or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Breastfeeding › Lactivism › Medela further violating WHO code
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Medela further violating WHO code - Page 3

post #41 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeanine123 View Post
What I have a major league problem with is asking moms to do so with the express intent of discussing Medela and their products to the exclusion of all others. What I also have a problem with is telling moms exactly where to go and how to get their foots in the door and then telling them to report back to Medela to share where they posted, including the link to any and all discussions that they either started or participated in and exactly what was talked about. I view this as nothing more than a sophisticated new step in helping Medela target communities for spam of their products
I agree with the part about asking moms to exclusively promote Medela products. I mean - they don't ask them to "exclusively" promote Medela products, but that's probably what's going to happen.

But having worked in Marketing, Product Development and Usability Research for a long time, I think it's really valuable to hear first hand about issues your potential customers might have. I once worked for a company that provided information to Librarians. I signed up for a Librarian listserve (this was in the late 90s). They let me on and I mostly lurked. Every once in a while a question about our service would come up and I would wait to answer and I would wait to see what people said about us. I would then, gently come on and say I worked for the company, correct any misconceptions, thank them for their time and invite them to contact me privately. I worked in Prod Development - not actually marketing. So - I don't necessarily view the mavens it as a means to spam, but as a way of keeping in touch with their customers, issues, concerns, etc - ie problems to solve. I don't really see the Internet as a private place - it's all public as far as I'm concerned.

Like - back 5-7 years ago, who knew you needed the Medela horns to be in different sizes? You have to hear a lot about different-shaped breasts and all to know that could be a problem.
post #42 of 215
Hello!

I am returning this thread with some edits.

This is a very controversial issue, we do need everyone to try and discuss this rationally.

Here is the WHO Code or the International Code of Marketing of
Breast-milk Substitutes

http://www.who.int/nutrition/publica...de_english.pdf

If one cannot discuss this without resorting to sarcasm then I would ask that person to step back from the discussion.

Please keep this thread on topic.
post #43 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by annettemarie View Post
I'm so annoyed, I actually just signed up to be a Maven.
I feel compelled to step in here and say that I have not, in fact, become a Maven. It was joke, although a poorly executed one. I realize that I should have put a smilie in here or something. Just wanted to clear up any confusion on this point.
post #44 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeanine123 View Post
There are ways to feed a baby that does not include a bottle or a nipple. There is cup feeding, syringe feeding, dropper feeding and finger feeding.

http://www.kellymom.com/bf/pumping/a...e-feeding.html

Yes, these are more time consuming and no, they aren't as convenient as a bottle and a nipple but there are alternatives and IMO it's a disservice to ignore these alternatives when discussing feeding methods with other moms/dads/care givers.
My DS started daycare at 10 weeks (I had to go back to school) and received breast milk by bottle while in care. There was NO WAY - absolutely completely none - that the lovely ladies at his daycare, as caring and attentive as they were (and they were *fantastic*, by the way, and I am immensely grateful that they took such good care of my boy), could have managed the time for cup, finger or syringe feeding of even one of the children in their care during the day. There were four of them looking after fourteen kids. Every single one of whom needed just as much in terms of love, snuggles, feeding, playing and diaper changes as mine did. We don't necessarily ignore those options, sometimes we reject them for practical reasons. Working moms know that they run the risk of nursing strikes, and while they suck to deal with, the only way to avoid them completely is to stay home full-time with the baby. So sometimes we pump more. Sometimes we try to convince the baby to nurse and call up LLL and cry. But unless we're willing and able to stay home, that's the way life is from time to time.

I don't have a problem with Medela selling or advertising bottles and nipples, no matter what the WHO code says.
post #45 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeanine123 View Post
There are ways to feed a baby that does not include a bottle or a nipple. There is cup feeding, syringe feeding, dropper feeding and finger feeding.

http://www.kellymom.com/bf/pumping/a...e-feeding.html

Yes, these are more time consuming and no, they aren't as convenient as a bottle and a nipple but there are alternatives and IMO it's a disservice to ignore these alternatives when discussing feeding methods with other moms/dads/care givers.
Sure there are these other ways. But I'm a poor pump responder and literally every drop was carefully collected. There was no way I would even think of doing one of these methods because the chance of spillage is too high.

