
It sure looks that way to me.
You see Nestlé has a product line of infant formula entitled Nestle Good Start. Here's some stuff from their website:
"Protecting your baby's future. It's what every parent wants. And what every baby needs. Starting with the right nutrition. Introducing Nestlé® Good Start® Natural Cultures™."What parent wouldn't want to "protect their baby's future".
So what's the issue here?
Well actually there's a bunch.
First let's go to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. In their 2007 Letter to Industry: Requirements Related to Nutrition Information and Nutrition and Health Claims for Infant Formula they spell out a few things to folks like Nestlé,
"Comparing infant formula to breast milk, including comparisons of the levels of a nutrient in infant formula to the levels of the same nutrient in breast milk, is contrary to the message embodied in the Code".Yet on Nestlé's site,
and
"the infant formula industry is encouraged not to make a reference to breast milk on a label or advertising of infant formula, other than a statement regarding the superiority of breastfeeding"
"Natural cultures are part of what gives breast milk its naturally protective qualities. And of the natural cultures found in breast-fed babies, one is by far the most prevalent - Bifidobacteria. That's why we added Bifidobacteria, which we call bifidus BL, to Good Start® Natural Cultures™. It's the first and only Infant Formula to contain it. Because we believe your baby deserves it."Sure sounds like Nestlé's making the case that they've basically powdered breast milk!
and,
"Enhanced with Omega-3 (DHA) and Omega-6 (ARA) - two of many important nutrients also naturally found in breast milk - to help support your baby's normal brain, eye and nerve development right from the start."
and,
"There are only two places your newborn can get natural cultures. The first is you. The other is from Nestlé® Good Start® Natural Cultures™. "
But it gets worse.
Going back to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency document,
"The use of health claims on food labels and in advertising of foods including infant formulas is limited by the Food and Drugs Act. Although the Food and Drug Regulations currently allow five diet-related health claims on food labels, these are not permitted on foods for children under two years of age, including infant formulas. The dietary recommendations that lay the foundation for these claims are for adults and are not appropriate for infants and young children."I guess Nestlé didn't get that memo as they promote their formula on their labeling and website as having the following health benefits,
"easier to digest",And it's about those harmful bacteria and your little one's vulnerable body where Nestlé's product can become potentially fatal.
"naturally protective",
"helps support babies’ normal brain, eye and nerve development",
"helps your baby build strong, healthy bones and teeth",
"crucial to his continued mental development"
"As good bacteria, Bifidobacteria can compete with unwelcome harmful bacteria in the gut by helping keep them from entering your little one's vulnerable body - providing added protection to help keep your baby healthy."
You see there's this bacteria, Enterobacter sakazakii, it's been found to be a contaminant in infant formula. Sadly it has been known to cause sometimes fatal cases of meningitis (brain infections), sepsis (blood infections) and necrotizing enterocolitis (very bad intestinal infections) in infants. Consequently the World Health Organization in their Guidelines for the safe preparation, storage and handling of powdered infant formula recommend that with the specific aim of minimizing the risk of E. sakazakii infections, the water mixed with formula ought to be a minimum of 70 degrees Celsius (158 degrees Fahrenheit) and then be allowed to cool.
And what of Nestlé "Good Start"?
They explicitly advise consumers,
But of course given that E. sakazakii actually can contaminate the formula itself even if you use previously boiled water that has cooled to 40°C you'll still run the risk of not killing this opportunistic pathogen.
As Kim Sheeler, OB nurse and whistle blower asked me in her email pointing out Nestlé's egregious behaviour,
"I wonder if the parents who spend an extra $10 or more per container of powdered probiotic formula are willing to take the risk of having their baby exposed to E. sakazakii or Salmonella in exchange for the benefits of the probiotics, or is it that they are lulled into a false sense of security by the probiotic halo and think that any risk of a sakazakii or salmonella infection is minimized by the presence of probiotic cultures?"Great questions Kim.
This isn't the first time Nestlé's come under the gun for their aggressive formula marketing as this article from the UK attests - that said, aggressive marketing is one thing, breaking the law and endangering children is quite another.
I'll be sending this post along to the consumer protection division of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and to the Director of the Bureau of Nutritional Sciences at Health Canada. Perhaps they will be able to put a stop to what appears to me to be both a horrendous abuse of public trust and a potentially fatal product for infants.




Flashback! In the late 1970's and early 1980's, there was a worldwide boycott of Nestle products because they promoted formula in lieu of (and better than) breast milk in many developing countries (the idea that malnourished mothers provided inferior breast-milk), where (not even counting the availability of clean water!) mothers diluted the product to the point that it provided less nutrition than the milk from their own breasts.
ReplyDeleteYou'd hope a company might learn something in 30 years... but it sounds like SOS.
It is sad that Nestle is one of the worst marketers ever...for formula AND things like their bottled water.
ReplyDeleteI just feel bad for formula feeding moms (like I have been) searching for the one product that SOUNDS healthy...so tossing in all the probiotics and dhd's and so on....it is very sneaky.
IS there a brand of formula that does fair marketing?
Without even reading the post, I was ready to answer YES. If only we had raw milk available for the wee ones who can't get momma's milk. Why this is legal is beyond me.
ReplyDeleteJust received my copy of the June 2009 issue Canadian Living, and just by fluke, it opened to a full-page ad for Nestle Good Start Natural Cultures.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to forward this post to the editor of Canadian Living. I know magazines get huge revenue from its advertising, but they should be in compliance with the CFIA Food and Drug Act regulations as well.
K.
I called Health Canada two or three weeks ago, before reading this post on your blog and they told me that to make a complain about this, I have to adress to the Ministry og agriculture in Quebec. What I don't understand is that the legislation is a Federal one... Weird is'nt it? Seems like they don't want to receive my complain...
ReplyDeleteBreaking what law? US or Canada? and has there yet been a baby to die or even get sick from this formula? Where is your research, proof, and facts? Nestle promotes breastfeeding in every single piece of literature it prints. Similac..... almost ALL of it's products recalled last year due to beetle contamination? Enfamil has caused a dramatic increase in infant zantac prescriptions because of "reflux" in babies. Good Start is an excellent formula and you have entirely too much time on your hands and clearly have it out for this company.
ReplyDeleteEnfamil and similar ALSO contain DHA and ARA and also claim that these are components found in breast milk,, so which is your issue, the advertising that mentions breastmilk? or the actual probiotic ingredient. Your post is all over the place and you have nothing backing up your complaint.
To "Good Start Supporting Mom" I reply:
ReplyDeleteI find it encouraging to know that companies are trying to offer the "next best thing" to those of us who need to give formula. We do want the best for our children. And I have no problem at all with them comparing it to breast milk - as long as they don't say it better (thats just lying). Because I want to know that my child is still getting benefits to drinking formula if i'm unable to give breast milk - mothers feel enough guilt on this issue anyways.
I think the real issue is that Nestle is charging extra money for a product that if not prepared properly harms infants. And even though there may not have been deaths in North America (i'd have to see some facts)- the truth is thousands of infants have died world-wide where Nestle is shamelessly pushing formula as BETTER than breastmilk to women in third world nations. Who cannot prepare this product properly and cannot afford it.
The crisis in the 60s-70s is still not over today. Nestle is using the same old tricks.
My baby had bow movement problem right after I changed her formula from 'easy to digest only' to 'probiotic add on'....
ReplyDeleteI wish I read this article before buy the formula.
There is nothing wrong with the formula. It's the preparation process by the parent that needs to be done properly. NO formula is a substitute for breastmilk.
ReplyDelete