Formula companies are back advertising infant formula direct to the public throughout Asia.
This is happening in the wake of the melamine disaster in which tens of thousands of babies were sickened and hospitalised – and a few died – from poisoned infant formula. Products made from the poisoned Sanlu milk was also exported to places such as Bangladesh, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, and Canada.
Breastfeeding rates have been progressively falling in China over the past few decades, with the Chinese Ministry of Health meeting with UNICEF and the WHO on possible ways to ameliorate this. The fall in breastfeeding has coincided with rises in urbanisation and in the development of a dairy industry in China, and with the invasion of Western Big Dairy into Asian markets. Mandated minimum maternity leave is only 90 days, many rural mothers work away from their infants as urban migrant workers, and protection of rights to express milk in the workplace seems to be haphazard at best. Formula industry advertising materials and promotional samples are still handed out to new mothers. Fewer than half of babies under six months are exclusively breastfed now, and beliefs that breastmilk substitutes are better than breastmilk – fuelled by unchecked marketing and promotions – are common.
There have been sporadic reports that breastfeeding rates were starting to bounce back after the poisoning – good for babies, but bad for business. So companies such as Abbott are fighting back.
Monsters & Critics reports that billboards advertising infant formula have been spotted in Hong Kong and Singapore, in violation of the WHO Code on the Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes.
From M&C:
An attractive, smiling, healthy-looking couple pose with their thumbs up in front of a billboard in a Hong Kong railway station showing a teddy bear.
Alongside them is a picture of the US brand Abbott’s ‘Eye Q’ Gain Advance baby milk range which the advert claims has gained the trust of parents, and boasts: ‘Abbott formulas are of superior quality and safety.’ [...]
A spokesman for Abbott Nutrition, the company behind the advertisement in the Hong Kong station, said it complies with all applicable laws and regulations in all countries where it does business. However, it did not respond to questions about whether the advertisement was in breach of the international code.
Obviously, the billboard is in breach of the WHO Code, which reads, in part:
There should be no advertising or other form of promotion to the general public of products within the scope of this Code.
Abbott’s own webpage has a section on Code compliance. It reads:
IFM member companies adhere to the WHO Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes and fully comply with national legislation on the distribution and marketing of infant formula.
More lies from the infant formula business. Is anyone surprised? No. But who’s getting pissed off enough to do something about it?
Abbott’s contact details are here.
Some of the more commonly bought products they make, if you’d like to look into alternatives, include Brufen and Nurofen, Prevacid, Ensure, Pedialyte, PediaSure, and Similac. Unfortunately, I can’t tell you about any infant formula product from a company that doesn’t breach the WHO Code and lie about it yet. As far as I can tell? They all do. A donation to an organisation that supports breastfeeding – the ABA or UNICEF – might be an alternative.
Related posts:
- Infant Formula Product Placement in Chemistry Matric Exam
- Mailbag: Junk mail and Code breaches
- 13 000 babies hospitalised from melamine in infant formula
- Call to activism: oppose infant formula promotion in Qld Indigenous communities
- Ads masquerading as “information”: more infant formula company hijinks
The Code has no teeth, that’s why. And nobody with the ability to give it teeth wants it to have any.
I can understand that you wouldn’t want advertising of formula as being superior to breastfeeding, but given that some mothers are unable to breastfeed and it can be a great backup, it seems a bit strange to attempt to ban advertising of it completely.
Why, Chris?
Lauredhel – for the same reasons that you normally allow advertising of products. In this case awareness of the existence of formula and comparisons between different types of formula.
Chris, have you read everything I’ve written on this before (the “Similar Posts” section is a good place to start), read right through the IBFAN pages on the issue, and had a poke through the INFACT Canada site? The “Boycott Nestle” blog is another good place to get information on ongoing violations.
Do you know the difference between formula advertising and advertising of other products, and the historical and current reasons why formula advertising has been singled out for this treatment?
Do you think parents won’t know formula exists if they don’t see advertising on it, and/or do you think that advertising offers them high quality, useful information when making their decisions?
When you say you understand why people “wouldn’t want advertising of formula as being superior to breastfeeding”, do you mean that advertising that says or implies that it’s “just as good”, or that normalises artificial feeding, is just fine?
And do you have any explanation for the fact that all the companies pay lip service to the Code as Wonderful Thing That They Love while continuing to break it at every opportunity?
I do realise that advertising of infant formula is controversial and am aware of at least some of the history behind the Nestle boycott. I wasn’t suggesting that the companies weren’t following the code properly or even the spirit of the code, was just questioning whether the code goes too far.
However, I would suggest that there is enough guilt placed on mothers who are unable to breastfeed without making out that formula feeding is so dangerous that it shouldn’t be advertised or that it can’t be considered “normal”. It might not be as good as breastfeeding but it it should be accepted by society as normal if breastfeeding is not possible and its a whole lot better than letting a baby starve.
Labeling it as “artificial feeding” doesn’t help the feelings of failure by mothers who are unable to breastfeed either.
Rather than trying to ban advertising wouldn’t it be better to fund antenatal education programs and make some the changes such as increased maternity leave and breast feeding friendly workplaces?
Ah, the “you’re making people feel guilty!” approach. I don’t buy it. Really. I’ve seen zero evidence that there is more “guilt”, and that this is a horribly damaging dealbreaker that supersedes all other considerations, in countries with better Code enforcement.
There are other products that have their direct-to-public advertising limited. I’ve not seen any evidence that the limitation of advertising, in and of itself leads to unacceptable amounts of “guilt” over the use of those products on the part of those who need to use them. Prescription medication is an obvious example here.
