Formula can kill. I know that's harsh, but it's true. Like medications, formula can have side effects, namely a sick child, and sometimes a seriously sick child. An international code barring the advertising of formula exists for just that reason, yet formula companies around the world continue to actively convince parents to buy and use their products.
Baby formula does have a role of course. Not every woman can or is ready to breastfeed; milk banks and milk sharing are often not available or are not a comfortable choice. But helping women breastfeed while formula companies are helping them not to is as frustrating as helping people eat better in this junk food world, or helping them exercise in this age of the car.
The goal is not to judge women and their choices around breastfeeding, but to judge those who make breastfeeding more difficult: the workplaces and public spaces that are not breastfeeding-friendly, the hospitals and health care providers that subtly or not so subtly discourage breastfeeding, the companies who try to increase sales regardless of the public health consequences.
Prenatal information packages are famous for advertising disguised as education but I was still surprised to find formula ads in the one that came with my wife's recent pregnancy. Her family doctor knew nothing about them, turns out, they got in through other clinic staff, and they were promptly removed.
At my own clinic, the Nestle sales representative gave us her personal story of needing to supplement with formula so she could sleep better at night. Perfect sales technique, I must say. With no mention, of course, that according to the evidence women who do so are more likely to stop breastfeeding earlier.
BLOG CONTINUES AFTER SLIDESHOW
Direct-to-parents advertising continues as well, our friend the Internet has made that extra easy. Ads for the for the ever-so-fun-sounding Similac Club attach to many of my web searches. Membership in the Similac Club can get you a free formula can and a few coupons for more (but after that you are so on your own).
Research suggests that, unfortunately, these kinds of advertising work. In countries like Canada, they impact how long women breastfeed more than whether they start. Breastfeeding on day one has become normal here (over 90 per cent), thanks to rooming in with mom, year-long maternity benefits, better education. But still, by six months, just over half of babies are still breastfed, and most of that is supplemented with formula.
Baby formula is a big killer in less developed countries, but even where access to health care is good, not breastfeeding increases illness and death. A U.S. government agency review of the 400 or so best studies found that breastfed babies were less likely to be overweight, get diabetes, have ear infections, or suffer from diarrhea or asthma when they were older. They were less likely to get childhood leukemia, to die from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), or to get necrotizing enterocolitis (which is as bad as it sounds).
And the costs, oh the costs. An analysis in the journal Pediatrics, based on 2007 data, estimated that if 90 per cent of U.S. families used breast milk alone till only the age of six months, then each year over 900 fewer American children would die and $13-billion in health care costs would be saved.
Yet companies are still allowed to use advertising to convince parents to use their products. Some argue that manufacturers only advertise to convince those already about to use formula to use their brand, which is part of what they are doing of course. But if you know anything about advertising you know that creating demand, expanding the market, is not just a bonus, it is key to the game itself.
Others make the funny argument that companies have the right to educate consumers about formula. Please. Those looking to make a buck from the product have no business "educating" about it. We wouldn't trust Universal Studios to recommend movies, or Ronald McDonald to teach us healthy eating. Why would we trust what formula companies have to say about their own products?
But let's say you were to convince me that formula advertising has a role. We would want the ads to be truthful, no? How about the ads having to say: "warning: using formula instead of breast milk may cause asthma, ear infections, obesity, diabetes, leukemia or necrotizing enterocolitis" in nice bold print? Put that in your ad budget.
But then a group of important looking and sounding people, namely the world's health ministers, already decided in 1981 that formula advertising must stop. As part of the World Health Assembly they passed the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes calling on companies not to advertise their baby formula or baby bottles, neither publicly nor through hospitals and health care providers.
According to UNICEF, over a hundred countries have put at least part of the code into law, the United States being a glaring exception. In Canada, formula companies have to follow nutrition and health claim regulations on formula packages. They have also been asked nicely to pretty please follow the rest of the international code.
