![]() |
Issue
41: November 2008
Check out the following in our on-line Virtual Shop :
Table of ContentsNestlé boycott news
Editorial: Strong regulations needed as Nestlé and Danone battle it out in a consolidating marketNestlé
is the
target of a boycott because it is found to be the worst of the baby
food companies. Several stark examples from South Africa, Laos, and China (below)
are highlighted in this
issue. In South Africa Nestlé claims its formula ‘activates your baby’s immune system’ and promotes it in supermarkets. The Infant Feeding Association, the industry body, reported Nestlé’s supermarket campaign as a breach of the South African Advertising Code and the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes. (The strong law has not yet come in). When even its own competitors accuse it of breaking the rules, it really is time for Nestlé to drop the pretence that it complies. IBFAN’s monitoring round-up in 69 countries, Breaking the Rules, Stretching the Rules 2007, showed Nestlé again to be the leading violator of the Code.
Nestlé has since taken over Gerber, meaning the end of the commitment of previous owner, Novartis, to make it Code compliant. There are rumours that Nestlé is in the market to add Mead Johnson to its infant nutrition empire. The report, Breaking the Rules, shows the NUMICO companies (Nutricia, Milupa, Cow & Gate) getting worse, particularly as they battle Nestlé for market share in Asia. Danone has since bought NUMICO and is now No 1 in Europe and No 2 in the global baby food market. In response to IBFAN, Danone promised to carry out a ‘root and branch’ review of its marketing operations. Sadly its policy contains similar weaknesses to that of Nestlé, and with new aggressive campaigns launched, our initial hope of an improvement has been short lived. So the market is consolidating around two big players who seem to care little about their responsibilities, infant health or mothers’ rights. It all comes down to profits. All the more reason to push for strong regulatory systems and support Baby Milk Action’s work.
Protection
for breastfeeding in public in the UK
|
Breastfeeding
picnics in front of Parliament and around the country on 21 July, with
the theme ‘Protect me, protect my baby’. Hostile
comments appeared on some media websites - see analysis at: one-of-those-women.blogspot.com /2008/08/lactaphobia.html |
![]() |
|
![]() |
In May we accepted an offer from a magazine called Eco Baby Guide (free with Healthy & Organic Living) for an advert for Baby Milk Action. We did this on the verbal understanding that the magazine would not be carrying adverts for breastmilk substitutes including follow-on milks.
Such advertising breaches the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes - companies are limited to providing factual and scientific information to health workers who are given responsibility for advising parents.
Much to our horror when the magazine came out we discovered the publishers do not respect the Code after all as our advert was placed right next to 2 adverts for Babynat and Hipp organic follow on formulas. ECO Baby has refused to print an apology. We wish to make it known we would not have run and advertisement in the magazine had we been correctly informed of its policy. |
This map, from the site www.waba.org.my, shows torches for events around the world, mainly held in August and October. Organisers could also apply for medals in a ‘marathon,’ awarded for events of long duration, such as over a week. | ![]() |
The poster, right, from beastar.org.uk and a radio advert in Lancashire promote breastfeeding and an information and chat website using local mums. | ![]() |
Dr. Diane Wiessinger warned in the Journal of Human Lactation in 1996 (Vol. 12, No. 1) of the risks of promoting breastfeeding as providing advantages and being optimal. She said:
She explores at length why speaking this truth makes some mothers feel guilty.When we talk about the advantages of breastfeeding - the “lower rates” of cancer, the “reduced risk” of allergies, the “enhanced” bonding, the “stronger” immune system - we reinforce bottlefeeding yet again as the accepted, acceptable norm.... Our own experience tells us that optimal is not necessary. Normal is fine, and implied in this language is the absolute normalcy - and thus safety and adequacy - of artificial feeding. The truth is, breastfeeding is nothing more than normal. Artificial feeding, which is neither the same nor superior, is therefore deficient, incomplete, and inferior.”
In
September we warmly welcomed the badly needed £2million
Government grant to UNICEF UK’s Baby Friendly Initiative
(BFI), but our concerns remain about the lack of action on marketing
and the Government’s failure to listen to health
professionals and to its own advisory body (SACN). In September the UK
was called to answer questions from the UN Committee on the Rights of
the Child (CRC) - 5 years after being told by the Committe to implement
the Code.
We presented evidence to the CRC Committee, including the Baby Feeding Law Group (BFLG) monitoring
reports, which we produce and coordinate. The Committee was
unimpressed by the Government’s submission which claimed it
had implemented the International Code.
CRC Committee responds to UKThe Committee, while appreciating the progress made in recent years in the promotion and support of breastfeeding in the State party...is concerned that implementation of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes continues to be inadequate and that aggressive promotion of breastmilk substitutes remains common.... The Committee recommends that the State party implement fully the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes. |
The Government’s Sure Start centres have been active in promoting and supporting breastfeeding, particularly targeting disadvantaged areas where rates are often lower - the report right was part of the Government’s submission to the UN. | ![]() |
For example, this TV advert (rigth) for Aptamil formula, highlighted in the May report, suggests that the protective shield provided by breastfeeding is also provided by Aptamil formula. | ![]() |
In July, Danone began advertising Cow & Gate formula on TV with an advert showing laughing babies (inspired by a popular Youtube clip). The advert also claims that it provides for ‘natural defences’ despite a previous ASA ruling against a similar Cow & Gate claim in print advertising. |
![]() |
A major promotion has been launched for the new product Cow & Gate Good Night milk, backed by special displays and discounts, such as that shown in Boots, right, in April 2008. The product is a follow-on milk with added potato starch and rice flakes. |
![]() |
The advert (right) in the celebrity magazine Reveal in March 2008 and on a 12-page booklet, encourage mothers to visit the Cow & Gate website where the full range of products is promoted. The promotion is dominated by the idealising text and image implying that it will help infants sleep, playing on a parent’s insecurities and concerns about night feeding. The name itself is an idealising claim which has no supporting evidence and has not been submitted to or passed by the European Food Safety Authority (see P 14). | ![]() |
The advert states :
New Cow & Gate Good Night milk has been specially developed to help settle your baby at bedtime. Thicker than regular follow-on milk, but gentle on your baby’s tummy, it provides a warm, contented and satisfying end to the day.
