Legislation on formula promotion

[Again]

Don't want to start a war here, but I'm wondering if someone can point me to the legislation that bans promotions such as temporary reductions in price of formula. I was in an Irish supermarket and saw some and wanted to look into the law in the area. I don't know if it exists in Ireland, but it would be good to get an understanding of the law in Uk or EU.

It's by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and called the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes as far as I'm aware. I think it's backed up by a UK law to enforce it but am not 100% sure so it may or may not be legal to promote formula in Ireland if there is no separate law to back it up.
I will start a war by saying that I think it's unnecessary in the west and fully expect to be roasted for it

ps. I should say I believe it to be unnecessary because BF needs to be a free choice not something that people are guilt tripped into by aggressive promotion and a blackout of information about bottle feeding which appears to be the current policy.

infant formula regulations

Reg 19 is the one dealing with promotions, although it would depend whether it's an infant formula or not. Think it's formula for up to 6 months, although it can be a grey area.

Re: regulations in Ireland, find out the name of the Directive from the UK regulation and trace it back for the Irish version.

Was it a regular promotion (like buy on get one free) or special promotion? I know that some of the Heinz formula was out on special offer (I saw this in my local supermarket)as it was being discontinued and there was discussion as to whether or not this broke the regulations.

Thanks that's very helpful. It seems to be Commission Directive 91/321/EEC and Council Directive 92/52/EEC

Bubbles, guilt tripping isn't the intention, and even if it were, it's not working. The fact is that formula companies have so far failed to prove that they can market their products responsibly. Until they can, I think the legislation should stay. The amount of misinformation is shocking. Just yesterday I encountered someone who thought formula was better because it has vitamins in it, and thought breastmilk has none.

A free choice is a fully informed one. Formula companies have not been good at the fully informed part.

Op, it's legal to promote follow on milks for babies older than six months. I know several ladies who have switched to follow on purely to take advantage of the special offers.

Bubbles, but you're happy for people to ff because they've been exposed to aggressive formula marketing? and formula companies cleverly making ff the cultural norm?
Bearing in mind these are businesses with huge marketing departments and advertising budgets...bf has only the NHS and legislation behind it.

I'm not sure Bubbles. I'll have to go back and check. Also it may not have been 'infant formula' - "infant formula" means a food intended for particular nutritional use by infants in good health during the first four to six months of life, and satisfying by itself the nutritional requirements of such infants

Just because you met one woman who isnt very intelligent doesnt mean the information she received was incorrect.

(as if it doesn't matter what we feed our children after 4 to 6 months!)

Ok the WHO guildlines actuly recomend the banning of all fromula, infanct feeding products i.e. bottle's, sterilisers, and baby food up untill the age of 2 years.

The UK law is quit lose to be honist only banning the adveristment of formula upto 6 months. Hence the fromula companies invented follow on milk.

I couldn't tell you what the law is in Irland though. There brestfeeding rates are lower then in the UK though.

I think the fact that some people believe that the milk of another species is better than human milk for human babies is hard proof of the fact that marketing works.

Not just an acceptable alternative if BF doesn't work out, but actually better.

The big companies cannot be trusted to self regulate this, their needs (i.e. profits) can only be met by denying babies their needs and babies are more important than profits.

Sounds to me that the best course of action is better promotion of breast milk then and restrictions on what formula companies can say, rather than a total block on them advertising at all. Just like a ban on advertising alcohol would be counter productive as you just make it seem more attractive and mysterious. Better to allow them to advertise but restrict them from making outrageous claims. As you say formula milk advertising has been banned for ages and people are still misinformed so formula advertising clearly isn't the issue here. BF misinformation goes through families and entire communities and much of it goes back to the time when FF was aggressively promoted by scientists and the medical community as superior (along with irresponsible formula companies promotion). To redress the balance BF needs to be gently reintroduced and suggested to people as a choice not the 'superior option'. Phrases like this alienate people, make then defensive and less likely to even try BF. Just like treating formula as a lesser option makes people angry and defensive and more, not less, likely to want to try BF.

Irish law that I have found implementing the direction is:

www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/si/0243.html#zzsi243y1998

It doesn't legislate around special offers at all

Well, I think the uk has been weak in it's implementation of the Code. I'm just thinking of that sma advert from the pov of the father, and follow on milk generally.

The woman's comment was partly correct- formula does have vitamins. She did not know breastmilk contains them too because we are rubbish at promoting bf in this country.

Where would the money come from for better marketing of breastmilk? There is no money to be made if women breastfeed their babies.

When people attempt to sing the virtues of breastfeeding they are slated for being cruel to mothers who cannot do so. As if feelings can negate facts.

The money is everything here, while there is money to be made convincing mothers of the benefits of FF over BF then it will be done.

The pressure needs to be on the companies,
not on women individually.

Perhaps a tax on all profits from each tin of formula that has to be spent on promoting/renormalising breastfeeding would make a difference.

Bubbles, I don't think it's unnessary, big bussiness is only out to do one thing make money. There was a time when they where able to markt anything they like how they liked. Thye have proven time again that they will lie just to get Sales which is why we now have so many laws in place to prevent unfair advertising.

They can't be trusted and even in the west there are many uninformed individuals who'll believe anything they are told. The law is there to protect vanerable infants and doesn't go far enough in my opine. They get away with advertising follow on milk which everyone seems to think is necasry to switch to at 6 months when the product was only invented to get around the current law.

good post Morloth

I take it back

Section 8 of SI 852 2007 deals with it but again it's infant formula

(5) There shall be no point-of-sale advertising, giving of samples or any other promotional device to induce sales of infant formula directly to the consumer at the retail level, such as special displays, discount coupons, premiums, special sales, loss-leaders and tie-in sales.

OK so here's my twopence ha'penny worth now that I've got that sorted out!

There is a reason for advertising. Why on earth would companies spend large amounts of money on it if it was ineffective? It's all well and good saying that the majority of women are intelligient enough to look at the facts themselves, but not everyone has the time or the education to decifer fact from promotion. We are being bomarded with information on a whole host of things. I don't have any expertise in car manufacturing, so I expect a level of protection when going out to purchase a car. I expect that false claims on engineering and safety standards will not be permitted under law because I don't have the education in that area. That doesn't make me unintelligient.

If it was just word of mouth that would be fine, but there isn't a level playing field and we are talking about the protection of children who certainly have no control over how they are fed.

Ok, let me try to explain this another way. I'm vegetarian. I have scientific information on my side (veggies live longer, less cancer etc). I would like more people to consider vegetarianism. I can promote my cause in 2 ways:
a) I could: ban all meat advertising. I propose a tax on a meat to pay for the extra money the NHS spends on treating illnesses made worse by meat consumption. Make all meat packages come with health warnings that state vegetarianism is much better for you. Make the meat marketing board tell you constantly vegetarianism is better for you. etc etc

or b) provide information on vegetarianism if people ask for it. Pass positive experiences onto people, debunk myths in a gentle way if I hear them, be a good role model in myself as to the benefits of vegetarianism. Be there if people want to ask me questions. Allow meat to be advertised but in a responsible way, so that untrue claims are not made and that health risks are not glossed over.

As a meat eater which one would make you more likely to consider becoming veggie and which one would annoy, patronise you and ultimately damage your cause?

you are talking about other adults though
we are talking about infants and their sole source of nutrition

But adults feed their children. It's the adults you have to convince.