Not #scientificandfactual at all – how UK breastmilk substitute ads to health workers break the rules

Most readers of my blog will know that in the UK infant formula (first stage, or from birth formula) cannot be marketed to parents, or be discounted or promoted in shops. Manufacturers use follow-on formula to get around these advertising restrictions, but there are still rules that they must follow and they can be pulled up by the Advertising Standards Agency for breaking them. When shops break the rules on infant formula promotion – by discounting it, or positioning it in premium spots in store – they can be reported to Trading Standards. It’s far from a perfect system; no prosecutions have been brought, and companies are not fined nor have to apologise for infringing the rules, but the principle of challenging misleading marketing does at least exist. Baby Milk Action, with the help of its members and the public, monitors advertising to parents and compiles a report ‘Look What They’re Doing in the UK’ to expose the companies' tactics.

When it comes to advertising aimed at health professionals, however, the situation is very different. Many people don’t know that breastmilk substitutes can be marketed to healthcare professionals: in journals and magazines, on professional websites and at conferences and study days. Although the Department of Health has regulations stating that this advertising must be ‘scientific and factual’, there is no monitoring and no mechanism for reporting marketing that breaks the rules, other than to complain directly to the Department of Health.

First Steps Nutrition Trust’s recently published resource ‘Scientific and Factual – a review of breastmilk substitute advertising to health professionals’ looks more closely at the science used to back up the claims made in advertising in professional journals and magazines. We know from research that advertising is effective – why else would the companies spend vast sums on advertising space? – and that adverts that carry simple, easy-to-understand messages relating to the reader’s own scientific knowledge are very ‘believable’. The companies know this too, and they also know that few health workers will have the time or resources to investigate the references given in tiny print at the bottom of carefully crafted adverts. Graphs, charts and statistics create the appearance of ‘a scientific basis’, even when what they show is not scientifically correct or objective.

The resource looks in detail at adverts that appear in publications including the Journal of Family Health, the Journal of Health Visiting and Dietetics Today, but the same and similar adverts appear in many other publications aimed at health professionals in a wide range of fields. When the references given to support the claims made in the adverts are scrutinised, the findings are often shocking.

An advert for Cow & Gate Comfort milk, marketed as relieving colic, which shows an emotive image of an exhausted mother, appeared in the Journal of Health Visiting in March 2016. The main claim, in red type, is that ‘95% of paediatricians reported an improvement in common infant feeding problems with a formula like Cow & Gate Comfort¹’ [italics added]. Closer reading of the reference given reveals that the study, funded by Numico (Danone) did not use Cow & Gate Comfort milk; the test formula had different energy, protein, carbohydrate and mineral content. NHS Choices says that there is no evidence for any treatment that is beneficial for colic, which resolves itself. The conclusion that the advert is deliberately misleading is inescapable.

SMA, now owned by Nestle, has been rolling out a new product, SMA PRO, and many stores have illegally cleared stock of the previous formula by marking it down in price to make way for the new product (lots of examples have been posted on the Baby Milk Action Facebook page). An extensive advertising campaign to health professionals has accompanied the roll-out. Dietetics Today carried two adverts for SMA PRO in March 2016, a shorter one-page ad and then a longer, more ‘scientific-looking’ ad – this in itself is a tactic designed to reassure the reader that the information given in the simpler advert is supported by the ‘science’ given in the more complex version. The main claim in the simpler advert is that SMA PRO is ‘Clinically proven¹’. This is supported by one reference to a poster presentation given by Nestle employees at a conference – not a peer-reviewed publication as required by the Department of Health regulations. The poster reports a meta-analysis of four studies looking at infants fed with Nan milk (another Nestle product). It is not clear whether this Nan formula is the same as SMA PRO. It is impossible to know how the manufacturers can use this evidence to claim that SMA PRO is clinically proven, or what it is ‘clinically proven’ to do. That such shaky evidence can be used to support a headline claim on a new product shows just how confident the companies are that they will not be challenged.

