So, there you have it.
Is our primary fight with formula marketing? Yes, definitely.
Are the lesser offenders still a problem worth discussing (and eventually addressing)? Absolutely.
Note that the marketing is the problem, not the products.
That is a really important distinction to make! Bottles are a necessity for working moms. Formula can be a necessity under certain [limited] circumstances.
These products, in and of themselves, aren’t the problem. The problem is that they are marketed so aggressively that parents are being robbed of the decision on how to feed their babies. It’s widely believed that babies should have pacifiers 24/7; its’ rarely acknowledged or known that this can sabotage breastfeeding. The image of a bottle-fed baby getting formula is so pervasive that it’s become the norm. The message from formula companies that their products are “just like breastmilk!” leave parents misinformed.
Without the facts – the real facts, not the “facts” the formula companies put out – parents are not empowered or informed enough to make a sound decision. They’re Booby Trapped. Often, they’ll learn later of the risks of deviating from the biological norm and using formula. By then, it’s too late. They feel duped; guilty; regretful; angry. That is the result of formula marketing.
But formula companies aren’t the only offenders.
When a pump company like Medela or the various bottle makers market their products in a way that idealizes bottle feeding -even pumped milk- that is a problem. Because while pumped milk is way better than the alternatives, it’s not as good as milk fed directly at the breast (for a whole host of reasons). The notion that moms must have a $300 breast pump in order to successfully breastfeed, they’re being set up to fail (or perhaps never even try).
Breastpumps are life-saving devices for some moms and their vulnerable babies. It’s amazing and wonderful that these pumps exist that can help a mom maintain her supply and provide milk for her baby when her baby can’t feed at the breast (for whatever reason). All the WHO Code is asking, is that the companies that make these pumps, market them responsibly. Advertising a breastpump is perfectly ok; advertising bottles and nipples and positing them as a superior option to feeding directly at the breast is not.
When companies within the breastfeeding sphere thumb their noses at the Code, it weakens our ability to say that the formula companies should abide by it.
This is where we meet the bottom half of the spectrum. There are a couple of pump companies who, on their own, abide by the WHO Code. Lansinoh, for example, is owned by Pigeon. So while Lansinoh operates within the Code, their parent company, Pigeon is a Code-violator (Pigeon’s product lines are sold mainly in other countries). Simplisse is in a similar boat. Although they are a legally separate and distinct company from Dr. Brown’s (a bottle maker in violation of the Code), the companies share many of their employees and Simplisse’s products were developed by Dr. Brown’s.
ILCA has deemed Lansinoh and Simplisse “Code Compliant” despite their ties to non-compliant companies. There’s debate within the lactation community on whether or not that is the right position to take. It’s awesome that these companies are upholding the Code, despite their ties to non-compliant companies. However, their bottom lines and profitability are all intertwined, so it’s important to be cognizant of that when we’re evaluating them.
That’s a small issue compared to the problems with, say, Nestle. But it’s an issue, nonetheless. It’s not the fight we need to be waging right now; we obviously need to focus on the formula companies first.
It’s perfectly acceptable to make and sell the products covered by the Code It’s expected and necessary that these companies profit. However, that can be accomplished without violating the WHO Code. Case in point:
There are WHO Code Compliant companies. THESE are the companies to get excited about! These are the companies that are blazing the trail for the rest to follow.
Evenflo, a bottle maker, used to be in violation of the Code. However, they bought Ameda (a pump company) and became Code-compliant. If a bottle company can do it, it’s reasonable to expect a breastpump company like Medela to do it, too.
Evenflo, Ameda, and Hygeia are all WHO Code compliant. That tells us that they’re truly out to support moms, babies, and breastfeeding. Yes, they’re aiming to be profitable, but they feel they can do that in an ethical manner, one that is most likely to ensure that moms can get the information they need to be successful and meet their breastfeeding goals.
In some ways, it’s not what these companies are doing; it’s what they’re not doing. They’ve agreed to temper their marketing and keep it within the WHO Code’s guidelines. Operating within the WHO Code guidelines means that these companies will not compromise breastfeeding relationships in an effort to sell their products.
The WHO Code may seem unnecessary and insignificant in the US. However, it’s a worldwide effort. There are countries where millions (literally, millions) of babies have died at the hands of formula marketing. That’s a little abstract and hard to grasp. But even here in the US, 900 babies could be saved each year by breastfeeding instead of feeding formula. The WHO Code is in place to ensure that mothers and fathers around the world are able to make empowered, informed decisions on how to feed their babies – decisions that have no business being influenced by marketing and bottom lines.
The Spectrum of WHO Code Violations
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks