Wednesday
Aug112010
Brands, breastfeeding, formula feeding, and parenting advice: Stride Rite / Robeez
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
I've written before about how bloggers should be careful what brands they align themselves with. You probably all remember the Nestle Family affair and may remember my post about brand-supported "charitable" twitter parties. The Striderite / Robeez private party that was held at the same time as BlogHer '10 (but not associated with BlogHer in anyway) is a great example of why brands also need to be careful about which brands they associate themselves with.
According to an e-mail I received from Mandy Murphy, the Account Director for Stride Rite (links added by me):
I think it is great that Stride Rite wanted to host a party to rebrand Robeez. I think it is wonderful that they are committed to offering a progression of shoes. I think it is smart of them to use social media and events like this to tell people, especially infuential mom bloggers, about their shoes.
Where I think they get into questionable territory is when they start associating themselves with other brands or with topics that are outside of their area of expertise.
In this case, Stride Rite had the mom bloggers it was working with put together a gift bag and although Stride Rite didn't choose the contents of that bag, it was aware of them, and the bag included samples of infant formula (I'll write more about this below) and other baby related products. If these products are handed out at a Stride Rite event, it is perceived (rightfully) as an endorsement of those products/brands by Stride Rite, especially when Stride Rite is not even being paid for the inclusion of those items.
But when this issue came up, I also started looking a little bit closer at the twitter accounts for Stride Rite and Robeez and noticed that they aren't always talking about their shoes. They are also, among other things, re-tweeting links to blog posts that dole out parenting advice. For some businesses, I think this makes sense. If you have a cloth diapering store, it makes sense to link to articles on cloth diapering. If you sell strollers, linking to an article on how to pick a stroller might make sense. But if you sell shoes, should you really be endorsing articles on, for example, infant sleep?
Infant sleep, like infant feeding, is a sensitive topic. Just as it isn't really a shoe company's place to endorse infant formula, it also isn't really their place to be endorsing an article that says you need to put your child in a crib and that if your infant starts crying you should wait a few minutes to see if he quiets down by himself. While this advice may be what some parents follow, it certainly isn't my cup of tea and I don't appreciate that advice being endorsed by a shoe company. I'm not saying that they should endorse my sleep recommendations either, I just think that they should stay out of the business of sleep altogether and stick to topics specifically related to their product, like feet and walking, unless they want to alienate parts of their audience.
I have been both pleased and disappointed with the responses I've received from people who were involved in the Stride Rite party.
I was disappointed in the Stride Rite response. As I quoted above, although they expressed regret that they may have "offended" someone with the formula samples, that really isn't the issue. They mentioned supporting a mother's right to choose, but as Amber from Birth Routes points out in her post, providing formula samples does not support a mother's right to choose. Instead, these samples have been shown to sabotage mother's breastfeeding relationship because they reach to them in times of weakness. Just like people trying to quit smoking should not carry cigarettes in their purse and people trying to lose weight should not stock their cupboards with junk food, moms who are trying to breastfeed successfully should keep formula samples out of their home. But they don't always know that. They take them, "just in case", and then they reach for them. They reach for them because they are crying and frustrated due to sore nipples, a baby that wants to nurse all the time, or a lack of sleep. They reach for them because their partner, their parents, their in-laws or others want a turn feeding the baby. They reach for them because "one bottle won't hurt", but it can and it does.
I was pleased with the response from Audrey McLelland from Mom Generations, the blogger who was responsible for putting the formula samples into the gift bags, in her post called Understanding the WHO Code. Audrey wrote:
In her post, Audrey also promised that she will never include formula and/or bottles in any gift bags in the future. I know that she has also been working today on blocking the URLs of major formula companies from her Google ads so that their advertisements do not show up on her site (this may take some time to take effect though as I am still seeing an Enfamil ad next to her post). I see this as a success. Someone who was previously unaware of these issues and that does a lot of work in this space is now educated and has made a promise not to do it again. She has also written about it on her blog, thereby informing a lot of people who were previously unaware of these issues.
Unfortunately, not all of Audrey's readers understood the issue and I know that it is not always easy to understand when first presented with it. The WHO International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes is a document prepared by a major international public health body and endorsed by hundreds of countries around the world, many of which have turned it into law. It isn't just a radical or novel idea among some breastfeeding advocates. Formula companies are extremely aggressive in their marketing tactics, very smart sometimes and very stupid other times, and moms deserve protection from that. Breastfeeding moms deserve protection from having their breastfeeding relationship sabotaged and formula feeding moms deserve protection from artificially high prices driven by expensive, aggressive, and off-target marketing.
