Underhand tactics - formula companies

[NIfirsttimer]

re the artificial feeding....
ive never heard it before, google doesnt seem to clearly associate it with feeding, my NHS birth - 5 red book doesnt use it anywhere, nor does the birth - 5 advice book, infact, what is REALLY interesting is that when yu google 'artificial feeding' its pages upon pages of info about tube feeding etc, and then you google 'artificial feeding' and 'formula' is all on BF sites that the term is used!

just because *you* dont find it derogatory, doesnt mean that anyone else doesnt!
I always find myself in a grey area in these debates, i fed BM for the first 6ish months, although never from the breast, and i formula fed after that, so i always feel the need to point on that things arent as black and white as they seem!

 

[leelee]

re the artificial feeding....
ive never heard it before, google doesnt seem to associate it with feeding, my NHS birth - 5 red book doesnt use it anywhere, nor does the birth - 5 advice book, infact, what is REALLY interesting is that when yu google 'artificial feeding' its pages upon pages of info about tube feeding etc, and then you google 'artificial feeding' and 'formula' is all on BF sites that the term is used!

just because *you* don find it derogatory, doesnt mean that anyone else does!
I always find myself in a grey area in these debates, i fed BM for the first 6ish months, although never from the breast, and i formula fed after that, so i always feel the need to point on that things arent as black and white as they seem!

I had never hear of the term 'artificial' feeding until yesterday and when I googled it a lot pages came up on tube feeding as well. I work with people with disabilities and had only ever heard the term with reference to tube feeding.

It seems to me that a lot of people have grabbed this 'term' with glee and are delighting in saying that it is no big deal to use the word.

There are some really horrible people in this forum who seem to think because it is a public forum they can offend whoever they want. Makes me glad to have the friends I do have, because I certainly wouldn't want to meet some people from B&B.

 

[Dragonfly]

I didnt know about ant of that at the time only the sure start one. I did ask for help., I had bleeding nipples and blisters for months and I was crying feeding and phoned helplines and it was this forum I found out what I needed. When your hv , doc and hospital dont know then I assumed there was nothing. I havnt looked since like last year anyway as I gave up and got the cracked nipples sorted. As for rates here I still havnt met any woman who has breastfed, none of my family or friends have. I did phone sure start group when we where talking about latch on britian and they said their numbers where very low. I asked midwifes in mat ward when i was sent there with UTI and this was after a cheeky doc near spat her tea out when I said I brestfed and shouted OMG and not in a good way either. Midwife at least stuck up for me and said breastfeeding was coming a long there as i asked what was it like for bf up there now. I was only one breastfeeding the last time and encountered some cheeky remarks about being natural in snooty voices from midwives. This all contributed to me leaving the hospital early after asking severl times for help when latching was painful. I knew nothing about breastfeeding before I wasnt intending on breastfeeding as I was told it just wasnt needed by friends and family. confusing time. I was told by a midwife who works in another hospital up north rates where better up there. Its the poeple in the anti natel clinic while pregnant who seem to be the nicest about it it.

 

[Rach27]

I guess on an innocent level:
--Breastfeeding-mummy-in-trouble-A goes to independent site for advice, problems persist and she ends up combo feeding or formula feeding and chooses Aptamil/ Cow&Gate /SMA.

--Breastfeeding-mummy-in-trouble-B goes to the SMA site for advice, problems persist and she ends up combo feeding or formula feeding and chooses SMA.

Which is fine IMHO. The brands have to be competitive. It's more the case of:

--Breastfeeding-mummy-in-trouble-A goes to the SMA site (before she calls LLL for eg.) for advice about switching to formula because that's the number on her fridge magnet (iykwim).

I don't think we can assume every new mum is as clued up as most of you are on here. Not everyone does research on the net and it is important that all information is impartial IMHO. If you need information on bottle feeding because you are having trouble with breastfeeding, your HPs have that info, as do a number of websites (I actually struggled to get information on BF'ing from offline sources as most of my mummy friends use formula and the hospital and HV were promoting the use of formula from the word go!)

 

[cherryglitter]

I must admit I don't like the term artificial feeding. It too googled it and it comes up with a lot of tube feeding etc.

