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.

He had a massive growth spurt at 7-9 months. (went from 9th centile to 91st!) Was drinking up to 4 bottles of 7oz a day (plus some solids), but sometimes wouldn't drink the whole bottle. And seeing as you're not supposed to keep bottles that have been drunk from past 2 hours, some of it went down the drain.

It's much better now, but had I truly realised the cost of FF I would have persevered with BF much longer.

Obviously - I'm not saying that cost is the big factor for a lot of mothers, but 'BF is free' doesn't really explain the true cost of formula. Do you think the lady in the article who is spending half her husband's wages on food may have tried harder to BF had she realised just how much it would cost her?

I wonder how much psychical support women in developing countries get from midwives and family? Do they have the same follow-up treatment that we are very lucky to receive in the UK? There seems to be a lot of the 'midwives peddling free samples' - so they are being paid by the milk companies to give out these free samples.

I think there must be massive problems with unfinished bottles in developing countries where the relative cost of formula milk is so high to the families.

Babies naturally don't always drink what has been made up - it is good for them to be fed on demand to a large extent (to regulate their appetites)

Old milk needs to be thrown out and start again with a fresh bottle later. But I can so easily see that not happening where a family is spending half it's income on the formula milk.

Many mothers in developing countries must feel as you do Visualise - only hundred times more so

(sorry, up to 5 bottles a day, and sometimes at night too).

I'm willing to bet that a lot of unfinished bottle are not thrown away, and just kept until baby wants it again. Bacteria grows in already dirty water that hasn't been boiled, the bacteria will just multiply if the bottle is left to stand - also presuming that women who can't boil the water probably also don't have somewhere very cold to keep a bottle even if baby didn't finish it. Even cooling it down quickly and storing it in a cold place would prevent the bacteria. But there's no point if it's been made with already dirty water huh?

Just found this from Nestle.

www.nestle.com/asset-library/Documents/Creating%20Shared%20Value/Products%20and%20Consumers/Infant_formula_marketing.pdf

They just shouldn't be using it all and they have the support to not need to.

All of that re unfinished bottles,storing it in a cool environment(not likely I suspect),only using clean,boiled water,sterilised bottles,correct amount of powder to correct amount of water,how long bottles would need to be boiled for to be sterile etc,etc would be nigh on impossible to decipher in a foreign language let alone yours if you couldn't even read.Some of these countries will have a different alphabet.

I'm the last one to scaremonger re formula but in third world countries they need little less than a toxic skull and cross bones sign which is soooooooo not what mothers in this country need and which could be very damaging.

It is a bonkers idea,sells both short and could have an adverse effect on both.

They just need to stick to keeping it away from third world mothers and from midwives promoting it in such countries.

Exactly Visualise - these mothers will be (just like us) trying to do what's best for their babies but they have been put in an impossible position by being pushed into using formula for their babies in conditions where it is impossible to do so safely.

They just need to stick to keeping it away from third world mothers

so presumably you would want to babies to die when BF isn't possible? What if women work?

Malnourished mothers may not produce enough milk. And there is no guarantee that they could buy food for BF women with money saved from FF. It will depend on the cultural context and gendered power relationships.

I'm not sure what is best a hungry baby or a food made with putrid water,not made up correctly in dirty bottles festering germs in the heat away from a fridge with little follow up care if they do get ill.

Nevertheless such is the seriousness of the situation creamteas that it is probably undisputable that less babies would die in developing countries if formula was removed entirely from the situation.
Of course, that doesn't necessarily have to be the solution, but it's worth being aware of.

Every aspect of the code about labelling and promotion of formula milk is there to regulate the behaviour of the companies. They are direct responses to marketing and promotional tactics used by those companies.

Those who think we are so different to mothers in poorer countries, please look again at the way companies behave here. We don't have the same issues with water and money; we are lucky enough to have clean water and to be able to pay to feed our babies. We do have the same desire to do what is best for our babies and the same guilt that somehow we might be failing them.

