"15 Tricks of Formula Companies"

This is oh so brilliant that I have nothing to add- The Alpha Parent has covered pretty much every single thing that needs to be said!!!! This long article outlines EXACTLY what Infant formula companies do to convince you to use their product.  Unethical marketing of infant formula has been going on a lot longer than most people think!!!!

It's Halloween!!  Please Boycott Nestle!!! 


"15 Tricks of Formula Companies"

 

Infant formulas were originally designed to be a medical nutritional tool for babies who are unable to breastfeed due to unfortunate circumstances such as maternal death or illness. Nowadays the formula industry accounts for US$20.2 billion (data for 2010). It doesn’t take Einstein to figure out that formula is now being used by more than the 2% of women who physically can’t breastfeed. What went wrong? Formula companies got greedy and laws didn’t keep up, that’s what. The greedier the company, the more strategic and underhanded their marketing becomes. This article exposes 15 tricks of the most popular formula companies, illustrating how greed is more powerful than concern for infant welfare.

Trick #1: Get your logo everywhere

FACT: Exposure to formula promotion increases significantly breastfeeding cessation in the first 2 weeks. Also, among women with uncertain goals or breastfeeding goals of 12 weeks or less, exposure to formula promotion results in exclusive, full, and overall breastfeeding duration being shortened (Howard C et al. Obstetrics and Gynaecology Vol 5, No 2, Feb 2000 p296-303).

This is bad news for babies, but great news for formula companies. The less women who breastfeed – the more formula is purchased. This means lots of wonga for the shareholders. To put this scenario in context, check out the following stats:

The advertising spend for formula companies in 2006/07 was £7,626,847, an increase of 36.6% on the previous year.

The UK Government budget for promoting breastfeeding was £729,011 in 2006/07, a decrease on the 2004/05 figure of £747,000.
(Figures published by Save the Children).

The key to successful product marketing is to get as much exposure as possible, and the formula companies have got this down to a tee. They’ve been churning out hard sell marketing for decades. Here’s a Cow & Gate advertisement published widely in 1940s and 1950s UK:

 

 

“The best possible start in life”? Looks like formula companies’ lack of accuracy is nothing new. Nowadays they just find more covert and underhanded ways to mislead parents. They advertise in parenting magazines and, more recently, fashion and celebrity magazines. Here is an advertisement from Aptamil (right) featured in Pregnancy Magazine April 2008. It is a stitched insert so that the magazine naturally falls open at that page. I’ll talk more about advertising to pregnant women bellow.

With so many formula companies paying vast amounts of money to parenting magazines, is it any wonder the deputy editor of Mother and Baby magazine wrote an article describing breastfeeding as “creepy” (The Guardian ).

Along with magazines, formula companies also place their advertisements on third-party websites, forums and blogs, promoting their infant formula brand name and encouraging mothers to visit their company website. One of the reasons I am reluctant to activate advertising on this blog is the inevitability that a formula company will detect the parenting content and submit their advertisements to the server.

Not content with bombarding your computer when you’re online, formula companies want dibs on it offline too. The idea is that every time you switch on your PC or laptop you’ll see their brand. Here’s Aptamil’s free desktop calendar:

 

You’ll also be targeted in supermarkets, where Cow & Gate branded gifts such as dummies and growth charts are distributed. This photo was taken in Sainsbury’s, September 2007:

 

And here they are at it again in Tesco, August 2011:

 

Aside from these examples, there’s also leaflets in health centres, email spam, snail-mail spam, supermarket ‘shelf talkers’ (plastic signs that flop out at you), pamphlets in Bounty packs, billboards, posters on public transport, internet pop-ups, TV commercials, radio advertisements, text messages, newspaper ads, social network advertising, YouTube video advertising, and several other gems I shall reveal bellow. Formula companies have an array of arsenal in their fight to line your baby’s gut, and more importantly, their pockets. The more cash they make, the more surplus funds they have to pump into their marketing arsenal. At this point you may wish to ponder what arsenal the breastfeeding movement has, and whose interests it serves.

