Martha Brower's comments on the legal implications of ABM gift packs reminded
me of something I had written a few years ago and only recently unearthed at
the bottom of a pile of papers.  I shall summarize:-
On June 24, 1992 the US Supreme Court made a ruling which paved the way for
individuals to file law suits for damages against tobacco companies because
of the inadequacy of their warnings.  Thanks to the vast body of research
that has been conducted over the last 30 years, there is a wealth of
information on the subject and the public is generally aware that smoking is
not a healthy activity.  Thirty years ago who would have thought that any of
this would be possible?  The tobacco companies were so powerful.  They
advertised their products freely everywhere and the public impression was
that smoking was a normal, healthy activity.  Even now advertising promotes
the image of smokers as bronzed, attractive, happy-go-lucky people.  However,
nowadays there are severe restrictions on such advertising and companies are
required by law to print government health warnings on their products.

Compare all this with the marketing of infant formula.  We are currently in a
situation similar to that of the tobacco industry 30 years ago.  The formula
companies are so powerful.  They advertise freely everywhere and the public
impression is that  artificial infant feeding is a normal, healthy activity.
 Advertising promotes the image of parents who use formula as loving and
tender, bonding well with their infants.  Perhaps one day there will be
severe restrictions imposed on this advertising (a la WHO code).  Perhaps one
day formula companies will be required to print strongly worded government
warnings on their products.  Even in our affluent society babies are
suffering irreperable damage and even dying for the lack of breastfeeding.
 In our affluent society law suits are prevalent.  When will someone sue a
formula company?