 

[trumpetbum]

Even if there were adverts, sma is unlikely to tell you it can cause bad wind or constipated. Also, every baby is different and may need to change formula a number of times as their gut matures because formula can't change to fit babies' needs like BM does.

They all would compete, lies would form, next thing you know 'sma baby milk - does everything breastmilk does' 'breast is best but aptamil is better!' Our generation is aware of the whole slogan (which i hate) but after 10 years of advertising formula i would put a lot of money on BF rates going down.

There was actually quite a recent case in the US I think where a cheaper brand took a large brand (Enfamil??) to court over such an advert. I must try and find the link. It's interesting, well I found it interesting anyway

Here it is, just because I'd mentioned it last night.

GORDONSVILLE, VA., December 2 , 2009—PBM Products, LLC, a leading infant formula company that supplies store-brand infant formulas to Walmart, Sam’s Club, Target, Kroger, Walgreens, and other retailers, has received a favorable jury verdict and a $13.5 million damages award in its false advertising lawsuit against Mead Johnson & Co., the operating subsidiary of Mead Johnson Nutrition Company (NYSE: MJN) (“Mead Johnson”), the makers of the national-brand Enfamil® LIPIL® Infant Formula. Mead Johnson is 83 percent-owned by Bristol-Myers Squibb.

PBM’s lawsuit claimed that Mead Johnson engaged in false and misleading campaigns against PBM’s competing store-brand of infant formulas, suggesting they do not provide the same nutrition as Mead Johnson’s brands. PBM’s store-brand infant formulas cost up to 50 percent less than Enfamil® LIPIL®. The $13.5 million in damages awarded by the jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia is one of the largest damages awards ever for a false advertising case.

“This decision by a jury of the people confirms that Mead Johnson’s ads have been false in suggesting that there is a nutritional difference between our store-brand formula products and their products, when in fact the only major difference is price,” said PBM CEO Paul B. Manning. “Despite Mead Johnson’s scare tactics, parents are assured that PBM’s formula products are as high quality and nutritious as Mead Johnson’s.”

U.S. District Court Judge James R. Spencer issued his written rulings yesterday following the November 10th jury verdict. Judge Spencer’s written rulings permanently enjoined Mead Johnson from making any false statements concerning PBM’s infant formula, including the claims Mead Johnson previously made in Enfamil advertising that “It may be tempting to try a less expensive store brand, but only Enfamil LIPIL is clinically proven to improve brain and eye development,” and “there are plenty of other ways to save on baby expenses without cutting back on nutrition.” The Court also ordered Mead Johnson to retrieve from the public domain all advertising or promotional materials containing these or any other false claims about PBM’s store brand infant formula.

The details of the decision and the complaint are posted online in full at:

· https://www.pbmproducts.com/docs/Order_Laches.pdf

· https://www.pbmproducts.com/docs/PBM_Complaint_MJ_III_LIPIL.pdf

The nutritional supplements under examination in the case are two fats, DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) and ARA (arachidonic acid), which Mead Johnson calls “LIPIL®” solely for marketing purposes and touts as promoting infant brain and eye development. PBM’s claim focused on Mead Johnson’s direct mailing to more than 1.6 million parents of an alarming blurry picture of a child’s cartoon duck next to a clear picture of the same image which suggested that anything other than the Enfamil LIPIL® blend of ingredients is inferior and will result in poor eye and brain development. Other parts of the false advertising campaign consist of statements that only Enfamil LIPIL has been proven to confer visual and mental benefits on infants, and store-brand formulas are a “cut-back in nutrition” compared to Enfamil.

PBM successfully argued that these advertisements were false and misleading especially since PBM store- brand infant formulas have the same nutrients at the same levels as Enfamil. PBM infant formulas are formulated to contain DHA and ARA, and are sourced from the same supplier in amounts which equal or exceed the DHA and ARA in Mead Johnson’s Enfamil LIPIL®.

This decision marks the third time PBM Products has sued Mead Johnson for false advertising claims. On the prior occasions Mead Johnson admitted that it made false claims about PBM’s products. It is also the first false advertising case to focus on the issue of DHA and ARA nutritional ingredients in formula, which were introduced into the market in 2003 and have become a staple in recent years by many brands as key components for infant development.