Trick #2: Exploit the lazy

The rise of the bottle-feeding culture has fundamentally distorted our perception of the normal biology and psychology of new motherhood. It has produced a growing number of women who do not want babies’ feeds to dictate their lives. They cannot cope with the frequency of feeds required to maintain a good milk supply; that is, they cannot content themselves to sit and feed.

Why do a significant proportion of women now find that they 'can't cope' with something that's a biologically normal part of parenting? Women coped sufficiently well until formula marketing kicked off in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They also coped during the Second World War when formula was unavailable.

 

By claiming convenience, formula companies tap into the psyche of the lazy parent. However as I described in my article “10 (Selfish) Things I Love About Breastfeeding ”, formula feeding is anything but convenient and in many cases it’s tantamount to a pain in the arse.

No time is formula feeding more of a pain than during the night. Kettles to boil, powder to mix, milk to cool - it’s enough to wake the neighbours; so formula companies have produced ‘Goodnight Milk’. The name itself is an idealizing claim, as it suggests the milk is necessary for babies to sleep through the night. The suggestion itself is concerning, as sleeping deeper puts babies at higher risk of cot death. UNICEF has maintained that “Goodnight Milk is not necessary for any baby and there is no independent evidence to support the claim that they help babies settle or that they are easy to digest.” (UNICEF 2010 ).

 

 

Goodnight milks are thickened with cereals to make them harder to digest. Aside from the risk that they will be used to replace a night time breastfeed, another worry is that the products could encourage parents to put their baby to bed immediately after bottle-feeding which would rot a baby's developing teeth.

As with goodnight milk, the following SMA television advertisement plays on mothers’ insecurities and concerns about night feeding. It features a voice over from a man promising not to pretend to be asleep when his young baby wakes up and promising to do his share of night feeding. A scene from the ad shows a dad falling asleep next to a boiling kettle and a tin of SMA Progress in the middle of the night:



I’m sorry to burst SMA’s bubble but as Gabrielle Palmer (The Politics of Breastfeeding , 2009) has pointed out, “The reality is that few fathers actually do take the whole responsibility of infant care and most artificial feeding is still done by mothers”.

Click HERE to read the entire article on The Alpha Parent

Breasts, Babble, Boycotts and Bashing. Baffled?

.... And so it begins.  Or maybe I should say "So it continues". Throwing around words like "guilt" and "shame" in the world of breastfeeding activism is not a new thing, but this week it's reached epic proportions. I've been following the conversations between the different parties that are involved and I've been involved in several discussions on the ethics and  rights that are being called into question.....I cannot understand what people do not understand.  It's very clear cut and completely black and white:


Infant Formula Advertising and Marketing Is BAD.


I guess that this weeks foray into the realm of lactivist bashing and oh so dramatic exclamations of

"Oh the SHAME of it all!!  You're making me feel so GUILTY!" 

...all started just over  year ago when PhD In Parenting author Annie wrote an article entitled "Similac and Babble team up to Dupe breastfeeding moms."  Talking about the fact that yet again an infant formula company is preying on tired new moms and pretending to have their best interests at heart.... when in fact both Babble and Similac are both more interested in the bottom line. Money.

 "...if you were an online media property that is trying to turn a profit, would you be willing to sell-out your breastfeeding readers, by feeding them a wolf in sheep’s clothing? Would you be willing to partner with Similac, an infant formula company, on your Breastfeeding Guide?I wouldn’t. But apparently Babble and Similac see nothing wrong with this scenario.
Most of us (including Dou-la-la and I) realize that infant formula companies are not really there to support breastfeeding moms, they are there to sabotage them. The Similac sponsorship of the Babble guide goes beyond simple advertising and takes things to a whole new level. The Common Breastfeeding Problems section of the Breastfeeding Guide is clearly marked as being “brought to you by Similac“. It includes a large banner at the top encouraging you to call a Feeding Expert for your baby’s breastfeeding problems. They indicate that “lactation consultants” are available, but I doubt they are International Board Certified Lactation Consultants (IBCLC), since their Code of Ethics would prevent them from working for an infant formula company."