But we all know how well nicely and pretty please work. Manufacturers tend to follow the law not a code. Not a surprise given there are no consequences for ignoring the code. Which is why Canada needs a law, and one that is enforced.
We need to do everything we can to make sustained breastfeeding easier for women to choose. Our children will be healthier for it. Our health care budgets as well. It should be an easy decision. But nothing is easy when it affects profits.
Follow Kapil Khatter on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@IllGotGains
When did it become more important how the baby is fed, than that the baby is fed. I worked on an ob unit for 20 years and the breast feeding consultants always tried to convert the formula feeding moms.Some of the information and "studies" they quoted were nothing less than propaganda to scare parents. One "study" said if a child were formula fed the child would have a lower IQ, become a criminal, and hate their mother. [The study was paid for by La Leeche League] If a baby was in the NICU and was given a pacifier the breast feeding consultants would come unglued. It is stressed that a mother bonds better with a baby if she nurses, but that means a father is never bonded with the baby, because they can't nurse. Then the breast feeding pros teach moms to pump, store, freeze, and thaw breast milk, but would not show them how to bottle feed the breast milk to the infant.
Thank a formula company for putting millions of dollars into developing surfactant for premature lungs. It has saved many premature infants, and an improved quality of life.
The scare tactics and propaganda used to make the formula feeding moms feel inadequate and that they have failed before they have even started is wrong.
BTW, I formula fed my kids, both made deans list at college, have never been arrested, AND love their mom.
*Sigh* Here we go again. This is not about YOU and your tiny window of experience. It is about children ON AVERAGE. Formula-fed children ARE more likely to die of SIDS, develop cancer/diabetes/digestive disorders and they ARE SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN to have lower IQs.
YOUR personal experience doesn't set the rule. "But...But... But... MY KIDS ARE JUST PEACHY!" Doesn't qualify as a controlled scientific study.
Repeat after me: "Science is not out to personally offend me. Scientific proof and education using said proof as a cornerstone is more important to society than preventing some mothers from feeling butt-hurt."
Can you direct me to the evidence that points to this study being "paid for" by Le Leche League? I mean seriously, just because you typed it doesn't make it true.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=surety-bond-breast-feeding
And by the way, the whole tone of your response OFFENSIVE and is an example of exactly I was talking about. Referring to mothers as being "butt hurt" is offensive, why can't women support each other, rather than saying, " I AM A BETTER MOTHER THAN YOU ARE".
And my children are beyond your dismissive "peachy". My son graduated from college with high honors. My daughter made deans list despite being dyslexic. My children are AWESOME!!!!!
How can you claim that you are not judging mothers when you make such inflammatory statements?
I'm incredibly disappointed by what I read here.
I don't mean to suggest using formula will harm your child, only that the risk is there, the risk is increased. So if you choose to use it, balanced against the benefits, balanced against other practicalities, then alright.
But I want people to know the facts (to the degree we can know them) when making the decision. Advertising skews things, distorts people's perceptions of the risks and benefits.
I think if you looked up estimates for the number of extra children around the world who die because of formula use that you would still consider the article too strong.
And talk about cherry picking your data. We both know that formula use in underdeveloped countries is caused by the fact that it is mixed with contaminated water. Formula is responsible for saving literally millions of infants over the years. Its good far outweighs its potential for harm.
At the end of the day, this is just one more example of someone who had no problem telling mothers, "You're just not good enough."
Shame on you, doctor.
This issue is even more critical in third world countries. Formula companies use women in third world nations as health representatives to hawk their products. These women are given 'doctor's white coats' and sent into hospitals and clinics to encourage women that "healthy babies in the west are given formula". However, in a third world nation formula costs more than women can afford so they water it down - usually with dirty water (because they have no access to clean), and feed babies from dirty bottles. Baby gets sick and is hospitalized. Since breastfeeding is often the only form of contraception when it ends mom gets pregnant again - so now she has a sick baby, and is pregnant too close together so she cannot care for either child well.