“This jury verdict should send a significant and clear message to Mead Johnson about the way it conducts marketing and advertising for its brands,” said Manning. “This lawsuit also demonstrates our complete commitment to defending our products and the valuable brands of our retail partners.”

“As a parent and supporter of children’s medical research, I take a personal responsibility in assuring our customers that the products we produce are healthy and nutritionally equivalent to brand names like Enfamil® LIPIL®. It is important, especially now, for parents to know that there are lower priced yet highly nutritious store-brand formulas that will provide the same benefit to their children as any national brand name formula product,” Manning added.

The U.S. infant formula market is estimated at $3.4 billion and the global market is estimated at $7.9 billion.

All of PBM’s formulas, and for that matter all of U.S. infant formulas, are subject to the exacting standards of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), pursuant to the Infant Formula Act of 1980. This legislation vested FDA with the authority to ensure that all infant formula products sold in the United States provide the necessary levels of identified nutrients required for the growth of healthy babies. For more information, visit this FDA link.

PBM Products was represented by the law firm Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP. Partners from the firm’s advertising practice, Harold P. Weinberger and Jonathan M. Wagner in New York, led the team.

OTHER LINKS

https://industry.bnet.com/advertisi...on-loses-135m-jury-verdict-over-false-claims/

https://www.brandweek.com/bw/content_display/esearch/e3i6328aaffeb014c13fbcc5dbedc3d4fd7

https://blogs.consumerreports.org/baby/2009/07/save-money-on-baby-stuff-cheap-formula.html

One of the points made by Unicef, related organisations and the charities behind both the call for the original ban and the extension of the ban is that prior to ban formula companies were not providing information for mothers on safe formula feeding or other useful information, instead concentrating soley on usually misleading marketing. The advice lines themselves have come into place since countries began to enforce WHO recommendations and restrict formula advertising.
It placed responsibility on the govt to close advertising loopholes in accordance with it's commitment with WHO guidelines AND to provide information on safe formula feeding.

b. To protect formula feeding
mothers and babies
Parents who decide to formula feed
need proper information about the
preparation, storage and handling of
the products so that formula feeding
can be as safe as possible. This is
particularly important when using
powdered infant formulas, which the
World Health Organization warns may
contain pathogens which cause
serious illness.16 According to the
latest Government data, only 13 per
cent of mothers who made up
powdered formula followed the
correct recommendations.17
Companies argue that they must
promote their products in order to
prevent the danger posed by incorrect
use. However, no advert or leaflet from
any manufacturer has ever clearly set
out this information, even though they
have the opportunity to do so

https://www.babyfriendly.org.uk/pdfs/feedingreport.pdf

 

[cherryglitter]

This is the first page that came up when I googled artificial feeding, just FYI

https://completingalife.msu.edu/audiooff/tc/adv_life_feeding.html

 

[Rach27]

I must admit I don't like the term artificial feeding. It too googled it and it comes up with a lot of tube feeding etc.

Artifical feeding and feeding with artificial milk are different IMO. Artificial feeding produces an image of being fed by a machine...it's only semantics. To me, 'formula milk' sounds like something contrived in a sparce, clinical laboratory....

 

[aob1013]

She isn't. She is concerned that this is a way of 'advertising' to pregnant women by finding a loophole in the law.

Wow!
Well I have a couple of thoughts on this topic, purely from a mum point of view
I have read posts on this that have made me range from to to and WTF!!

When I was pregnant with Emily *cough* 12 years ago I was asked what I wanted to do, I said bottles, They said fine and that was that, now that seems mental to me, My mum Bf'd but I never really asked her about it and she never pushed it on me. She used SMA later and that is what I used.

There was no advertising and follow on milk didn't really exist so much then but I just knew about formula, mainly from working with young children, so I guess that is what I felt comfortable with.
I also didn't even have a computer never mind t'internet
Oh and they used to do little tins as well, don't know if you can still get them.

Fast forward 7 years, again I was asked what I wanted to do and I didn't know, I'd discussed Bfing and expressing with OH.
I said this and they just told me to have a think, I though about it and still didn't have much info so went with what I knew which was bottles.
They accepted it and never mentioned feeding again.

I could have well been persuaded to BF, but had no guidance at all from health professionals.

