Milk and money
Bryony Moore takes a close look at the companies trusted to provide
nourishment for babies and toddlers, while Yasmin Hosny uncovers the truth about
baby milk marketing in the UK.
The breastfeeding versus bottlefeeding debate is not one which Ethical Consumer
would like to pass judgement on, depending as it does on parents’ differing
lifestyles and situations. On the other hand, we’re more than happy to
delve into the dark story of the commodification of baby nutrition.
Baby Milk
Baby milk, or formula, is a complicated business. Infant nutrition is such
an important thing and babies require a complex blend of nutrients. Which is
probably why there are relatively few manufacturers out there. It’s also
a very sensitive issue. Mothers often feel guilty when they are unable to breastfeed,
feeling pressure from friends, family or health professionals. At the same time,
through the use of heavy marketing, big baby milk companies coerce mothers into
believing that formula is better for their baby than breastmilk, causing problems
both in the global South and here in the UK, as Yasmin Hosny discusses later.
The Baby Milk Marketing Code
The International Code of Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes is a set of
recommendations to regulate the marketing of breastmilk substitutes, feeding
bottles and teats. It was developed in 1981 by the general assembly of the World
Health Organization (WHO) in response to the realisation that poor infant feeding
practices were negatively affecting the growth, health and development of children
and were a major cause of mortality in infants and young children. Poor infant
feeding practices are a serious obstacle to social and economic development.
Mothers, particularly in areas where literacy is poor, can be led to believe
that formula is better for their babies than breastmilk. Added to that are problems
with access to clean water to make up the formula, the ability to read the dilution
advice on the pack and the high cost of the product. Cost often results in mothers
on low incomes being forced to dilute it far more than is recommended in order
to make it affordable.
Prior to the Code being brought in, a boycott had been called of Nestlé
by Infant Formula Action Coalition (INFACT).(1) The boycott spread worldwide
and is still running to this day due to the company’s aggressive marketing
techniques. Campaign groups say the boycott was called against Nestlé,
rather than the many other baby milk manufacturers violating the Code, because
it was found to be responsible for more violations of the World Health Assembly
marketing requirements for baby foods than any other company.(2) The company
doesn’t currently offer a British brand breastmilk substitute, however,
you may find their imported Cerelac baby milk brand in world food stores in
the UK.
Since it is not enforceable by law, companies have been regularly violating
the Code since it was put in place, resulting in serious problems with infant
health. According to the 2007 International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN)
report “Breaking the Rules, Stretching the Rules,” guilty parties
in our table were Wyeth, HiPP and Danone. But IBFAN update this report regularly
and all except the top five companies in the table have violated the Code at
some point since 1991, thus receiving negative marks in our Irresponsible Marketing
category.
Yasmin Hosny looks at baby milk marketing in the UK
Yasmin is a Public Health Nutritionist and independent research consultant
currently working in the area of infant and young child feeding.
“Despite the UK Government’s apparent commitment to the Code
in the international arena, the UK is not exactly leading by example in
having one of the lowest breastfeeding rates in Europe and a formula milk
industry worth £329 million a year.(1) In 2006-7 our Government
allocated £729,011 to promote breastfeeding.(10) In the same year
for every £1 spent by the Government to promote breastfeeding, over
£10 was spent by leading manufacturers to promote baby milk and
foods.(11) It is no wonder the Government cannot compete with such commercial
investment, and only exposes the vulnerability of breastmilk because it
is not a commodity. It is perfect for purpose, free, and has no carbon
footprint. More encouragingly, in 2008 the Government committed to investing
£6 million to promote breastfeeding in those areas with the lowest
rates or greatest capacity to improve.(12) However, with the Code in existence
and countries such as Norway providing exemplary models, it begs the question
- how did we get to this point, with marketing campaigns diminishing public
health initiatives, and profits being put before health?
