Save the Children's new report on marketing practices of formula-milk companies: what do you think?

[RowanMumsnet]

As some of you may have seen from press coverage over the weekend and this morning, Save the Children is today launching a report into the marketing practices of formula milk manufacturers.

The report focuses specifically on marketing in developing countries - where a lack of good sanitation and public health awareness can make formula-feeding precarious - and on the importance of colostrum to a baby's long-term health. You can read more about the campaign and see the petition here.

We've been asked to get behind this campaign - and as ever, in these situations, we need to know what you think!

Is this something MNers would like us to support? As many of you will know, we have long refused advertising from Nestle and its majority-owned subsidiaries. Save the Children's report is also critical of Danone, the second-largest formula manufacturer.

We'd be really interested to hear your views.

Oh yes - I said that up thread. That there needn't be a connection at all. But once all the dust has settled and all the loop holes to avoid exploitation have been closed, if that solution means labels on formula in the UK then so be it.

We all make decisions. And sometimes we feel guilty afterwards. That is our problem. Not anyone else's.

Exactly Noble,focus on that and label both tins of formula the best way to suit both sets of mothers instead of coming out with some ridiculous idea that doesn't help either.

"Guilty" you're surmising a lot.Nobody needs to feel guilty in this country if they follow guidelines.I feel guilt re ever buying IPod touches or letting my dc have cocacola at Christmas/birthdays but ffing nah-not a jot!

tiktok I do think it's a little problematic to say 'but they can breastfeed now', as again, many women will not be able to.

Look at Malawi (a country I've visited), 20% that's one in five pregnant women is HIV-positive. Only a quarter of them are taking anti-retrovirals (which then allows BF). The country is one of the poorest in the world, with dire health outcomes (one in eight children dies).

Obviously I think BF should be encouraged there (and apparently there has been some successes) and formula companies should not be allowed to exploit the situation. But I think it's also important to not just discourage formula use but to make it safer to use for those people who have to, through clean water campaigns or donated pre-made formula or what have you.

Btw clean water does not have to take forever, you can get wells up and running in a few months (ideally), there are all kinds of new ideas for using solar disinfection, hygiene campaigns plus donated soap can make a big difference.

polka Well what feelings exactly are we protecting FF mums against then?

Of course no one need feel guilty - thats the fecking point isn't it?

So why should it matter what is written on a formula packet?

ICBINEG no one is saying to let poor babies die so rich people don't have to deal with guilt. That's a very simplistic take on the argument.

I wrote further down why not.

Tis a very ill thought out amateur,pointless idea.

dreaming LOTS of people have said that.

They have said we shouldn't advise on the health risks of formula on packets because it would hurt peoples feelings, because it would add to the guilt already experienced by people who tried and 'failed' to BF, that it could push people over the edge into PND.

It is written all over this fecking thread.

Elsewhere on MN people have bitched about their rights to have advantage points on formula because not getting them just singles out that product and reminds them of how the government wished they had made a different choice. How it all compounds their feelings of inadequacy.

About to be discussed on the 'Wright Show' at 10:20am this morning. Although, he's already got his facts wrong - he said 1 in 10 mothers can't psychically breastfeed, I thought it was less than 1%?

Without a doubt there needs to be something done, and not in this country, but in countries where BF is in reality the ONLY safe way to feed your baby - you cannot FF safely without the ability to boil water and sanitise bottles etc. I think what disgusts me more than anything is the midwives offering free samples to 'get them hooked' - what's happened to the sisterhood?

I agree with both of you that it doesn't seem likely that health warnings on packets in the UK is a key part of stopping the evils being perpetrated by formula companies in the developing world, but if someone can demonstrate that it is going to help significantly then 1st world mums are just going to have to own their decisions and deal with their insecurities and guilt issues themselves.

yeah in Norway the BF rate at a few weeks is 99%.

So thats 90% of Mr Wrights physically incapable people suddenly able to BF in the absence of Formula advertising.

