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.

They are asking that a certain proportion 1/3 is used to say that formula is not as safe as bmilk and how to make it up correctly. It doesn't say that the wording etc has to be the same on ALL packaging, it can still be tailored to different countries.

And saying how to make up formula safely on the box will help babies in the UK as well and won't harm mothers or babies.

Hmm it's very vague,says in link they need to be the same because it will be exported.Either it is or it isn't.

I don't agree with a blanket label,far better to use more tin space with safe preparation instructions for this country which I would support,don't need any other messages than are already there.

If that us what is what is proposed then great.

However obviously third world countries need an entirely different label.

Nestle are notorious, again with these companies it's about top dollar. Artificial milk is unhealthy for children, I know, I have one child who had it and another who didn't and they both have different body types with the natural fed one slimmer, fitter and abound with energy x Stop buying from these companies..we have a voice, start using it, more action than talk x

Yes it's interesting and important isn't it Polka - about the labeling.

The WHO code does say I believe that labeling should be specific to each country. This makes obvious sense because of language differences for one thing. As well as the very different living conditions in different countries.

I think Save the Children could explain more what they have in mind for labels for the different countries and circumstances involved.

Secondly I agree with whoever said why just target the two biggest companies ? Surely they won't comply with such a request if other companies aren't even asked to consider it ?

And thirdly if I was Save the Children I wouldn't have started the first sentence of the petition in such a sychophantic way. Do have a look everyone !
Something about how as the biggest providers of baby milk they have such an important role to play (or some such !)

I'd prefer .... "As human beings have you had time yet to consider how complying with the longstanding WHO code for the marketing of formula might help you to protect the rights of vulnerable women and their babies in developing countries, and most importantly their rights to health, well-being, and life" ?

Frankly I'm slightly disappointed in Save the Children for not (IMHO) thinking all these issues through more thoroughly before launching the campaign - which nevertheless I do support, as the situation is so serious, and the petition does firstly call on the companies to uphold the WHO code - which is long over-due

Some more info:

• WHO code already includes the need for local labelling, with clear pictures, and where there is text, in the local language

• WHO code already proscribes free samples and health worker inducements

• safest feeding option for HIV mothers is exclusive breastfeeding - this is the recommendation for the developing world and leads to less mortality and less morbidity. www.who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/documents/9789241599535/en/

• no one is proposing that mothers anywhere be prevented from formula feeding or making their own infant feeding choices

i know ^. They still do everything they can to get around it though.

That's an interesting link re bfeeding and HIV, so they recommend it for 12mths.

And yes the WHO code says they should make labels country specific.

The campaign isn't all that clear in dome aims which is a shame, and I agree it should be all formula companies but it us a start and that is something.

And second sentence of the petition ...

"The way you market your products can influence women's decisions to breastfeed "

No shit, Sherlock !

Artificial milk is unhealthy for children, I know, I have one child who had it and another who didn't and they both have different body types with the natural fed one slimmer, fitter and abound with energy

It is exactly this kind of claim that gives BF activists a bad reputation. The presumption is that good things were caused by BF and bad things by FF is ridiculous, when there is no solid evidence.

Look, it's just anecdotal creamteas - Posters on here do that all the time, drawing on their own experiences.

That's an interesting link re bfeeding and HIV, so they recommend it for 12mths

but only if they have access to ARV.

Given that two biggest issues in HIV/AIDS are

1. people do not know they have HIV
2. access to ARV

it is not necessarily that helpful......

Well it happens the other way with ff saying 'I formula fed and mine are fine never I'll so I don't think bfeeding makes a difference'

Anecdotes aren't helpful.

Bfeeding is healthier for babies, its not always the right choice in conjunction with other factors tho.

Also the feeding choices could have made a difference with that posters children.
So her extrapolations needn't be wrong.

But agree with 5 that this is surely a time to try to look at things more widely.

Remembering that 800,000 babies lives a year could be saved if things were different - that's almost a million.

Obviously the need is more acute in the developing world but this IS still an issue in the UK.

I was in the hospital bed opposite someone who established BF but then decided not to continue apparently due to nipple pain. Through many loud arguments with her partner it became clear they didn't have enough money to pay for her mum to get the bus and come in and visit in hospital. They had no bottles, no formula, when the partner bought formula it wasn't the newborn formula, they had no idea about sterilizing or making up bottles.

The baby having apparently settled on the boob wanted nothing to do with the bottles, and no matter how many times the midwives explained they kept feeding the baby from bottles they had made up to 12 hours earlier and that in one case been sat on the radiator.

They were stuck in some time until the midwives thought they were actually going to be okay with the bottles but when they weren't around the couple just ignored all the advice.