Fast forward a year later and Babble.com announces that they are going to give out 10 prizes of $5000 to their top "mominated" moms in 10 different categories, and they want people to nominate those amazing women who deserved the recognition for the work they do.  A friend of ours, Jodine Chase, nominated Emma Kwasnica, founder of Human Milk 4 Human Babies, Lactivist and empowered birth activist, to Babble.... and we all cheered.   No one deserved recognition for her outstanding contributions to society and the empowerment of women and babies more than Emma, and within a few short days, Emma's "momination" had her in third place with over 700 votes without any self-promotion at all.

But then we had a reality check.  Babble was a notorious abuser of the WHO (World Health Organization) International Code of Marketing Breastmilk Substitutes, who accepted money from Infant formula companies and allowed their ads to air even in the middle of their breastfeeding advice section of their website.  This REALLY concerned Emma.  We talked about whether or not good could come from accepting this soiled money if she won.  Could we use it to fund an event to highlight the impact of WHO Code violations and how infant formula marketing effects breastfeeding? After many agonizing hours of discussion with many concerned supporters and friends Emma decided that she could not allow her nomination to continue, and she requested that her name be dropped from the Babble competition.  Jodine writes about this decision and gives an outline of what took place in her article "Babbling about Breasts Again" 

But also within a few hours Emma and I were pinged with PMs. Did I know about the controversy that erupted last year over Babble.com's acceptance of ads from Abbott's infant formula brand, Similac? Did I know that Similac ads for their breastfeeding support hotline appeared alongside Babble.com breastfeeding advice? Did I know that when you search for the word "breastfeeding" in Babble.com's search window, the first result that appears is a page describing horrific breastfeeding problems, and right alongside there is Similac's ad, offering to help?
I didn't know this. Up here in Canada the ads displayed on Babble.com's website were for things like juice and batteries. 
The last thing in the world I want is for Emma Kwasnica's good name to be tainted. And tainted it could be, through association with a formula company seeking to increase market share by offering self-serving advice and understanding to women with breastfeeding problems. Or worse, a company that combats a stagnant market for its product by countering proven public health advice and offering what some say is sabotage disguised as support.

Annie, from PhD in Parenting, wrote another article in support of Emma withdrawing her nomination, and sums up the question about using soiled money very clearly:

Recently, I wrote a blog post questioning whether good cancels out evil. There is no question that the $50,000 that Babble will be giving to inspirational moms will go to excellent causes. But if that money came from duping breastfeeding moms, can it make up for the damage that is done? The cost of formula feeding is significant. In terms of the price of formula alone, I saved around $2400 by breastfeeding both of my children. Beyond the cost of formula, a significant study last year found that the United States incurs $13 billion in excess costs each year and also suffers 911 preventable deaths because of low breastfeeding rates. Suddenly, the $50,000 in “blood money” that Babble is handing out seems like nothing compared with the significant cost that comes with sabotaging a mother’s ability to breastfeed her child successfully.

Apparently Babble is not taking this withdrawal very well.  Instead of taking a good look at their website and the ethical ramifications of taking money from formula companies and allowing them to place ads all over their site, instead of making changes that would insure that mothers got the best possible advice about breastfeeding and that they would received support that wasn't hell bent on making money off them, Babble decided to launch their own campaign to play the "Oh woe is me" card.  Instead they played on the emotions of "Shame" and "Guilt".


Babble writer Catherine Connors writes:  

Because herein resides the problem: I’m not against formula advertising. I’m just not. I’m against bad formula advertising: I’m against misleading formula advertising, and formula advertising that actively and explicitly undermines breastfeeding, and I’m against formula advertising to vulnerable communities. 

...and she launches into a diatribe about "the shame" of it all.


I hate to tell you this Catherine, but regardless of your opinion about "good or bad" formula marketing and advertisements, the truth is in the studies:  ALL formula advertising and marketing directly interferes with breastfeeding initiation and longevity rates- world wide.  Hence the creation of the WHO Code.  ....and Shame?  Really? Do we shame families when we tell them to keep their baby rear facing in their car seat?  NO, we are just relaying the facts: rear facing is safer.  It's not about "Shame". It's about acknowledging the facts and stating the truth. Formula marketing directly affects breastfeeding.  Truth.  You can dispute it, or put a fancy name on it, or misdirect it all you want.  Truth is truth. Just as it is truth to talk about the risks of infant formula, risks that are conveniently swept under the rug by Babble and their formula manufacturing accomplices.  Even a vacuum can't hide the fact that infant formula is vastly inferior to breastmilk in every way.  Read "The fourteen risks of formula feeding" for the real information. Read "Breastfeeding protection and the International Code" to fully understand the ramifications of formula marketing on our children's health.