Strange the affect that advertising can have on the ability to lactate...

ICBENIG that's people saying these particular labels not all labels, but the one suggested here are not needed in Europe.

I think everyone is agreeing that some kind of health warning is suitable for developing countries.

What's being contested is the idea that you need to have a universal label.

Mothers in the third world won't be able to read it,need something more stark and mothers in this country need more strident reminders re safe preparation even when using sterilisers and clean water are everywhere.

This bonkers idea helps neither and could actually be dangerous for some babies whose mothers don't have bfing support on top readily available.

x-post

The bottom line ICBENIG is that I DON'T think the labels will do anything helpful in the developing world. If I did then yes, I would agree with you, our feelings come second.

I am one of the ignorant, naive people who assumed Nestle had stopped doing this ages ago.

I thought such disgusting morally bankrupt behaviour could not possibly still be going on. I was wrong. How can the people who work there square this with their conscience? Awful, truly awful.

I will be boycoting Nestle and Danone from now on, as well as passing this message on. The Nestle boycott list is here info.babymilkaction.org/nestleboycottlist (that's the Body Shop, L'Oreal and Rachel's Dairy out then)

Thank you Save the Children and Mumsnet for informing me about this and I support this campaign 100%

Because both sets of women(and babies) have completely different needs.A one size does not fit all and lets both down to be frank.

I disagree.

Babies everywhere have the same needs. They need to be breastfeed and if that can't happen, then they need to be formula fed safely.

This is what the Save the Children petition is asking for

You must ensure your marketing practices always abide by the international Code and go a step further: We?re asking you to dedicate a third of all your Breast Milk Substitute packaging to a label warning that formula is inferior to breast milk and dangerous when used inappropriately.

Women (and more importantly - their babies) everywhere would benefit from knowing that formula is dangerous when made incorrectly, and babies everywhere will benefit if marketing practices don't lead mothers to believe that using formula is a good option. It isn't a good option. It's a good substitute, but not a good option for the baby.

"Because both sets of women(and babies) have completely different needs"

But babies the world over are the same: they deserve the best and safest nutrition, which for the vast majority happens to be breast milk.

Sadly babies - world wide - seem not to be getting this. For one reason or another. Reasons mostly to do with the feelings of adults, and commercial interests.

Cross posted Clouds!

Shag no not to do with the feelings of adults but lack of support,circumstances and a very safe alternative in the Western world.

The who voice already calls for country specific labelling and the formula companies are ignoring this.

The WHO code not voice!

And still I say they won't be able to read it soooooooo just perhaps we should be looking at alternatives.

But Clouds, formula packaging already says all that. The only difference seems to be in the size of the warning label.

Again, I don't think any of us disagree in the overall aim. But I'm still not seeing any convincing argument for why this particular label will make any difference. Or, for that matter, any convincing argument that formula companies would indeed adopt this label.

It's a circular argument, no? We need to do something because formula companies are not abiding by codes and engaging in dodgy marketing -- so let's have a petition asking them to abide by codes and change their marketing!

I mean, fine, knock yourself out. I'd rather see all the time and effort go to pressuring governments to make them abide by codes and regulations.

Re HIV that has already been mentioned on this thread sand if a mother with HIV solely feeds it is OK but once you start giving formula as well the risk of transmission of the HIV virus increases.

Wanted to add - given that everyone assumes that UK babies having formula are largely 'safe': in the 2005 Infant Feeding Survey, only 7 in 10 women using formula knew the difference between follow on and infant formula, and 11% of those using formula with babies between 4 and 6 months had already started using follow on formula. 4% had given follow-on by 8 weeks.

Only 3 mothers in 10 follow advice to make up every feed fresh or use ready made formula. 41% of all mothers using formula do not use water of 70 degrees or above to make up the feed. Only 13% were following all the recommendations about making up feeds fresh, using water of the right temperature, and adding water to the bottle ahead of the powder.