I was pleased to see that Danielle Friedland wrote a comment on Audrey's blog and a post on her own blog about how the WHO Code for Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes Expands Choice, Not Limits. She carefully explained each of the following points (go read the explanation in her post):
If you're reading this and are new to these issues you might be wondering what the WHO Code is anyway. As I wrote in my post on how to report unethical promotion of formula, bottles and other breastmilk substitutes, the Code restricts marketing and related practices for infant formula, any complementary food marketed for babies under 6 months, baby bottles, nipples, pacifiers and other similar products. Some of the provisions of the WHO Code include:
Best for Babes, an organization that seeks to give breastfeeding a makeover, support moms in making an informed feeding choice, and beat the "booby traps" that prevent mothers from meeting their own personal breastfeeding goals, is trying to increase awareness of the WHO Code through their new ad campaign. According to their press release:
I would love to see more infant product companies, like Robeez/Striderite, and like Motherhood Maternity, jump on board and adopt the WHO Code to show that they truly do support a mother's right to make an informed choice about how to feed her infant and her right to not have that choice undermined.
My baby thought breastfeeding and Robeez booties went well together.
Beyond shoes?
According to an e-mail I received from Mandy Murphy, the Account Director for Stride Rite (links added by me):
Stride Rite Children’s Group partnered with Audrey McClelland of Mom Generations and Vera Sweeney of Lady and the Blog to celebrate the re-branding of Robeez by stride rite by hosting a party in New York City on August 7, 2010.
We sincerely apologize to anyone that we offended by offering formula samples in our gift bags - this was not our intention. The gift bag items were donated to us to give to the moms attending and included a variety of baby items. We appreciate all of our customers’ feedback and respect a mother's right to choose the best options for their family.
As always, Stride Rite Children’s Group is committed to offering a progression of shoes for every special moment and developmental step, from crawling to first steps and beyond with the stride rite fit, quality, and commitment that moms have come to trust.
I think it is great that Stride Rite wanted to host a party to rebrand Robeez. I think it is wonderful that they are committed to offering a progression of shoes. I think it is smart of them to use social media and events like this to tell people, especially infuential mom bloggers, about their shoes.
Where I think they get into questionable territory is when they start associating themselves with other brands or with topics that are outside of their area of expertise.
In this case, Stride Rite had the mom bloggers it was working with put together a gift bag and although Stride Rite didn't choose the contents of that bag, it was aware of them, and the bag included samples of infant formula (I'll write more about this below) and other baby related products. If these products are handed out at a Stride Rite event, it is perceived (rightfully) as an endorsement of those products/brands by Stride Rite, especially when Stride Rite is not even being paid for the inclusion of those items.
But when this issue came up, I also started looking a little bit closer at the twitter accounts for Stride Rite and Robeez and noticed that they aren't always talking about their shoes. They are also, among other things, re-tweeting links to blog posts that dole out parenting advice. For some businesses, I think this makes sense. If you have a cloth diapering store, it makes sense to link to articles on cloth diapering. If you sell strollers, linking to an article on how to pick a stroller might make sense. But if you sell shoes, should you really be endorsing articles on, for example, infant sleep?
Infant sleep, like infant feeding, is a sensitive topic. Just as it isn't really a shoe company's place to endorse infant formula, it also isn't really their place to be endorsing an article that says you need to put your child in a crib and that if your infant starts crying you should wait a few minutes to see if he quiets down by himself. While this advice may be what some parents follow, it certainly isn't my cup of tea and I don't appreciate that advice being endorsed by a shoe company. I'm not saying that they should endorse my sleep recommendations either, I just think that they should stay out of the business of sleep altogether and stick to topics specifically related to their product, like feet and walking, unless they want to alienate parts of their audience.
Formula samples do not promote choice
I have been both pleased and disappointed with the responses I've received from people who were involved in the Stride Rite party.
I was disappointed in the Stride Rite response. As I quoted above, although they expressed regret that they may have "offended" someone with the formula samples, that really isn't the issue. They mentioned supporting a mother's right to choose, but as Amber from Birth Routes points out in her post, providing formula samples does not support a mother's right to choose. Instead, these samples have been shown to sabotage mother's breastfeeding relationship because they reach to them in times of weakness. Just like people trying to quit smoking should not carry cigarettes in their purse and people trying to lose weight should not stock their cupboards with junk food, moms who are trying to breastfeed successfully should keep formula samples out of their home. But they don't always know that. They take them, "just in case", and then they reach for them. They reach for them because they are crying and frustrated due to sore nipples, a baby that wants to nurse all the time, or a lack of sleep. They reach for them because their partner, their parents, their in-laws or others want a turn feeding the baby. They reach for them because "one bottle won't hurt", but it can and it does.
