Breaking the Rules and other corporate shenanigans

Feeding Fiasco -- Pushing Commercial Baby Foods in Pakistan

Feeding Fisasco--Pushing commercial Baby Foods in Pakistan is the latest in a series of damning reports demonstrating industry’s total disregard for the International Code. This report starts by asking a number of probing questions. Why are women doubting their natural ability to provide their children with the most nutritious, anti-infective food available? Why do mothers believe they cannot produce enough milk to satisfy their babies’ hunger? Why are their doctors so quick to recommend infant formula to “supplement” breastfeeding, rather than helping mothers to breastfeed with ease and success?

“There are a number of factors”, the report goes on, and “largely to blame are the unethical marketing practices of the baby food industry.”

First some background:

• 5.5 million babies are born in Pakistan every year,
• Infant mortality is high -- 95 per 1000 live births, higher than Bangladesh,
• Every tenth baby dies before his or her first birthday,
• Every fourth baby is born underweight,
• Diarrheal disease and acute respiratory disease causes more than half of infant deaths,
• 67 million people (total population is 140 million) in Pakistan have no access to safe drinking water,
• The average cost of formula feeding per month is equal to the average monthly income in Pakistan,
• 3 out of 4 mothers in Pakistan cannot read or write.

And are baby milks marketed in Pakistan?
Abundance: infant formulas are imported as ordinary milks and do not need any special licensing, All the major infant formula companies -- Nestlé, Morinaga, Meiji, Snow Brand, Mead Johnson, Nutriticia, Cow and Gate, Abbott, Wyeth market a full range of products, infant formula, follow-on formula, lactose-free formula, and a special high nutrient formula for underweight babies.

Marketing with idealized images: Gracing the products that in the context of Pakistan cause death and illness, are innocent cartoon like graphics of teddy bears with comfort blankets (Ross), or toy rabbits and butterfly images (Wyeth).

Marketing to create doubt: Wyeth S-26 states that it “is intended to replace or supplement breastmilk when breastfeeding is not possible or is insufficient...” or Meiji’s FMT declares, “when mother’s milk is not available in sufficient quantity”, or on Similac’s label mothers are told that, “if breastfeeding is not possible consult your medical advisor about using Similac as the replacement.” Mead Johnson markets its O’Lac as the answer to all the doubts, “if mother’s milk is unavailable, or prohibited, or if more is required or infant doesn’t tolerate lactose.” Nestlé Neslac contradicts itself by saying “Neslac is not a breastmilk substitute, but a growing-up milk specially suited to healthy children from 1 year of age.” Some companies use the term “weaning” to refer to the introduction of complementary foods. Nestlé’s Lactogen 2 is recommended for use “during and after weaning” “from the fifth month on”, yet alleges that it is “not a breastmilk substitute”.

Marketing with medical endorsement: Virtually all companies marketing baby milks in Pakistan had posters, wall calendars and wall clocks displayed in hospitals and clinics. These were reported everywhere -- in waiting areas, in hallways, in examining rooms, in pediatric wards, obstetrical wards, doctor’s rooms, etc.

How does the marketing effect mothers?
Six hundred and sixty-two mothers with children from 1 day to two years old were interviewed during the survey.

• Eighty-six mothers -- 13.3 per cent of mothers reported that their babies were receiving breastmilk substitutes only.
• Another 10 per cent of mothers were feeding both breastmilk and substitutes. Thus about 1 in 4 mothers were using substitutes.
• Forty-two per cent of mothers stated that “not enough milk” was the reason for the substitution.
• Seventy-six per cent of the mothers said they were using a particular brand of formula on their doctor’s recommendation.