There is much, much more detail in the resource, which has painstakingly reviewed all the scientific papers the companies have cited to support their claims. If, having read it, you’re outraged by how misleading these adverts are, there are plenty of suggestions for action on the First Steps Nutrition Trust website. Health professionals can demand change, by complaining to the journals and professional bodies that carry advertising and allow it at events, and writing to the Department of Health regulators. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health voted at its AGM in April to ‘decline any commercial transactions or any other kind of funding or support from all companies that market products within the scope of the WHO Code on the marketing of breast milk substitutes’ – other professional organisations can be lobbied to pass similar resolutions. For more information, and links to further reading, see the campaign pages on the First Steps Nutrition Trust website. Baby Milk Action is urging the UK parliament to enforce marketing restrictions on the promotion of formula to parents too – see more on their website here or make a donation to support their work.

UNICEF Baby Friendly conference 2015 - the morning after

I'm back at my desk after two days at the UNICEF Baby Friendly conference 2015 in Harrogate. Like last year I've come away enthused, inspired, outraged and with a whole heap of work to do...

The presentations by Christy Jo Hendricks, IBCLC, and Dr Helen Crawley of First Steps Nutrition, showed us examples of downright dishonest marketing from the formula companies, including a tin that made extravagant health claims for the product, with an asterisk(*). On the side of the tin, in tiny writing, it said '*study applies to an earlier version of this milk'! Even after years of breastfeeding advocacy it seems I (and many others in the audience) can still be shocked by this sort of thing. A US parent information leaflet, sponsored by a formula company, said on the first page 'most doctors* recommend...', while the wording below said '*in this publication doctors refers to midwives, obstetricians, paediatricians and any other health professional you trust'! This is unbelievably misleading. As Christy Jo memorably said: 'Don't go to a formula company for advice about breastfeeding. That's like going to the butcher to ask for advice about being vegetarian.'

Dr Helen Crawley getting the audience fired up.

On the issue of formula company sponsorship of health events aimed at professionals it was great to see some direct action as a result of the conference session. A health visitor in the audience reported that the CPHVA conference, sponsored by several formula companies and related organisations, was taking place in Manchester (overlapping with Baby Friendly - coincidence?). The result was a petition, to be delivered to CPHVA, that will carry the names and membership numbers of health visitors who were at the Baby Friendly conference, asking them to ditch the formula company sponsorship that is a clear conflict of interest for health professionals who want to work within the Code. Hopefully this, along with continued pressure on social media, will prompt a change in direction. National breastfeeding organisations like La Leche League, the ABM and the Breastfeeding Network, along with Baby Friendly, have shown that it is perfectly possible to organise Code-compliant conferences for large numbers of delegates without input from the formula industry.

If you came away from the conference angry, why not join Baby Milk Action? They campaign tirelessly against the formula companies, exposing the marketing tactics and bringing cases to the Advertising Standards Authority and Trading Standards on behalf of the parents who are paying for all this slick, misleading marketing when they buy formula. There's tons of information on the Baby Milk Action website, and if you work for a facility that would like training on the Code, you can contact them directly.

If I sound evangelical it's because I think organisations like Baby Milk Action and First Steps Nutrition are absolutely vital if we are to push back against the widespread, normalised use of formula - a theme that Professor Mary Renfrew explored in her presentation about shifting the curve: she suggested we turn our breastfeeding drop-off rate graph upside down, and look at reducing formula use instead. Between them the speakers had lots of solutions to the problem: tackling the media stance on breastfeeding, reinstating the Infant Feeding Survey in England, freeing research from company influence and forcing companies to release their research, implementing the Code and empowering mothers, through support and education, to resist the marketing and reduce dependency on formula. What's frustrating is that we know what works - the problem is getting the support and funding needed. Infant feeding in the UK is an issue with a unique set of political and social challenges, something that was highlighted when Sue Ashmore talked about the long-term sustainability of Baby Friendly; it's not a programme that can run and then stop. If that happened, our gains would be eroded because of the constant pressure from industry and a lack of political commitment, so what's needed is a way of embedding the Baby Friendly standards into the very bedrock of facilities; an advanced award. (The consultation about how to do this is here, do get involved if you can.)

With this in mind it was fantastic to see Alison Thewliss, MP at the conference. She's already secured and participated in debates about breastfeeding and a family-friendly parliament, and is setting up an All Party Parliamentary Group on Infant Feeding and Inequalities, which will meet for the first time on 24 November. I've written to my MP asking her to support this and encourage others to do the same.

Me on stage with Sue Ashmore and Robin Grille

Other personal highlights of the conference for me were chairing in the morning session on day two - I was nervous, but very happy to be representing the bloggers and Tweeters who campaign for breastfeeding on social media. I realised I will never, ever get bored of listening to Hollie McNish, and I helped out on the Pinter and Martin stand and talked to a lot of people about books (I love my job!). I came home with a new reading list of my own - Robin Grille's Heart to Heart Parenting landed on the mat this morning. Can't wait for next year in Birmingham...

The Guardian and Danone infant feeding roundtable - and why the politics of breastfeeding matter

A couple of weeks ago I Tweeted my disappointment that the Guardian had decided to run a roundtable discussion in association with Danone Nutricia; yesterday an article reporting on the debate appeared in the paper's society section; a full page, with the Danone Nutricia Early Life Nutrition logo clearly displayed, and an explanation that the content is editorially independent (which presumably means that the journalist, Joanna Moorhead, wrote her piece reporting on the discussion without having the text approved by Danone). As Helen Crichton, head of public affairs for Danone Early Life Nutrition took part in the discussion itself, and Danone was able to suggest topics to be included in the discussion, the term 'editorially independent' is at best only partially accurate.

Mike Brady, Baby Milk Action's campaigns coordinator, has already published an excellent response to the Guardian article; you can read it here. What follows is my personal response to the article, which attempts to explain some of the reasons it made me so uncomfortable/furious.

Participants
Paul Lindley, founder of Ella's Kitchen
Helen Crichton from Danone itself;
Judy More, freelance dietician. Her website reveals that she is on the editorial board of the Journal of Family Health Care, which runs training events sponsored by formula companies including Nestle, Danone and Hipp Organic, and that she has worked for the Infant and Toddler Forum:

"The Infant & Toddler Forum is supported by an educational grant from Danone Nutricia Early Life Nutrition. The views and outputs of the group, however, remain independent of Danone Nutricia Early Life Nutrition and its commercial interests."

Professor Paul Gately from Leeds Metropolitan University. He has previously been a speaker at an event sponsored by the Infant and Toddler Forum.

Four of seven panel members have a clear conflict of interest in the discussion, because they are currently, or have been in the past, paid by companies that make profits marketing and selling products aimed at babies and young children. Judy More and Paul Gately's conflicts of interest were not made clear in the article; I found their earlier links to Danone with a simple search.

A major problem with this sort of 'invitation' roundtable discussion sponsored by a formula company is panel selection. Anyone who's had any sort of training on the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, who works in breastfeeding, public health or in a Baby Friendly accredited NHS Trust should refuse to be involved. (For more about health worker conflicts of interest, see here).

Content/discussion
Reading the article I found myself occasionally incredulous. Paul Lindley (Ella's Kitchen) is quoted as saying, 'Food is what brings people together, but they're not eating together very often and very young children aren't learning the art of conversation or the joy of eating with others.' This from a man who founded a company that makes pouches of ready-made pureed baby food that babies can slurp alone in their pushchairs without making a mess! Is it just me?

Dr Lucy Cooke said 'There's a lot of confusion about breastfeeding. The Department of Health says breastfeed to six months, but baby foods say 4-6 months on the jar'. Both Lindley and More, who should both surely understand the Code, the Department of Health guidelines and how information is given to new mothers, given their work, instead perpetuated the confusion, with Lindley appearing to advocate early weaning by saying that the earlier you give children vegetables, the more likely they are to eat them later on. What he didn't say was that early feeding (before six months) with pureed foods like apples, carrots and parsnips, which his company supplies in pouches, displaces breastmilk in a baby's diet and may reduce their overall nutrition rather than improve it.

I was also deeply uneasy about the suggestion that 'one change that would make a huge difference was to encourage better collaboration between the government and the food industry'. The food industry already has extensive access to contacts in government, and will lobby hard for its own interests. There is plenty of evidence that if companies are not regulated, then they will not restrain their marketing practices voluntarily. If the industry is so keen to do good, surely it should first put its own house in order: in the case of Danone, with 39 pages of marketing Code violations worldwide in the IBFAN Breaking the Rules, Stretching the Rules 2014 report, it would seem that the company has plenty of work to do before embarking on seemingly generous public health campaigns. Ella's Kitchen too could look at its early weaning guidance and labelling so that it better reflects the information that mothers are actually given.

And mothers are often given good information; but we didn't hear anyone talking about it in this debate because of the inherent conflict of interest. Health visitors, midwives and breastfeeding supporters could have painted another picture; one where UNICEF Baby Friendly and the First Steps Nutrition Trust are sources of clear, independent information for parents. The LIFIB (Lancashire Infant Feeding Information Board) is a great example of how information from companies can be critically reviewed and challenged before being passed on to health professionals (see @The_LIFIB).

I could go on, and on. I won't, but I will leave you with this quote from my forthcoming book with Gabrielle Palmer for Pinter and Martin Why The Politics of Breastfeeding Matter, which sums up my thoughts.

"When ‘knowledge’ comes from company promotion [which is what Danone-sponsored activities are] and poorly trained or corrupt health workers, parents and children suffer. Knowledgeable and supported families, who are aware that breastfeeding is normal, that artificial feeding carries risks, and that cheaper, safer baby foods can be made from locally available ingredients, end up healthier and less poor. The Code states that governments are responsible for ensuring that objective and consistent information on infant and young child feeding is provided. But it is hopeless to invest public money in providing such information if it is eclipsed by promotional untruths."

Nutrimum: new product, same old formula company tactics

This morning the First Steps Nutrition Trust newsletter hit my inbox (if you don't get this already I highly recommend it). They've issued a statement on nutrimum, a new product on the market that I'd heard about thanks to a Facebook post from Michael Walne at Your Nutrition Matters (who is busy writing evidence-based nutrition books for the Pinter and Martin Why It Matters series at the moment).

Nutrimum is a range of cereal bars and granola aimed at pregnant and breastfeeding women, made by Nutricia, owned by Danone, which makes Cow & Gate and Aptamil infant formula. The new products are currently available through Boots stores and are heavily marketed on the Boots website, with advertorials accompanied by 'buy now' prompts. The advertorials stress the importance of maternal nutrition during pregnancy and breastfeeding; the clear implication is that the nutrimum bars and cereals can form part of the healthy diet that is being discussed. Associating general nutrition information with specific products is a deliberate strategy. Marketing products that combine food
and supplements through a store such as Boots, which although it has dropped 'the chemist' from its name still has a reputation for selling pharmacy products, also helps to support the idea that these products are somehow 'scientific' or 'beneficial' (they aren't). Using partner organisations for 'reputation transfer' is a tactic often used by formula manufacturers: for example in 2013 Danone sponsored a 'Big Toddle' in aid of Barnardos to promote its Cow & Gate brand.