In response to Catherine's blog Jodine goes on to summarize the "shame" issue perfectly in her next article "Shame is the new guilt" : 

For a while founder Rufus Griscom hung out on Annie's site, answered a few questions and tried out his rationalizing messaging, now more finely tuned and apparent in Catherine's writing. Here's how it goes: the winner in the infant formula market share race will be the one who makes moms feel the most warm, the most fuzzy, when they need to turn to formula after their breastfeeding plans have gone awry. Offering the very best and most supportive breastfeeding advice is clearly the way to make moms feel all warm and fuzzy.
In addition to refining the warm fuzzies messaging, there's a new angle. Here's the spin: mothers make their own choices and decisions about breastfeeding. If for any reason they have chosen infant formula, and especially if that was a difficult choice because they really wanted to keep breastfeeding, any attempt to talk about formula company marketing tactics, and the harm they cause, is shaming mothers.
Did you catch that? The winning infant formula company will be the one that succeeds in making moms feel warm and fuzzy. Talking about the harm caused by these marketing tactics makes moms feel shame.

 It's all very nice that Babble wants to convince us that formula advertising is all ok.  That Babble owners

 "believe in the right of mothers to make individual choices with all information available to them and that includes information about different formula options, provided both by our writers and advertisers themselves."

...and even went so far as to offer Emma a position on their imaginary board of breastfeeding advocate advisers to review the Breastfeeding resources they will make available to women on Babble.  But as Emma responded to Alisa and Rufus, "The only way I would consider working on an advisory board for Babble, is if Babble were to instigate a zero tolerance policy for all formula advertising across the site --no exceptions. This is a question of ethics; the advertising of formula to pregnant or new mothers, in any capacity, is unacceptable."  A question of Ethics, NOT Shame. 


A long while ago I wrote an article called "Breastfeeding: Guilt, Statistics, Support, and making a choice", where I said:

 This is the story that we hear constantly.  Parents-to-be take a class in childbirth, read books about all the important things you're suppose to know about babies, they give birth to these wonderfully beautiful beings and are sent on their way home to enjoy their new family life...
Mothers know they're suppose to breastfeed their babies.  They know it's the healthiest choice and will give their babies the best start in life- offering them some of their mothers immunities and some vital protection from diseases, lessening their risks of diabetes, certain cancers, obesedy, and maybe even increase their IQ by a few points along the way.  As an added bonus, mom's are offered some protection from breast & ovarian cancer, post partum depression and might even loose that baby wieght a bit faster!!  And it's FREE!!  Over all it's a "win-win" situation, right?  
But what happens when that mother gets home? She probably tired, maybe sore from the birth, perhaps dealing with unexpected trauma from the birth of her baby: inductions, forcept/vacuum assisted birth, episiotomy, Caesarean section..(all of which are known to have a negative effect on breastfeeding)..?  Is the baby sleepy because of medical interventions used during his birth?  "How is he feeding?  Does he have a good latch?" are the questions a new mum might hear, but how the hell is a new mom suppose to know?!   One book said that breastfeeding is hard and it can hurt, another book said that breastfeeding is natural and only hurts if there is a problem with the baby's latch.  One book says to nurse the baby for 10 minutes on each side every 2 hours, one book says to nurse the baby on demand when ever they want to eat.  One web site says that this is the best nursing position, one site says that that position will cause blocked ducts and will cause problems because you can't see the baby's latch. One nurse in the hospital told her to use this method to get the baby to latch, but the night time nurse told her that it was wrong and she should use this method instead.  This is what we call a recipe for failure- before this baby is even a week old, he's already on the road to bottles of formula because his exhausted stressed out mother is unsure of anything to do with breastfeeding.  She can't get any support to make breastfeeding work for her or give her the confidence to persevere and keep nursing regardless of any issues that might arise. The emotionally wrung out mother goes to the doctor with her crying baby and begs for help and advice.  The doctor is affraid to cause her guilt about breastfeeding, or has no interest/education in lactation management, so instead of sending her to the right people to get proper support and advice, he pats her on the back and tells her it's ok, some women/babies just can't breastfeed and that formula feeding would be so much easier because then her husband/mother/sister could feed the baby and let her sleep.  He gives her a perscription for some sleeping/anti depressants/anti anxiety pills and sends her on her way with a gift pack of formula samples and a book of coupons for free baby bottles and matching diaper bag.
Then the Media make s a big production about how women are MADE to feel guilty about not breastfeeding. 
Guilt?!  The last thing this mother should feel is guilt!!!!
This woman should be rip roaring mad!!  She should be stomping her feet and demanding WHY she didn't have the support and information she needed to do something that women have been doing for a millennia!! She has nothing to feel guilty for- she was failed by every single person and place she went to to look for information and support and advice!  