But perhaps you can explain. Say you’re a mother who can’t breastfeed (I don’t know whether you are or not). You’ve had a double mastectomy, perhaps. Or an extremely severe medical problem in the early months that mucked up your feeding hopes, and relactation wasn’t working out for you for whatever reason; and donor milk wasn’t available to you. How does the mere absence of blanket formula advertising make you feel “guilty”? You’re looking down the street, and you happen to not see a formula billboard, and that produces an emotion in you?
I don’t buy it. I really, really don’t. And, just to make things perfectly clear, I don’t have to use my imagination to put myself in this position.
It’s not an either/or proposition. I’ve blogged quite a bit about these issues in the past. I was thinking it was a SotBO[1] that Code enforcement is one of a whole raft of aspects, and not the one and only sole solution.
[1] Statement of the Bleeding Obvious
Also, I would very much like an answer to these questions.
(Do you want me to go into detail about what I mean by “normalises”? (There are at least two definitions.) Are you aware of the Code notions of normalising and idealising language?)
Many people who read here will recognise this old friend.
Pun intended, but: Jerks.
I think if we are to a specifically ban something that would normally be allowed that it is necessary to justify why the same result can’t be achieved through different means. Why do you believe parents aren’t able to understand the issues?
Chris, if you can make your point without the term “breastfeeding nazis”, we might get somewhere. Try your moderated post again.
Feel free to edit it to say “breastfeeding enthusiasts”, but FWIW I’ve found it to be in common usage among parents but I can see why it might trigger the spaminator.
I’m not going to edit your post for you; post in a feminist manner that isn’t offensive to women, or not at all.
And for now, I’m out. I have family to be with tonight. Maybe later, maybe not; I doubt that you’re open to ideas on this issue that don’t concord with your own, and my opinion on the Code has been formed thoughtfully over many years of experience and research, and certainly isn’t going to change because a bloke jumps in rabbiting on about “breastfeeding nazis”.
I think Chris’s mind is already made up if he/she is using the term “breastfeeding nazi” and trotting out the old “but you’ll make mothers who use formula feel guilty!” argument. How tiresome.
Lauredhel, thank you for continuing to bring issues relating to motherhood to the forefront of feminism. There are way too few blogging fems out there doing so and it’s refreshing and inspiring to see someone who understands that becoming a mother doesn’t disqualify one as a feminist, but makes feminism that much more important.
@ Chris:
Chris, you appear to be demonstrating that you have read neither the guidelines for this blog or Lauredhel’s previous posts as requested.
We can’t force you to do either, of course. We can however regard you as less likely to be arguing in good faith if you don’t.
Given your eagerness to be offended it seems rather pointless to comment further. The term is not specific to women as they can be male or female, does not denigrate or criticize breastfeeding in any way and is commonly used by both women and men to describe people who do more than harm than good in increasing the rate of breastfeeding by their inability to understand that its simply doesn’t work for some people and its not always due to people “not trying hard enough” or being too dumb or selfish to make the “right choice”.
tigtog – I do apologize for any offence I’ve given. I honestly didn’t believe that the term would be considered offensive. One of the most helpful lactation nurses who helped us a lot used the term.
I didn’t mean for this to turn into a breastfeeding vs formula debate – the medical evidence is very clear on that front that breastfeeding is better. To me this about whether advertising bans (even more generally than infant formula) work. As the real life evidence clearly shows companies find ways around bans and its very hard to make them legally enforceable in 3rd world countries. And even if you manage to make it illegal, companies will find other ways of spruiking their product – wait for them to pay mothers to attend mothers groups and web forums gushing about how good the infant formula they use is.
It may require more up front work than just calling for a ban, but education can immunise people against advertising. And increasing the quality (or even existence!) of antenatal education in many countries is required anyway. The growing belief in China that formula is better than breastmilk is not just due to advertising, its primarily due to poor or non existent antenatal education.
Chris, I find it hard to believe that you “honestly didn’t know” that assigning the word ‘nazi’ to someone would be offensive but I’ll take your word for it. I know that some people (even lactivists) use it in what they think is jest but it’s a really harmful term and needs to stop being punted around. Comparing women who care deeply about babies receiving breastmilk and helping women succeed at nursing their babies to a fascist regime is wrong and hurtful on many levels, which I’m sure I don’t need to explain.
Noble Savage – again I apologize, I guess I just use the term nazi a lot more loosely than others here without the associated offensive connotations. I’m lovingly known as the money nazi of the family (but it means we actually have savings and a lot less junk). Will find some other term for women (and men) who although are honestly trying to do their best to encourage breastfeeding but have the exact opposite effect on some.
Chris, my Grandfather was taken from his home in Holland, transported to Germany and forced to work in a work camp.
As you can probably guess from that, I really find your use of the term ‘Nazi’ rather upsetting.
Noble Savage: thankyou. It will come as no surprise to anyone who’s had this conversation more than a handful of times to see that when you post about industry lies, you get back bog-standard industry talking points.
Purrdence: I won’t use that term on this blog in the future.
chris, that undertaking is appreciated.
I also urge you to examine how the word has become a mostly unremarked part of daily conversation as a mildly(!!) disparaging term (soup nazi, fashion nazi), and think about how many relatives of Holocaust victims that hear it might be hating its descent into a casual usage that ends in belittling their relatives’ experience as if it were just a trivial irritation, yet feeling that they should bite their tongues while at work or socialising .
I also urge you to examine the contrast between how the word is used in fashion nazi and feminazi, why there is so much more venom in the second usage, and what that also means for feminists generally, not just on this blog.
[...] In the wake of the NZ’s-own-Fonterra-affiliated-Sanlu melamine-in-milk-powder tragedy, Hoyden About Town reports Infant formula industry fights back in China, lies about WHO Code breaches [...]