FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Corporate Greed or Healthy Babies?

by ROBERT WEISSMAN

Fact Number One: Exclusive breastfeeding for at least six months is best for infants and new mothers.

Fact Number Two: Hospital giveaways of infant formula samples to new mothers reduce the amount and length of breastfeeding.

Given these two facts, why would hospitals serve as marketing agents for infant formula companies by giving away free samples of infant formula? Why do the formula companies — Nestle, Abbott and Mead Johnson — think they can get away with practices that undermine public health?

The first of these two questions is more mystifying. There is unanimity among health professionals on the key importance of breastfeeding. Many hospitals that encourage breastfeeding by new mothers simultaneously subvert their own health messaging by giving away formula samples, as well as discount coupons and other formula advertising.

If hospitals started out with the simple proposition that they shouldn’t be marketing commercial products, the infant formula giveaway problem wouldn’t exist. In the absence of a commercial-free hospital culture, hospitals take on a duty to be very self-conscious about the ways that they market or tout commercial products. When it comes to infant formula, most are failing to fulfill this duty.

The good news is that hospitals can be persuaded to do better. A Centers for Disease Control study finds that in 2009, 34.9 percent of hospitals had stopped distributing infant formula samples, up from 27.4 percent in 2007. The change follows advocacy campaigns from groups like the Boston-based Ban the Bags campaign and a stronger push for breastfeeding support from national public health agencies.

Now a new initiative by Public Citizen and more than 100 health and consumer organizations aims to up the pressure. The groups have sent letters to 2600 hospitals urging them to end giveaways, and more advocacy will follow. There’s just no excuse for hospitals to market infant formula.

Despite recent gains, American society is not sufficiently supportive of breastfeeding, and the everyday realities of many new mothers’ lives make exclusive breastfeeding very challenging. Giveaways of free samples directly undercut hospital efforts to support breastfeeding and sends exactly the wrong message to new mothers.

Mitzi Rose, a new mother from Rochester, New York, explains the issue perfectly: “By the time I had my second child, I was adamantly determined to breastfeed. I was not influenced to purchase formula by the bags, but I do see how the presence of a “sample” of formula can be appealing to an exhausted and discouraged new mom. I could understand how a mother could feel driven to try it as just another way to appease a baby. The act of a hospital handing a new mom a sample of formula is the same as the hospital telling the mom that she can’t breastfeed exclusively, or that she shouldn’t breastfeed exclusively. The choice of formula, if it is necessary, should be made in consultation with a baby’s pediatrician, not determined by a contract with a formula company.”

One possible explanation for the persistence of hospital formula giveaways is the power of “free.” But the samples aren’t really free. Not only do they undermine a healthier means of nourishing infants — breastfeeding — they end up costing new parents in strictly monetary terms. Using formula is expensive. Samples are costly even for formula-feeding parents. Mothers who receive a particular brand in the hospital are likely to stick with it, costing them up to $700 extra per year as against cheaper alternative brands.

Now as to that second question — why do the infant formula makers think it’s OK to pursue unhealthy practices? — the answer is more straightforward: They are looking for profits, and they’ll do what they can get away with.

This is an industry with a record of employing horribly aggressive and deceptive marketing practices in poor countries — where breastfeeding is even more important than rich countries, because formula may be mixed with contaminated water, and because the economic costs of formula can overwhelm family budgets (or where mothers may use nutritionally inadequate amounts of powder, because they can’t afford enough). The infant formula companies still violate the terms of the World Health Organization’s formula marketing guidelines, but abuses are less severe than they once were, thanks to global campaigning by groups like the International Baby Food Action Network.

The World Health Organization guidelines plainly forbid giveaways of infant formula, but the companies have taken the view that the rules don’t apply in rich countries.

So, a last question: Are we going to let the formula makers get away with dangerous marketing practices that harm babies?

Sign the Public Citizen petition to tell formula makers to stop using hospitals as marketing tools, and stop endangering moms and babies with their quest for profits: http://action.citizen.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=10062.

Robert Weissman is president of Public Citizen

ROBERT WEISSMAN is president of Public Citizen.

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
April 28, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Slandering Populism: a Chilling Media Habit
Andrew Levine
Why I Fear and Loathe Trump Even More Now Than On Election Day
Jeffrey St. Clair
Mountain of Tears: the Vanishing Glaciers of the Pacific Northwest
Philippe Marlière
The Neoliberal or the Fascist? What Should French Progressives Do?
Conn Hallinan
America’s New Nuclear Missile Endangers the World
Peter Linebaugh
Omnia Sunt Communia: May Day 2017
Vijay Prashad
Reckless in the White House
Brian Cloughley
Who Benefits From Prolonged Warfare?
Kathy Kelly
The Shame of Killing Innocent People
Ron Jacobs
Hate Speech as Free Speech: How Does That Work, Exactly?
Andre Vltchek
Middle Eastern Surgeon Speaks About “Ecology of War”
Matt Rubenstein
Which Witch Hunt? Liberal Disanalogies
Sami Awad - Yoav Litvin - Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb
Never Give Up: Nonviolent Civilian Resistance, Healing and Active Hope in the Holyland
Pete Dolack
Tribunal Finds Monsanto an Abuser of Human Rights and Environment
Christopher Ketcham
The Coyote Hunt
Mike Whitney
Putin’s New World Order
Ramzy Baroud
Palestinian, Jewish Voices Must Jointly Challenge Israel’s Past
Ralph Nader
Trump’s 100 Days of Rage and Rapacity
Harvey Wasserman
Marine Le Pen Is a Fascist—Not a ‘Right-Wing Populist,’ Which Is a Contradiction in Terms
William Hawes
World War Whatever
John Stanton
War With North Korea: No Joke
Jim Goodman
NAFTA Needs to be Replaced, Not Renegotiated
Murray Dobbin
What is the Antidote to Trumpism?
Louis Proyect
Left Power in an Age of Capitalist Decay
Medea Benjamin
Women Beware: Saudi Arabia Charged with Shaping Global Standards for Women’s Equality
Rev. William Alberts
Selling Spiritual Care
Peter Lee
Invasion of the Pretty People, Kamala Harris Edition
Cal Winslow
A Special Obscenity: “Guernica” Today
Binoy Kampmark
Turkey’s Kurdish Agenda
Guillermo R. Gil
The Senator Visits Río Piedras
Jeff Mackler
Mumia Abu-Jamal Fights for a New Trial and Freedom 
Cesar Chelala
The Responsibility of Rich Countries in Yemen’s Crisis
Leslie Watson Malachi
Women’s Health is on the Chopping Block, Again
Basav Sen
The Coal Industry is a Job Killer
Judith Bello
Rojava, a Popular Imperial Project
Robert Koehler
A Public Plan for Peace
Sam Pizzigati
The Insider Who Blew the Whistle on Corporate Greed
Nyla Ali Khan
There Has to be a Way Out of the Labyrinth
Michael J. Sainato
Trump Scales Back Antiquities Act, Which Helped to Create National Parks
Stu Harrison
Under Duterte, Filipino Youth Struggle for Real Change
Martin Billheimer
Balm for Goat’s Milk
Stephen Martin
Spooky Cookies and Algorithmic Steps Dystopian
Michael Doliner
Thank You Note
Charles R. Larson
Review: Gregor Hens’ “Nicotine”
David Yearsley
Handel’s Executioner
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail