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.

Shagmund but people do attach moral significance to formula. And of the centrality of bf to good parenting. They do. It's been said to my face, and to the face of others. People on this thread have made such claims too.

I think you've thought about all this so much you're over thinking it now

I just want babies not to die in the third world unnecessarily. And I don't want pointless labelling exercises that do nothing to correct that first thing to make mums and dads feel bad about what is a perfectly acceptable way to feed your baby if you can't or don't want to bf. That's it. Truly.

Ionnika - if the NHS Choices website says this (I've c&p'd):

"- Breastfed babies have less chance of diarrhoea and vomiting and having to go to hospital as a result

• fewer chest and ear infections and having to go to hospital as a result
• less chance of being constipated
• less likelihood of becoming obese and therefore developing type 2 diabetes and other illnesses later in life
• less chance of developing eczema"

it's really not unreasonable for the people who read it and accept it as fact to feel that formula feeding can be harmful to babies.

Obviously that doesn't justify behaving in a rude or a judgemental way towards other mums who have chosen not to breastfeed.

Loquacious, I think you're being unfair in summarising the argument against the proposal as 'no don't do this because it will hurt my feelings'

I think this thread has raised a number of very appropriate questions about the possible effectiveness of the specific proposal to introduce larger warning labels.

You say, who are we to judge the people who think this will work? With due respect, yes I do think we are allowed to judge. When you look at the amount of money wasted by NGOs in the developing world, it is absolutely astounding. Their intentions are good but they push things that simply don't have any impact.

I am really bemused by the number of people supporting this who don't seem to care whether it's even feasible or helpful.

Zara - how 'acceptable' you feel ff is is a matter for your own conscience. It was not acceptable to me for my own children. I don't appreciate people telling me that ff is 'absolutely fine' because I think this is a matter of opinion. I will give you that it's socially acceptable and common practice to ff a baby. But then in many cultures it's socially acceptable and common practice to circumcise babies, and I don't agree with that either! It's another practice which is culturally entrenched, is rarely beneficial for babies, and is all about the beliefs and feelings of adults.

As you know dreaming I do care and have thought about the detail of the proposals, and have shared thoughts and suggestions on the thread.

But I'm not surprised by people just supporting the broad aims of this campaign - which is firstly about upholding the long-standing WHO code - because it seems that there are no other proposals on the table. These are the proposals that have been put forward by Save the Children, and people understandably trust them to have thought about the best approaches ?

Personally it seems to me that they could have considered the detail of the campaign and the way they've written the petition more carefully ? Perhaps they might respond to some points we've raised here ? - either directly or if contacted by MNHQ ?

But I still support the campaign as it stands, because it might just save lives.

Oh I seem to have arrived in the middle of something....

To go back to the original OP - yes, I would like MN to support this campaign.

Shagmund you are ascribing moral notions to formula yourself there. Be careful, you're contradicting yourself.

Correctly prepared baby formula is a nutritionally acceptable substitute where breastmilk is not available. You can't argue with that, because it's true.

Formula is acceptable to me because it was the only realistic option I had for feeding my child, but thank you for your patronising and ill-informed comment about my conscience.

Why are you so defensive and argumentative when we all want babies in the third world to not die needlessly?

Dreaming you summarise the points nicely, as always. Will be interested to see the stance MN takes.

Agree juggling would be great if they could respond to some of the points raised here!

I support this. I don't know who called the warnings "cigarette style" - it's not helpful to compare formula with cigarettes! I do think that the disadvantages of giving formula, and directions on how to prepare it properly absolutely should be made clear on the packet.

There are a lot of mums in the UK who don't know the disadvantages of giving formula. Making it clear on the packets doesn't just influence someone about to buy them, we stroll past these every day in the supermarket.

As for making women feel guilty: guilt's a part of motherhood. I don't feel we should allow formula companies to continue underhand and misleading marketing here and in the rest of the world just because it makes some people feel bad. It shouldn't make anyone feel bad.

Another point has been raised that the warnings need to be global to account for, e.g. products packaged for the UK market being exported overseas. This happens quite a lot, so we would need clear, explicit directions and cautions on all packaging, worldwide.

I guarantee that Danone, Nestle, etc. won't like this one bit. If they sit on their hands and refuse to comply, we know that the reason is because it would affect their profits!

Women who need to buy formula will still be able to buy it - it's not being made illegal.

yes support it

The other point about labelling is that it's currently hopeless. The directions are rubbish, the cautions are TINY and weaselly worded. In some countries, formula is imported and the language on the packaging is not one that's commonly spoken or read.

The ingredient list is written in the tiniest print known to mankind. So if you can't read the writing on the packet because it's too small, you're illiterate or it's in Sinhalese and you speak Tagalog, all you know is that there's a picture of a baby on the front and you saw an ad for it in a magazine. So the labels need to be clear. They need to be in languages commonly spoken, and backed up with diagrams where literacy levels aren't that great.