In terms of UK law, current legislation stems from an EU Directive and
is not as strict as the Code. Critical loopholes are being fully exploited
by manufacturers, enabling practices which would otherwise violate the
Code. UK law was introduced in a manner which still legally permits promotion
of infant formula via the advertisement of so-called ‘follow-on milks’
(created to evade the Code), and permits manufacturers to push other products
and materials that share the same brand name and logo as their infant
formula. The fundamental flaws of current legislation are evident by the
UK’s poor breastfeeding rates, booming infant formula industry, and
the fact that 60% of pregnant women and mothers claim to have seen or
heard infant formula adverts.(13) Concerns of campaigners are confirmed
by research which shows that advertising led to 36% believing that infant
formula was as good, or better, than breast milk.(13) This is evidence
of just how powerful the commercial sector is, and the important role
legislation can play in equalising investment and enforcing the Code.
Since 1997 and convened by Baby Milk Action, health professional and
mother-support organisations in the UK have worked together as the Baby
Feeding Law Group (BFLG) to bring UK and European legislation into line
with the Code. One of the most pressing issues for BFLG has been the recent
publication of a draft report into the effectiveness of UK legislation.
The report was carried out by the Government’s Independent Review
Panel,(14) but is considered by BFLG to be an appalling whitewash and
worrying marginalisation of the true public health issue at hand. The
BFLG is therefore calling on the Minister for Public Health to demand
the report address the critical issue of how marketing undermines breastfeeding
or otherwise reject it as a waste of public money. Another recent concern
has been the European Food Safety Authority’s approval of Mead Johnson’s
health claim “DHA(15) contributes to the visual development of infants”
to be put on their follow-on formulas. DHA is an omega 3 fatty acid. The
BFLG has called on the European Commission to not permit the claim, highlighting
conflicts of interest. The BFLG position is clear that such health and
nutrition claims on foods for infants and young children will always be
misleading and inappropriate; there is no ‘health advantage’
in using any product over breastfeeding, which cannot compete in the market
in the same way.
The Code is designed to protect all children, whether breast or formula-fed,
and is very clear that responsibility lies with NGOs, health professionals
and governments to monitor compliance. Given the current review of UK
legislation taking place, we are in an opportune moment for reform. Strengthening
UK law to close the loopholes would ensure the letter and intent of the
Code are upheld, and empower Trading Standards to enforce the law and
hold manufacturers accountable for illegal marketing activities. When
you consider that it has been estimated to cost parents £650 a year
to feed a child with formula milk,(16) each formula-fed baby is a very
lucrative business prospect. We therefore need to support the Government
in protecting breastfeeding. Effective implementation, monitoring and
enforcement of the Code will ultimately lead to effective protection for
all children, and put health rightly before profits.”
For more information see Links.
Save the Children are currently campaigning on this issue too – to
get involved visit www.savethechildren.org.uk/en/2576.htm
or call 020 7012 6400.
References
1 Department of Health, Infant Feeding Survey 2005, preliminary results
released in May 2006
2 Mintel Premier Summary Report, Mintel International Group Limited, November
2005
3 Save the Children UK, Media Briefing, 2007
4 Save the Children UK, Media Briefing, 2007
5 The money is being invested towards ensuring that all relevant hospital
and community settings adopt the principles of the UNICEF Baby Friendly
Initiative (www.babyfriendly.org.uk)
6 NCT/UNICEF Follow-on Milk Advertising Survey, research by MORI for UNICEF
and the NCT, 2005
7 Independent Review of the Controls on Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula
8 Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) is an omega-3 fatty acid
9 Save the Children UK, ‘Code watch’ research, 2006, unpublished
10 Save the Children UK, Media Briefing, 2007
11 Save the Children UK, Media Briefing, 2007
12 The money is being invested towards ensuring that all relevant hospital
and community settings adopt the principles of the UNICEF Baby Friendly
Initiative (www.babyfriendly.org.uk)
13 NCT/UNICEF Follow-on Milk Advertising Survey, research by MORI for
UNICEF and the NCT, 2005
14 Independent Review of the Controls on Infant Formula and Follow-on
Formula
15 Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) is an omega-3 fatty acid
16 Save the Children UK, ‘Code watch’ research, 2006, unpublished.
|
Baby Food
By far the best scoring companies on the table are those whose baby food is
organic and contains the least ingredients. At over two quid for a tiny tub
of mushed-up frozen organic carrot, parents are certainly paying to guarantee
they’re feeding their baby the healthiest option available. But the ones
making a killing at babies’ expense are the companies who will add just
about anything to their baby food, including massive amounts of salt, sugar
and artificial flavourings, not to mention trans-fats.