I know the OP was about and advert but I thought I would give my tale about why I chose to do what I did, and TBH I will defend my descions to the hilt and my children are no worse off from being FF.
They are bright intelligent children who are never ill.

I never had an advert influencing me, and really if your mind can be changed so easily by an advert it does make me wonder......

We are bombarded by adverts all the time be it in magazines, on the telly or on the radio.
I don't get new windows every other week because the new one claims to be best, I don't buy cars willy nilly although there is a very attractive purple one being advertised at the minute

I just really don't get all the arms up in the air over a bloomin formula company advertising other services, turn the page, ignore it, If you are set on BFing a glossy mag is not gonna change your mind.

RAFwife got it spot on, it is clever marketing and in a way it has worked as we are all chatting about it.

But this FF v's BF is getting very old now

Seriously liquid feeds are such a small part of your child life, yes it is important for 6-12months whatever but so much more comes into play when you start proper food, oooh and if any of them watch T.V from 2yrs god help you as then the pester power and bombardment of adverts really do begin.

I was going to say this but feared the backlash of how important the first year is and so on, but seriously, when you look at the bigger picture does it matter what your baby ate for the first year of its life? Healthy food for the rest of their lives surely has more importance? When our babies are teenagers and adults are we really going to be obsessing about what they ate 13+ years ago. The BF vs FF debate is so old but rears its ugly head every once in a while and I think we all lose sight of whats most important - the health and happiness of our babies no matter what the source - breast or bottle.

Sorry but I really don't agree with this at all. The effects of being breastfed last much, much longer than the first year of life. It's a really vital decision and in my opinion it is incredibly important what my baby eats for the first year of their life.

re the artificial feeding....
ive never heard it before, google doesnt seem to associate it with feeding, my NHS birth - 5 red book doesnt use it anywhere, nor does the birth - 5 advice book, infact, what is REALLY interesting is that when yu google 'artificial feeding' its pages upon pages of info about tube feeding etc, and then you google 'artificial feeding' and 'formula' is all on BF sites that the term is used!

just because *you* don find it derogatory, doesnt mean that anyone else does!
I always find myself in a grey area in these debates, i fed BM for the first 6ish months, although never from the breast, and i formula fed after that, so i always feel the need to point on that things arent as black and white as they seem!

I had never hear of the term 'artificial' feeding until yesterday and when I googled it a lot pages came up on tube feeding as well. I work with people with disabilities and had only ever heard the term with reference to tube feeding.

It seems to me that a lot of people have grabbed this 'term' with glee and are delighting in saying that it is no big deal to use the word.

There are some really horrible people in this forum who seem to think because it is a public forum they can offend whoever they want. Makes me glad to have the friends I do have, because I certainly wouldn't want to meet some people from B&B.

My son was premature and was fed via a tube for a week, in SCBU they referred to it as artificial feeding when he had a couple of feeds of Aptamil and even when he had my milk via tube. Artificial Feeding was also used to describe formula feeding in my Antenatal group - hence why i am so used to it being called 'artificial.

My son was artificially fed/formula fed/given powder etc - it's whatever you are used to calling it.

I have only been on the baby scene for 9 months .. and in my area healthcare professionals have used the word artifical more than formula, it's the word i have picked up and come accustomed to.

If my son hadn't have been in SCBU i probably wouldn't have got so used to it, so cut me a little bit of slack here - it's not mean't to be offensive.

 

[bathbabe]

tbh, i think this should of been first posted in the BF section. It wouldnt of turnt into a huge debate then! By posting in a section where both BF and FF mums use was just asking for an argument? This is getting old now, this is an issue everybody is passionate about, but nobody is getting anywhere, isnt it time to just close this thread? X

 

[Missy86]

Are we still on this

Why doesnt someone phone the line, say they are pregnant and see what sort of response you get about bfeeding

 

[Aidan's Mummy]

I have t admit I used tge term artificial feeding and I'm a ff mum, I didn't mean it in a derogatory other wise I would have been derogatory to my self and how I fed
Xx

 

[cupcake23]

I never usually get involved in these discussions as they always seem to go off topic and people get offended but I just wanted to say....