This promotion undermines the Department of Health recommendation to continue breastfeeding beyond 6 months and long-standing health advice not to feed anything other than milk or water using a bottle.
Goodnight milks could lead to babies being overfed as parents try to keep them asleep. It’s also easier to consume calories as a liquid than as solid food and babies tend to consume any liquid in their mouths, regardless of hunger, because of their swallowing reflex.
The
Government’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition
(SACN) discussed
Goodnight Millks in
October.
Hipp also
has a brand of
Goodnight Milk Drink.
The advert (right) in Prima Baby magazine, Sept.08 suggests that thanks to the milk “...everyone can get a good night’s sleep... the ideal end to a busy adventure filled-day.” |
![]() |
The
August 2008 report we produced for the BFLG monitoring project,
documented the launch of Heinz Nurture formula. Heinz provides a lesson
in how to promote formula - if you are not concerned with bending and
breaking the law.
Cross-promotional product range
The UK regulations currently allow follow-on formula to be promoted to the public, but not infant formula. The law also states that these should be packaged differently but, following the Judicial Review (see above) the companies do not have to comply with this until 2010.
They have, however, been asked to comply immediately with the Guidance Notes which describe how the law should be interpreted. The new Heinz range ignores this and uses similar branding to make the products cross-promotional.
Idealising claims
The infant formula label has a logo, ‘science behind nurture’ and the claim, ‘Prebiotics,’ which is not on the permitted list. | ![]() |
Heinz was reminded of this by the Food Standards Agency in 2006. The next quarterly report will indicate whether action is taken on this illegal claim which misleadingly suggests that the formula provides health benefits. Artificially fed infants are more likely than breastfed infants to suffer short and long-term illness. Breastmilk contains over 130 oligosaccharides which act as prebiotics. Foods such as bananas also have a prebiotic effect.
Pushing formula through the follow-on formula loophole
Having created a cross-promotional range, Heinz then uses another loophole to promote the third tin shown above on television and in print with the idealising claims “New Nurture helps nourish, protect and develop your baby.”
The advertised website promotes the full range of formulas. Though the formula in the advertisment is called Nurture, Heinz seems to belief the fact the tin shown is orange will prevent any action being taken against it.
Promotion
in
supermarkets, ostensibly for the follow-on milk (the orange tin), is
placed with the infant formula - something explicitly prohibited by the
Guidance Notes. The example shown here is from Boots in August. |
![]() |
Co-opting health workers to justify higher prices
Nurture was promoted to health workers with the disease risk reduction claim: “a new arrival offering constipation relief” (a claim not on the approved list). The old Farley’s brand wasbpromoted to health workers as the “Best formula. Best value... Committed to fair prices.” Nurture is about £3 a tin more expensive than Farley’s.
The
Trading Standards Home Authority for Wyeth/SMA was one of two that
responded to the May 2008 monitoring report.
Guidance Notes
unenforceable?
The Guidance Notes which accompany the Regulations clarify the Law and
are intended to have the same force. So far industry is ignoring them.
During the consultation, they said:
The Government took a different view and these provisions remained in
the Guidance Notes, which we were assured would be enforced. However,
Trading Standards said of promotion breaching these provisions:
It may not comply with good
practice in the Guidance Notes, but it does not infringe the 2007
Regulations. Therefore enforcement action cannot be taken.
For
example, the
stylised breastfeeding mother, introduced after Wyeth was forced to
remove its ‘now even closer to breastmilk’ slogan. The Home Authority stated: “It is too subjective. I have done several straw polls and some people simply see an M and not a breast feeding mother.” |
![]() |
The
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
(NICE) published Guidance No 11 in March: Improving the nutrition of
pregnant and
breastfeeding mothers and children in low-income households.
Available at:
http://www.nice.org.uk/Guidance/PH11/
Recommendation 14 states:
Avoid promoting or advertising infant or follow-on formula. Do not display, distribute or use product samples, leaflets, posters, charts, educational or other materials and equipment produced or donated by infant formula, bottle and teat manufacturers.
IBFAN’s 2009
breastfeeding calendar, with 12 A4-size full
colour pictures of breastfeeding mothers from around the
world, is now available. A great alternative to
corporate calendars. (£7 inc.UK p&p, £6
each orders of
10 or more).
Fit to Bust,
a book produced by Alison
Blenkinsop, features songs and text in
support of breastfeeding and the
Nestlé boycott (£11 inc. UK p&p). Alison is
donating money raised by the book to Baby Milk Action.
Order both items and we’ll send you a free set of humorous breastfeeding postcards, while stocks last.