I was pleased with the response from Audrey McLelland from Mom Generations, the blogger who was responsible for putting the formula samples into the gift bags, in her post called Understanding the WHO Code. Audrey wrote:
With the items that were included in the bag was a sample package of Parent’s Choice Formula. I do want to make it clear that I was not paid to include it. I was, at the time, unaware of the WHO code and I want to publicly apologize to anyone who was offended, hurt or felt slighted by my allowing the formula in the swag bags. I never meant to upset anyone, that I promise from the bottom of my heart. I spent the afternoon educating myself on the WHO code via PhD in Parenting’s post and in chatting with some friends who are very educated on this topic. I am very appreciative to the women with whom I spoke this afternoon as they took the time to speak with me at length, openly and candidly. I am much more informed now and feel very armed with powerful knowledge.
In her post, Audrey also promised that she will never include formula and/or bottles in any gift bags in the future. I know that she has also been working today on blocking the URLs of major formula companies from her Google ads so that their advertisements do not show up on her site (this may take some time to take effect though as I am still seeing an Enfamil ad next to her post). I see this as a success. Someone who was previously unaware of these issues and that does a lot of work in this space is now educated and has made a promise not to do it again. She has also written about it on her blog, thereby informing a lot of people who were previously unaware of these issues.
Unfortunately, not all of Audrey's readers understood the issue and I know that it is not always easy to understand when first presented with it. The WHO International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes is a document prepared by a major international public health body and endorsed by hundreds of countries around the world, many of which have turned it into law. It isn't just a radical or novel idea among some breastfeeding advocates. Formula companies are extremely aggressive in their marketing tactics, very smart sometimes and very stupid other times, and moms deserve protection from that. Breastfeeding moms deserve protection from having their breastfeeding relationship sabotaged and formula feeding moms deserve protection from artificially high prices driven by expensive, aggressive, and off-target marketing.
I was pleased to see that Danielle Friedland wrote a comment on Audrey's blog and a post on her own blog about how the WHO Code for Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes Expands Choice, Not Limits. She carefully explained each of the following points (go read the explanation in her post):
- The WHO Code is not about limiting choices, it's about expanding them.
- Supporting breastfeeding is something the US government and culture gives a lot of lip service to, but does little to actually help out with.
- So the WHO Code is about protecting your choice in what to feed; it's not about eliminating formula.
- The return on investment is very high for formula samples and the markup is very high to make up for this.
- The WHO Code is also about not marketing formula in an inaccurate way.
- I am wholly sympathetic and empathetic to any woman who wants to breastfeed but is unable to.
What is this WHO Code anyway?
If you're reading this and are new to these issues you might be wondering what the WHO Code is anyway. As I wrote in my post on how to report unethical promotion of formula, bottles and other breastmilk substitutes, the Code restricts marketing and related practices for infant formula, any complementary food marketed for babies under 6 months, baby bottles, nipples, pacifiers and other similar products. Some of the provisions of the WHO Code include:
- No advertising to the public of any product within the scope of the Code. This includes ads in any media–print, websites, TV, radio. It also includes in-store promotions, special displays, coupons and discounts (lowering the price of formula is allowed, but promoting a sale price or offering a coupon is not).
- No free samples to mothers. Cans of formula or gifts from formula or bottle manufacturers sent to homes, given to mothers by pediatric or obstetric offices, given to mothers when they leave the hospital, given as prizes or in contests, given at clinics or anywhere in the healthcare system.
- No promotion of products through healthcare systems. Booklets, leaflets, posters,name badge holders, crib cards, tape measures, calendars, etc.
- No gifts to healthcare providers. Anything from formula companies or feeding bottle manufacturers that are given to physicians, nurses, dietitians.
- No words or pictures idealizing artificial feeding or pictures of infants on labels of formula cans, feeding bottles, etc. Packaging of these products should not have idealizing language or pictures of infants and mothers. Idealizing language means that claims are made such as “most like mother herself” or claims that the products are similar to breastmilk or breastfeeding.
Best for Babes, an organization that seeks to give breastfeeding a makeover, support moms in making an informed feeding choice, and beat the "booby traps" that prevent mothers from meeting their own personal breastfeeding goals, is trying to increase awareness of the WHO Code through their new ad campaign. According to their press release:
"Most parents don't know that the WHO-Code was created to protect parent's right to make an informed feeding decision at one of the most vulnerable and precious times of their lives--the birth of a child, explains Marsha Walker, RN, IBCLC and a leading expert on WHO-Code compliance. "The aggressive marketing of artificial human milk substitutes has been shown to undermine breastfeeding intention and success, and parents should be careful about where they turn for breastfeeding support." The ad also acknowledges breastfeeding industry companies such as Evenflo, Numom Nutrition, 60 Second Parent, Pumpease, My Baby Experts, Earth Mama Angel Baby, My Milkies, and Be Nice that are WHO-Code compliant and support Best for Babes' mission to beat the "Booby Traps” and change the cultural perception of breastfeeding.
I would love to see more infant product companies, like Robeez/Striderite, and like Motherhood Maternity, jump on board and adopt the WHO Code to show that they truly do support a mother's right to make an informed choice about how to feed her infant and her right to not have that choice undermined.
