Why shouldn't formula companies sponsor training events for health workers?

An event is taking place in Manchester tomorrow - billed as a Journal of Family Health Care 'free conference bringing together health and social care professionals - designed to improve outcomes for mothers, babies and children.' Among the exhibitors are Nestle, HiPP Organic, and Danone Nutricia Early Life Nutrition; Nestle Nutrition UKs Head of Medical and Scientific Affairs, Dr Liz Greenstreet, is giving a presentation about 'optimal growth and feeding issues in the first 1000 days'. Other similar events take place regularly in the UK and elsewhere.

As a volunteer for and member of several impoverished organisations, I can understand how tempting it is to snap up funding that is on offer to make it easier to arrange events and training. It can be hard to see where the harm is; a sponsor pays for an expert speaker, the topic is not related to infant feeding, the sponsor may not even directly promote their products at the event. The sponsor is not the 'brand' itself, but their 'Nutrition Foundation', or educational or charitable arm, which has been set up, apparently, with the aim of providing high-quality education for health professionals. We all know that our NHS is underfunded and under threat. Why not use some money from private companies to fill in some of the gaps? Health workers work hard - long hours, modest pay and benefits. Who doesn't love a free lunch and a day out at a study day or conference? It's a welcome break from the stresses of working in a creaking organisation. The trouble is that there really is no such thing as that free lunch.

To understand the problems, we need to start by understanding the market for formula and baby food (for the purposes of this post I'm talking about the UK, but similar situations exist in many countries).

- the market for infant formula depends for its existence on women who do not or cannot breastfeed. When breastfeeding rates increase due to effective initiatives and good support, the market for formula milk decreases. More breastfeeding means fewer profits for the formula companies; it's a direct relationship.

- the formula companies are no different from most other companies - they exist to make money for their shareholders. To fulfil their duties to their shareholders they must maximise profits. This means that they must design marketing and sales strategies that aim to increase the market, and their share of that market. Job advertisements for posts at formula companies show this explicitly. (More on this, from Baby Milk Action, here.) Much like the energy companies that fight to drill for oil - although we know that burning the oil they produce will contribute to catastrophic climate change - formula companies must aggressively promote a product that is known to carry health risks in order to satisfy the demands of investors.

- formula companies are regulated by laws in many countries. The International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (and subsequent Resolutions), drafted by the World Health Organisation and adopted at the World Health Assembly by nearly every country in the world, forms the basis for the law; in the UK our laws do not fully implement the Code but they do restrict the marketing and promotion of first infant formula. Because they are limited by the law, companies must continually try to find new ways to market their products that get around the restrictions. Since they cannot market directly to mothers, they must target those who have contact with them - health workers. (Follow-on milk - an unnecessary product - was invented to get around these restrictions too. In countries where all formula advertising is restricted, follow-on milk does not exist.)

- formula companies are regulated because breastfeeding is the normal way to feed babies, and formula feeding carries known health risks for mothers and babies. Formula milk may be an infant's sole source of nutrition and must be suitable and nutritionally adequate (though it is not, and can never be, close or similar to breastmilk) so there are strict regulations about its composition. This means that the differences between products are very small, and often claimed differences do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. What really matters to companies is 'brand awareness'. What can they do to ensure that the buyer of formula, whoever that is, chooses one brand and not another? One answer is to get that brand, or information about it, on to materials that will be seen by their target market (which is hard, because they are restricted from marketing directly to mothers), or those that advise them - midwives, doctors, health visitors, community nurses and so on.

You might think that health workers should be immune to the effects of marketing - surely they know all this, and can make their own informed decisions? In fact research shows that none of us are immune to marketing. The effects of even small, trivial gifts such as pens and notepads have been shown to cause the recipient to feel good about the giver. Larger gifts, such as free study days (which delegates might otherwise have to pay for themselves, or apply to their employers for the money) have a greater effect. The speaker paid by the sponsor feels good about the sponsor too. Might that influence the content of what they say? It certainly suits a formula company to have both health workers and experts feeling good about their name or brand. When a health worker who attends a study day goes back to the office and tells colleagues about the event, might they mention the sponsor by name? Or show others the programme for the day that carries the sponsor's logo? It's only a short step from here to saying to a new mother, 'Well we're not supposed to give advice, but xxx is meant to be good'. (Hands up if you work in breastfeeding and have heard that one before?)

To sum up, sponsoring an event may benefit the sponsor in many ways:

- goodwill from the participants/organisers
- promotion of the name/logo/brand - on advertising for the event and materials given out
- networking opportunities for staff from the sponsor organisation who may attend the event
- product promotion (some events allow product promotion/stands by sponsors)
- the chance to obtain personal/workplace contact details from participants

Given the above, I think it's clear that formula companies should not be sponsoring training - any training, not just in breastfeeding - for health workers, and that organisations should have policies in place to avoid conflicts of interest.

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.