As a midwife I've seen first hand how formula milk companies try to sneak advertising, they used to give out free pens, tapes, obstetric wheels, mugs etc ...now if you visit a midwife and see her stationary is from one company would you not think she is endorsing it?

Now I'm not saying that a mum who is adamant on breastfeeding is not going to because of this... But a mum who is struggling, hormonal and finds herself thinking she should use formula is more likely to use a brand she has been made aware off.

As a midwife I will give you as much info i can about breastfeeding and help you to establish breastfeeding and if I can't help with specific problems I will refer you.
I cannot help decide which formula milk is best for your baby, how can I? There are x amount of formulas out there, so many variations there is no possible way that I or any other midwife would be able to tell you or advice you on this, It's the same with bottles... Unless I have personal experience of said product all I would be doing is spilling out what the formula companies want me to tell you and you can easily get this info from them, they do their own research saying their milk is the best so how would I be able to differentiate from another company saying the same thing?

I will teach you how to safely sterilise, make up feeds and store but to expect anyhing more doesn't make any sense

I've been a Healh professional for 7 years, I've worked in 3 London hopitals, I have always called it artificial feeding (AF) I don't find it offensive and I only formal fed by first child, with dd I bf, expressed, mixed and now just formula, and I still don't find it offensive but that's what I'm used to.

I would also never look down on someone who formula feeds for what ever reason. You never know how someone has come to that decision and makin them feel guilty is mean

I truly believe that health professionals should promote breastfeeding but maybe there should be a leaflet given to mums on different brands with the appropriate info so that mums are better aware and then web links can be added so that mums can get further info.

That's why I think forums like these fill in a gap in society, we don't always follow what health professionals, families and friends advice so this is a wondeful way to get other peoples opinions, experiences and help that is needed. So even as a Healh professional and a mum of 2 Im glad I found BnB!

 

[forgodssake]

I must admit I don't like the term artificial feeding. It too googled it and it comes up with a lot of tube feeding etc.

Artifical feeding and feeding with artificial milk are different IMO. Artificial feeding produces an image of being fed by a machine...it's only semantics. To me, 'formula milk' sounds like something contrived in a sparce, clinical laboratory....

I think the point is that if it offends others it's not just semantics.

What offends one may not necessarily offend another but if just one person is offended then that should be respected rather than continuing to try and justify the use of the "offensive" word or phrase.

This applies to anything from "artificial feeding" to the use of the "F" word!

Hope that makes sense.

 

[Celesse]

Just a general point: In advertising you want to make out your product is the best. Burgerking don't have to have a disclaimer before their adverts stating that McDonalds is better. I'm sure that the positive language used to convince woman that their formula is better than another brand of formula, can also make their formula seem more appealing than breastfeeding.

Also, there is an expectation that a baby will behave as a formula fed baby behaves. Before we have children we are fed information that will have us believe a baby goes 3 and 4 hours between feeds, and will feed for 10minutes to 30minutes, and will start sleeping through for a decent stretch from 3 months and from 6 months will sleep 12 hours. When a woman's breastfed baby doesn't behave this way and she gets information from a formula company site, however accurate that information is, it can be presented in a way that leads her to consider alternative means of feeding.

 

[Celesse]

And on the Artificial feeding thing..... once upon a time, a very long time ago, I did part of my Midwifery training (though did not complete). On the postnatal charts the short hand for Breastfeeding was BF and the short hand for Formula feeding was AF (Artificial Feeding).

Its just one of those terms. Its accurate and factual. And its also a neutral word. "Artificial" is neither a positive or negative word. Formula is an artificial, man made food. Fact.

 

[cherryglitter]

To be honest, I don't understand why everyones so bothered about formula milk. If you want to breastfeed. Great. If you want to formula feed, great! Why are we all so concerned about breast being best. It's nothing to do with you how other people feed their baby.

Be it formula milk or breastmilk. We're all aware of the benefits of breastmilk. Well done the NHS. We can all make our own decisions. Why is everyone so concerned with the fact that breastfeeding figures are falling etc?! Just curious?!

 

[Rach27]

.....
As a midwife I've seen first hand how formula milk companies try to sneak advertising, they used to give out free pens, tapes, obstetric wheels, mugs etc ...now if you visit a midwife and see her stationary is from one company would you not think she is endorsing it?