My baby thought breastfeeding and Robeez booties went well together.
Reader Comments (58)
Thanks for putting this post together. You always say things better than I ever can. I was trying to explain the issue to my partner this morning and he got that it makes no sense for a shoe company to give out formula samples, but couldn't get his head around the WHO code -- mostly b/c I was explaining it very, very poorly. I'm going to send him this link now... it'll save me a lot of effort in trying to explain it again over dinner tonight :)
Very well said, and proof to me that there's always something new to think about. In all my years as a breastfeeding advocate and Nestle boycotter, it had never occurred to me that formula marketing/samples are bad for families who choose to formula-feed, too. Nobody wins but the formula companies.
What would happen if women everywhere - regardless of their infant feeding choices - understood this, got together, and refused to take it any more?
Can I ask a question, though, and not have it taken as being beligerent?
Would you have a problem if these companies were passing out breast pads in their goodie bags? Or linking to your own site on their Twitter accounts? I'm not assuming that you'd say no in either case, because I think you're pretty awesome when it comes to sticking to your belief system, and I respect that a lot. But I feel like many people, who would agree with you on the points you made in your post above, wouldn't even blink if they saw, say, a baby sling company promoting breast pumps, or linking to an article about attachment parenting on their Twitter page. I know this has nothing to do with WHO code (that's a completely different issue), which is why I'm curious about it. I think the problem you might fall into it you stray from simply insisting baby-oriented companies comply with WHO code, is that it veers into censorship. What if someone is offended by free samples of prenatal vitamins (some believe these are a clever marketing ploy and unnecessary)? Disposable diapers? Baby food which contains non-organic ingredients? I'm vegetarian; what if they hand out free samples of DHA supplements? That would bother me.
I'm not saying you don't have a right to be annoyed by the free formula samples, or urge them to apologize and rethink their actions. But I think we all need to be careful about remembering that it's impossible to be completely neutral, to not offend ANYONE, in this age of new media. Any company with a Twitter or Facebook account is bound to encounter this problem, so I think we either need to say that there should be a complete neutrality in all companies' cross marketing/social media efforts (which is why, incidentally, that I don't accept ANY ads on my blog. Yeah, it would be nice to make money, but there's no way to ensure that the companies advertising wouldn't offend at least one of my readers, and regardless, I just think it blurs the lines a bit too much), or accept that sometimes companies will align themselves with people/things/products that offend us. We can always choose to just not buy those products, but I don't see the need to make public spectacles of them, as well.
Oh and one more thing - guys, I totally get the reasoning behind why formula freebies aren't good for formula feeding families, but I have to tell you, those free samples REALLY helped us when we had to switch to formula. The price tag of the formula, if we'd had to purchase it rather than using the 2 weeks worth of freebies we got, would have been enough to push me over the edge - as if I wasn't stressed and disappointed enough about not being able to breastfeed. Just sayin'. I think we need to ask the formula feeding moms what they think about this - it might be difficult for a breastfeeding mom to understand. I wouldn't dream of telling one of my breastfeeding moms what would have helped her feel more comfortable feeding in public, because I haven't been there.
FFF, the reason formula is so expensive is because they send new moms unsolicited samples! If they didn't market their product so hardcore, they could cut the price at least in half without losing money per unit.
Fearless Formula Feeder:
I've never found you to be belligerent. Those are very good questions.
To me, there are two issues:
1) I think that it is unethical to promote products that fall within the WHO Code.
2) Outside of that, it is more of an issue of protecting your brand. I don't have a problem with companies linking to whatever articles they want to or promoting baby products, but I think it would be smart of them to consider how that might impact their brand. Since there are an awful lot of Ferber families out there, I don't think it would be good business for a company that is trying to reach the mass market to link to my post with 10 reasons why we didn't let our babies cry it out. However, a company that does believe strongly in what I wrote on that topic and that is willing to stand by their ideals even if it means losing customers, is more than welcome to link to my content on that topic. So, if Robeez doesn't care that it might be alienating certain pockets of the parenting community, then they can go ahead and promote whatever they like. But if they do care, then maybe they should just stick to their core business.
If formula companies weren't handing out freebies left, right and centre, then they wouldn't have to charge what they are charging for formula. I also believe that formula should be covered by health insurance where medically necessary and that a greater effort needs to be made to ensure that breast milk is available to moms who cannot breastfeed. I think our whole system is screwed up right now. Formula companies give out cheap/free formula both indiscriminately to random moms and through the WIC program, so that they can hook families on to it and force them to pay the high prices later. It is ridiculous.
As always on the topic of the WHO code, you are right-on.
But I don't necessarily have a problem with a shoe company talking about infant sleep or feeding. I like it when companies align themselves with causes I agree with, and I think they have a right to that alignment. BUT, to the extent that they choose to, I have the right (and I'd argue the obligation) to judge them based on those affiliations or endorsements. So, Stride Rite supporting CIO and formula means I won't be purchasing from them again, and will be urging everyone I know to support different businesses as well. Which means that although it's their right, it's also probably a bad decision on their part.