As far as the original topic, I'm with annettemarie on this one. I don't like the spam thing too much but it's not so high on my list of lactivist priorities.

And as a working mom, I'll just say that one of my pumps is a Medela and I happen to their bottles.
post #46 of 215
Love my PISA. Love Medela. Except for their leaky collection bags. And they did not pay me or give me any freebies to say that. I'm a working mother and I pump because I have to. My baby has bottles during work because it's easier for all of us. ANYTHING to make a working, pumping mother's life easier is a good thing.

Getting outraged over something like this just makes the movement look petty. There are MUCH bigger obstacles to fight.
post #47 of 215
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Altair View Post

Getting outraged over something like this just makes the movement look petty. There are MUCH bigger obstacles to fight.
I wasn't aware that there was a certain size an obstacle needed to be before it was worthy enough to post here and receive thoughts and responses from those who I thought had similar goals. My bad. I was under the impression that this might be a good place to come to discuss actions taken by both companies and individuals that may or may not impact a BFing relationship or the way NIP is perceived, along with companies who are engaging women to target specific messageboards and social networking sites for their marketing techniques, which, whether you agree with it or not personally does violate the WHO Code. It used to be that way, guess things have really changed around here. Too bad, I remember the days when this board was the organizing grounds for some pretty impactful protests and throwing around of ideas and opinions.
post #48 of 215
This message board has been an incredible outpost for organizing protests (says that mama who helped organize the NYC protest of The View). But part of the stated purpose of this forum is also thinking critically about campaigns and issues. I hope no one takes differences of opinions personally and we continue having a respectful discussion of the issues.
post #49 of 215
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by annettemarie View Post
But part of the stated purpose of this forum is also thinking critically about campaigns and issues. I hope no one takes differences of opinions personally and we continue having a respectful discussion of the issues.
Which is what I've been trying to do but so many people have become focused on the bottles that the discussion about purposefully targeting discussion, be it online or in real life, that involve new or expectant parents and how that is in violation of the WHO Code section that I posted in the first page of this discussion has been lost, which is rather frustrating at times. So many seem so ready to give Medela a pass because of all of the good they've done in the past. How far do they need to go before it's too far? Is this another step in that direction or not? And if not, why not? Is it acceptable for them to essentially hire people by giving them pricey freebies/discounts to promote their products, including bottles and nipples which is in violation of the WHO Code as I understand it, to new parents? I know the WHO Code means bupkis here in the US since we never signed on to it but so many still hold it up as the thing to strive for and work towards. I wonder how effective it can really be if we start cherry picking what parts of it we agree with and what parts we'll wink, wink, nudge, nudge, let you slide by with because you make great pumps and hey, most of your ads still show a nursing baby and mom.
post #50 of 215
One thing I am curious about. Who decides if something violates the WHO Code? Is there a governing body (I'm assuming it would be the World Health Organization) who makes those determinations? And have they said anything official about Medela violating the code? Obviously the advertising bottles and artificial nipples bumps right up against the line or even crosses it, but social networking is such a new phenomenon. I'm wondering if anything official has been said or if it's all sideline quarterbacking.
post #51 of 215
Thread Starter 
It's likely all sideline quarterbacking right now but I really have no idea. I did find this info on implementation and monitoring.

http://www.babymilk.nestle.com/Who+C...Article+11.htm

IBFAN has a form for reporting violations.

http://www.ibfan.org/code_watch.html
post #52 of 215
I think it's important to remember that the WHO code is designed to protect breastfeeding *worldwide.* While advertising bottles here in the US may not seem like such a big deal, bottlefeeding in some parts of the world puts many lives at risk. Formula feeding is much riskier in some parts of the world than it is here for the same reasons. First world marketing practices impact behavior everywhere (see Nestle). Medela has a corner on the pump market (and pumps are not covered by the code, btw) and they have chosen to violate the code when they could have very easily remained code-compliant.

For me, part of being a lactivist is about making *breastfeeding* normal. Of course there is nothing wrong with pumping and bottlefeeding, but if I talk to one more pregnant mom who thinks a pump is essential in the early weeks of breastfeeding I think I'm going to scream! Medela is IMO partially (largely?) responsible for this phenomenon and I think (because they are already making a killing selling pumps et al) the very LEAST they could do is remain in compliance with the WHO code.