In a space of less than a decade we now have a thriving market for age 1+ 'toddler milk'. The companies created a demand by suggesting that a) it promotes good health and development and b) without it we might be failing to meet our babies nutritional needs. It literally appeared overnight. Time and again research has shown the strong link between formula advertising and formula feeding rates - which is pretty obvious really, because they wouldn't pay for it out of the goodness of their hearts, but we hate to think of ourselves as suceptible to it.

Selling European labelled product in other countries is one of the many ways companies circumvent regulations - in this case labelling ones.

Yes, I think we have to be careful and not be too paternalistic either.

Many women in developing countries are vulnerable and exploited and we need to stop formula companies from taking advantage of this.

But many women in developing countries are, like us, weighing up the pros and cons and deciding that formula is either necessary or preferable given their circumstances. Who are we to deny them that choice, one that we enjoy?

Not all women in developing countries lack access to clean water, or don't know how to make up feeds safely.

A lot of women face the same dilemmas as us: they need to work to support their family, but can't manage to BF and work at the same time. Who are we to tell them they can't use formula, if they use it safely?

By all means, encourage BF, but I think we should recognise the diversity of women's lives and experiences too.

'Malnourished mothers may not produce enough milk'

The level of malnourishment required for this to be a factor is less of a risk to babies than that posed by contaminated water and the cost of formula milk. But I'm sure convincing women that their milk isn't good enough/that they don't produce enough milk is one of the sales tactics used by formula companies. And what do you think the impact is on older children's nutritional needs when a huge portion of family income is going on formula?

If a mother is so malnourished she can't produce milk then she won't be able to afford formula milk.

The issue is these companies are ignoring the WHO codes, marketing ruthlessly and giving out enough free samples so a mothers milk dries up and then they have no choice but to use formula.

And yes women should be able to male their own choice re feeding but it needs to be an I formed choice with unbiased info, the women in these countries are not getting the information or support to make an informed choice.

Labelling formula on how its not as safe and how to make it up safely is a start but making these companies stick to the WHO guidlinres also needs to be done and this campaign is asking for both. It may not be perfect but its a start and something needs to be done to stop the unethical manner in which these countries operate.

I think lack of support re returning to work,families needing two parents working and most importantly lack of support in how to actually bf is at fault along with the fact that the alternative on offer in this country is a good and relatively safe product which is so easy to do- sorry.

I get and agree with your point bohemian but warnings in a foreign language won't help.

Dreaming, I don't think we are that different. I think that we are just as suceptible to formula advertising in the UK. We are just protected from the consequences. But no-one wants to believe that they are influenced by advertising, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Bohemian - Within your post are the words "and we need to stop formula companies from taking advantage of this"

Well, despite the excellent WHO code, which has existed for 30 years ? - we haven't managed to do this.

Let's start with, or go back to, that aim first ?

polka the WHO code states formula companies should make their packaging tailored to different countries so languages/symbols/pictures as necessary. They are not doing that.

And the fact is the risks they have to weigh up are far bigger than ours so they will need more strident /different warnings which will need to differ from country to country.

In our country we have little support to breast feed and great facilities so need completely different packaging.

One size doesn't fit all and could be damaging so on that basis no I won't be supporting this unless they took the packaging bit out.

I accept that formula is a necessary thing.

You need to accept that for formula companies, every woman breast feeding is a lost sale.

Increased advertising and promotion does lead to an increased % of fomula fed babies. That's why these regulations were brought in. It's in the interests of the formula companies to stop women breast feeding. And it works.

that it is probably undisputable that less babies would die in developing countries if formula was removed entirely from the situation.

I agree with this - if there was no other option (other than maybe cow/goat milk or wet-nursing), a lot more women would be BF.

Well 5 making every country the same won't help that and could have very negative consequences for all ie nobody will bother with different packaging so third world mothers will be even less likely to get access to the message and it could have consequences for babies and mothers in this country.

Please support this campaign.