The First Steps Nutrition Trust statement on nutrimum explains how the products undermine public health by stating that women should stop taking other supplements (which will have been recommended to them by midwives or health visitors in accordance with current guidelines) while consuming the products. Folic acid (which is recommended for those who are planning a pregnancy and pregnant women) and vitamin D (recommended for all pregnant and breastfeeding women) supplements are widely available in supermarkets and pharmacies at low cost, or may be free on the Healthy Start scheme. The nutrimum products are expensive: the cereal bars cost £4.99 for five bars, or £1 a day. A large part of the cost of the product will go on marketing. (As with infant formula, the marketing is paid for by those who buy the product.) Equivalent vitamin D and folic acid supplements cost just pennies per day. The cereal bars and granola are highly processed and high in sugar; the main ingredient (listed first in the ingredients list) in the bars is glucose syrup (sugar). A crucial difference between granola/cereal bars and vitamin supplements is that the granola/bars are food - they will fill you up, and increase your blood sugar levels, potentially displacing more nutritious foods (vegetables, fruit, nuts, eggs, meat) in your diet. Tablets and liquid supplements do not have this effect.

When formula companies stress the importance of nutrition while breastfeeding, they do so in order to make breastfeeding seem difficult, expensive and inconvenient - an unachievable ideal. Mothers who doubt the quality of their breastmilk may turn to formula for 'reassurance' that their babies are getting all that they need. In reality there is little difference in the nutritional profile of breastmilk worldwide: mothers everywhere, despite wide variations in diet, produce milk that will nourish their babies and keep them healthy. A mother needs good food for her own health, not to support breastfeeding. Mothers in the UK (where nutrimum is marketed) have access to better, cheaper food than these highly processed cereal products that are high in sugar and expensive. As First Steps Nutrition say:

'Good nutrition from food is perfectly possible for pregnant and breastfeeding mums and we show how nutrient requirements can be met through simple, cost effective menu choices in practical eating well resources. The money spent on these supplements could be more wisely used buying fresh and minimally processed foods for the household.'

Formula companies target medical and health workers to promote their products. Perhaps the most disturbing part of the First Steps Nutrition statement on nutrimum is the section about how company representatives have contacted infant feeding coordinators and NHS staff. An email to an infant feeding coordinator in February 2015 states that the product is:

‘designed to meet all the nutritional requirements for mum during pregnancy…and that neonatal nurses are particularly interested in Nutrimum for breastfeeding mums with babies in special care baby units’

It's this that makes me actually want to scream. For the last few months I've been working on a short book about the politics of breastfeeding, and this type of contact with health professionals, implying that the product is beneficial for mums breastfeeding special care babies (for which there is certainly no evidence), is reminiscent of all the marketing abuses I've been writing about. That this isn't infant formula doesn't matter. These products offer no benefits, play on fears mothers have about their own and their babies' nutrition, and the profits will line the pockets of the world's second biggest baby milk manufacturer. Thank goodness for the work of First Steps Nutrition and other organisations like Baby Milk Action that scrutinise and monitor the companies. Do visit their websites and join or donate to support their work if you can. And if you work with mothers, tell them that these products are unnecessary, expensive and heavily marketed (and that if they buy them, they are paying for the marketing).

Advertising infant formula - WHO cares?

Last month, online retailer Ocado distributed, in print and online, a magazine that carried a feature advertising first-stage infant formula. They've now (after an initial delay) amended the online version of the magazine, which you can see here. The article on p34 originally had an image of a box of six ready-to-feed SMA bottles in the 'S is for Sleep' section (see right) - in fact the whole section looked as though it spelt out S.M.A. The first problem? It's illegal in the UK to advertise first-stage infant formula: the relevant legislation is here.

So far, so simple. Ocado were pulled up on their mistake, and they responded with an apology:

The SMA First Infant Milk product was included in the feature by mistake. The mistake occurred purely through human error and we are satisfied this is an isolated incident. We are very sorry that this has happened and we have made some changes to the ocadolife production process to ensure this cannot happen again. We take compliance very seriously at Ocado and as a responsible retailer we have voluntarily approached the relevant authorities to discuss this matter with them. We can also confirm SMA did not provide any funding for the inclusion of their product in the feature and we also extend our apologies to them for our error.