Total sugar content is restricted for babies’ puddings, desserts and drinks.
For cereal-based baby food however, different rules apply. Only sugar added
during manufacture is restricted – not the total amount. So baby foods
containing natural sugars as well as added ones can have a really high sugar
content. See ‘Links’ for Which? research on the sugar content of baby
foods.
And NGO the Food Commission in the UK found that HiPP Organic biscuits had
more sugar in them (21%) than a doughnut (19%) even though they were labelled
‘sugar reduced’(.)4
Food campaign group Sustain has warned that parents are unwittingly feeding
their babies and young children products worse than junk food. In an audit of
more than 100 products marked for infants and children it was found that a Heinz
Farley’s Original Rusk biscuit contains more sugar than a dark chocolate
digestive. Toddler’s Own mini cheese biscuits, also by Heinz, have more
saturated fat per 100g than a cheese burger – admittedly in servings that
contain only 1.8g saturated fat each. Cow & Gate reacted to the audit by
announcing that it would discontinue its Baby Balance biscuits after Sustain
revealed they contained trans-fats, which are linked to coronary heart disease.(5)
Palm oil
Several of the companies we’ve covered in this buyer’s guide have
received negative scores in the Habitats & Resourses and Climate Change
categories. This is because they either use unsustainably sourced palm oil or
have no policy stating that they don’t. With certified sustainably sourced
palm oil now on the market there is no excuse for companies using this most
destructive of crops. Both baby milk and food may contain palm oil – it
is often simply called ‘vegetable oil’ on ingredients labels.
GM
Hero, Danone, Heinz and John Wyeth (owned by Pfizer) receive negative marks
in the Genetic Engineering column because they don’t have policies excluding
the use of GM ingredients in their products while operating in a sector where
the use of GM is common.
It should be noted that EU law states that any GM ingredients in food products
should be labelled as such, and we are not aware of any baby food on sale in
the UK carrying this label.
Animal testing
The larger baby milk companies often also make other medical products. This
will be of concern to animal lovers as these companies are usually testing at
least some of their products on animals.
Food miles
Due to limited space we’ve only covered nationally available brands in
this guide. However, there are several regional food companies producing mail
order organic baby food. Some of them only deliver locally and in so doing are
helping reduce unneccesary food miles. The ones we found all have websites and
you can order online or by phone.
Packing a punch
For parents who want only the best for their baby, an obvious choice is organic
baby food with the absolute minimum of ingredients. But what about the packaging
this organic baby food comes in? Campaigners are currently working hard to ban
the use of packaging chemical Bisphenol A (BPA) which is in the epoxy resins
that line most food and soft-drink cans and is also used to make the hard plastic
called polycarbonate for food containers, and often, baby bottles.6
Independent research has linked BPA to heart disease and diabetes in humans,
and a wide range of diseases in lab animals. Last year the US National Toxicology
Program studied 261 scientific publications on BPA. It reported: “some
concern for effects on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants,
and children at current human exposures to bisphenol A,” but “neglible
concerns” over exposure in pregnant women or reproductive effects at consumer
levels of exposure. This directly contradicts a recent assessment by the US
Food and Drug Administration that the chemical is safe at current levels of
exposure.(7)
However, big companies using the chemical are campaigning hard to convince
governments that it’s harmless. In May this year, according to the Washington
Post, industry executives met “to devise a public relations and lobbying
strategy to block government bans” of BPA, with $500,000 on the table for
PR budget “to defend their industry”. Canada has banned BPA in baby
bottles, but the US Food and Drug Administration “has deemed it safe largely
because of two studies, both funded by a chemical industry trade group,”
said the Post. At the meeting, industry executives described their ‘holy
grail’ spokesperson as a “pregnant young mother who would be willing
to speak around the country about the benefits of BPA”. Industry representatives
also suggested “using fear tactics” – like asking, “do you
want to have access to baby food anymore?” – and framing the opposition
to BPA bans as “giving control back to consumers”.
Vegetarian or Vegan?
