To think the woman who thinks Tesco 'shamed' and 'guilt-tripped' her for buying formula

[Manumission]

is being a little bit dim?

You might not like the policy, but it's not difficult to understand that it is imposed on the retailers from above, is it?

Unless I am totally missing the point was there no parent and child spaces. Sorry if this is really obvious x

WTF? It has nothing to do with parent and child spaces!

This policy was brought in by the WHO to protect mothers in developing countries. It is not legally enforceable but countries can sign up to it if they wish to.
Companies, especially Nestle, had adverts in developing countries showing healthy fat babies and telling mothers their formula was best for their babies.
Mothers who would have breastfed bought it thinking it was modern and better. Unfortunately with little access to clean water many babies died from being bottle fed. Others did so because the cost of milk was so expensive that mothers watered it down too much.
I saw many of these adverts outside rural shops in Africa.

Not just that. They desssed their sales reps like nurses who gave out samples of formula that lasted long enough for the mother's milk to dry up. The mothers believed the "nurses" that formula was best and then were making it with dirty water or not able to afford it they watered it down and babies became very ill and died. This is still happening. Nestle are flagrant in their ignoring the rules.

WTF? It has nothing to do with parent and child spaces! I suspect the little x at the end suggested a little joke!!

There is so much more to hate about Nestle www.dailydot.com/via/nestle-california-bottled-water/

I think the guardians piece is interesting

www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/12/mother-refused-free-parking-at-tesco-due-to-baby-formula-purchase

"In the end fi you can't afford formula for your child it's probably best to either bf or maybe postpone having children until you economic situation is more stable."

Not really necessary. There are state benefits for poor people and child benefit for anyone not rich. No baby should be going without food.
However, free parking in Tesco is not a human right.

Do milk tokens still exist?

They do;

www.healthystart.nhs.uk/healthy-start-vouchers/

So there's a mechanism for getting free formula to low income families.

whyohwhy

I mentioned WHO and I'm certainly not blaming them - my post suggesting we blame them was ironic:

The law is a sound piece of ethically led legislation that prevents manufacturers taking advantage of FF mothers with appalling marketing practices that blighted formula sales in the 70s

My issue with this is that free parking is not a promotional benefit (customers should be able to park for free regardless of what they are buying) so Tesco appear to be going further than they need to.

How come nobody just goes home, rants to their OH about stuff like this and then just gets on with their bloody life?

What possesses people to go running to the papers every time they get pissed off about something?!

I frequently get told I can't have boiling water to warm a bottle (despite being allowed a cup of tea ) but I just roll my eyes, moan about it when I get home and move on!! I don't go boo-hooing to the Fail that I am being mistreated as a formula feeder!

"(customers should be able to park for free regardless of what they are buying) "

Who says they should? It makes sense for the shop to offer free parking, but they don't have to do they?

trifle it's a clear discount.

There is lots of case law on this topic in relation to promotion and marketing of pharmaceutical products which follows a very similar approach.

My issue with this is that free parking is not a promotional benefit (customers should be able to park for free regardless of what they are buying) so Tesco appear to be going further than they need to.

There is no reason why Tesco are compelled to provide free parking. I know a number of supermarkets that don't offer free parking to anyone, customer or not. They're in prime locations and the car parks would heaving with non-customers if they didn't charge for it, leaving paying customers dissuaded from using the store because they can't find anywhere to park!

This Tesco is at least offering customers who are spending a reasonable amount in-store free parking. Makes sense for it to be more than buying something for a few pence as this would still be regularly abused by people using it as a cheaper alternative to paying for parking elsewhere.

And it's very clearly a promotion as you're getting something for free (parking) that you'd otherwise be paying for. Certain items can't be included in promotions for legal reasons. The end.

I've had "10% off your shop" discount cards in my local supermarket before. The small print states that infant formula is excluded. Would anyone argue with this? Or is it just because it's parking that makes it different?

Buying wine could be seen to encourage drink driving, or buying cigarettes when you have a child with you to break the law but smoking with a child in the car.

I fail to see how formula mean you can't get a validation on a parking charge.

I don't think parking is a discount at all. It is something you charge non-customers for, yes, but for customers it is just a means of allowing them to access your service without charging them for the privilege

I suppose the rationale is:

• parking attracts a charge.
• this charge will be waived for customers who make a qualifying spend in store.
• formula milk is excluded from all forms of qualifying spends.

I get the rationale and I understand Tesco are playing it safe. I simply think it's obvious that your customers shouldn't be charged to park but non-customers should, so I think they would have been fine not interpreting the law quite so tightly.

That's aside from my view that it is a stupid law.

Why is it a stupid law, Trifle ?

Well it's rather beside the point of the thread, but my view is that FF is a perfectly reasonable method for feeding your child and shouldn't attract discriminatory treatment. I agree with the woman as far as her issue with the law goes, but I don't think it was the employee's fault at all.

but my view is that FF is a perfectly reasonable method for feeding your child and shouldn't attract discriminatory treatment.

Do you know why the law is as it is?

It has nothing to do with any judgement on FF!

There are so many links on this and the other thread...

And it is not derailing the thread at all, as understanding why the law is as it is is the whole point!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Code_of_Marketing_of_Breast-milk_Substitutes

I don't see the difference between that code and a judgement on FF. It is clearly privileging marketing of BF over FF, and I get why, but I don't think it is reasonable and I do think it is discriminatory, given that a) not everyone can BF and b) FF is a perfectly adequate substitute, or they wouldn't be permitted to sell it. So we will have to agree to disagree here.

That's your perspective Trifle. It's a protectionist law to stop the likes of Nestle putting profit over appropriate treatment of parents and babies.

I know it's my perspective