  Guilt and Shame are not something that is projected onto you.  Guilt and Shame is something that you take on yourself.  Emma's words echo true:

"‎~On guilt~
No one can make any one else FEEL guilty. Guilt comes from within. You either feel it, or you don't. And actually, guilt is a very good thing! It causes us to re-evaluate things, lets us know when we are no longer in line with our own principles, our core values. It tells us that something is off, motivates us to......change whatever it is we're doing. In other words, guilt makes us uncomfortable for good reason!
Rather than blaming OTHERS for making us "feel guilty", we really need to look within ourselves for the answers, and stop deflecting our issues away from ourselves, stop projecting our issues onto others. We need to be 100% accountable for our feelings, we need to OWN them. Because they are no one else's *but* our own." Emma Kwasnica

 Truth is Truth. Facts are Facts.  People can stand on their soapboxes as long as the want and they can shout their opinion about Breastfeeding or Formula feeding, or about the effects of Infant Formula Marketing....... but it's only words if you don't have the facts to back it up.


We have the facts.


ALL INFANT FORMULA ADVERTISING IS DETRIMENTAL TO BREASTFEEDING AND DOES NOTHING TO HELP MOTHERS MAKE AN INFORMED CHOICE ABOUT INFANT FEEDING.  

...and THAT's the TRUTH.       

AIM submission to Health Canada on Infant Nutrition

A group of mothers on Facebook have formed the Association of Informed Mothers - AIM. This group was initially created to write a submission to Health Canada in response to their draft document "Nutrition for Healty Term Infants: birth to 6 months". This document will replace the current Canadian Guidelines that are in place, and while they have made some excelent changes, some areas of the draft document were very poorly worded, or incorrect. The following is AIM's submission to Health Canada and we would like to invite everyone who agrees with our document to sign your name to the bottom of it as an interested member of the public. If you wish to have your name added to the submission please  go to the facebook note HERE  and comment with your name, city and province. this document will only be open for signatures till 9pm this evening. so please feel free to share it out on your groups etc to spread the word!

A huge thank you to all the moms who poured their heart and soul into this document!
Dani

********************************************

The Association of Informed Mothers (hereafter called AIM) is a stakeholder group of mothers who support and advocate for mothers' rights to make fully informed choices for the health and well-being of both themselves and their families. To do this, mothers need access to information that is in the spirit of full disclosure and is provided free of influence by organizations, third parties, or persons that hold a conflict of interest. It is AIM's belief that Health Canada is responsible to provide information to the citizens of Canada that comply with these points.

AIM fully supports INFACT Canada's submission to Health Canada's Committee reviewing the guidelines for "Nutrition for Healthy Term Infants". AIM strongly believes that INFACT Canada's submission is of great value to the Health Canada Committee, as the information it provides is accurate, does not create a conflict of interest and is well researched. (A copy of INFACT Canada's submission is included at the end of this document).

AIM also fully supports UNICEF's submission to the Health Canada Committee. Health Canada has agreed to follow the World Health Organization's (WHO) infant feeding recommendations, and therefore any statement made by Health Canada should be aligned with UNICEF's submission (A copy of UNICEF's submission is included at the end of this document).

