Cronobacter Support
04-07-2009, 09:28 AM
Press release 2 June 2008 (posted from babymilkaction.org)
The baby food industry in the UK has attacked a government recommendation that labels of powdered infant formula should carry warnings that the contents are not sterile and the simple steps required to reduce risks. Contamination with potentially harmful bacteria such as Enterobacter Sakazakii is surprisingly common (14% of tins infected in one study) and though resulting illness is rare, the consequencies can be serious as infants have died from meningitis linked to contamination in the past.
The industry's reluctance to warn parents is documented in papers just published by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) following a consultation on Guidance Notes to accompany new formula marketing regulations (see below). Health campaigners are concerned that as the recommendation is not legally binding, companies will continue to deny parents information that could reduce illness and even save lives. The industry has also attacked recommendations regarding how it advertises and promotes formula.
Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator at Baby Milk Action, said:
"The possibility that powdered formula may be contaminated with Enterobacter Sakazakii in the manufacturing process has been known about for years and the World Health Organisation and the UK Food Standards Agency and Department of Health have been doing their best to alert parents how to reduce the risks. It is a scandal that companies are not putting this information on labels and give every indication they will ignore the recommendation in the government's new Guidance Notes. The Government has promised to review the regulations during the first 12 months and we want to see stronger measures in this and other areas."
The risks of intrinsic contamination of powdered formula with harmful bacteria, such as Enterobacter Sakazakii came to public attention following the death of a 5-day-old child in Belgium in 2002 after being fed with Nestlé formula, which was then recalled across Europe. A study cited by the Food and Drug Adminstration in the US found 14% of tins sampled were contaminated with the bacteria. The FSA issued guidance to parents in November 2005, but no company has brought its warnings and instructions into line.
In its response to the Guidance Notes, the UK industry body, the Infant and Dietetic Food Association, opposed the recommendation that parents be warned powdered formula is not sterile and the need to mix up formula with water above 70 deg. C and discard unused formula. It stated:
"We do not support the alternative wording proposed in the guidance notes on the grounds that this may be alarmist and not easily understood by the consumer. Such a warning statement could lead consumers to use inappropriate products such as other powdered milk or other liquids (not infant or follow-on formulae) which do not have such warnings".
The FSA responded:
"FSA-funded focus group research found that caregivers were concerned that powder formula was not sterile. Overall, as it poses a potential risk to babies, parents and healthcare professionals agreed that information about non – sterility and what it means should be clearly communicated to parents, so that they can make informed decisions and choices."
LACORS, the umbrella body for Trading Standards, stated in its comments:
"LACORS assumes that the references to instructions for appropriate preparation will refer to the current DoH [Department of Health] recommendation that the minimum water temperature to prepare infant formula is 70 deg C. It would be desirable to add a further reference to the fact that instructions relating to lower temperature are totally unacceptable on the grounds of protecting infant health and well being."
Monitoring of company telephone carelines and formula labels conducted by Baby Milk Action has found that companies are failing to give correct information to parents and even directly contradicting the guidance to parents from the FSA and Department of Health.
A submission to the consultation by Baby Milk Action on behalf of the Baby Feeding Law Group, consisting of 22 health professional and mother support organisations, was backed by 434 individual responses and called for the 'recommendation' to include information on reducing risks to be stronger. The FSA responded to the BFLG:
"The Agency would like to see manufacturers providing consistent advice on preparation that fully takes into account the microbiological risks associated with these products and reflects the advice issued by Department of Health."
For further information
Contact Mike Brady using mikebrady@babymilkaction.org or on
020 3239 9222.
Some examples are:
British Retail Consortium
"We are specifically concerned about paragraph 49 of the guidance which suggests that ‘shelf-talkers’ and other in-store promotional devices for follow-on formulae are not used in the vicinity of infant formulae. We are especially concerned about the unreasonable suggestion that a follow-on formula has to be located in a different part of the store to infant formula. This is gold plating, as this is not laid down in the legislation. As best practice this proposal is completely unjustified."
Unjustified?
The images, right (see babymilkaction.org), show how companies use claims that are illegal on infant formula to draw attention to the formula section of supermarkets, in this case, Tesco.
The claim 'with prebiotic care to support you baby's natural immune system' is illegal on infant formula (for use from birth). When a similar expression was used in an advertisement for follow-on formula (for use from 6 months), the Advertising Standards Authority investigated and found it was not substantiated by scientific evidence.
Advertising Association
"The call for advertisers to submit planned campaigns to the FSA in advance of their implementation seems unnecessary, especially since this service is already available to the industry via its own self-regulatory bodies."
However, one of those self-regulatory bodies, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), said in its submission:
"The FSA’s interpretation of an advertisement is broader than the Advertising Codes, the ASA has no role in maintaining standards in these areas."
The ASA has refused to even investigate most of the cases of aggressive marketing reported to it by Baby Milk Action.
A current television and internet advertisement for Aptamil follow-on formula - "inspired by breastmilk" - implies it provides protection against infection, similar to breastfeeding.
http://www.babymilkaction.org/pics/photographs/aptamiltv290408b.jpg
http://www.babymilkaction.org/pics/photographs/aptamiltv290408a.jpg
The Baby Feeding Law Group called for an outright ban on the advertising of infant formula, in line with international standards adopted by the World Health Assembly and introduced in many other countries. The FSA responded: "The provision at Regulation 22 addresses concerns that advertising of follow on formula could be taken as advertising for infant formula and undermine breastfeeding. The independently chaired review of the new controls will assess whether this has been effective and if not we’ll consider if further action needs to be taken."
This misses the point that breastfeeding is recommended by the World Health Organisation and the Department of Health beyond six months and is undermined by this aggressive marketing of follow-on milks.
