Infant formula manufacturers have used predatory marketing tactics to prey on the fears of new parents for decades&#;to the tune of billions of dollars annually, according to a new series in The Lancet, backed by the World Health Organization.
Such companies strive to keep the formula industry under-regulated and breastfeeding resources under-supported. Some have even lobbied against proposed breastfeeding protections and improved parental leave programs, which could help facilitate breastfeeding, The Lancet wrote in an editorial prefacing its series on breastfeeding.
The result: Fewer than half of babies worldwide are breastfed per WHO recommendations, &#;resulting in economic losses of nearly $350 billion each year,&#; according to the medical journal.
Meanwhile, the industry rakes in around $55 billion each year and spends about $3 billion on marketing&#;despite an international code adopted by the WHO&#;s decision-making body in that prohibits the marketing of such formulas in the majority of instances.
&#;This new research highlights the vast economic and political power of the big formula milk companies, as well as serious public policy failures that prevent millions of women from breastfeeding their children,&#; said Dr. Nigel Rollins, WHO scientist and author of one of the papers, in a WHO press release regarding the series.
&#;Actions are needed across different areas of society to better support mothers to breastfeed for as long as they want, alongside efforts to tackle exploitative formula milk marketing once and for all.&#;
Among other &#;stark&#; assertions made in the series:
The series is &#;a call for companies &#; to act with greater social responsibility,&#; as well as for governments to &#;correct for market failures,&#; Dr. Jay Varma, chief medical adviser at the New York-based think tank Kroll Institute, tells Fortune.
&#;When the market is too heavily tilted in a way to harm public health, it&#;s important for governments to push back a bit,&#; he says, as they do via campaigns to promote fruit and vegetable consumption amid markets saturated with unhealthy food choices. &#;We need to have some of that push-back, potentially in the form of regulation to protect babies.&#;
The new series sheds light on an industry influencing the decisions of parents and even healthcare providers to a largely unrealized extent, Dr. Jessica Nash, a pediatrician who specializes in breastfeeding at Children&#;s National Hospital in Washington, D.C., tells Fortune.
The infant formula industry is &#;embedded everywhere, with marketing and quotes that undermine breastfeeding efforts,&#; she says. &#;As we move health and families forward, we now have to ensure families understand that the &#;innocent&#; pictures of baby faces on jars, and formula names on bags given in birthing hospitals, can change or influence families&#; decisions.&#;
She recalls receiving bags during medical school, and lanyards at medical conferences, that had formula names on them, leaving those brands &#;engrained into practice&#; when she emerged as a doctor. She wonders how many other doctors were incorrectly trained to think that formula and breastmilk are equally beneficial to babies.
With so many medical providers oblivious to the benefits of breast milk, she figures myriad more parents are as well, thanks to the deeply entrenched marketing of so-called &#;Big Formula.&#;
&#;A lot of people breastfeed and don&#;t even know the benefits,&#; she says. They &#;aren&#;t even aware that they&#;re lowering their risk of ovarian cancer, and decreasing their child&#;s risk of obesity and asthma.&#;
She worries that efforts to promote breastfeeding simply don&#;t have the multibillion dollar budgets that formula manufacturers do.
&#;I&#;ve gone to conferences and I&#;ve tried to figure out, what is the solution?&#; she says. &#;What industry has the money to spend billions on marketing breastfeeding to counteract this?&#;
Nash is mother to a formula-fed baby who spent time in the NICU, and there&#;s nothing wrong with formula-feeding, she says. &#;But I think people also need to understand that you get to choose, and that you should make a very informed decision based on the evidence, versus making a decision based on convenience.&#;
Whether to breastfeed is a personal choice&#;and not all women are able to, the series points out, adding that mothers&#; choices should be supported, especially for mental health reasons.
But &#;all information that families receive on infant feeding must be accurate and independent of industry influence to ensure informed decision-making,&#; the authors insist, adding that marketing by the industry is an &#;interconnected, multifaceted, powerful system that knowingly exploits parents&#; aspirations.&#;
Misleading claims about formula made by manufacturers amount to misinformation, which governments &#;have a duty to tackle&#; under the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child, they add.
