2009) The invention of a product that could nourish infants to whom breastmilk was not
provided a much-needed alternative for these babies. Unfortunately, a little over a century
later, a product intended to provide nutrition to babies in need would also be contributing to
infant death rates around the world. Though by this time the science of the product had
improved significantly and ingredients were very closely monitored, unethical marketing
“creat[ing] a need where none existed” and “convinc[ing] consumers that [their] products
Boycotts, U.S. Senate hearings, and international meetings that happened between
1977 and 1981 resulted in changes to help reduce infant deaths. Though many of the unethical
marketing practices that were leading to neonatal deaths at that time have since been
hindered, the advertising and marketing of infant formula still affects infant mortality rates
Substitutes, written in 1981, states that companies who make and produce breast-milk
substitutes (BMS) should not advertise to the general public, or give free samples to pregnant
women, mothers, or their families, and that there should not be any point-of-sale advertising or
coupons to induce sales at a retail level. However, the implementation of the WHO Code comes
down to individual governments of countries, therefore these practices still continue in many
areas of the world. The United States is one of only two United Nations states who have not
done anything to enforce the code. (Country implementation of the International Code of
Breastfeeding and breastmilk are recognized as the best source of nutrition for infants.
Allowing the advertising and marketing of breast milk substitutes, such as infant formula,
lowers breastfeeding rates and therefore effects the overall health of babies and mothers.
breastmilk, by preying on doubt mothers may have about themselves, and by creating the
illusion that infant feeding is simply a lifestyle choice, creating a supposed rift between women
formula to breastmilk.”4 (emphases added) Formula labels frequently compare their product to
the benefits of breastmilk, undermining the benefits by including similar terms that give the
illusion that the formula is closer to breastmilk than it actually is. Breastmilk truly is individually
tailored for a baby; breastmilk is a living tissue (Riordan J., and Womback 2012) that changes
constantly to meet the immunity and cognitive needs while formulas are a one-size-fits-all.
While infant formula is made to provide necessary nutrition for a baby, the ingredients do not
from the hospital. I did a survey of mothers who delivered their babies in Utah hospitals and
who were breastfeeding with plans to continue at the time they were discharged. Of the 400
who responded, 242 (60.5%) said they received formula samples. Some women argue that they
were comforted knowing that there was a back-up “just in case”, and that is exactly what the
purpose is of providing samples- formula companies stealthily hint that breastfeeding may not
work. Then when women do run into breastfeeding difficulties, they may not put forth as much
effort to get proper support to continue, as they already have formula and can supplement or
fully replace their breastmilk. A study titled Marketing Infant Formula Through Hospitals: the
Impact of Commercial Hospital Discharge Packs on Breastfeeding came to the conclusion that:
Commercial hospital discharge packs are one of several factors that influence
breastfeeding duration and exclusivity. The distribution of these packs to new
mothers at hospitals is part of a longstanding marketing campaign by infant
formula manufacturers and implies hospital and staff endorsement of infant
formula. Commercial hospital discharge pack distribution should be
reconsidered in light of its negative impact on exclusive breastfeeding
(Rosenberg, K. D., Eastham, C. A., Kasehagen, L. J., & Sandoval, A. P. (2008).)
The figures from this study showed that receiving a discharge pack (that contains
with formula.
Most mothers have emotions tied to the journey of feeding their baby. Whether
things went as planned, or they ended up going a different route than they had
incites many strong emotions. Formula companies love to advertise and promote their
products as a lifestyle choice, creating a rift between women who chose the “best” way
to feed their baby (“breast is best”) and those who chose the more critiqued way. It is
my belief that without formula advertisement, these rifts and defensive feelings women
seem prone to have when they “fail” to breastfeed would be much less prevalent. If the
power of marketing and free samples were taken away from formula companies, it
would help make breastfeeding the norm instead of just one of the options. More
care workers wouldn’t have free samples and large inventory of formula to give out
when difficulties surfaced. Women would all be working toward the same goal of
successful breastfeeding, and they would each need to find and receive support, ideally
meaning that each woman would exhaust all support options before turning to formula.
Formula would still be available when breastfeeding did not succeed, but with all of the
focus was put on supporting breastfeeding and none of the focus on contributing to
Many mothers read benefits about breastfeeding and feel guilty or that they are
being personally attacked. Sharing the facts of breastfeeding is not meant to incite any
negative feelings, it is simply for the education of women so they can make informed
decisions. As for the purpose of my paper, I want to reiterate that I am of the position of
opposing the advertisement and marketing of formula- not the invention or use of it.
The option of formula, when used appropriately, saves babies lives. However, based on
scientific fact, breastmilk remains the best source of nutrition for infants and should be
Much has been done worldwide in the past 40 years to try to increase the
incidence and duration of breastfeeding, but more work needs to be done. The United
States needs to make laws and policies in support of infants’ health, rather than to the
benefit of formula companies profit margin. The WHO’s International Code of Marketing
of Infant Formula needs to be followed and enforced so that our citizens can enjoy the
Riordan, J and Wamback (2012). Breastfeeding and human lactation, 4th ed, Jones and Bartlett
Publishers, Sudbury, Massachusetts.
Rosenberg, K. D., Eastham, C. A., Kasehagen, L. J., & Sandoval, A. P. (2008). Marketing Infant
Formula Through Hospitals: the Impact of Commercial Hospital Discharge Packs on
Breastfeeding. Am J Public Health, 98(2), 290-295.
Stevens, E. E., Patrick, T. E., & Pickler, R. (2009). A history of infant feeding. The Journal of perinatal
education, 18(2), 32–39. doi:10.1624/105812409X426314