I think you are right to urge caution and selectivity when both companies and bloggers align themselves with other companies or causes (because, as you say, if their goal is to "support a mother's right to choose" they've done exactly the wrong thing), because if they're going to lose customers over it (and they will), it better be for something they really believe in, but I don't think it's right to say that it's "not their place".
You are right. That is exactly what needs to happen, and the world would change. We are trying to create a home for everyone at Best for Babes to take action and beat the booby-traps, not moms!
Danielle,
I am aware of that argument... but I actually think that's thinking too highly of the formula companies. Sure, they COULD cut costs by not advertising/giving out freebies, but WOULD they? Somehow, I doubt it. I mean, Earth's Best (the most popular organic formula on the market) doesn't give out samples, but they sure as hell charge just as much - if not more- for their product.
I'm certainly not trying to argue against WHO code, and I honestly believe that the best possible scenario would be for samples only to be sent to those who request them. It pissed me off when I see Tweets/blog posts about breastfeeding moms being sent huge packages of formula in the mail, because a) that's not cool for them and b) it's not cool for formula feeding moms, who are struggling to pay for the stuff. If they truly wanted to hook customers and not undermine breastfeeding efforts, they should just send samples to those who have already committed to formula or supplementary feeding.
But I totally don't want to hijack PhD's post - this is kind of off topic, so I'll shut up now! :)
I was pretty sad when I heard about this WHO violation. All 3 of mine have had Robeeze, it was one of the few brands that I actively sought out because I loved them. Now, I'm not so sure anymore. Thank you for bringing it to light and spreading education all around.
I am a mother who used formula. Any business that hands out "freebies" makes up for that loss through a higher priced product, whether it's formula, diapers, or any other product. The U.S. government buys the vast majority of infant formula in this country for the Women Infant & Children program, and whenever the formula companies re-market a product so they can justify raising the price, our tax dollars pay for it. The whole DHA/ARA additive thing has been proven to be very expensive for taxpayers . . . and still has not been conclusively proven to make any difference.
I don't have a problem with companies aligning themselves with other brands or parenting advice, as long as it is generally good advice. I wouldn't mind it if Stride Rite or Robeez gave me samples for Plum Organics, or a coupon for a discount off a pricey stroller. What I don't like about ANY company, is when they help market a product that has known health risks, which infant formula does. What would you think of a company that handed out a free water bottle that was known to have BPA in it?
Arwyn:
I think it was that caution and selectivity that I was endorsing. With a mass marketed mainstream product, I think companies need to be careful when endorsing a position on any polarizing parenting issue.
This is such a great post! and the discussion is very helpful. FFF, i don't think you were hijacking or off topic at all! Arwyn as usual has terrific insight, and Bettina backs her up. I also agree wholeheartedly with phdinparenting that infant formula should be covered by health insurance. Mind you, I believe that ALL necessary medical interventions should be covered, like insulin, drugs, and required medical equipment such as leg braces. I would like to see formula handled very much like insulin is, as a medical intervention that can save lives and is sadly sometimes necessary (i know, i use insulin!) but that shouldn't be used except by those who require it. Insulin can be used incorrectly or can even be used to murder people, so even though big pharmaceutical companies could make a lot of money out of convincing people to use the stuff as a "lifestyle choice" (eat all the cake you want, guilt free!) it is safely controlled and not marketed but used only by those who require it.
I am glad to hear that Robeez and Audrey McClelland have both started to educate themselves and work to make a change. I will be using my ability to exercise informed choice as a consumer to decide whether to support these companies in future. It is very good news to hear that we are making more progress towards getting the WHO code known, understood and implemented.
What is more shameful to me than this formula debacle is that Striderite and now Robeez shoes are all made in china, and of course the Robeez price tag remains the same even though some Chinese mother is making them for pennies a day, while Striderite is able to rake in greater profits! If we are going to publicly attack these companies we cannot overlook the human rights (and price gouging) issues in favor of some blogger mother's ignorant mistake.
erinmidwife:
I don't think that manufacturing in China is necessarily always a bad thing. I don't know enough about how Stride Rite treats its employees in China to know whether to make a stink about it. If you have any info on them specifically, I would be more than happy to read it.
As a mom who breastfed all three kids for upwards of two years, I fought hard for that privilege on occasion. I fought to leave the formula samples in the hospital, fourteen years ago when my 1st was born and the nurses insisted "I may need them." At nineteen, I knew they weren't a part of my plan and was fortunate that breastfeeding came relatively easy to me.
I fought when my pediatrician told me that breast milk "Stopped having any calories at one year of age", and that I was being selfish by continuing to nurse. (Then I printed a bunch of articles, and banned her from my baby.)