No attempt was made to explain why BF would have been so beneficial to them and their baby. The mother just said 'Oh I don't think I will, it's a bit sore' and the midwife did not even suggest that the pain would only last a few days but they would be paying for formula and bottles for a year.

She did not check with them that they had any idea about the pros and cons of the decision they were making.

This was not an informed decision on any level whatsoever.

So it is all very well saying that the choice to FF or BF makes no difference in the UK but it really can do.

It is all very well to say that everyone knows the risks and how to make up bottles but the facts are that they don't.

It is all very well to say that it is patronising to think that advertising influences peoples decision to FF but for a lot of people adverts will have a huge effect.

Not everyone is a middle class woman with the internet at her beck and call.

The link says the ARV makes tramnsmission lower and to nrecomend its available but it doesn't say not to bfeed if you don't have the ARV. Its not massively clear.

And awful as it is to expose a baby to HIV, IF there is NO way they can have safe formula that is prepared properly etc, then bfeeding is a source of milk that will keep them alive in the short term at least and they may or may not end up with HIV.

tiktok can you clarify are they only to bfeed IF they have the ARV?

This was not an informed decision on any level whatsoever

Very few people can actually read the evidence, often because many medical journals are behind paywalls.

So I would think that the majority of decisions on both sides of the BF/FF divide are uninformed.

"Q.7 If ARVs protect the infant even if the mother does not exclusively breastfeed, is it still important to recommend exclusive breastfeeding in the first 6 months rather than just any breastfeeding?

Yes. Before we learned that ARVs can protect against HIV transmission through breastfeeding, WHO recommended that HIV-infected mothers who breastfeed should exclusively breastfeed for the first 6 months. This was for two reasons:

i) No matter whether the mother or infant are taking ARVs, exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months is very important for protecting the infant against diarrhoea, pneumonia and malnutrition. Exclusive breastfeeding is much more effective than partial breastfeeding (mixed feeding) at protecting against these infectious diseases.
ii) In the absence of ARVs, exclusive breastfeeding reduces the risk of HIV transmission by about half. The protection that ARVs provide against HIV transmission is greater than the protection offered by exclusive breastfeeding. It is unlikely that exclusive breastfeeding adds significantly more protection against HIV transmission if the mother or infant is taking ARVs.

Therefore, even if the mother or infant is taking ARVs to protect against HIV transmission, the infant receives significant other benefits from exclusive breastfeeding."

www.who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/topics/child/nutrition/hivif_qa/general/q7/en/index.html

So the key protection is ARVs, which should be given to all mothers with HIV, whatever their feeding regime.

OK so they should breed even if they don't have the ARV"s but its better if they have them. But it should be exclusive bfeeding.

No it breed.. Bfeed.. Dam auto correct.

creamteas yes indeed that's why we have NICE and the NHS to tell us that breast feeding is less risky than formula feeding and by how much and in what ways.

although TBH I don't think they put anywhere near enough emphasis on the by how much and in what ways...

In the developed world where FF is safe, FF is recommended for HIV+ women.

It is only where FF is unsafe that BF is recommended, and ideally with ART.

ICE I do have access to medical journals and, as a researcher, part of my job is showing how the advice given out by NICE and the NHS is not always really based on the evidence...

I see it's still only Clouds who was willing to answer my questions

I honestly don't get it, this whole thread is about how evil and duplicitious formula companies are, and yet everyone wants to get behind a proposal that very nicely asks them to be less evil and duplicitous.

Is this really the best we can do?

Why is this petition not addressed to UK and EU government agencies? They actually have the power to force companies to do these things.

Yes, I did feel a bit the same bohemian reading the petition, as I mentioned.

Especially where you say .... "that very nicely asks them to be less evil and duplicitous"

I think that's an excellent point that maybe the petition would be more effective if addressed to UK and EU government agencies.

After all, we tried writing to the formula milk companies 30 years ago did we not ? And how much has changed ?

The formula companies cannot advertise milk for under 1's so I read one suggestion that the follow-on milk products are a way around that ban, get the brand out there. What I had noticed in my various baby groups was that other mum's would advise each other than one brand or another was the closest to breast milk. The ban excludes the companies from charges under the law of false advertising but that means that they can spread false rumors that they would not be accountable for. The nutritional make up of formula is the same, I think they have a law they have to match it up to so your baby can have which ever one they like and still be healthy.

My friend had this problem when she went back to work, she got worried that her son wasn't getting what he needed because he didn't want the brand she had been recommened but liked another. It is all the cunning art of manipulation that the advertising industry know so well which is why they are monitored. Word of mouth is unregulated.