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."

No such ruling can be found on the ASA website. Both Nestlé and the ASA have been asked to provide it and neither has done so, though in its reply to me, Nestlé again dismisses the complaint.

The South African Department of Health informs me that they are usually consulted in such cases and have no knowledge of any ASA ruling on Nestlé shelf talkers. Further I have been informed that the DH told Nestlé that it is "extremely concerned about all the health claims that Nestle make on the new NAN 1, 2 and 3 tins. The health claims are a contravention of the current South African Regulations."

Nestlé claims the formula 'protects' though it is well known that infants fed on formula lose the protection provided by breastmilk against infection and are more likely to become sick and, in the South African context, to die.

Tom Levitt MP, who started this discussion by unjustifiably praising Nestlé's compliance with the marketing requirements, has not responded to my messages or accepted an invitation to meet, but has posted an article on his blog, stating: "Tom accepts the company's explanation as being consistent with what the MPs saw and heard in South Africa."

Presumably Mr Levitt did not speak with the regulatory authorities on his Nestlé-funded trip or since. Baby Milk Action has conducted a poll on its website and 100% of people who have completed it agree that Nestlé is breaching the very clear prohibition on advertising in the marketing Code. I once again ask Mr Levitt to conduct a serious investigation, even if the conclusions may dissuade Nestlé from giving him further free tickets to Wimbledon and international trips.
See: www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemmarch08vote.html

Mike Brady
Campaigns and Networking Coordinator
Baby Milk Action
Cambridge