The following is a list of AIM's key concerns with Health Canada's draft document "Nutrition for Healthy Term Infants - birth to six months". AIM has specified a list of changes to be made to the document. These changes are required for the draft document, in order to provide the information parents need to make fully informed decisions for their family.


1. The language of the Health Canada draft document needs to be changed to reflect the normalcy of breastfeeding. Statements such as "the benefits of breastfeeding" should be changed to "risks of artificial feeding methods" or "the importance of breastfeeding". Breastfeeding is the biological norm for all human children, referring to its outcome as "benefits" implies it is outside and/or above the norm. For further information of the use of language and its effects on normalizing breastfeeding, please refer to the article "Watch your Language", written by Diane Weissinger, Journal of Human Lactation, Vol. 12, No. 1, 1996.

2. It is legally and ethically advisable for Health Canada to omit statement #5: "Commercial infant formulas are the only acceptable alternative to breastmilk." from these guidelines. To make such statements is unethical, inadvisable, and untrue. The inclusion of statement 5 directly contradicts Health Canada's acknowledgement and public acceptance of the WHO Infant feeding guidelines, which state that "For those few health situations where infants cannot, or should not, be breastfed, the choice of the best alternative – expressed breast milk from an infant’s own mother, breast milk from a healthy wet-nurse or a human-milk bank, or a breast-milk substitute fed with a cup,which is a safer method than a feeding bottle and teat – depending on individual circumstances."apps.who.int/gb/archive/pdf_files/WHA55/ea5515.pdf

Statement #5 is also contrary to UNICEF's recommendations for infant feeding, and undermines the use of donated and banked breastmilk. 

Currently, several provinces are researching the creation of milk banks, and the Canadian Paediatric Society is calling for the development of milk banks across Canada. The use of donor milk, whether through formal or informal channels, is vitally important to the health of infants whose mothers are not able to exclusively breastfeed, and is fully supported by WHO. It is the recommendation of AIM that Health Canada develop guidelines to address the use of donor milk, outlining the risks and benefits of using donor milk vs infant formula, and provide the information necessary for parents to make fully informed decisions about feeding their infants.

3. Health Canada should remove all sections in the draft document that discuss the use of artificial breastmilk substitutes. Those sections addressing commercial infant formulas should be made into a separate document or included in an appendix on the use of artificial feeding methods and products. Full disclosure of information about the risks of using commercial infant formulas and safe feeding methods is imperative in order for parents to be fully informed when making infant feeding decisions. By placing nutritional information about infant formulas side by side with breastfeeding, Health Canada is creating the false impression that they are equal and interchangeable methods for feeding infants. This is untrue, misleading, and does not meet the principle of full disclosure, nor does it give parents the proper information upon which to base their decisions. 

4. We submit that Health Canada should make its stance clear by making an official statement affirming that Canada is both a signatory to, and is compliant with, the World Health Organization International Code of Marketing Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent resolutions. 

The Government of Canada is a signatory to the International Code for the Marketing of Artificial Breastmilk Substitutes and as such is required to pass legislation which provides for the enforcement of all provisions of the Code. Health Canada not only has a responsibility to remind all levels of government of this requirement, but also to ensure that all health care and related facilities within Canada are compliant with the Code. To ensure this compliance, Health Canada must immediately inform all physicians, nurses and health care facility administrators of the full range of provisions of the Code. Upon completion of dissemination of this information Health Canada must ensure that all professionals and facilities in Canada meet the requirements of the Code. INFACT can assist in this matter through the provision of information and resources.

On May 21st, 2011 it will be 30 years since Canada and 118 other countries signed the WHO Code, yet the Canadian government continues to refuse to pass legislation to protect and enforce the Code. 


5. The Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) is integral to ensuring mothers and babies are provided with the minimal support and information needed to begin their breastfeeding relationship at birth. The Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) should be fully endorsed by Health Canada. All Canadian hospitals should be informed of all BFHI recommendations and should be striving to attain BFHI status by a set date. BFHI should be recognized by Health Canada as the minimum requirement, not a luxury.