So I know the WHO code is real and vital- but I also know when a cigar is just a cigar. As someone who attended the party and counts Audrey as one of her best friends, I'm so glad that this discussion is taking place in such a thoughtful manner, as opposed to brand/person bashing. Because the last thing Audrey would ever do is judge or defame any mom's choices.
It was great to meet you at the Liberty Mutual booth, and I hope your trip home went smoothly.
Rock and Roll Mama:
It was wonderful meeting you too. Bashing people is not my style. I don't think it is productive or changes anyone's mind. I don't want to hurt people, I want to change the way they see things.
When I got back to the hotel and looked in the bag and saw the formula, I was surprised and a bit disappointed but I didn't think more about it. I just took it out and put it aside.
Thanks for your posts. You always make me think more.
So my first thought was "strike StrideRite and Robeez off my shopping list". I don't really want to add up what I've spent on those two brands over the past five years, but yeah, this changes how I feel about them. (Similarly, after seeing this t-shirt at Old Navy, I won't be shopping there either: http://oldnavy.gap.com/browse/product.do?cid=53878&vid=1&pid=771696&scid=771696002).
It's most definitely ever brand's prerogative to market however they want. And mine to choose to spend my money elsewhere!
I love that comment Juliette. Spot on.
I just shared that Old Navy link on twitter and people are boggled by it.
I didn't realize women were so misinformed they could not make choices for themselves.
Stephanie:
Most women choose to breastfeed. Most women have difficulties breastfeeding. Only a small minority of women meet their own breastfeeding goals.
It is in the moments of weakness that moms turn to formula samples. Or they are given bad information that makes them doubt their own body's ability to provide for their baby. Formula companies are very good at planting doubt in women's minds.
If our society was truly supportive of breastfeeding and women had all the support in the world, then maybe this wouldn't be an issue. But it is.
I am a strong advocate of breastfeeding. I exclusively breastfed my twins for almost their entire first year and am especially supportive of movements to support and advocate the right to public breastfeeding. Where I disagree with your post and I guess the WHO code is in the advocacy against bottles. Bottles can be a huge support for working moms who want to breastfeed or for moms who want to ensure that more than one child gets breast milk at all times.
I understand the argument behind bottle with nipple confusion, etc but where does it stop? I have seen too many dirty looks given to moms who are feeding breast milk to their children from a bottle. I received a few myself. Even when if the person had looked a little closer they would have noticed me feeding the other child from the breast.
Excellent explanation. So often things go misunderstood and in this case you have sorted through the details and shared your findings. Thank you.
Kate:
The WHO Code does not advocate for the vilification of formula feeding moms or bottle feeding moms. It argues that there need to be significant limitations on how they are promoted. We live in a world where people see bottle feeding as normal and breastfeeding in public is considered obscene. Formula should be available when needed. Bottles should be available when needed. But they should not be pushed on moms.
I think my problem is that your post (to me) appears to align bottles and formula samples. When bottles are something that often contribute to people breastfeeding longer.
Kate:
My post only aligns the two in that the marketing of both bottles and formula samples are restricted by the WHO Code. I don't have a problem with bottles being available for sale. However, when they start being advertised as "nipple closest to the breast" or "will help your baby sleep at night" or "$10 off a set of 10oz bottles", then I have a problem. Those are tactics that are used to convince a mom to purchase something that she may not need and that may harm her breastfeeding relationship.
Unfortunately, that is where you and I have to agree to disagree, Bettina (even though I really admire your organization and think you guys are doing a great job). I really don't think this is the place for this particular debate, but I do not believe the research supports that formula has significant risk in America/Canada/UK/other western, affluent nations. I respect that you feel differently. But since I don't see it that way (I see breastfeeding as ideal in most situations, but formula as a perfectly adequate alternative, and a legitimate choice that should be made by every family individually, only after we've been given the right resources and education, which people like you are doing such an incredible job in providing), it's difficult for me to agree to that distinction. Still, I appreciate your POV!
I was already disappointed by the way that Stride Rite changed Robeez. Their headquarters used to be 10 miles from my house, across the street from my husband's workplace. They made all their shoes there. They were run by a local mom.
When Stride Rite took over they closed their local offices, moved production offshore, and changed their branding significantly. I think that the way that they're shifting their marketing reflects that. It's a new direction for them and they're doing new things, which is fine. But it's also fine for me to say that their new brand doesn't speak to me, and I already felt that way well before BlogHer. You can bet that this action really solidified my opinion.
There is really no one who would be expecting infant formula in a swag bag from a shoe company. It was just so completely unnecessary. We're not talking here about supporting mothers to make choices - no mother is looking to Robeez for feeding information. So why cross this line? I can't see it.