The baby food industry in the UK has attacked a government recommendation that labels of powdered infant formula should carry warnings that the contents are not sterile and the simple steps required to reduce risks. Contamination with potentially harmful bacteria such as Enterobacter Sakazakii is surprisingly common (14% of tins infected in one study) and though resulting illness is rare, the consequencies can be serious as infants have died from meningitis linked to contamination in the past.
The industry's reluctance to warn parents is documented in papers just published by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) following a consultation on Guidance Notes to accompany new formula marketing regulations (see below). Health campaigners are concerned that as the recommendation is not legally binding, companies will continue to deny parents information that could reduce illness and even save lives. The industry has also attacked recommendations regarding how it advertises and promotes formula.
Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator at Baby Milk Action, said:
"The possibility that powdered formula may be contaminated with Enterobacter Sakazakii in the manufacturing process has been known about for years and the World Health Organisation and the UK Food Standards Agency and Department of Health have been doing their best to alert parents how to reduce the risks. It is a scandal that companies are not putting this information on labels and give every indication they will ignore the recommendation in the government's new Guidance Notes. The Government has promised to review the regulations during the first 12 months and we want to see stronger measures in this and other areas."
The risks of intrinsic contamination of powdered formula with harmful bacteria, such as Enterobacter Sakazakii came to public attention following the death of a 5-day-old child in Belgium in 2002 after being fed with Nestlé formula, which was then recalled across Europe. A study cited by the Food and Drug Adminstration in the US found 14% of tins sampled were contaminated with the bacteria. The FSA issued guidance to parents in November 2005, but no company has brought its warnings and instructions into line.
In its response to the Guidance Notes, the UK industry body, the Infant and Dietetic Food Association, opposed the recommendation that parents be warned powdered formula is not sterile and the need to mix up formula with water above 70 deg. C and discard unused formula. It stated:
"We do not support the alternative wording proposed in the guidance notes on the grounds that this may be alarmist and not easily understood by the consumer. Such a warning statement could lead consumers to use inappropriate products such as other powdered milk or other liquids (not infant or follow-on formulae) which do not have such warnings".
The FSA responded:
"FSA-funded focus group research found that caregivers were concerned that powder formula was not sterile. Overall, as it poses a potential risk to babies, parents and healthcare professionals agreed that information about non – sterility and what it means should be clearly communicated to parents, so that they can make informed decisions and choices."
LACORS, the umbrella body for Trading Standards, stated in its comments:
"LACORS assumes that the references to instructions for appropriate preparation will refer to the current DoH [Department of Health] recommendation that the minimum water temperature to prepare infant formula is 70 deg C. It would be desirable to add a further reference to the fact that instructions relating to lower temperature are totally unacceptable on the grounds of protecting infant health and well being."
Monitoring of company telephone carelines and formula labels conducted by Baby Milk Action has found that companies are failing to give correct information to parents and even directly contradicting the guidance to parents from the FSA and Department of Health.
A submission to the consultation by Baby Milk Action on behalf of the Baby Feeding Law Group, consisting of 22 health professional and mother support organisations, was backed by 434 individual responses and called for the 'recommendation' to include information on reducing risks to be stronger. The FSA responded to the BFLG:
"The Agency would like to see manufacturers providing consistent advice on preparation that fully takes into account the microbiological risks associated with these products and reflects the advice issued by Department of Health."
For further information
Contact Mike Brady using mikebrady@babymilkaction.org or on
020 3239 9222.
Some examples are:
British Retail Consortium
"We are specifically concerned about paragraph 49 of the guidance which suggests that ‘shelf-talkers’ and other in-store promotional devices for follow-on formulae are not used in the vicinity of infant formulae. We are especially concerned about the unreasonable suggestion that a follow-on formula has to be located in a different part of the store to infant formula. This is gold plating, as this is not laid down in the legislation. As best practice this proposal is completely unjustified."
Unjustified?
The images, right (see babymilkaction.org), show how companies use claims that are illegal on infant formula to draw attention to the formula section of supermarkets, in this case, Tesco.
The claim 'with prebiotic care to support you baby's natural immune system' is illegal on infant formula (for use from birth). When a similar expression was used in an advertisement for follow-on formula (for use from 6 months), the Advertising Standards Authority investigated and found it was not substantiated by scientific evidence.
Advertising Association
"The call for advertisers to submit planned campaigns to the FSA in advance of their implementation seems unnecessary, especially since this service is already available to the industry via its own self-regulatory bodies."
However, one of those self-regulatory bodies, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), said in its submission:
"The FSA’s interpretation of an advertisement is broader than the Advertising Codes, the ASA has no role in maintaining standards in these areas."
The ASA has refused to even investigate most of the cases of aggressive marketing reported to it by Baby Milk Action.
A current television and internet advertisement for Aptamil follow-on formula - "inspired by breastmilk" - implies it provides protection against infection, similar to breastfeeding.
http://www.babymilkaction.org/pics/photographs/aptamiltv290408b.jpg
http://www.babymilkaction.org/pics/photographs/aptamiltv290408a.jpg
The Baby Feeding Law Group called for an outright ban on the advertising of infant formula, in line with international standards adopted by the World Health Assembly and introduced in many other countries. The FSA responded: "The provision at Regulation 22 addresses concerns that advertising of follow on formula could be taken as advertising for infant formula and undermine breastfeeding. The independently chaired review of the new controls will assess whether this has been effective and if not we’ll consider if further action needs to be taken."
This misses the point that breastfeeding is recommended by the World Health Organisation and the Department of Health beyond six months and is undermined by this aggressive marketing of follow-on milks.