>the Newsweek article stated that Ross and Mead Johnson do
NOT advertise directly to the consumer<

Piffle! In my view that's just a lot of pious hogwash. Pads of 50 tear-off
sheets headed "A cry from the heart" talking about "your"  (not "a
patient's") baby, mailing stuff direct to parents, soliciting parent
contact via advertised "Helplines", all that is advertising direct to
consumers. It is just doing it the most cost-effective way: narrow band
targetted advertising, and endorsement by association with health
professionals. Broadcast advertising is more expensive and less effective,
and usually only done by companies locked out of the cheaper routes by
health professionals who believe nonsense like the above and so feel good
about excluding Carnation or Gerber (because they advertise) while
effectively promoting Ross or Mead Johnson (who advertise more
cost-effectively). Let's get real here. Companies are in business to make
money, and know how to do it. That's their job, no point in ranting about
it. Health workers have a very different task, have very little in common
with such commercial interests, and need to be highly critical of all
information that they produce which is not scientific and factual (as
mandated by the International Code.) Whether we like it or not, a review of
advertising claims ove the last 50 years would show that US companies
originated most of the misinformation we still deal with to date. I can't
wait for teh day when truth in advertising laws are used against the
companies: it is possible to mislead by omission, by juxtaposition of a
number of true facts that lead people to make false inferences, as well as
by straight out untruths. Nucleotides and essential fatty acids now being
added are being cleverly promoted without mentioning inconvenient facts
like that it is *genetically engineered marine algae** that provide the
fatty acids now being added to one brand, or it's egg phospholipids in
another..are there any studies to show us the allergic outcomes, despite an
ever-increasing rate of allergy? I'll be talking about this stuff so no
more at present..Must sign off to travel. Hope to see Lactnetters in
Arizona. Will be away till early July.

Classic case of false inferences: the nucleotides issue.
Breastmilk has nucleotides.
Nucleotides are important to immune function.
Our formula now has nucleotides.
[We have 5 while breastmilk has 13, in amounts and balances that vary, and
we don't have many of the other immune components probably needed to work
with nucleotides, so we don't know whether they work for good or ill...and
we can't show any drop in otitis media although in press releases we refer
to that as a benfit of breastmilk's immune properties then go on and talk
about our formula....]
Is that what every parent will read into the juxtaposition of those three
true statements??
Where is consumer protection? truth in advertising? There'll be a fortune
in court cases once people begin to realise just how misled they have been:
it will be the tobacco cases of the next millenium, wait and see. And I
believe the US FDA will be one of the agencies cited and probably sued for
not having done its work of protecting consumers and promoting optimal
infant nutrition, but rather, of having seen its task as working with
industry to reassure consumers of manufactured products: quite a different
matter.

Maureen Minchin, IBCLC. Christ Church Vicarage, 14 Acland St., St.Kilda,
Vic. 3182 Australia. tel/fax: 61 3 9537 2640
"Taking paths of least resistance is what makes rivers - and people -
crooked." poster in Palmerston North NZ bookshop...