You are here: monitoring / monreportfarleys.html

Marketing strategies used to promote Farley's formulas

Last updated: 13 April 2009

Since May 2008 monitoring reports have been submitted to enforcement authorities. These contain more recent violations than those shown below and can be accessed by clicking here. Results from BFLG's monitoring system shows that violations involving Farley's formula (a brand of Heinz) are widespread and systematic. Farley's formulas are advertised and promoted in breach of Article 5.1 of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes. There is a good case to be made that some, indeed most, of these promotions also breach the narrower UK Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations 1995, though the enforcement authorities are yet to bring a case. Indeed, the Advertising Standards Authority has refused to follow its usual procedure of investigating and publishing a ruling on the complaints submitted to it by BFLG member, Baby Milk Action, and others. Examples of violations are given below. This report has been prepared by Baby Milk Action, which is coordinating the BFLG monitoring project. BFLG monitoring results were included in the report Breaking the Rules, Stretching the Rules 2007. Violations by Heinz are found in many other countries submitting evidence for inclusion in this report. The detail (right) from the report shows how Heinz's labels in the UK come in for special mention. Click on it for a larger version.

Farley's labels

The law explicitely states that labels can only have claims specified in a schedule attached to the law (there are just 6, such as iron enriched). The Food Standards Agency reminded the companies of the provisions at the end of 2006. New Farley's labels have been launched since then with claims that are not on the permitted list and include idealizing text and images, which are also prohibited by the law.

Claims not on permitted list: "With omega-3 LCPs", "Nucleotides". Idealizing text: "Our most advanced formula ever." Idealizing image: Bear image.

 

Advertisements for Farley's formula

Television advertising

Advertisements for Farley's formulas have appeared on television, publicising the Farley's brand name and the website http://www.farleyscloserbynature.com/ promoting all Farley's formulas, including infant formula. Click here to view the advertisement.

Virtually everyone who reported the advertisement via the BFLG monitoring forms denounced it as an advertisement for infant formula.

However, the authorities refused to take any action as the pack shot is for a follow-on formula, though no reference is made to follow-on formula in the voice over or text. Baby Milk Action used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain information on the investigation from Ofcom, which regulates TV advertising. This revealed the following exchange between Ofcom and Hillingdon Environmental Health (the home authority for Heinz):

“I was unable to work out the precise product pictured in the video footage.”

“I don’t know what product appears in the credits as no information is given on the pack shot. Discovery have told us that the product was follow-on formula.”

Farley's has re-designed its packaging to highlight the Farley's name, as shown below as on the Farley's website.

Only one of these is a follow-on milk

Print advertising

The fundamental flaw with the UK Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations 1995 is demonstrated by the advertisements for Farley's formula below.

.

Both advertisements are promoting Farley's formula with claims about the 'protective' ingredients added to them. The language is virtually identical. The pictures are virtually identical.

Yet Farley's can, given the approach to the law taken by UK authorities, run the advertisement on the right in parenting magazines with impunity. The advertisement on the left would be illegal.

Why the difference? If you study the advertisements closely, the packshots in the advertisement on the left are for infant formula, while the packshot in the advertisement on the right is for follow-on milk.

The advertisement on the left is published in journals for health professionals and companies can refer directly to infant formula in such advertisements. To comply with the law, the product packshot is changed when advertisements, otherwise virtually identical, are directed to the public.

For mothers the effect is the same. They are bombarded with idealizing and unsubstantiated claims for formula and do not themselves generally distinguish the significance of the formula being in yellow, green or purple packaging.

Internet advertising

Visitors to the Farley's formula website are encouraged to enter by the offer of a free sample sachet of follow-on milk and the chance to win a year's supply of Farley's follow-on milk. Free samples of breastmilk substitutes are explicitely prohibited by Article 5.2 of the International Code. The site makes unsubstantiated health claims. For example it claims:

"LCPs for bottle-fed babies

"Bottle-fed babies need not miss out on LCPs because, inspired by breast milk, Farley’s milks contain a unique blend of LCPs, which are from natural food sources. Farley’s First Milk and Farley’s Second Milk contain at least 30% more LCPs than any other infant formula. What’s more, the LCPs in Farley’s are in an easily digestible form, making the balance of fats in Farley’s baby milks even closer to nature."

This ignores the fact that the Cochrane Library reviewed research on adding LCPs to formula and concluded:

"At present there is little evidence from randomised trials of LCPUFA supplementation to support the hypothesis that LCPUFA supplementation confers a benefit for visual or general development of term infants."

