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.

We already have a ban on advertising formula milk aimed at babies below six months old. Banning it up to a year wouldn't be a huge leap to make.

I am in the "nobody should be feeling guilty for their chouce of feeding" camp.
Sadly though many of us DO feel guilty if we can't or choose not to breastfeed. It's an emotional topic and when you are already exhausted from the demands of a new baby it can drag you down when it shouldn't.

I think an open acknowledgement that breast milk is in most cases superior is enough...because in sone cases it wont be an option. If you have HIV for example the advice is to bottle feed, if you are on certain medications to.

I am all in favour of bashing tge FF companies though. Jusy look what harm they are doing in parts of tge world which don't have safe preparatory facilities. Many babie die which woukd survive if they had been breadt fed

Indeed. My SIL harmed her DS by failing to bf properly, he ended up in hospital on a drip. It wasn't the method of feeding at fault, it was human error on the part of a very well meaning mother.

I wouldn't have a problem with that, Clouds. I think plain packaging is a great idea too.

I thought Save the Children were about providing emergency food aid to children in need not funding reports like this. Not interested in donating to them on that basis - but as long as it's made clear that's where the money goes then no problem with it as such.

I have no issue with banning advertising of all formula, regardless of age etc. Also happy to see plain packaging etc. Grudgingly accepting too of the ban on advantage card points etc.

But I draw the line at warning messages unless very specifically related to how the formula is made up, as opposed to comparing it with bf.

I think that rather than cigarette style warnings, formula packaging should just be completely plain, literally a plain coloured box with 'Formula Milk' on the front, a list of ingredients and then a message about breastfeeding on the side (similar to the message currently on the boxes). A bit like own brand generic ibuprofen or paracetamol. And no advertising for any milk on tv or in magazines.

I (well actually my mum as well!) fell hook line and sinker for the Aptamil 'closest to breastmilk' shit when I was hysterically crying on the sofa that I couldnt face the pain of feeding one more time and asked my mum to rush out to the shops and buy formula. My mum had heard that aptamil is the 'best' formula (she is a nurse!!!) and so thats what we decided to get.

It was only after reading on here that aptamil is exactly the same as cow and gate, just a couple of quid more expensive, that I realised that I had been shafter. But by then, DS had been on aptamil for a while and I didnt want to risk changing.

Formula should be seen as an essential but last resort product, for when breastfeeding is not possible for any reason. It should be made available in hospitals wordlwide, but there should be definite laws in place to make it impossible for companies to push their product onto anyone, particularly more vunlnerable women in developing countries who perhaps do not know how to make up formula correctly.

I think it is slightly odd that formula doesn't already state the health risks tbh. I mean my fecking paracetamol comes with some sort of manual warning me of all the various ins and outs.

So what would this message be?

I am imagining

Other side effects:

Common:affecting most infants: increased risk of ear infections, gastroenteritis blah blah...lots of others

Rare:affecting 1:1000 infants: increased risk of SIDS

Very rare : affecting 1:100,000 infants: anaphylaxis

Sorry, but I want to know which brand I am buying....we are not talking cigarettes here.

I thought aptamil and cow and gate had the same ingredients but different quantities, and that aptamil is supposed to be the same but better quality (whatever that means).

Things like this are exactly why branding and advertising should be limited when it comes to formula milk from all companies, not just those that operate in the third world.

Don't all mothers and babies deserve the same consideration? The same need to be able to trust the companies that are feeding their newborns?

Paracetomol is a drug, and bound by law to list risks.

Totally different to milk.

You would know what brand you were buying. You would know from the words written on the packaging.

Most of us who have had children in the last decade could tell from the packaging whether we were looking at Cow and Gate, SMA or Aptamil, even if all the words had been removed completely.

The idea would be that people chose the brand they wanted to use based on actual information' rather than just the colour of the tin and the branding.

@CloudsAndTrees nope, not keen on this one and if I were one of the producing companies, I would take legal steps if plain packaging was introduced. For the UK, I would think the plain packaging idea goes several steps too far. Plain packaging (the way it is usually discussed) not only removes the get-up and any device marks but also the actual word trade mark or the "brand". Totally against that. This is not the same as adding a warning and would be like a nanny state.

