corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 14953

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: Journal Article

Stieger R.
Coffee creamer as infant food: Nestlé’s works to ensure appropriate use of milk products
BMJ. 2009 Jan 21; 338:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/338/jan21_1/b196


Abstract:

Nestlé is very concerned that mothers in poor countries feed infants with inappropriate breast milk substitutes.

The immediate issue raised by Barennes and colleagues about Bear Brand beverage creamer in Laos1 has been resolved as Nestlé stopped its distribution, and stopped an independent company which had licensed the brand from producing it, in February 2008.

Nestlé recognises that Barennes and colleagues raise legitimate questions, and is in the process of re-evaluating the Bear Brand for milk products and studying how to prevent any confusion with infant formula.

In the developing world Nestlé puts on all coffee creamers and other milk products that are inappropriate for infant feeding a statement: “This product is not to be used as a breast milk substitute” or “Not appropriate for infant feeding.”

Additionally, in 2002 Nestlé introduced a pictogram on Bear Brand beverage creamer in Laos-a bottle crossed out with a large red cross to . . .

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Cases of wilful misrepresentation are a rarity in medical advertising. For every advertisement in which nonexistent doctors are called on to testify or deliberately irrelevant references are bunched up in [fine print], you will find a hundred or more whose greatest offenses are unquestioning enthusiasm and the skill to communicate it.

The best defence the physician can muster against this kind of advertising is a healthy skepticism and a willingness, not always apparent in the past, to do his homework. He must cultivate a flair for spotting the logical loophole, the invalid clinical trial, the unreliable or meaningless testimonial, the unneeded improvement and the unlikely claim. Above all, he must develop greater resistance to the lure of the fashionable and the new.
- Pierre R. Garai (advertising executive) 1963