How would everyone feel if Medela's next ad campaign featured a mom bottlefeeding expressed milk with their fabulous bottles? Let's not forget that the original version of their television ad contained the following:

"When you choose to breastfeed, you're doing what's best for your baby. When you choose Medela breastfeeding products [image: bottle], you're doing what's best for you both."

Watch it for yourself here: http://hoydenabouttown.com/20090310....-the-who-code/

Of course there are more pressing lactivist issues out there, but I think it's important to discuss the finer points of marketing, the WHO code, and what constitutes normal infant feeding in our culture. I am NOT BASHING PUMPING/WORKING MOMS here. I've worked and pumped myself and I fully support laws and corporate policies that allow women to work and continue to breastfeed. However, breastfeeding is still not considered the normal way to feed an infant in our culture and I want this to change (in my lifetime, please!) The WHO code aids in this goal and it needs to be supported in its entirety.
post #53 of 215
I'm no expert, but afaik companies are supposed to regulate themselves. Nestle was very much involved in the creation of the code, btw (!!!!!) I think to quell the boycott. Obviously, they don't adhere to in in any way presently. Some governments (like Norway, I think) enforce the code and thus there is no formula advertising allowed there .

WHO doesn't comment on code violators, it's up to organizations like BabyMilkAction, etc. to call people out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by annettemarie View Post
One thing I am curious about. Who decides if something violates the WHO Code? Is there a governing body (I'm assuming it would be the World Health Organization) who makes those determinations? And have they said anything official about Medela violating the code? Obviously the advertising bottles and artificial nipples bumps right up against the line or even crosses it, but social networking is such a new phenomenon. I'm wondering if anything official has been said or if it's all sideline quarterbacking.
post #54 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by annettemarie View Post
One thing I am curious about. Who decides if something violates the WHO Code? Is there a governing body (I'm assuming it would be the World Health Organization) who makes those determinations? And have they said anything official about Medela violating the code? Obviously the advertising bottles and artificial nipples bumps right up against the line or even crosses it, but social networking is such a new phenomenon. I'm wondering if anything official has been said or if it's all sideline quarterbacking.

The National Alliance for Breastfeeding Advocacy is the organization representing IBFAN (International Baby Food Action Network) in the United States and as such monitors the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes in the US. IBFAN is the place to start for non-US violations.

See post 11 in this thread.

The social networking issue is brand new, and I've no doubt something will be said about it in due course; meanwhile, all the links are provided for you to read the Code itself (notably article 5.5) and draw your own conclusions.
post #55 of 215
post #56 of 215
If Medela marketing bottles and clearly stating that they are for breastmilk violates the WHO code, than I would think it's the code that needs to change, not Medela. It's one thing to promote a bottle for formula feeding; it's another thing to promote a bottle specifically for breastmilk. They are just acknowledging the reality that many women need to express milk and have someone bottle feed baby while they are away. IMO the code should allow for marketing of any device needed to maintain breastfeeding.

Of course, I'm biased, because I LOVE Medela. Their customer service is amazing and they truly seem dedicated to breastfeeding when I've worked with them. And no, I didn't sign up with them to say that!
post #57 of 215
and
post #58 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by annettemarie View Post

Personally, I really feel like this is misplaced outrage.
I have bought medela bottles before. why would a ff mother buy tiny, costly medela bottles and put formula in them?
post #59 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudmomof4 View Post
and
post #60 of 215
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by April Dawn View Post
If Medela marketing bottles and clearly stating that they are for breastmilk violates the WHO code, than I would think it's the code that needs to change, not Medela. It's one thing to promote a bottle for formula feeding; it's another thing to promote a bottle specifically for breastmilk.
How are the bottle specifically for breastmilk? What happens to them if you put formula in them? Are there any bottles out there being marketed specifically for formula? I looked through IBFAN's site a bit last night and there were quite a few ads listed there as being in violation that advertised just bottles and quite a few of them were promoting themselves as being almost as good as a breast, the next best thing to a breast, etc. How is Medela's advertising different?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Lactivism
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Breastfeeding › Lactivism › Medela further violating WHO code