Baby milk companies promote their milks to mothers and health workers because they realise that if they don't get babies on the bottle, they don't do business.

Nestlé, the world's largest food company, sells nearly half the world's baby food. It sets marketing trends, which are followed by the other companies.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) and UNICEF have an International Code of Marketing which bans all forms of promotion of baby milk.

That's why we ask people like you to stop buying Nescafé, the company's best-selling product.

One of Nestlé's most successful marketing tactics is giving free supplies of milk to hospitals:

• Giving bottles to newborns makes breastfeeding failure more likely. The baby is then dependent on artificial baby milk.

• Once home, the mother has to buy the milk for herself.

• In many societies, it can cost more than half the entire family income. Poor mothers may over-dilute the powder to make it last longer. This leads to malnutrition.

• In poor conditions, the water mixed with the milk is often unsafe, leading to diarrhoea, dehydration and often death.

back to top

The first international Nestlé boycott was suspended in 1984 when the company promised to follow the International Code

Nestlé soon reneged on its promise, so the boycott was relaunched in 1988.

Since 1991, UNICEF and WHO have gradually persuaded many governments to ban free supplies of baby milk to hospitals. Nestlé still refuses to admit that free supplies are harmful, ending the practice only when forced to by official action.

The company replies to boycotters with a pamphlet and a covering letter. In this section, we give some answers to its claims.

Nestlé stopped some of its more blatant practices in response to the first boycott. But it now concentrates on cleverer and more cost-effective practices. Monitoring in 62 countries in 1993 and 1994 found hundreds of Code violations by Nestlé. These include:

Nestlé claims to be 'committed to breastfeeding' but its over-riding priority is to make profits for its shareholders. Nestlé is in the business of undermining breastfeeding in order to sell more baby milk.

It is rare for a woman to be physically unable to breastfeed. And for the tiny number of babies who have to be fed on a substitute, donated breastmilk or wet nursing provide a better start in life than baby milks.

Even malnourished mothers can breastfeed and it is safer, cheaper and more sensible to feed the mother than to give milk for her baby.

Nestlé implies that premature babies cannot be breastfed. But research shows that premature babies who do not receive breastmilk are up to 20 times more likely to contract a potentially fatal condition. Twins can also be breastfed because the more a baby suckles, the more milk is produced.

Even the fact that many mothers work outside the home does not excuse Nestlé's practices.

Worldwide, there is little difference in breastfeeding rates whether women work inside or outside the home. And even if mothers use artificial milk later on, the early protection provided by breastfeeding is still important.

The Campaign against Nestlé aims to protect all mothers and babies. A mother should have the right to an informed choice.

If she decides to use baby milk, her decision should be based on advice from a health worker, not on the strength of a company's marketing campaign. Health workers also need protection from misinformation if they are to give sound advice.

World Health Assembly Resolutions in 1986 and 1994 clarified the International Code: no free or subsidised supplies of baby milk should be given to hospitals or maternity wards - the small amount needed should be bought by the institutions.

Nestlé is allowed to donate milk for babies who need it in emergency relief operations. But the supply should be strictly controlled and continue for as long as the babies need it. Donations may not be used as a tactic to increase sales.

In 1991, as part of their Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative, UNICEF and WHO asked Nestle and its competitors to abide by the International Code immediately, starting with an end to free supplies in all countries by the end of 1992. The companies claimed to support the Initiative but refused to end free supplies until governments introduced watertight legislation. Even this inadequate commitment has been described by UNICEF's Executive Director as coming about "because of the boycott."

By July 1994, all except 2 countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America which received free supplies had introduced a ban against the practice. However, free supplies continue in many of these countries. The baby milk industry admits this and, regarding the Middle East, for example, now says that governments need to enforce their bans.

Yes, Nestlé is clearly worried about the damage to its sales and reputation.

The boycott is supported internationally by thousands of individuals, businesses and development, health, religious and political organisations. In the UK, these include Save the Children, the Women's Institute and the Royal College of Midwives.

In 1992, Nescafé sales fell 3% (£7 million) while Nestle increased its coffee advertising by 27%. In 1993, ad spending on the basic Nescafe brand was increased again – from £8m to £14m.

Nestlé is responding to the boycott with clever public relations techniques whilst continuing to violate the Code. The boycott will continue until monitoring shows that Nestlé has stopped all irresponsible marketing practices.

back to top.

• Ask community groups, unions, churches, your TD, local councils, businesses and other organisations to join the campaign.

• Join Líonra and keep up to date with all our campaigns.

• Spread the boycott - we can send you leaflets and petitions.

• Send for the Action pack, which contains more information, ideas and materials.