An end to the matter? Not really. The whole incident brought some of the issues affecting infant feeding in the UK sharply into focus. So much is wrong with the picture. That this image of formula milk appeared in the 'sleep' section of the article reflects a common misconception that formula feeding aids infant sleep (when in fact it increases the risk of SIDS). That the image appeared at all demonstrates a worrying lack of awareness of the law among editors, copyeditors, proofreaders... And a storm of comments on Facebook (I saw them on the Association of Breastfeeding Mothers page, and on the Ocado page) demonstrated just how poorly the general public understand the law itself, and the reasons for it (which reminded me of the comments made about breastfeeding in swimming pools that I blogged about here.) A small selection:

I don't see what's wrong with this. Some people formula feed, so what!!!

In today's world of equality and freedom of choice its a disgrace that such a law even exists... it hits a bit of a raw nerve when I read so many people trying uphold a law that in my opinion should never have been passed.

...not allowing advertising of first milk is making some mothers' failure at breastfeeding even more apparent... don't we need to be looking at the nhs midwifery service and the support (or lack of) that new mothers receive rather than the advertising...?

If these infant formulas were actually bad for baby and caused harm... then they wouldn't be allowed to be produced never mind advertised.

Adverts are allowed for everything else under the sun claiming to be healthy such as high sugar cereals, breakfast bars and alcohol!!!... but adverts aren't allowed when it comes to offering choice or advice on formula milk!!!

So why is it illegal to advertise formula?

I just don't get why people are so up in arms about a very small picture in a publication.

The law exists because of pressure groups who don't feel that people should be allowed to make their own choices.

The problem with this law is that it prevents the balanced info that you claim you want parents to have. 

Let me make it clear. The law exists to protect mothers and young babies, whether breastfeeding or artificial feeding. We know (and by we, I mean that it is common knowledge) that breastfeeding is the normal way to feed human infants, and we know, thanks to an ever-expanding wealth of scientific research, that not doing so carries a host of increased health risks for both babies and their mothers. Yes, even in the UK. It seems logical then that the marketing of breastmilk substitutes for infants, which are artificially-fed babies' sole source of nutrition, should be subject to checks and controls.

It's also clear, from even the most cursory look at the advertising practices of the formula manufacturers, that they will go to great lengths to promote their products, often making pseudo-scientific claims that do not stand up to scrutiny (cases have been brought against them, and won), adding ingredients of unproven benefit and cynically targeting health care professionals when they are denied direct access to parents. Baby Milk Action, and the UK Baby Feeding Law Group, monitor the activities of the various formula companies: you can find a great deal of further reading on their websites (my most-read post ever is about this topic too, here.) It seems obvious that companies aiming to maximise their profits are not best placed to offer objective information about formula feeding.

The above has been known for some time, and is recognised worldwide. Hence WHO (the World Health Organisation) created the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes, adopted in 1981, the aim of which is to:

...contribute to the provision of safe and adequate nutrition for infants, by the protection and promotion of breast-feeding, and by ensuring the proper use of breast-milk substitutes, when these are necessary, on the basis of adequate information and through appropriate marketing and distribution.

Can anyone find anything there to disagree with? It sounds perfectly sensible. In 2003, WHO and UNICEF, as part of a global strategy for infant and young child feeding, called for governments to 'review progress in national implementation of the Code, and consider new legislation or additional measures as needed to protect families from adverse commercial influences.' Unfortunately, in the UK we have still only partially implemented the WHO Code, which, as Emma Pickett IBCLC, co-chair of the ABM, explains:

...could be argued to have done more harm than good. It has led directly to the 'invention' of follow-on formula, which is not subject to the same advertising controls as first-stage formula. In countries that have fully implemented the Code, there is no follow-on formula at all - if it really were a distinct and medically necessary product, as the manufacturers would have UK parents believe, surely it would be available worldwide? Here in the UK we have evidence from the Diet and Nutrition Survey that 32% of parents have given follow-on formula before six months: proof, if any more were needed, that advertising really works.