Morris yes, but why is it different? Should it be different? You are feeding it to a new born baby...why wouldn't you want to know the risks up front?

@ICBINEG as it is not a drug in that sense. I agree with Morris.

Also the risks of other food are starting to be listed on packaging....I am thinking about drink responsibly messages on alcohol (blurred line their between food stuff and drug)..and biscuits and crisps that now say 'share this' or 'don't eat all in one go' and of course many things no come with labels saying may contain nuts, or dairy or soy etc.

Food labelling is heading in the direction of labelling risks for all consumers. Surely Formula should be leading the charge given we feed it to the most vulnerable in our society?

Personally I don't feel the risks of using correctly made formula are severe enough to warrant formula milk being reclassed as a drug.

It is a food, and used correctly can be treated as such.

I'm all for clearer warnings re correct use though. I made up bottles with cooled boiled water, which I now know to be less than ideal.

Chislemum why do you want to know which brand you are buying?

Any difference between them would show up in the ingredients list so you would still be able to choose, for example, if your baby liked one but not the other.

In reality there isn't actually any difference between 'food' and 'drug'. You eat something and it interacts with you in a biochemical way.

The line is particularly blurred when it comes to protein shakes etc.

Some formula is made direct from amino acids and other small molecules. Does that meet your criteria for a drug? Does it once you add vitamin supplements?

Are vitamin supplements themselves a drug?

What would the companies need to add to formula to push it over the edge?

It already has a whole bunch of stuff that isn't in breast milk and a fair amount that isn't in cows milk either....

Wouldn't you want to know that everything added to formula has had it's risk quantified against the standard required for drugs as opposed to food stuffs?

Coming back to this thread after a bit - have been out for a while - it seems that most posts are focusing more on people's own experience here in the UK than on the dreadful consequences of the immoral marketing of formula milk in developing countries.

It's very understandable that people look to their own experience and situations when posting but I find it frustrating that people find it harder to consider situations further from home - even when those situations are having deeply tragic consequences

Please support this. I am sick of STILL having to explain to people why my kids are not allowed Nestlé products. IME those who remember the Nestlé campaigns first time round seem to think that all the dodgy marketing stopped years ago. Definitely time to up the ante.

cleanandclothed trade marks (or brands) have what can be called an "origin function". I want to know who has produced or made the product. This allows for a repeat purchase and also allows me to avoid companies I might not want to support. I don't believe in communism... now I have said it.

No , it is not a drug. It is the sole source of nutrition of a baby, and replaces the biologically-adapted and physiological source of nutrition that the baby would otherwise have. I don't see any good reason why commercially-led, marketing agendas for special colours, logos and slogans would take precedence over an honest and full disclosure of information for anyone involved.

Brand names would be allowed - this would be important, so if a baby appeared to have a reaction to a feed, his/her carer would know to avoid this brand in future.

But there's no need for fluffy duckies, cuddly bears, sloganising or dubious health claims. Health claims that can be backed up with good evidence and which have been accepted by an independent panel of experts would be allowed, and written on the pack.

Clear warnings about the risks of incorrect preparation should be included, and there should also be a link to a website/telephone helpline in the local language that gave independent health-related information and advice about the use of the product, and infant feeding in general. Clear instructions on safe formula feeding should be there in words and pictures. In addition, carers should be reminded that babies should be fed according to their needs without imposed schedules, and that babies need holding closely (no propping).

I don't think there is any need for anything like 'WARNING: THIS PRODUCT IS DANGEROUS TO YOUR BABY'S HEALTH' - if the honest, clear information I've suggested above is on the pack, anything else is superfluous.

Just to be clear, my post mentioning the NHS wasn't meant to prove that this campaign should be taking that standpoint, I worded it badly :)
What I meant was that if there is proof that there are health risks on a population level (ie. increased risk of gastroenteritis, necrotising enterocolitis in premature babies, increased risk of respiratory problems, etc) then it shows that this is not simply an issue in countries without a clean water supply or without the money to feed babies formula safely.