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.

Resounding yes in this household. Pushing formula is morally wrong in countries where there is already significant financial hardship and a free alternative!

I would support the campaign 100%

I'm in support too.

Big fat NO to health warnings from me.

CLEAR instructions, with clear pictures, on how to make it up with warnings about unsafe water, YES.

Ban on advertising, pressure to remove/reduce dodgy marketing practices, YES, absolutely, please, I would be behind 100%.

You are right Bertie, sorting out things so prep was always done properly would negate any harm from formula as its the preparation (or not preparing it properly) which causes harm.

Jake - Even when properly prepared FFing can never be quite as healthy as BFing - except of course in individual cases where it can be the best available option for a particular mother and her baby. But breastmilk does confer many health benefits that formula is only a substitute for and cannot entirely replicate.

But I agree that compared to the enormity of immoral marketing of FF in developing countries that's a relatively minor point. The lack of clean water and facilities for making up bottles such as kettles and kitchens is the greatest problem - which is why it's so important that women should be encouraged to continue breastfeeding and not targeted by substitute baby-milk companies.

I'm shocked that it's still going on. I looked at the Nestle propaganda website a while ago and they claimed to be squeaky-clean and following the UN line.

It is terribly dangerous when marketed in places where mothers may be illiterate (can't read the instructions) or poor (can't afford the formula) or have no ready supply of wholesome water (killing their babies with infections)

Even if prepared properly, there is still harm from using formula in cases like the one in the article linked to, where formila cost half of the family wage.

I hope everyone can distingish between attacking formula companies (who cyncially manipulate women to feel their product is superior to bm, even when it carries great risks to the babies) and formula users . Supporting this campaign is not an attack on them.

I would support this campaign.

I'd support too!

chunderella I am glad you agree and I agree with you. When the risks are vague and nebulous and not known by most women you have both people dismissing them erroneously ('well I never made it with boiled water and my kids are fine') and people giving them more weight than they deserve ('I battled through 16 bouts of mastitis and lost half a boob because I couldn't face the risks').

When the risks are known and clearly stated it becomes easy for an individual parent to weigh up their own personal circumstances and achieve a truly informed decision.

That is surely all anyone (even lactavists) can want?

Yes I agree with that Icbineg - knowledge is always power and therefore helpful.

If I'd decided to FF I doubt I'd have felt guilty even though I knew the benefits of breast-feeding. But I'd also previously helped many babies to bottle-feed when I was a student nurse on a mother and baby unit and saw them thrive quite happily (some mothers may not have been able to BF due to medication, others simply made the choice to FF)

That's why earlier I doubted whether warnings (or proper information) on formula would have a significant impact on the incidence of PND eg in UK.

agreed! It was kind of unclear from the get go on this topic how it was the case that labelling on packets in the developing world would have to be the same as those in the UK etc.

I would support a message of "making this up with non-sterile water may seriously harm or kill your baby" in places where that is an issue and something far more relevant to the UK market here.

I personally am still liking the list of side effects....it works with over the counter drugs and fails utterly to make you feel guilty for taking them etc. and does warn you that very occasionally your baby might have a severe reaction.

One serious beef I have with formula is that while people will bang on about watching out for allergic reactions when you introduce solids, they rarely mention that, for the purposes of allergies, formula can also be a new food.

I nearly lost my nephew to that one....

You would watch your baby the first time you gave them peanuts...and so should you watch your baby the first time you give them formula/cows milk.

Hey thanks chunderella

It's been really interesting poking around the scholarly journals about this issue.

I see a number of articles arguing that in terms of what's driving formula use in the developing world, it's not just availability and marketing although these are indisputably a big factor but also other factors similar to those that occurred in the developed world in the last century (e.g., urbanisation, more women in the labour force).

Also it seems to be common in many countries to supplement breast milk much earlier, and what's changed is that in some places this is now done with formula instead of other liquids or solids.

And an interesting study from the Philippines that low birth weight is associated with lower rates of initiating BF, even among women who intended to BF.

Basically, there's lots of stuff going on here!

I really like the idea of pressuring governments to rein in formula companies.

Am thinking, as with many issues, such as reproductive rights and preparing well for childbirth, it's a case of giving women all the relevant information and then trusting and enabling us to make informed choices.

Not making those choices for us for other people's benefit

• Such as the profits of Nestle and Danone at the cost of our baby's lives

(as women standing together in solidarity across the world)

Yes, please support this campaign.

I think like all things there needs to be a balance.

From what I understand they need to put something on because formula sold here can end up in the third world.Not sure why this has to happen,can't they just ensure formula marketed for the developed world doesn't end up in the third world.You get factories effectively sending the same pizza covered in different packaging to different shops or does it end up on the black market?

Surely also if it is in English many mothers in other countries won't be able to read said warning anyway,many won't even if it is written in their own language.

The fact is the needs of both types of market are very different.In this country any risks are tiny if formula is made following guidelines,research is often unreliable and often gets refuted by studies further down the line so Icbineg's scaremongering idea would never work and a third of a tin is simply not needed.I also think it would over inflate any "risks" for mothers in this country so wording and balance would need to be considered carefully.

I think many mothers who should and could quite happily give up bfing because they bloody hate it and it makes them miserable would be pressured to continue unnecessarily with possibly dangerous results. I think mothers who had happily and quite reasonably given up when they had had enough(how long is a piece of string) after say 6weeks,12 weeks,6 months could be made to feel shite for no good reason.

I also wonder if more babies in this country would end up in hospital dehydrated.My dd did (and going by my consultants view other babies do too) because I didn't introduce formula soon enough. This will surely only get worse if formula is demonised further in this country,we also don't have the same support to bf that others in third world countries have.

The fact is formula in this country is a safe alternative and in third world countries it can be deadly so somewhere you need to meet in the middle.

I agree that relative risk is a very important point.

There are countries in the world where 20% of children under 5 die.

Should they really have the same labels as we do in the UK?

Actually I would like this campaign more if it called for country-specific labels, in the appropriate language and highlighting the major concerns for that area.

"Actually I would like this campaign more if it called for country-specific labels, in the appropriate language and highlighting the major concerns for that area. "

Already in the WHO Code, widely ignored.

Ah, good to know!

If that's the case, why campaign for yet another label?

I mean, it sounds like the only way it would happen is if countries legislate that companies must do so. But why not campaign to pressure countries to make companies adhere to already existing codes?

But if that can't be sorted how is labels the third of a tin in a language most won't be able to read going to work?

Sorry. I think such an idea isn't that great for mothers in either country.The only mothers who will read the wording are the ones who don't need to and who actually the message ain't that applicable to.Raising babies in this country is not even comparable to how babies are raised in third world countries.

I guess you could put a skull and cross bones on.