6. The Health Canada draft document should focus on the need for better breastfeeding and lactation education for all medical professionals (doctors, nurses, midwives etc.), and any personnel that come into regular contact with new mothers (social workers, etc). Health Canada should also advise provincial and territorial health policy makers that breastfeeding support and education at these levels are seriously lacking, and that this lack of education negatively impacts the ability of medical professionals to support mother and baby dyads. Health professionals who are unable to provide educated lactation support should be advised that mothers must be referred to professionals that are fully trained, rather than giving misleading and/or inaccurate advice that is detrimental to breastfeeding success.

7. The statement made in the draft document: "4. In Canada, all infants need supplemental vitamin D. " is incorrect and misleading. Health Canada cannot accurately state that ALL infants need to be supplemented with Vitamin D. Instead, AIM recommends that Health Canada set up prenatal maternal testing for Vitamin D levels. If mothers are shown to be deficient in Vitamin D, prenatal supplementation has been shown to optimize vitamin D levels in infants. Canadian mothers are at higher risk of being Vitamin D deficient due to northern latitude and long winters with little sun exposure. Therefore, it is the recommendation of AIM that Canadian mothers be advised by Health Canada to take a Vitamin D supplement along with folic acid to ensure infant health after birth.

8. AIM does not agree with the current American Academy of Paediatrics recommendation that breastfed infants should be supplemented with iron. Breastmilk has been proven to contain adequate iron to support infant health, except in cases of severe maternal anemia. It is AIM's recommendation that Health Canada encourage prenatal testing to address maternal anemia before birth. 

9. The statement by Health Canada in section 2.7: "The impact of cesarean birth on breastfeeding appears to have changed over time. In most cases today, cesarean birth does not impede breastfeeding" is incorrect and needs to be removed. There is no evidence to support this statement, and strong evidence to contradict it. Health Canada needs to set up separate guidelines that examine and make recommendations about medical interventions during pregnancy and childbirth such as chemical inductions, the routine use of IVs, epidurals, invasive testing and pain medications during labour, the use of surgical interventions, such as forceps/vacuum extractions and cesarean sections, and early cord clamping and their effect on maternal and fetal outcomes, with special attention given to breastfeeding initiation and longevity . Perinatal practices are one of the most powerful indicators of long term breastfeeding success and are therefore vitally important considerations.

10. In section 9 the Draft Document states that "9. At six months, infants need complementary foods along with continued breastfeeding to meet their nutrient needs". This statement gives the impression that breastmilk is no longer adequate after 6 months and that it suddenly loses it's ability to nourish an infant at this time. This is inaccurate. It should also be noted that not all infants are ready for or require complementary foods at a set age, i.e. 6 months. A statement that "Infants should not be given complementary foods before 6 months, but after that time introduction solids may begin" would be preferable.

It is the opinion of AIM that the committee responsible for these guidelines is lacking oversight by the public and should include members that are involved in stakeholder groups or members of the general public who are interested in the outcomes of the draft document and Health Canada's new guidelines. 

Currently breastfeeding initiation rates in Canada are excellent. However, by 3-6 months the percentage of mothers exclusively breastfeeding their babies drops radically. This extreme drop in breastfeeding rates directly affects the health and wellbeing of mother-baby dyads and is an accurate indicator of the lack of information and lactation support currently available to families across Canada. It should be noted that the recommendation of exclusive breastfeeding to six months is often undermined or outright ignored by health care professionals who encourage or recommend or demand supplementation with infant formula before the baby has even been released from hospital. Evidence-based information and education provided to parents and health-care professionals is integral to the increase of long-term breastfeeding rates in Canada. As members of AIM, and as mothers, we have a vested interest in increasing breastfeeding information and education available to healthcare providers and families across Canada. We therefore respectfully request that Health Canada review our submission and make the changes necessary to bring Canada in line with the World Health Organization, and to maintain its place as a key player in the forefront of worldwide health.

We thank you for the opportunity to provide our recommendations. We would like to be included as a stakeholder in any future consultation on these or similar guidelines. 

Association of Informed Mothers

Danielle Arnold
Brantford ON

INFACT Canada: Fed up with Formula Promotion

INFACT Canada sent out two updates this week- both about infant formula promotion.