Thanks for a very smart, and informative, post. I am a first-time BF mommy, and I do not know another woman who breastfeeds. I feel very alone much of the time, and I get a lot of nasty comments and eye-rolls from the FF moms I know, so I appreciate the opportunity to read your perspective. I don't know what I'd do without my blog mommas.
Nine months after giving birth, I still have 3 formula samples that stare at me, asking what I plan to do with them. It felt so wasteful to just throw them away, but I hated the thought of donating them because I just felt like I would be promoting formula by giving them away. Your post has given me the kick in the butt I needed to just trash them.
wendy:
If you haven't already thrown them out, I would find a way to give them to a mom that you know is formula feeding. That way you are helping someone out and there is no harm done.
Please, please don't throw them out (though I admit I threw out a few; the amount companies send twin moms is ridiculous). There are so many homeless shelters and emergency shelters desperate for them. I would just avoid any kind of shelter directed at teens. The pressure on them to be "normal" (no breast feeding, no cloth diapering) is insane.
Unbelievable. This really is a kick in the gut, since half my son's wardrobe comes from ON. This makes me sad.
I just sent off the following to their customer service e-mail:
************
Today, I was shocked to discover that you offer this product through your store:
http://oldnavy.gap.com/browse/product.do?cid=53878&vid=1&pid=771696&scid=771696002)
Many people around the world are working hard to reverse the damage done to breastfeeding rates in the past century, and to reestablish nursing as the norm in our society, and products such as this that glamourize formula feeding, which is known to be less beneficial to babies/toddlers than breastfeeding, is a slap in the face.
I'm very disappointed and saddened, since I've often been happy with purchases from your store, but I will now be removing myself from your ON and GAP mailing lists and taking my business elsewhere.
I hope you will take the time to review the WHO International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes. While it may not apply directly to you as a clothing manufacturer, I think you would do well to consider the implications of what you are promoting with that unfortunate item: http://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/infantfeeding/Frequently_ask_question_Internationalcode.pdf
In particular, please note that "The Code explicitly states that 'there should be no advertising or other form of promotion to the general public'" in regards to breast-milk substitutes (page 9) and "No pictures of infants or other pictures idealizing the use of breast-milk substitutes are permitted on the labels of products." (page 10).
Good day,
Amy (Lastname)
Former Client
(Location)
************
It may not be as eloquent as some people would write, but I feel better getting that off my chest.
Bettina, if infant formula is high risk, what would you suggest as a safe alternative to a mother who can't breastfeed exclusively due to a medical issues?
I am totally flummoxed. That onesie turns me off SO MUCH I don't even know what to say. It's not even close to being funny (or cute)!
Before my sister had her son I found a can of formula in the baby's closet. When I asked her about it she couldn't even remember where it'd come from. I told her to throw it away, that she didn't understand how insidious it was to have it in her house, and that it was just plain a bad idea in the face of her breastfeeding goals.
She didn't get it then, but she gets it now, 8 months later, exhausted and having tried formula once (in desperation because she was unable to pump enough prior to a business trip) and her son had a bad reaction to it.
I got a couple in the mail, too. Just unbelievable. I also roamed the grocery store aisles looking for the "best" one when I was desperate for sleep and heard the myth about formula causing better sleep in babies. I eventually left empty handed because I couldn't pronounce any of the ingredients.
Anyway, well done post. Good to recirculate the WHO Code to everyone. I'm so proud of my WHO Compliant BlogHer ads.
Donor milk is actually the next best thing after mother's own milk. Most people are not aware of this.
I would suggest that she go through an organization such as Milk Share or contact a milk bank to receive donor milk before automatically choosing the fourth and final option for infant feeding.
The fact that formula is necessary in rare cases doesn't lower it's risk. It just makes it the lesser of two evils.
Like others have already stated though, part of the reason that formula is so expensive is because of all of the free samples that are mailed and handed out. So essentially, you (a formula feeding mom) are paying more money for the cost of your baby's food because I (a breastfeeding mom who has no need for formula) am being given samples from a company that I won't ever purchase anything from. The formula company now has to charge you more for the freebie that they gave me that I tossed in the trash.
FFF,
Earth's Best may not send unsolicited samples, but they are certainly spending money on advertising and marketing -- they were at BlogHer promoting their entire line, including the formula. They also charge as much as the other formula companies because they can get away with it. It's cache. Having a higher price implies higher quality.
Imagine a formula company did not market their product in a way that violated the WHO Code and was able to cut its per unit price in half but no others were. Imagine you're a new mom and are looking at this brand and another that hadn't cut its price, I bet you'll infer the one that costs twice the other is much better, maybe even twice as good. Especially if it has that costly but unproven synthetic DHA/ARA in it? For mothers who may be feeling guilt or regret over not breastfeeding, buying the one that costs more may make them feel better about what they're feeding their baby.
Isn't generic formula much cheaper than the brand name stuff yet people are resistant to buying it even though they're essentially the same thing? It costs less because they don't spend money on samples, marketing, etc.