Breastfeeding is &#;one of the most effective ways to ensure child health and survival,&#; according to the WHO, which calls breast milk &#;the ideal food for infants.&#; Breast milk contains antibodies that protect against many common childhood illnesses and provides all nutrients needed for an infant&#;s first months of life. It provides around half of a child&#;s nutritional needs for the second half of the first year of life, and up to a third of nutritional needs during a child&#;s second year of life.
Fortune reached out to a number of leading infant formula manufacturers Tuesday, after The Lancet&#;s publication of the series, requesting comment. As of Wednesday evening, it had not heard back from any of them.
Johnson's Baby products at a Kroger store Johnson's Baby products at a Chinese store
Johnson's Baby is an American brand of baby cosmetics and skin care products owned by Kenvue. The brand was introduced in with Johnson's Baby Powder. The product line consists of baby powder, shampoos, body lotions, massage oil, shower gels and baby wipes.
History
[
edit
]
Johnson's Baby Powder and sanitary napkins ()
[
edit
]
Johnson's Baby Powder (50s) Johnson's Baby Powder ()Johnson's Baby Powder was an invention of Dr. Frederick B. Kilmer, company's first director of scientific affairs.[1] In responded to a letter from a physician about a patient suffering skin irritations after using medicated plasters. Kilmer suggested to use scented Italian talcum powder to mitigate the irritation and sent a can to the doctor.[2]
Baby Powder debuted in and went to the market in .[3] The earliest Baby Powder was in a yellow and red tin with a label "For Toilet and Nursery&#;.[3]
According to Robert Shook, sanitary napkins were included in the young mother's kit but never considered a separate product until customers asked the company for it.
In the talc was packaged in a box that was originally distributed to midwives and given to mothers following childbirth... Also in the midwife's box were twelve sanitary napkins. Prior to this, there was no such product available to purchase... the company started to manufacture them &#; the first company to make sanitary napkins in the United States.[4]
The first baby to appear on Johnson's Baby powder label was Mary Lea Johnson Richards, granddaughter of Robert Wood Johnson I (co-founder of Johnson & Johnson).[5][6]
According to Johnson & Johnson's representative Fred Tewell, baby powder-scented cleaning products became almost a standard not only to cosmetics, but to diapers as well.[7]
Discontinuation of Baby Powder
[
edit
]
Johnson & Johnson issued a recall of its Baby Powder in October after the United States Food and Drug Administration discovered trace amounts of asbestos in a bottle.[8] After over 100 years, the company announced on May 20, that its talc-based Baby Powder would be discontinued in the United States and Canada, following declining sales and backlash from recent lawsuits over allegations that the product contained asbestos, which can cause cancer. However, cornstarch-based Baby Powder will continue to be sold in both the United States and Canada.[9]
On October 15, , Johnson & Johnson put its talc liabilities into Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United States.[10]
On April 4, , J&J's talc liabilities once again filed for bankruptcy.[11]
Johnson's Baby Cream ()
[
edit
]
Johnson's Baby cream was introduced in .[12]
The Gift Box ()
[
edit
]
According to Margaret Gurowitz, Johnson & Johnson's corporate historian, in the company released its first "Baby Gift Box" that contained small packages of Baby Powder, Baby Cream and Baby Soap and "was designed as a small gift that people could take when visiting a family with a new baby".[3]
Johnson's Baby oil ()
[
edit
]
Introduced in [13][14] Johnson's Baby massage oil was heavily advertised nationwide in Life magazine[15] since as a complementary product to Baby Powder.[16]
Johnson's Baby Lotion ()
[
edit
]
Often referred as the "Pink Brand"[17] (after the color of the bottle), Johnson's Baby Lotion appeared in .[7][17]
For more information, please visit HEORSHE.
