Every Parent Should Know...

[thanka2]

If you don't know the whole story, this is an important read, I think.

Every Parent Should Know the Scandalous History of Infant Formula

Baby Killer

 

[howardcoombs]

A lesson in how to use the courts, lose the case but win the hearts and minds of the consumers.
Very similar to this one, a more recent version of the same tactic : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case
Every parent should also know about McDonald's and its practices too : http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/pretrial/factsheet.html

Note : Nestle and McDonalds have changed a lot of their practices that were documented back in the 70's and 80's for the better due to pressure from consumers. They still have a lot of bad practices but overall but there are improvements...

 

[charade]

Thanka2, I'm interested in what exactly you found interesting about the articles you linked.

 

[genkimom]

I for one found it interesting that there has been an international code of marketing ethical standards since 1981, yet these codes of conduct are still blatantly being ignored by the formula companies to this day. I can't tell you how many gifts and free samples and misinformation I have received (or been offered) from these people between my two kids, which violates the code. It's particularly sad that a US Senator was one of the crafters of the code, and yet my experience in the US was of dealing with pretty hawkish marketing practices. Why does the US create international rules and then refuses to abide by them itself?

 

[thanka2]

Thanka2, I'm interested in what exactly you found interesting about the articles you linked.

I don't think it's simply "interesting." I think it's important. Now, this may be "old news" to many on this forum but given the extreme popularity of baby formula in Hong Kong and how aggressively baby formula brands market to consumers here (even up until the children are in primary school) I think it is also good for consumers to know and understand the type of ethics baby formula companies do business by. This may not even matter to most consumers in HK but I think that it is something to keep in mind when we choose to feed our children formula. In the States, formula is not marketed on television and I've never seen a formula advertisement in public such as a billboard. It is relegated to the area that tobacco companies are for advertising. Here in HK it's a total free-for-all.

So, basically the business practices and ethics of a company are really important (or should be) in how we choose our products especially if we want to be conscientious consumers (and not everyone does want to be).

 

[charade]

I don't think it's simply "interesting." I think it's important. Now, this may be "old news" to many on this forum but given the extreme popularity of baby formula in Hong Kong and how aggressively baby formula brands market to consumers here (even up until the children are in primary school) I think it is also good for consumers to know and understand the type of ethics baby formula companies do business by. This may not even matter to most consumers in HK but I think that it is something to keep in mind when we choose to feed our children formula. In the States, formula is not marketed on television and I've never seen a formula advertisement in public such as a billboard. It is relegated to the area that tobacco companies are for advertising. Here in HK it's a total free-for-all.

So, basically the business practices and ethics of a company are really important (or should be) in how we choose our products especially if we want to be conscientious consumers (and not everyone does want to be).

So what are you suggesting? That because of the unethical marketing practices that may or may not have contributed to the deaths of infants in so-called third world countries in the 70s we don't feed our children formula now, even when the product itself if properly used is safe?

The irony of the first article you linked chastising formula companies for their promotional methods while adopted similarly one-sided promotional tactics to make its point is striking. I thought that article quoted extremely selectively from the War on Want report. For example: "Playing into undernourished women's fear of harming their newborn was a "confidence trick," said War on Want. When these women felt fear, pain or sadness, their milk would dry up as a result. " It is not "these" women but all women whose breastmilk supply suffers under stress. I found the image of the poor-illiterate-hapless-easily-manipulated third-world woman that came through in these reports quite offensive (almost as if they had no choice or intellect but to fall for the ploys of clever Westerners).

And I found the War on Want link itself problematic because I couldn't get to the references cited. The page on the references wasn't in the pdf. The introduction "The object of this report is not to prove that baby m i l k s k i l l b a b i e s ." yet the report is titled Baby Killers (an effective marketing strategy but maybe not an ethical one?) and its summary says "Third World babies are dying because their mothers bottle feed them with
western style infant milk" even while in the next para saying: "AgaIn, It is not our object to prove that the baby food
industry i s e x c l u s i v e l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h i s t r e n d . Social change is a complex phenomenon and the trend towards artificial feeding is particularly marked i n new urban cammun i ties." Confusing. The preoccupation of War on Want seemed to be with urbanisation but the takeaway for most people seemed to be that formula companies are the bad guys (which is of course easier to imagine than unwieldy concepts like urbanisation).

