Marilyn asks:

"While I can see the point of standing behind the code, I do feel that there
is a legitimate use for ABM in these shelters. What about sending a letter
to the formula company letting them know that their formula was passed onto
to the shelter ?"

This is just the kind of feel good publicity companies would love to have
surrounding their corporate image -- they could turn this into $$$££££.  (Again,
see the Marketing Week article I posted about last week, which discusses the
need for companies to have good image in terms of charitable works.  this is
really important to them where they are competing in a market where there is
little difference in quality or price between their and other company brands.)

The point here is not that there is *no* legitimate use -- if the formula were
generic tins, no problem.  But these tins carry the company logo and are
therefore a form of marketing.  The WHO/UNICEF Code is  about marketing.

This whole issue has come up, I know, with relation to HIV.  Aren't the
companies waiting for the consensus to be "all HIV+ mothers should bottle feed"
then
they can make a big deal out of their "donations" in areas of "Need".

I also recall that the WHO/UNICEF code says that if there are donations made by
companies they should be sufficient to cover the entire time that the child who
receives the donation is likely to use aritificial baby milk.  Otherwise
donations are a "loss-leader" type promotion.

A donation of unwanted, unsolicited items from an individual is different than a
direct company donation, ok,  but, can you tell?, I feel REALLY UNEASY about any
well
intentioned individual doing the company's marketing work for them.

Magda Sachs
Baby Milk Action Area Contact
Breastfeeding Supporter, BfN, UK