Worldwide regulations on what can and can't go on a formula packet's label isn't pointless pinhead dancing, it will save lives. It will undermine the dodgy and corrupt marketing practices that kill 1.3 million babies a year (Save The Children's figure).

Yes, yes, yes. Definitely support the campaign. It is criminal that the formula producers push formula so hard that mothers who could perfectly well produce the best nutrition for their child feel compelled to give up and spend an enormous amount on powedered milk, which is then made up with unsafe water etc.
And I do not mean "criminal" losely. I mean criminal as in something that causes actual bodily harm to the poor kids involved.

Ahh now the true feelings of some become clear. They want to take the moral high ground - good luck with that - parenting is hard for a long time ... There is a saying - those who are rearing should be sparing ....

It is pointless if they can't read it,still waiting to hear how advantageous text in a language or alphabet that may not even be a mothers first language if she can read at all is going to help.

What is wrong, Ionnika, with pointing out that yes, there is a moral dimension to the debate on whether marketing practices which lead to excess death and disease should be stopped?

Why sneer at that?

Shag no formula being fine isn't a matter of opinion it's a fact.

Polka, the WHO code has this aspect of local language and appropriate illustration covered; this is from Article 9:

9.2
Manufacturers and distributors of
infant formula should ensure that each
container has a clear, conspicuous, and easily readable and understandable message
printed on it, or on a label which cannot readily become separated from it, in an
appropriate language, which includes all the following points: (a) the words
"Important Notice" or their equivalent; (b) a statement of the superiority of breast-
feeding; (c) a statement that the product should be used only on the advice of a health
worker as to the need for its use and the proper method of use; (d) instructions for
appropriate preparation, and a warning against the health hazards of inappropriate
preparation. Neither the container nor the label should have pictures of infants, nor
should they have other pictures or text which may idealize the use of infant formula.
They may, however, have graphics for easy identification of the product as a breast-
milk substitute and for illustrating methods of preparation.

Obviously, it makes no sense to have text only information where mothers may be illiterate, or in a language which even literate mothers can't understand.

I think you are belittling 'Shag's feelings there, Polka*. She explained how strongly she felt that for her, formula was not 'fine'....and she's allowed to feel that way, without you insisting she's got it wrong.

People have strong feelings about infant feeding - they may hate the idea of breastfeeding, they may feel that breastfeeding is very far from 'fine' for them; they may feel hurt and pressurised if they see a poster supporting breastfeeding, and feel criticised.

So what exactly is this campaign asking for because at the moment it seems to be saying labels applicable to both because it can be exported?

At this rate if tins are going to have text in several languages plus diagrams and safe preparation instructions the tins are going to be as big as barrels.

If different languages are going to be put on then I don't see the need for blanket text to suit both.Western women can't read text aimed at the few mothers who can read in the developing world and vice versa.

The needs of both are entirely different and tins ain't that big.

What exactly are S the C suggesting because it seems very wooly and has the possibility to be damaging to both.

You can't say support this campaign when it isn't being outlined how,what or why it will work.Several posts have asked and none have been answered.

I don't understand your questions, Polka. The petition's relevant words are these:

"We are asking you to change for the better. 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. "

The International Code is the WHO code which as far as labelling is concerned, already requires appropriate local language plus graphics. They're asking to go a 'step further' by including a label in a more specified size - labels and packaging can be applied locally, before distribution. I don't see any confusion here, or any need for text in different languages, except where it might be necessary in a specific country.

I don't see anything woolly about any of that :)

Yes to support.

So why exactly do Western countries need slogans a third of the tin if they are simply asking them to abide by the International code.

Western women don't need bigger slogans and it could have very negative effects possibly dangerous and women in the developing world won't be able to read them so why ask for them?Said slogans will do zilch to deter women in developing countries from starting to ff and could have neg effects for those in the Western world so clearly not a great idea and a deal breaker for many.

The lack of clarity is woolly.

It couldn't be clearer - the demand in the petition is to abide by the Code, and to go further with labels a third the size of the package. From memory, labelling on packs sold in the UK referring to breastmilk and the need for correct preparation is about a sixth, so the labelling would double in size.

The Code allows for graphics, as well as text - sensibly, as we know, to account for illiteracy. Labelling should be appropriate for the area in which the product is used, to abide by the code. Text in English in a non-English speaking country is code-breaking.

If you think a third of the pack is too much for the developed world, or that it might have a negative effect, then of course you will not want to sign the petition.

So don't!

I think we need bigger clearer instructions on how to make the formula up. Ie detailing making it with 70deg water etc.

Why would making the label bigger be harmful to women? It will still be the same wording in the UK? And then have clearer instructions on making it up.

I agree with the instructions but not a bigger slogan,absolutely no need.Why is it being reported that there needs to be a bigger slogan a third of the tin if it is just instructions.