For baby food the following do vegetarian varieties: So Baby, Plum Baby, Organix, Bebivita, Cow & Gate, Heinz.
The following do vegan varieties: Ella's Kitchen Truuuly Scrumptious, Hipp.
DIY
The most obvious way to avoid all the pitfalls of the baby food and milk manufacturing
industry is to DIY it – breastfeed and make your own baby food at home.
This method cuts out all the middle men – food miles, cheap labour, possibly
harmful packaging, not to mention worrying ingredients. It isn’t always
an option for the modern family, but if you choose to do so there are plenty
of resources available. Find recipes and more information online at:
• www.ecofriendlykids.co.uk
• www.ehow.co.uk
• www.babyworld.co.uk
Company Profiles
SMA is made by John Wyeth & Brother, a UK subsidiary of Wyeth, which
was sued last year after a turnaround in a case in which a woman in the US got
breast cancer after taking the company’s hormone-replacement therapy drug
Premarin. A month previously Wyeth Pharmaceuticals was found not liable, but
the woman appealed, saying that the jury received improper instructions and
that a federal judge allowed improper expert testimony for the company while
disallowing her expert testimony. In March 2008, the drug company was held liable
to the tune of $19.3 million.(9)
Wyeth’s HRT drug is also the subject of a boycott call by PETA, who are
opposed to the treatment of the pregnant mares used to produce Premarin (whose
name was derived from ‘pregnant mares’ urine’). The animals are
confined to stalls with rubber urine-collection bags strapped to their groins,
unable to turn around or lie down comfortably for up to six months. According
to PETA, when their worn-out bodies could no longer produce the amount of oestrogen
needed, they were slaughtered. As for their foals – males were fattened
and sold for slaughter in Asian food markets, females not slaughtered replaced
their mothers on the production lines.(10)
Wyeth was taken over earlier this year by pharmaceuticals giant Pfizer
who recently agreed to pay $2.3bn (£1.4bn) in the largest healthcare fraud
settlement in US history after it was found to have illegally promoted drugs
for uses which had not been approved by medical regulators.(12)
Danone(13) and its subsidiary company Milupa(14) both receive Ethical
Consumer’s worst rating in the animal testing category for having no policies
while operating in the medical products sector where animal experimentation
is commonplace. The company also receives a negative score for the animal tests
conducted by subsidiary Yakult to see the effect of bacteria-fermented soy milk
on the skin of mice.(15)
Hero, owner of Organix Brands, also owns several non-organic food companies
across the world. It, along with the following four other companies, picks up
marks under Human Rights for operating in oppressive regimes: HiPP,(19)
Groupe Danone,(20) HJ Heinz(21) and Wyeth.(18)
Links
• BUAV
• Baby Milk Action
• Baby
Feeding Law Group
• IBFAN
• Save
the Children campaign
• Which?
• Sustain
References
1 www.ibfan.org/site2005/Pages/article.php?art_id=34&iui=1
2 www.babymilkaction.org/pages/boycott.html
3 www.which.co.uk/advice/baby-food/sugar-content/index.jsp
4 ‘Breaking the Rules, Stretching the Rules’, IBFAN, 2007
5 Sustain: Some baby foods worse than junk food The Times 04/05/09
6 www.prwatch.org/node/7843
7 www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2008/2008-09-03-093.asp
8 ‘Strategy Being Devised To Protect Use of BPA’ www.washingtonpost.com,
31/05/09
9 www.menopauseonline.com: Wyeth suffers a reverse in Little Rock breast cancer
case, 15/10/09)
10 Email from PETA representative 19/10/09
11 www.business-humanrights.org ‘Wyeth drug tests fall foul of watchdog’
15/10/09)
12 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8234533.stm
13 www.danone.com 12/10/09
14 www.milupa.com 12/10/09
15 www.scconline.org:11/10/05
16 www.business-humanrights.org ‘Danone-Argentina: Closed down due to contamination’
13/10/09
17 Corporate Watch 22, Feb-March 2005
18 www.hero-group.ch 21/09/09
19 www.hipp.de 8/10/09)
20 www.hoovers.com:Groupe danone company factsheet 12/10/09
21 HJ Heinz Company Corporate Communications:Heinz Corporate Profile 26/10/09).