Now I'm not saying that a mum who is adamant on breastfeeding is not going to because of this... But a mum who is struggling, hormonal and finds herself thinking she should use formula is more likely to use a brand she has been made aware off.
....

Absolutely agree although I think it goes deeper than this as in WHY she thinks she needs to use formula. Yes of course it may be for a medical reason but if it's because she's not sure she's 'doing it right' or has encountered a problem like mastitis then she is really vulnerable to this type of adverising because they play on her inexperience IMO. In this intance, I think she needs impartial advice.

Aptamil was ALL OVER Stoke Manderville Hospital so when I was told to supplement that's what I bought - the hospital appeared to endorse it so why not! It wouldn't surprise me if Stoke had a deal with Aptamil as I doubt they use it exclusively for any valid medical reason

 

[bubbles123]

Oh, my God, 48 pages! It was only 19 when I last looked! And re. the whole artificial feeding thing, of all of the attempts to make FF'ers feel guilty (and there are many...) the artificial feeding thing bothers me the least. Because last time I looked, cows were pretty natural. Granted, the genetically modified ones are a bit suspect but generally cows are natural. In fact cows milk, which the vast majority of people drink, is seem by the DOH etc as a natural, healthy drink. It's recommended for toddlers and adults but give it to babies and oh no, it's unnatural and wrong! Bonkers.
But back to the original point. Formula companies are legally forced to always say that breast feeding is best for babies and to promote it. They have to provide breast feeding information. I'm sure they'd rather not. I bet if someone actually rings this line and says they want to FF they will get read the BF is best spiel. If they don't they can get sued. So I really don't see a problem really.
There is a problem in general with accurate information about BF'ing from many sources. None of my NHS information mentioned how often a newborn needs to feed for example, or cluster feeding or growth spurts, or pain to begin with. I never even new you could get thrush in your breasts til I read B and B. This is probably why so many women give up thinking they have no milk etc.
People don't BF because for many women unfortunately it's very hard and there is not enough support to enable them to continue. Then the formula companies get it in the neck. But the very fact that over 75% of women try to BF, despite knowing about formula, suggest to me the problem lies in lack of support and help to overcome problems, not formula companies.

 

[NIfirsttimer]

Personally, i don't think artificial feeding should be easily promoted to pregnant women, or be easily available. I believe deterring people from artificial feeding from the moment they are pregnant, whether that be no advertising etc would encourage alot more Mum's to just give it a go. Artificial feeding is too easily available these days, and these companies know that.

They make no money from breastfeeding

my point isnt that the term 'artificial' is technically accurate, its the tone in which this post was made.. using the word artificial SO many times in a short sentence, and saying that FF shouldnt be easily available.... what do u suggest happened to my daughter, who at 2 days old was having photo therapy for severe jaundice, and i was pumping constantly but not yet producing enough fluid to help her? what do you suggest happened when after months upon months of exclusive pumping, my milk finally ran out and I couldnt keep up with her? What about mums who have been sexually abused, and literally cannot cope with the thought of breast feeding? what about mums who have had their breasts removed? what about mums whos life depends on them taking medication which means that they cannot breast feed? you need to think about these women before making such off hand sweeping statements, the world is full of women not breastfeeding for these reasons, nothing to do with just 'deciding' they fancy the idea of FF more.. where do you suggest these ladies get their milk from? hould we take a 3 day camel ride while beating ourselves with wire brushes?
ive noticed this in a number of your posts tbh, you make these dramatic statements, which are actually only based on your own little experience, and have no consideration of the bigger picture at all. the world is a HUGE place, filled with lots of different people and circumstances, almost no 2 people have the same experience, ever, so really, its not all as easy as oh i BF because its clearly best.

as for the statement that its just 'too easily available these days' are you for real? when i stopped pumping, my daughter NEEDED formula to stay alive, are you suggesting that i shouldnt have been able to go to tesco to buy her milk? when you get to weaning stage are you going to start suggesting that jars & packets of baby food be banned from supermarkets, as we all know that home made organic is best for our babies!????

u think no formula advertising would increase the amount of BF mums? is there actually a SINGLE mum reading this who has never heard the 'breast is best' statement?