She also describes a situation that breastfeeding supporters everywhere will recognise:

You meet mothers every day who use formula alongside breastfeeding and end exclusive breastfeeding because the messages they receive from advertising are far more powerful than the information they are drily given about the benefits of exclusive breastfeeding. The TV adverts stick in the mind long after someone mumbling something about gut flora and allergy prevention.

It's grimly ironic that those parents complaining about the law against advertising first-stage formula are the very same parents that are being ripped off, both financially and through misinformation, by the formula manufacturers. Rough calculations (companies won't reveal their figures) suggest that of an annual spend by parents of £436.54 on Aptamil powdered formula, for example, between £231 and £349 goes on marketing and profit. Still think the companies are acting in the best interests of consumers?

As for where parents should go for better information, UNICEF, First Steps Nutrition, Which? and others all have guides to artificial feeding for those who need them, freely available on the internet.

But there's even more to it than this. Want to see how deep the rabbit-hole goes? In this post on the Alpha Parent James Akre describes our culture of acceptance of formula feeding thus (my italics):

Given the mass of compelling scientific and epidemiological evidence about the harm caused by routine artificial feeding, it’s hardly farfetched to qualify as collective delusion the unquestioned faith that the general public and health professionals alike in many settings continue to place in infant formula...

...Infant formula will sustain life in a pinch, and thank goodness this is so. But as I describe elsewhere, from a nutritional and developmental standpoint, most people do not understand just how hugely inferior it is to breast milk...The idealized view of normalized infant formula feeding that manufacturers are so adept at portraying – and, regrettably, so many consumers, health professionals and politicians are inclined to accept – doesn’t allow for even a hint of this disenchanting reality.

Given all the evidence, why do you think we haven't fully implemented the Code in the UK? And why don't we make more use of the laws we have? Don't be fooled into thinking that the reasons have anything to do with any doubts about the benefits, in terms of public health, of doing so. It's an uncomfortable truth that we cannot rely on governments to act as they should, even in the face of overwhelming evidence and firm guidance from WHO (which has no power to compel countries to implement the Code). The pressure, on governments and other organisations, from vested interests within the baby food industry and elsewhere, is immense: the power of corporations, at the highest levels of politics and policy-making, cannot be dismissed as conspiracy theory. When so much profit is at stake, the interested parties will do all they can to exert an influence. This month a letter appeared in the Journal of the World Public Health Nutrition Association about conflicts of interest in the area of infant nutrition:

...concerned with the equally deep penetration of the transnationals and their associated or supportive organisations, into the scientific community, into nutrition policy-making at the highest level, and into public health programmes that affect the health and lives of hundreds of millions of people.
We see this largely as a consequence of the failure of elected governments to fulfil their first duty, which is to govern. We also feel that some policy-makers and many scientists, including those working at the highest level, underestimate or overlook the consequences of their own actions.
The influence of Big Food can be subtle, and may, in the opinion of reasonable people, be seen to affect the judgement of public policy agenda-setters who act in good faith and whose personal integrity is not at issue. We are not questioning the motives of any of the people mentioned in this letter. We are though, deeply concerned about the possible effects of their activities.

Our specific situation in the UK is part of a global issue that has far-reaching implications for mothers and babies. Just today Baby Milk Action posted this press release on their website about formula companies bribing hospitals in China - yes, those same formula companies that advertise and sell products in the UK.

I've covered a lot of ground: from a tiny image of first-stage formula in an Ocado magazine, to global politics, nutrition policy and economics, in one helter-skelter ride. And really, this is still only scratching the surface. I just hope I have gone some way towards showing how that one little article is part of a much bigger picture that should concern us all.