|
The inner workings of the formula industry
An American consumer research report published
this October[1]
has revealed once again the absolute disregard for infant health that
baby food manufacturers exhibit in their endless search for higher
profits. The report, completed by research firm Mintel, detailed
numerous successful tactics which are used to convince mothers to use
infant formula despite medical evidence that reveals it as inferior.
Formula companies are looking to find solutions to sagging profits in
the US market as mothers are increasingly turning to health
professionals for infant nutrition advice.
Perhaps the most shocking section of the report
said that to encourage growth in the infant formula sector, “It is
extremely important for players in the category to find ways to
connect with Hispanic households,” as Hispanic women show higher birth
and breastfeeding rates than the US population as a whole, and thus
potentially represent a large source of profits.
Mintel reported that fortification with vitamins
as well as the addition of DHA and ARA are two ways which companies
are using to reverse the trend of increasing breastfeeding rates, even
though no studies have demonstrated that these additive ingredients
have any long-term positive effect on infant development.
This indicates that so-called “improvements” in
formula brands such as the addition of new ingredients are
superficial, and are market-driven to serve the purpose of increasing
sales rather than improving infant health. Some companies are now
marketing formula additives euphemistically termed “comfort proteins”
which are “easier to digest.”
Formula companies were also advised to emphasize
“baby weight control” in order to boost sales. That companies are now
proliferating the idea that formula contributes to healthy weight gain
is ironic considering that the World Health Organization has just
released updated infant growth standards which use the weight of
breastfed infants as the norm and show formula-fed infants as being
fatter. Statistically, formula-fed babies are much more likely to
become overweight and obese later in life.[2]
According to the results of interviews conducted
with mothers, Mintel recommended that formula companies use slogans
such as “all-natural” and “organic” to advertise their artificial baby
foods. These slogans mask the reality that formula is loaded with
chemical additives — flavour enhancers, emulsifiers, pH-adjusting
agents, thickening agents — many of which are not tested for safety
for young infants, but added in a vain attempt to produce a product
that’s “…closer than ever to breastmilk.” Every 100 g of Nestlé Good
Start formula contains 2.6 g of ashes! There is nothing ‘natural’
about these ingredients.
One major problem facing formula companies is that
mothers only buy their products for a relatively short period of time.
Mintel noted that to “build a brand relationship with moms early, some
suppliers have released lines of prenatal supplements.” Companies tell
moms-to-be that they need nutritional supplements during pregnancy in
order to have healthy children in the hopes that once the baby is
born, mothers will buy formula from the same brand that sold them
nutritional supplements. Following similar logic, formula companies
now market useless ‘follow-on formulas’ for older children in order to
extend their relationship with mothers after their babies outgrow
infant formula.
Perhaps most telling was the abstract of the
report posted online which said the Mintel analysis took into account
“several key aspects of the market from competition
outside the category (i.e. breastfeeding and homemade baby
food)”[3]
[emphasis added]. Infant formula manufacturers constantly claim that
they support breastfeeding, yet this report proves that industry
insiders consider breastfeeding as threat to profits and a practice
which must be curbed as much as possible.
Insider industry information such as this appears
in stark contrast to the advertising jargon of formula companies,
which always claim they have the best interest of infants in mind. The
corporations make a point of telling mothers they’re on their side,
with websites and pamphlets claiming “We’re here to help” and “We’re
committed to bringing you innovations in infant nutrition.” It is
clear however from this report who they are really looking out for.
References
1. “Declining baby foods boosted by health,
convenience” Food Navigator-USA. http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news-by-product/news.asp?id=71837&idCat=28&k=declining-baby-foods,
Nov. 6, 2006.
2. a) Bergmann KE, Bermann RL, von Kries R, Böhm
O, Richter R, Dudenhausen JW, Wahn U. Early determinants of childhood
overweight and adiposity in a birth cohort study: role of
breastfeeding. Int J Obesity 2003;27:162-72.
b) Frye C, Heinrich J. Trends and predictors of
overweight and obesity in East German children. Int J Obesity
2003;27:963-9.
c) Whitaker RC. Obesity prevention in pediatric
primary care. Four Behaviors to target. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med
2003;157:725-7 (editorial).
d) Grummer-Strawn LM, Mei Z. Does breastfeeding
protect against pediatric overweight? Analysis of longitudinal data
from the centers for disease control and prevention pediatric
nutrition surveillance system. Pediatrics 2004;113:e81 (go to
www.pediatric.org/cgi/content/full/113/2/e81.
3. “Baby Food and Drink – US” Market
Research.
http://www.marketresearch.com/product/display.asp?
productid=1373188&SID=82895787-370807811-317388712 Oct 1, 2006. |
