challenging illegal formula packaging - sorry if this has already been posted but this is from the CEO of the NCT

[harpsichordcuddler]

"The NCT has been given a clear view from LACORS (the Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services that some infant formula packaging currently on store shelves is illegal under current regulations.

In order for it to be removed from sale there needs to be a prosecution or threatened prosecution. Local Trading Standards Officers are the people who would bring a prosecution, but to do this they need to receive large numbers of complaints from across the UK.

Would you help? This is your chance to make a real difference.

Next time you are in a supermarket or chemist, check out the infant formula packs (this formula is labelled as ?suitable from birth?) and read the wording.

The wording we are informed is illegal is

? Formulated to be nutritionally close to breastmilk
? With omega 3 LCP,s
? Closer Than Ever to Breastmilk
? Inspired by breastmilk

You may find other wording which is similar.

Send photos or a description to your trading standards office (you can locate your nearest using this link)

Scotland www.scotss.org.uk/scotss2.htm

England www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/consumers/clegis.cfm

Wales www.wrexham.gov.uk/english/env_services/tradingstandards/

N Ireland www.detini.gov.uk/cgi-bin/get_builder_page?page=61&site=9&parent=110

Channel islands www.gov.je/EconomicDevelopment/TradingStandards/

With a note to say

?These packs were on display in my local xxxxxxx on date xxxxx and I believe them to be illegal under current legislation because of the wording on the packs.
Please note the words

[INSERT WORDING ON PACK]

My information is that this wording is likely to be illegal. Please would you follow this up for me and let me know the outcome. ?

They will do the rest. You don?t need to explain why you think it is illegal or comment any further ? just report it. The body from whom local TSOs take their lead has already advised us that this packaging is illegal. Your letter will push them to act."

Could we do a Which? style trial, d'you think?

Of course we couldn't test nutritional claims but we could compare ingredients lists, ease of dissolving, taste, smell (some of the added-fish-oil ones even smell fishy), cost...

Did twofishes's last post warrant that, harpsi?

I understand that you feel passionate about bf, but the opposing view was not expressed aggressively.

Whether you like it or not, the tone of some of the posts on here do suggest that women are, in the main, being misled. It's an acceptable enough comeback to suggest that many women do not feel misled.

They have simply chosen, for a host of reasons, a different method of feeding.

I think it's the nutritional claims that I'd be most interested in.

I wrote to Which asking them to trial formula.

They replied saying good idea.

Then I followed it up and asked whether it was going ahead.

They said they "didn't think it would be of interest to their readership" so they weren't going to do it

I suspect "other things" though. [conspiracy]

Hunker

yes you may but you are excused the typos
you see the real problem with this talkboard is that tiktok always comes on after me in her measured way and makes me look like a screaming harridan.
grrrrrrr.

Lots of women are being misled though, Des.

Some on this thread, even.

And lots I know in RL.

I read Harpsi's post as exasperated, not aggressive.

Hunker

Harpsi, s'ok, I'm here to make you look like the reasonable one

Hunker

thank you Desiderata

tbh I am just tired of being accused of "deeply offending" people, of groundless accusations like women are being "brainwashed" and that we are "slagging off" decisions.
it's just not true and it is very very hurtful.
the only slagging off that goes on on these threads is in the other direction.
I get a bit tired of it.

desiderata tbh I am not sure I can take seriously your plea for tolerance for a woman's method of feeding

"Some" women do get brainwashed.

Not all, probably not most, but some do.

I am a reaonsablt intelligent woman, university educated, had my first child in my late 20's.

I chose to formula feed because my family, the world around me, advertising, formula companies were all sending me messages that formula was just as good as breastmilk. I remember the ads distincly when I was pregnant. One SMA one was judged later to be illegal and they were prosecuted.

I was brainwashed.

Hunker

If another group of people existed solely on one foodstuff (let's say "people in hospital", "people in residential care homes", "Big Brother housemates" for example), you can bet there'd be more nutritional information available to them about it.

But because it's babies, and because there's the whole "smuggery accusations" thing out there that means that anyone asking for this sort of nutritional information to be available clearly(!) has a secret agenda of Being Smug and Making FFing Women Feel Bad, apparently it's OK to just have "inspired by breastmilk" and "ooh look what clever babies you'll have if you feed them our milk with special immunofortis that we made in our laboratory specially for you" even though they're either meaningless statements or won't say what the research was that allowed them to make that statement.

I mind a great deal that this sort of thing is allowed to continue. I can't see why other people don't think it's a problem.

Hunker

By the way, I've just beemn to the Co-op. Cow and Gate premium (the same one I used for dd) is currently on sale saying closer than ever to breastmilk.

Desiderata, so you (and maybe twofishes) don't feel misled.

I am puzzled.

1. You either believed the claims on formula packs and still believe them (I won't ask how you work out which of the brands claiming to be 'closer' or 'closest' or 'now even closer' to breastmilk is actually correct).

or

2. You don't read the claims, knowing that it's all marketing bullshit anyway, and because of starting off pretty cynical, you can't be misled. And you select the brand whose colour most closely match your kitchen decor, or whatever you can buy at 2 am at the all-night garage.

My personal opinion is that 2 is a perfectly justifiable reason for selecting a formula brand, but it still doesn't explain why you think it is ok to make claims that could mislead and/or confuse others.

OK let me repeat myself: I am not slagging off anyone's decisions or questioning anyone's choices. I am not saying anyone was brainwashed. I am bringing to your attention the illegal nature of this advertising. The legal advice is that it is misleading. you may or may not consider it to be so.

By harpsichordcuddler on Sun 22-Jul-07 22:03:11

obviously it is a matter of personal choice if you want to write to TS or not.
I am not here to change anyone's mind or persuade anyone

au revoir for now....

SWC, yes, wouldn't that be interesting... If I had more money, I'd sue the fuckers myself.

Hunker

oh ooh, a class action. can we do that or is that just on american tv? i'd like Aptamil to prove the assertion 'closest to bm'. and er, C&G as well.

I think we can rouse enough interest in it, through media contacts on here - surely - to make it very much "in the public eye". Can't we?

I wonder if JK Rowling would be interested? She's got the cash to take them on and she'll be in need of a project now

Hunker

she may alrready be posting, hunk, you never know...

not me, btw. [church mouse]

TikTok
No 2...obviously

twofishes, er.....I know it would be No.2, and I was aware you were able to recognise irony. Now trying answering the real question - why you think it is ok to make claims that could mislead and/or confuse others.