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.

"The two issues are completely different" Polka

Yes, it's interesting that it's come up several times whether the same issues apply in developed and developing countries regarding the marketing of formula milk, or whether they are essentially different.

My feeling is that whilst there are shared concerns, the problems of formula feeding in situations without access to clean water or facilities to boil that water and sterilise utensils are so much more serious as to make it more helpful to see the situations as different, and therefore look at different approaches for the two different circumstances.

Some people have said it could be seen as patronising to say FF is OK for us but not for them, but I think, whilst promoting breastfeeding as best for all (at a population level, allowing for individual exceptions), it is only right to recognise the extent of the challenges faced by mothers in developing countries.

Our focus has to be beyond our own experiences and situations if we are to save the lives of many vulnerable babies around the world.

I agree with polkadot.

It's not poison and it shouldn't be put about that it is.

The issues here are different to those in the developing world. That's not patronising.

I very much agree with all your posts Zara, especially this:

"I think that the Save The Children campaign suffers from the common problems of Big Rhetoric, Small Details. I know from experience that these campaigns can suffer from a lack of joined up thinking just so it can get out the door and have wide public appeal."

All you have to do is look at this thread and see the downsides of this proposal, as once again we all sit here arguing BF vs FF. Any proposal to add huge warning labels was bound to have that effect.

And it's a shame because we actually all agree that what formula companies are doing in developing countries is wrong.

I strongly believe though that we need to take actions that don't just make us feel good -- like signing a petition that will do absolutely nothing. There is a huge push in the development field to actually measure the results of activities, whether they really work (unsurprisingly, an awful lot of development work is either ineffective or counterproductive).

So I would urge us all to adopt that evidence-based outlook we like to think we have. Is there any evidence at all that this particular proposal will have an impact? I think no. So let's direct all this righteous anger elsewhere.

In fact if I can suggest to MN:

A compromise might be to go back to Save the Children and say: our members broadly support this campaign, but are not 100% sold on this particular measure of warning labels. Can you explain further the rationale behind this proposal? Specifically, what impact do you think it will have, and what is it that leads you to believe it will be effective?

I've never heard anyone say that it's poison. I've heard loads say that "it's not like it's poison."

Please stop making out like people say it's poison all the time, of course it's not and they don't.

Saying that it's not the same as human milk is not saying it's poison.

Yes, I think that's good dreaming, and maybe something about how the suggested labels might follow the WHO guidance of being appropriate for the local situation in the different countries involved ?

Also ask them (Save the Children campaign) why the petition is only addressed to the two largest suppliers of substitute baby milk, and that we wondered if it might be more effective if

1. addressed to all

and/or

2. addressed to UK and EU government agencies

Of course I know human milk is better for human babies. I am not an imbecile.

I was thinking of statements like this: i would wholeheartedly support the campaign. people have no idea of the crap that multinational companies put in formula feed (or beefburgers or lasagne, etc)

Does the poster REALLY think the stuff they put in formula is akin to what has been going into beefburgers and lasagne? If they genuinely put crap into formula (given that you seem very keen on being completely literal) then the harm it was doing would be somewhat greater.

I have no doubt that breastmilk is better for babies. It is. However, statements like the above are not helpful either.

Good point Juggling -- as it's been raised here, I think it would be good to clarify the language/cultural specific issue.

In all the press I have seen around this, the argument is that the warnings are needed in Europe because sometimes the formula ends up in the developing world. But then how useful will those warnings be, if they are not designed for the country they're used in?

x-post -- another excellent question Juggling. Why not expand the target for this petition?

Or we could ask: Do they have any plans to introduce another petition addressing governments? Because that might be a better fit for MN to support, given there is already so much support for the campaign against the companies.

Think how much MN could help in lobbying the governments, we could all write to MPs and European MPs, etc.

Yes that would be great Dreaming !

Addressing the companies doesn't seem to have got us that far over the last 30 years after all

Though thinking a renewed boycott of Nestle could work well just now when they're in the news due to the horse-meat scandal ?

Excellent suggestions dreaming and juggling.

Like ICBINEG and many others here I've been so upset by this.
ICBINEG said she was listening to interviews on Radio 4 where people were talking about areas where 1 in 6 children make it to their 5th birthday.
5 in 6 of the babies die.

It would be so good if MN could take this campaign forwards.

I would like to know how formula is still getting to and promoted in these countries.