Article 17 of the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations 1995 prohibits the advertising of infant formulas and the definition of advertising contained in the Food Safety Act 1990 implicitly includes placing information on the internet (click here for details).

However, the authorities have taken no action over these promotional methods.

On 30 August new packaging for Farley's formula was being promoted on the website. The label will now include a teddy bear image. This violates the International Code, which prohibits idealizing images. Many countries explicitely prohibit images of this sort (Brazil is a good example, including humanized animals, vegetables, fruit or any other type of idealized image).

Article 13 of the UK Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations 1995 prohibits labels of infant formula including "any picture of an infant, any other picture or text which may idealise the use of the product, but may include graphic representations for easy identification of the product or for illustrating methods of preparation."

Money is undoubtedly being invested in producing and publicising the labels with this new image because the company expects a return through increased sales. Yet as the authorities have taken no action against humanized images on labels of other producers it is likely that Farley's new label will also go unchallenged.

Starting a price war

The Farley's website highlights a revision of prices. These were publicised by a Public Relations agency.

The Daily Mirror published a story about this on 14 February 2005 under the headline Baby Milk Price War 'Immoral', highlighting Baby Milk Action's view that price reductions need to be permanent and not used for promotional purposes.

However, the article also highlighted Farley's price cut and printed pictures of the products, achieving the publicity the company desired.

Baby Milk Action asked the Advertising Standards Authority to investigate this method of promoting a product. The ASA refused to do so.

Contact with mothers

The advertisements above encourage mothers to contact the Farley's 'careline' and enter into the internet, where there are forms to sign up for information on Farley's formulas, including free samples.

Promotion in shops

Follow-on milks are routinely promoted in supermarkets and pharmacies, in violation of the International Code.

Illegal promotion of Farley's infant formulas have been found in major retailers (e.g. Boots, Morrisons). No prosecutions have been brought.

See the monitoring report on shops for further information.

Promotion to health workers

Promotion to health workers often echoes that of promotion to the public, with idealizing and unsubstantiated claims being made. Instead of being limited to factual and scientific information, the promotion idealizes the products. For example, the postcard right says: "We know that you care passionately that babies get the best start... Farley's. Closer by Nature."

At the beginning of 2006, Heinz targetted health workers involved in the Healthy Start scheme which provides vouchers to low-income parents for food, if breastfeeding, or formula if artificially feeding. Heinz suggested its formula was the cheapest and the 'closest to breastmilk', a claim made by other companies.

 

 

Reference

Simmer K. Longchain polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation in infants born at term. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2001, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD000376. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000376.

"Authors' conclusions: At present there is little evidence from randomised trials of LCPUFA supplementation to support the hypothesis that LCPUFA supplementation confers a benefit for visual or general development of term infants. Minor effects on VEP acuity have been suggested but appear unlikely when all studies are reviewed. A beneficial effect on information processing is possible but larger studies over longer periods are required to conclude that LCPUFA supplementation provides a benefit when compared with standard formula. Data from randomised trials do not suggest that LCPUFA supplements influence the growth of term infants."

See http://www.cochrane.org/cochrane/revabstr/AB000376.htm

Definition of 'Advertising'.

The Food Safety Act 1990 Article 53 includes the following definition:

""advertisement" includes any notice, circular, label, wrapper, invoice or other document, and any public announcement made orally or by any means of producing or transmitting light or sound, and "advertise" shall be construed accordingly"

The Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations 1995 modify this definition to exclude labels.

Placing product information on an internet website fits within the definition. Advertising of infant formula to the public is prohibited by Article 17 of the Infant and Follow-on Formula Regulations 1995.

The advertising industry's self-regulating body, the Advertising Standards Authority, does not include a company's own website in its advertising code, meaning that claims on websites are not required to be 'legal, decent, honest and truthful.'

The ASA justifies this by defining a company website as 'editorial' material and states: "This stance by the ASA also recognises a distinction between media that consumers have chosen to access and material that they have not purposefully sought out to view."

The case for making this distinction is weak if the company has drawn the consumer to the website under false pretences, for example by publicising the website address in materials that purport to be about follow-on milks, breastfeeding or childcare as in examples shown in this monitoring.

However the ASA dismisses all complaints about websites and the ways they are promoted without even investigating and publishing a ruling.