What I did think was interesting and balanced was this (http://www.nytimes.com/1981/12/06/magazine/the-controversy-over-infant-formula.html?pagewanted=all) piece buried somewhere in the strident first piece you linked and even more interesting was this: "Most studies coming out of underdeveloped countries, however, have flaws in their methodology." And yet somehow, this little very important statement never gets underlined properly. Scientifically, I don't know how this is possible or acceptable. How is it acceptable to say - flaws in the methodology but we're still going to go on with our original thesis and prescribe solutions accordingly?

 

[howardcoombs]

So what are you suggesting? That because of the unethical marketing practices that may or may not have contributed to the deaths of infants in so-called third world countries in the 70s we don't feed our children formula now, even when the product itself if properly used is safe?

I think the suggestion is that you, as informed consumers, should know what companies that you are supporting with your money are doing in other parts of the world.
Whether this is related to Baby Formula, Fast Food, Chocolate&Coffee, Oil&Mining, Tobacco, Shoes&Garment or electronic goods companies. There are all kinds of hidden stories buried in a lot of big corporate conglomerates worth knowing so you can make an informed choice.

I'm 100% certain, the tasty chocolate bar you buy from your local supermarket is going to be safe. Do you know how it got there? It *is* worth knowing.
Same holds true for other products produced by conglomerates such as Nestle and many others.

 

[charade]

I think the suggestion is that you, as informed consumers, should know what companies that you are supporting with your money are doing in other parts of the world.
Whether this is related to Baby Formula, Fast Food, Chocolate&Coffee, Oil&Mining, Tobacco, Shoes&Garment or electronic goods companies. There are all kinds of hidden stories buried in a lot of big corporate conglomerates worth knowing so you can make an informed choice.

"A lot" or "all"? Is there any corporate goods conglomerate not guilty? And then how do we keep our hands clean? This is of course a tangential point and a private ethical dilemma.


My problem with this is on dwelling on history when the reality may have (and I'd wager) has changed - not that corporations, any of them, won't do their utmost to persuade people to buy their products but that the reality of the lives of the people has changed. I also had a problem with the articles linked and the way they made their point. How is one to make an informed choice when the opposing view presents information as selectively as the purported bad guys?

 

[howardcoombs]

I think many is the right adjective, certainly not all. How to keep hands clean is left up to the individual consumer. Some take heed and many will blissfully continue to purchase in ignorance perpetuating the problem.

You make an informed choice by arming yourself with information. The historical stuff makes for some entertaining reading but we now have a lot of power at our fingertips. Search engines have made a ton of information (current and historical) accessible to our eyes.

I dont know much about baby formula today as I havent had time to research it recently but I do know one thing : Nestle as a big company has had continuous issues with many different products and the ethics behind producing those products. I personally avoid Nestle products whenever practical.

 

[thanka2]

This is a timely issue because of current things happening in the States regarding the marketing of infant formula through hospitals. This is a timely issue because formula is marketed to women in an inappropriate way in Hong Kong according to the 1981 document from the UN.

I am not "suggesting" anything for anyone. You can choose your own conclusions. I fed my son formula for a time. I breastfed my daughter. I am a big fan of doing the research to know where different companies stand (not where they say they stand but where they actually put their money and marketing into practice) on various issues. I don't assume things have improved over time. I studied far too much PR to believe that companies always just become better because they get "caught." No, companies become smarter at managing their public image and presenting a cleaned-up version of themselves. I prefer companies that were built on solid principles and haven't slipped from them.

If this issue doesn't seem to be a big one to you (or others) then that's fine. I have no one to defend here--including the people who wrote the article or the report. I always think being more aware as a citizen is a positive. Not always easy to be more aware as sometimes it pushes us into uncomfortable paradoxes. It's not easy to make choices. It's not easy to feel guilt or regret over choices made.