Nestlé Launches Unethical Marketing Campaign in China

            Recently, Nestlé suffered a public relations disaster in China after government inspectors found unsafe amounts of iodine in some of the company’s powdered baby milk (see http://www.infactcanada.ca/nbu_June1405.htm). In polls following the incident, many Chinese consumers stated their intention to boycott the company because of the less than honest methods with which Nestlé attempted to conceal the matter from the public. In an effort to win back consumer support in one of the world’s biggest markets, Nestlé CEO Peter Brabeck-Lemathé announced to his shareholders that the corporation would mount a large-scale marketing campaign in the country.

            It has become apparent that the marketing techniques being used are flagrant violations of the World Health Organization’s International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes. Article 5.5 of the International Code states:

Nestlé has sent health professionals in its employ to Chinese grocery stores, where they stand in “nutrition corners” stocked with Nestlé products and promote them to shoppers. It is obvious that the company is deliberately targeting mothers because according to a letter sent to IBFAN by Nestlé Policy Advisor Beverly Mirando, the products advertised in the display include a “nutritional supplement for pregnant and lactating mothers.”

            This type of promotion is banned under the International Code because baby food company officials coming in close contact with pregnant and new mothers facilitates the easy dissimenation of biased infant feeding information and the undermining of breastfeeding.

            While Ms. Mirando asserts that the so-called “nutrition corners” don’t display infant formula but rather infant cereals made for children over the age of one, this is not an excuse to target mothers. According to Ms. Mirando, Nestlé’s infant cereals are not to be used as a substitute for breastfeeding, and as such do not fall under the scope of the International Code. Therefore she says the Chinese promotions are ethical. But in a letter sent to IBFAN in 1999, David Clark, a Legal Officer at UNICEF, clearly specified

“…any form of contact with mothers of children under the age of three years is prohibited, irrespective of the motivation behind the contact. It is no excuse to argue, for example, that contact is being sought in relation to a product that is not within the scope of the Code…the prohibition is absolute.”

Clearly, the Nestlé’s aggressive promotion of their products in China is a violation of the International Code and as such undermines breastfeeding and subsequently infant health.

            To promote cereals for young children alongside nutrtitional supplements for new mothers is also highly irresponsible because these cereals are often fed to infants younger than the intended age by mothers who have not received adequate, unbiased feeding advice. Because the cereals are not nutritionally formulated for children under the age of one, they are dangerous to the health of young infants if ingested.

            Furthermore, the promotion of nutritional supplements for lactating mothers also undermines breastfeeding, because it implies that breastfeeding cannot be done optimally without the use of such products. In actuality, medical studies largely conclude that only a very small percentage of mothers should use supplements.

            Nestlé’s deliberately aggressive marketing campaign in China is another example of the company’s willingness to boost its own profits at the expense of the health of infants. In this case, the corporation is trying to recoup profits it lost due to a previous incidence of endangering public health.

Please visit

For more info, see: http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEMresponses/CEMRdec05.html#1