Are you fed up with formula promotions?

Let the Minister of Health know that you want Health Canada to support mothers to breastfeed without commercial intervention.

Let the Minister of Health know that formula promotions threaten mother and infant/child health.

Let the Minister know that you want all formula promotions to stop; that formula promotions mislead and falsely claim to have attributes similar to breastmilk; that formula promotions undermine breastfeeding and are purposely targeted at pregnant women and breastfeeding mothers.

Let the Minister of Health know that when Canada endorses the World Health Organization’s International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes and all the World Health Assembly resolutions on infant and young child nutrition, we expect these protective measures to be implemented in Canada. Canadian mothers, babies and families deserve supportive environments to enable all mothers to nourish their children optimally.

Let the Minister know that breastfeeding is normal and should be the fundamental principle for all policies relating to maternal and child health.

Let her know that Canada’s breastfeeding rates remain far from optimal; that the exclusive breastfeeding rate for the first six months is just over 16% (Canadian Perinatal Health Report, 2008). How is it that 84% of mothers fall short of Health Canada’s recommendations for infant feeding?

Let the Minister know that mother’s health and children’s growth, development and health are far more important that the profit interests of the infant formula companies. Formula industries should be held accountable, financially and morally, for the increased deaths, illness and chronic diseases linked to formula feeding.

Let the Minister know that the costs of the increased hospitalizations, the increased need for medical interventions, the increased costs of the cancers, diabetes, obesity, and the cardiovascular diseases are in the billions annually when children are not breastfed.

Let her know that you want her to STOP ALL FORMULA PROMOTIONS!

Write To:

Leona Aglukkaq, Minister of Health: Aglukkaq.L@parl.gc.ca.

CC To:

• Your local Member of Parliament
• Leader of the opposition, Michael Ignatieff: Ignatieff.M@parl.gc.ca.
• Leader of the NDP, Jack Layton: Layton.J@parl.gc.ca.
• Leader of the BQ, Gilles Duceppe: Duceppe.G@parl.gc.ca.
• Leader of the Green Party, Elizabeth May: leader@greenparty.ca.

*     *     *     *    *   *    

EU opposes misleading and deceptive health claims for infant formula and baby foods

INFACT Canada congratulates our partner group the UK-based Baby Milk Action and is pleased to have been able to support its work to inform and lobby the European Parliamentarians to oppose the misleading claims made by the infant formula/baby food industries.

From Baby Milk Action
http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease16mar11

European Parliamentarians oppose bogus baby food health claim

March 16, 2011 - Brussels

Members of the European Parliament have moved to block a baby food company from using a health claim on labels of follow-on formula.

The European Parliament’s committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee (ENVI) today voted to stop the claim that DHA, a long-chain fatty acid found in breastmilk, when added to follow-on formulas and baby foods improves babies’ vision. A Resolution will now go to the full Plenary in Strasbourg in April and if it is passed there, the claim will not be allowed in EU countries from 2012, or on exports from the EU. Baby Milk Action is lodging an official complaint about misinformation put out by the European Commission in trying to influence the votes of MEPs.

This is first time since the 2006 European Health and Nutrition Claims Regulations came into effect that MEPS have used their right to block a claim and the news was greeted with huge relief by thousands of health professionals and public health campaigners both in the EU and globally who have been fighting to protect parents rights to truly independent information about infant feeding.

Socialist MEP Glenis Willmott, Co-Chair of the Health Working Group, who led the MEPs veto said: “The European Parliament delegated the power to make decisions about infant feeding to the Commission and a specialist committee, which meets behind closed doors. However MEPs have an important role to play in scrutinising these decisions as this claim shows. Independent studies say there is no proven link between artificially added DHA and eyesight, and some studies have found possible negative effects of DHA supplementation. As the scientific evidence is still inconclusive, we cannot allow parents to be misled. Babies’ health is too important to be left in the hands of a multinational company’s marketing department.”

. . . .

Read the full article online at:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease16mar11

Elisabeth Sterken
Director INFACT Canada
esterken@infactcanada.ca