Labels which undermine breastfeeding
Article 9.2 of the International Code requires infant formula labels to be in the appropriate language and to include specified text warning that breastfeeding is best for babies and that the products should only be used on the advice of a health professional. In addition there should be no pictures or text which might idealize the use of infant formula.
Article 9.1 says that labels of all breastmilk substitutes should not discourage breastfeeding.
|
Idealizing messages such as this from Wyeth are widespread. It claims its SMA formula is “Now even closer to breastmilk” in the UK. In Tanzania its S-26 claims it is "closer to human milk in its nutritional values when compared to other formulas..." (Breaking the Rules 2004). |
Supplementing breastfeeding interferes with lactation and makes an early end to breastfeeding more likely. Labels sometimes encourage exactly this. For example, NUMICOs Nutricia Bebelac 1 in Costa Rica claims it is for "when breastfeeding is not possible or is insufficient." In Finland Nestle Nan claims that it "can be used from birth as an addition to breastmilk or to substitute it" (Breaking the Rules 2004).
|
Companies have increasingly made health claims for their products and added ingredients such as long-chain fatty acids which are claimed to benefit intelligence and prebiotics which are claimed to help prevent infection. For example, NUMICO Cow & Gate advertising in the UK claims: “Prebiotics support your babys natural defences (even against bugs)”.
|
|
In 2005 the World Health Assembly called for action: "to ensure that nutrition and health claims
are not permitted for breastmilk substitutes, except where specifically provided for in national legislation" (Resolution 58.32). IBFAN has called for a complete ban on health claims on the basis
that if an ingredient is genuinely required for the health of infants then it should be required
in all formulas.
|