Johnson's Baby Shampoo ()
[
edit
]
"No More Tears" Johnson's Baby shampoo advertising from the "Family Circle" magazine ()"No More Tears" shampoo was introduced in .[18]
Nunes and Johnson wrote:
In Johnson & Johnson introduced its No More Tears baby shampoo... with the company introducing amphoteric cleansing agents to consumer use. Though these agents are not as effective as traditional soaps, they are extremely mild, which makes them quite literally easy on the eyes and perfect for a baby's sensitive but presumably not-too-dirty skin... Within six months of its introduction, Johnson & Johnson had captured 75 percent of the baby shampoo market, a share it held as recently as .[19]
In Johnson & Johnson placed advertising at the "Adventures of Robin Hood TV series for Band-Aid and Johnson's baby shampoo. The latter was advertised with the tagline "Johnson's can't burn eyes".[20]
"No More Tears" has been registered as a trademark only since .[21]
A persistent myth holds that this should in fact be read as "no more tears (/tɛə/)", in the sense meaning a rip in hair, but the correct reading is in fact "no more tears (/tɪə/)" in the sense of ocular secretion, in this case meaning it does not sting eyes if a small amount accidentally enters them, due to the molecular structure of the formula.[22]
The company also made changes to their entire range of products, eliminating ingredients[23] like formaldehyde, parabens, triclosan and phthalates from all baby products.[24]
No More Tangles ()
[
edit
]
"No More Tangles" shampoo (named after popular "No More Tears" shampoo) debuted in .[25]
Book publishing ()
[
edit
]
In the brand entered publishing business with the book Infant development program: birth-12 months by Richard A. Chase,[26] followed by The First wondrous year: you and your baby () by Chase and Richard R. Rubin.[27]
Johnson's Baby Wipes ()
[
edit
]
Johnson's baby wipes appeared in as Johnson's Baby Wash Cloths.[28]
The product was renamed "wipes" sometime during 90s (the product has already been present as early as [29]).
Sun Screen ()
[
edit
]
Sun screen was introduced in Spring .[30]
Head-To-Toe Cleanser ()
[
edit
]
Head-To-Toe ultra mild cleanser was introduced in .[31][32]
Bedtime range ()
[
edit
]
Bedtime Bath introduced in [33] was the first of products later known as Johnson&#;s Baby Bedtime range with four products (Bedtime Bath, Bedtime Lotion, Bedtime Wash and Bedtime Oil) that contain lavender and camomile.[34]
Non-infant use
[
edit
]
Johnson's Baby products are also used for non-baby-related purposes. For example, Johnson's Baby Oil is used as a facial cleanser (it has been reported by the New York magazine that popular TV talk show host Martha Stewart uses it this way[35]) and by male strippers[36]
Health risk issues
[
edit
]
In December two physicians urged parents not to use baby powder, stating that it was unsafe to inhale and Johnson & Johnson responded with an official statement that "product is safe when used as it is intended".[37]
In February , J&J was ordered to pay $72 million in damages to the family of Jackie Fox, a 62-year-old woman who died of ovarian cancer in . She had used Johnson's Baby Powder for many years. J&J claimed that the safety of cosmetic talc is supported by decades of scientific evidence and it plans to appeal the verdict. The British charity, Ovacome was quoted as saying that while there were 16 studies which showed that using talc increased the risk of ovarian cancer by around a third, and a review of US studies had similar results for genital, but not general, talcum powder use they were not convinced that the results were reliable. Furthermore, they said, "Ovarian cancer is a rare disease, and increasing a small risk by a third still gives a small risk."[38]
Clinical studies
[
edit
]
In Johnson & Johnson sponsored "1st European Round Table meeting on 'Best Practice for Infant Cleansing" (a panel of expert dermatologists and paediatricians from across Europe) focused on the use of liquid cleansers in bathing as opposed to washing with water which said that "bathing is generally superior to washing, provided basic safety procedures are followed, and has psychological benefits for the infant and parents".[39]
A randomized clinical trial, sponsored by Johnson's baby brand in , studied the effectiveness of using moisturizer as part of a standardized skin care regimen. Research showed that using baby lotion is effective for maintaining favorable moisture levels in baby skin (in comparison to not using baby lotion).[40]
In February Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing published a research by academics at The University of Manchester that showed that washing newborn babies with Johnson&#;s Baby Top-to-Toe wash is just as safe as using water alone.[41] Research has been sponsored by Johnson & Johnson "but carried out under strict, independent scientific protocols, including blind testing and peer review".[42]
References
[
edit
]
Want more information on baby product manufacturers? Feel free to contact us.