That is the issue.

I suspect pretty much every mother isn't happy with it but the issue gets muddied with dragging developed countries into the mix.

The issues are entirely different and when you mix the two you lose support for both.I lose the will to live on reading the scaremongering and stat twisting re the use of formula in this country.I'm sure I'm not alone and the developing countries cause would gain a lot more support if the focus reminded entirely on them.

I still think this particular cause is misguided and won't help mothers in either developed or developing countries and could actually be detrimental because of the labelling issue.

So for me to support it I'd like more detail and labelling clarification(what exactly are they proposing)separate labelling,more vigorous labelling in third world countries in a way that those that can't read could comprehend and in this country more tins use being given over to safe preparation only -we already hear the breast is best message loud and clear!

Yes Polka - that is the issue. Our guilt in this country about not BF is nothing compared to 5 out 6 babies dying in the developing world because of lack of access to clean water.

I think that sorting the problem in the developing world is far more important than labelling boxes here with warnings. They are two separate issues that are aimed at two (or more) different countries and cultures,a nd therefore should be tackled separately.

I wholeheartedly support the war against huge formula companies who are looking for nothing other than a quick buck, depriving parents of valuable information and giving them false information in return. What these parents need (other than clean water etc obviously) is knowledge about what is best for their babies, how to prepare feeds, help and support post-labour with BF. This is what we should be concentrating on.

Hi Rowan and MNHQ !

Would be great if whilst this massively important campaign is being considered in discussions of the day you could post again with your thoughts on some of the ideas and suggestions that have come up ?

I'm sure you care just as much about this as we all do.

Would be great to see MN helping to take this campaign forward effectively.

I am astounded (although probably shouldn't be) about the media focus on formula warning labels in the Western world. That wasn't what the report was about. In fact, the report itself didn't actually specify that the 1/3 warnings should be on formula made in the UK - it suggested that this be decided on a country by country basis. Our media have deliberately picked it up in order to cause uproar and make it into another FF vs BF debate.

I have written a blog about it here. [http://lactator.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/firsthour-freakout-media-response-to.html]

lactator.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/firsthour-freakout-media-response-to.html

Hi Loquacious - I completely agree with you about the focus of this by the UK media. Really shocking in their deliberate skewing of the campaign.

They are nearly as bad as the formula milk companies .... only interested in selling their paper or TV advertising with no thought for the accuracy and influence of what they put in it

The Wright Stuff show yesterday was a disgrace. I expect better of you Helen Skelton (on the panel) - where was your sense of responsibilty ? - Talking about how your friend felt guilty about using formula ?
That's really not the point !

I will go and have a proper read of your blog in a moment loquacious - but immediately noticed (because I've been shocked by the numbers and quoting them on the thread) that the figure for babies dying each year due to not being breastfed is 830,000. (According to Save the Children campaign page) So, an order of magnitude higher than you've quoted.
I know it is completely shocking - that means nearly a million babies every year.

Thanks for the clarification loc!

Loqu!

Although I still think unless labels are directed at the country intended they are pointless and could be damaging.

Sorry that was in reference to your last blog paragraph-as you were!

Loquacious -- the media and people generally are picking up on the warning labels because it's the only specific thing mentioned in the petition (other than the general call for adhering to standards).

It's a new proposal and seems to be the main focus of the petition.

I think it's disingenuous to say 'oh that's tucked away on page 45 of the report' -- it's front and centre of the petition. You can't be surprised that more people are reading the half-page petition than the entire report.

And I will ask you (since I'm still looking for answers from supporters!) why you think this specific measure is worth supporting. Why do you think formula companies will adopt these labels, and why do you think they would have any impact in the developing world?

I feel like a lot of people are supporting this just because it's another chance to tell off the formula companies, rather than through any considered evaluation of whether it's likely to do any good. I'm happy to be proven wrong on this but I'm really not seeing any arguments from supporters as to why they think this specific proposal would be effective.

"The report focuses specifically on marketing in developing countries"
So why are we putting it all over packaging in a first world country again? Layer on some guilt? I have never understood why formula isnt advertised for newborns here as our decisions are so utterly utterly different from those in the third world.

So no I dont support a ban on UK advertising. And no I dont think BF would increase if it were banned. Some don't BF because they can't, some because they simply dont want to. Its a choice and in making that choice mothers should have access to marketing materials for both options.