Here's a semi-related correllary: My stepfather has a trucking company that specializes in cosmetics. He tells me that he picks up the department store and drugstore brands from the same factories, delivers the same raw ingredients to them too. Even though I know that L'Oreal and Lancome are made by the same company, why does Lancome (a department store brand) feel and look better to me than the L'Oreal one I grabbed on sale at Target.
Anyway, if there was no reason for formula to be sold at such a high price, the cost would come down because they need to compete. As it stands now, there's no reason for just one company to lower its prices.
In 2006, an ad campaign from the Office on Women’s Health in the Department of Health and Human Services (a federal department) equated NOT breastfeeding with smoking during pregnancy, and other risky behaviors. We wrote at the time:
"That’s interesting. Where was the Office while generations of women were being brainwashed to abandon breastfeeding for artificial formula? Where were they when, in the early 20th century (according to Wickipedia), 'The medical community supported the use of infant formula because it was promoted as being more “scientific” despite the fact that; “the mortality and morbidity (illness) rates remained much higher in infants who did not receive breastmilk'?"
I thought then, and still do now, that much, much more can and should be done by the US government to restoring the culture of breastfeeding in this country, like initiating real programs that support breastfeeding — universal healthcare that includes lactation counseling; affordable, accredited childcare; a living minimum wage and paid family leave so women can remain home long enough to establish & maintain nursing for a minimum of 3 months — and most importantly, by providing unambiguous & scientific evidence on the benefits of mother's milk.
Educate women, instead of vilifying them, as that 2006 campaign did by implying that we make the choice to bottle-feed entirely in a vacuum — rather than the inevitable result of living in a culture saturated with messages that formula feeding is the norm, reinforced by powerful multi-national companies motivated by obscene profits, from the time we are little girls playing with dolls.
Your post here, and your excellent posts on the for-profit-only policies of Nestle, does a great service is remedying the DECADES of intentional misinformation waged against breastfeeding throughout North America, and one that is exported abroad daily, creating malnutrition and economic dependence within developing and depressed countries.
Amy, Do you mind if I copy your letter or, if you would prefer, use it as a guideline for my own letter? It's much better than anything I would have written and I've been trying to think of something to say.
I was at the party and think Audrey is fabulous.
I was somewhat surprised to find the formula sample not just because of the WHO code (since the WHO code is not law in the US and I am not terribly surprised that not everyone is aware of it or the rationale behind it). I was surprised because a lot of the moms there don't have kids who are young enough to use formula.
I am glad that Audrey is open to learning more about this issue and it just reinforces the already positive opinion I had of her.
Striderite's response shows that they really do not understand the concerns. It is not about a mom being offended or about a choice. I don't think they really understand the infant feeding space and are caught a little unawares. I hope you've been able to have a follow-on conversation with them to explain it more fully.
As far as twitter...it makes a lot of sense for an infant accessory or fashion company to retweet links for several reasons.
The problem is that most of the time the person behind the account is a young person recently out of college. She knows that parents care a lot about infant sleep but doesn't know all the underlying issues.
@FFF - I found your comments very on-topic and productive. One thing I would point out is that it makes a lot of sense for a sling company to tweet out AP links...that is, after all, their core constituency for a niche product. I think that a shoe company that is in many retailers is probably aiming towards a broader market.
Fantastic letter, Amy. I've being trying to draft one too - yours is awesome.
Thank you, please do use it as you see fit :)
Thank you :)
FYI, I received this response today:
***********
Thank you for your email regarding the 2-in-1 Tattoo-Graphic Bodysuits
for Baby. We appreciate the time you've taken to contact us to share
your thoughts. We'll be sure to pass your message along to our
merchandising team, as customer feedback is an important consideration
when planning what our future products will look like.
Thank you again for sharing your concerns.
***********
@Danielle,
Great points. I would love to see formula prices go down, as long as that didn't mean the formula companies wouldn't stop trying to improve formula b/c they didn't have to worry about consumer demand. I know the DHA/ARA issue is contentious, but this study does make me believe that there is something of value in adding these substances:
http://www.internationalbreastfeedingjournal.com/content/1/1/16
Granted, it's data is culled from a parent-reported survey, which isn't the best science in the world. But I do think it at least gives enough evidence to warrant me wanting to give my kid a formula enhanced with DHA/ARA, since the results were equivalent to breastfeeding in terms of having a protective effect against autism. Considering the kids fed a formula without DHA/ARA had a significantly higher rate of autism, I think it's a good example of why we can't sacrifice research on improving formula for those who need it while we simultaneously work to promote breastfeeding.
Not that this has that much to do with WHO code, except that who (haha, who, get it? :) ) is going to fund research on improving formula, if not the formula companies who stand to make a profit? And without advertising, and a competitive market that drives up prices, I'm worried these bottom-liners won't take the time or effort... you know?