on his blog...just incase others are interested:

link

[fluffyanimal]

I've read a fair bit of the page that the OP linked to. Can I ask anyone to explain calmly what they find wrong about it, because I can't see much to take issue with. I know this issue stirs up a lot of emotion so please can you give me rational arguments against it, as I'm genuinely wanting to know why this site is bad. I'm quite prepared to accept that it is, but I can't see the problem at the moment.

[3andnomore]

fluffy...I suppose the main issue is that they seem to have no problem to twist the truth...i.e. no problem with blatantly lie about things....look at teh Babymilk.org website, to see what teh issues are...they can explain it far better and more rational...well, then me anyway...

[fluffyanimal]

Thanks for reply 3and. Can you point out which bits are where they are blatantly twisting the truth? The only bit I at was where it said that breastmilk alone was not enough after 6 months. I've had a look at the babymilkaction website you mention and I don't take issue with anything it says there, but it doesn't explain to me how what the Nestle link says is incorrect.

[TheQueenOfQuotes]

hmmm - interesting - I do kind of "sit on the fence" this this whole Nestle issue but I'm just wondering about

""... WHO has made no statement quantifying the impact on either morbidity or mortality of infants being fed on bona fide infant formula, i.e. breast-milk substitutes manufactured in accordance with the relevant standards of the Codex Alimentarius. In contrast, WHO has estimated that [this] number of infant deaths... that could be averted annually through effective breastfeeding promotion, and this irrespective of the breast-milk substitutes used to feed them or, for that matter, the feeding utensils employed for this purpose".
(WHO, 19 November 1992)."

that quote........you see I've read on websites which have nothing to do with breastfeeding (ie WaterAid and the likes) that 1.5 million children die as a result of not having clean water....this is the same number which are claimed to die due to FF'ing.


So is that a made up quote from WHO, or what???

[doggiesayswoof]

QoQ I think the point is the clean water - bf is not dependent on water supply, as it is safe anyway. Ff is only safe if the water used to make up feeds is safe. Therefore in areas with a compromised water supply, it's all the more important to promote bf.

Have I got that right ladies?
(ages since I read up on this stuff)

[TheQueenOfQuotes]

you see that's where I'm confused - (according to Unicef)

"In Sub-Saharan Africa, 43 per cent of children drink unsafe water and one in five die before their fifth birthday. A lack of clean water and basic sanitation is responsible for 1.6 million preventable child deaths each year."

(so 1.5/1.6 irrelevant really in the scheme of things - still a heck of a lot of children). Now that statistic is based on under 5's....yet by that age while they may still be being breastfed - they're also going to be eating food like you or I.

UNICEF seems to think that most of these deaths are down to lack of basic hygeine and basic sanitation............so I'm confused as to this 1.5 million figure (did WHO - give that statement about 1.5 million children or not????) and whether it relates directly to FF'ing or whether it's a ballpark figure that's used to stop Nestle (and the likes) advertising so heavily??



Having said all that what utter garbage they say about "Every mother has the right to choose what she feels is best for herself and her baby on the basis of objective information and advice from a qualified health professional."...........ermm yeah and how many poor women around the world actually have access to a health professional

[3andnomore]

they lie about the wys they promote...etc....
I rather not visit the site now, as a) I am offf to work in a mo and b) the more it's clicked the higher it is rated...actually am regretting my op, as that possibly made people look at it more then if I had said nothing....

QUOQU...it's somehting to do with the water, the cleanliness or lack of etc....and lack of basic hygiene in general in areas of poverty and also the costs of Formula which often leads to overdiluting and therefore will lead to malnourishment...
sorry a bit short ..like I said....got to get ready to go work in a mo....

[TheQueenOfQuotes]

I suppose the lack of FF availability in the rural areas would have an impact too - I've yet to see a "village shop" (not quite what we associate with a village shop (generally half of it is the local bar ) that sold FF.

[doggiesayswoof]

Not sure how they calculate the figures - does seem confusing.

Yes I was about the 'choice' and advice from health professional bit too

[fluffyanimal]

QOQ, that (alleged) quotation from WHO on the Nestle site does seem a bit suss. Now that I read it again, the part that Nestle have selected is not a complete sentence and doesn't really make sense. Also, it is dated 1992, so presumably WHO have something more up to date to say on the issue.

I've been back to babymilkaction, and their site has this: www.babymilkaction.org/resources/yqsanswered/yqanestle.html#13aug01

However, note that babymilkaction acknowledges that the WHO figure of 1.5 million includes children fed on something other than infant formula: "...estimate does not specifically state that the infants were fed infant formula. They may have been fed follow-on formula, whole milks, cereals or unprocessed animal milks."

The Nestle site does seem to me to be at pains to point out the dangers of feeding a new baby stuff like plain powdered cows milk, and the dangers of poor hygiene, incorrect preparation etc. And they do keep stressing that breastfeeding is best.

3and, I don't think you should be sorry that more people are clicking on the Nestle site. In order to understand the issue fully, you need to see both sides of the story.