Sunday
Sep112011
Breastfeeding Advocate Asks Babble to Remove Her "Momination"
Sunday, September 11, 2011 
A little over a year ago, I wrote a post calling out popular parenting website Babble for trying to dupe breastfeeding moms by putting ads for a 1-800 number feeding expert line run by infant formula brand Similac on its Breastfeeding Guide and other baby related content. Despite the fact that global public health experts from the World Health Organization recommend that advertising of infant formula not be allowed, their recommendations are largely ignored by major media outlets in North America and other countries where they have not been passed into law. But the Similac ads on Babble went beyond your run-of-the-mill formula ad by positioning their live 24/7 Feeding Experts as lactation consultants, with only a tiny mention of Similac in the corner. This is a typical wolf in sheep's clothing tactic.A day after my post went up, CEO Rufus Griscom stopped by and left a few comments in support of their approach and ultimately told me:
We are not making any changes to the campaign, but I have read all the
comments by the community carefully and we will certainly keep all this in
mind as we proceed in the future.
It is now one year later, Babble has been expanding rapidly, and the same Similac feeding expert ads are still there. Apparently, they are no longer run in the breastfeeding section. However, they still appear across the site on content relating to newborns and when Babble recently listed my blog as a Top Pregnancy Blog that same Similac ad appeared next to the list much of the time.
Human Milk 4 Human Babies Founder Emma Kwasnica and the Babble Momination
"It seemed like a good idea at the time," Jodine Chase wrote about her decision to nominate Human Milk for Human Babies founder Emma Kwasnica for Babble's Momination contest. The contest, which aims to recognize moms who are changing the world, is offering ten prizes of $5000 each to the winners. In her post, Babbling about breasts again, Jodine wrote about how she came to hear about the contest and her decision to nominate Emma:
A item came up in my Facebook feed from Katie Allison Granju, respected author of "Attachment Parenting: Instinctive Guide for Your Baby and Young Child" and well-known mommy-blogger whose life was turned upside down when her son Henry Granju died after a drug overdose. Katie was nominated in Babble.com's "100 Moms Who are Changing YOUR World" promotion and she posted a gracious thank-you and asked people to continue to support her efforts to bring justice for Henry.
I thought of the other moms I know who have stepped outside their role as mother and become advocates for important causes. Emma Kwasnica jumped to mind. I forwarded her name and a description of Emma's work as breastfeeding and birth advocate and founder of the global milksharing network Human Milk 4 Human Babies, and her "Momination" went up on Babble.com's website. Within hours - even before Emma knew about it! - she had hundreds of votes. And in days she was on the top-ten list.
It seemed like a good idea, that is, until Jodine learned about the deceptive Similac ads on Babble."The last thing in the world I want is for Emma Kwasnica's good name to be tainted," she wrote. Both Jodine and Emma discussed the dilemma and the conflict of interest and both pleaded with Babble, as many others did last year, to reconsider their stance on formula advertising. Supporting formula feeding moms does not have to involve throwing breastfeeding moms under the bus, after all. There is a place for the provision of unbiased information on how to formula feed, but there is no place for a formula feeding company pretending to act in the best interest of breastfeeding moms.
Ultimately, when Babble was (once again) unwilling to reconsider its stance on formula ads, Emma asked to have her entry in the Momination contest removed. In an e-mail to me, Emma explained her decision:
Women cannot count on formula ads to give them unbiased information about formula feeding; it is an impossibility for women to make any kind of an informed choice regarding the feeding of powdered infant formula, or learn about its inherent risks, simply from seeing/reading formula adverts. The only way I would consider participating in the Momination contest, is if Babble were to instigate a zero tolerance policy for all formula advertising across the site --no exceptions. This is a question of ethics; the advertising of formula to pregnant or new mothers, in any capacity, is unacceptable.
Ultimately, Emma decided that while the $5000 would have been extremely useful in her advocacy work, she didn't "care for blood money."
Living Our Values, Protecting Our Social Capital
Recently, I wrote a blog post questioning whether good cancels out evil. There is no question that the $50,000 that Babble will be giving to inspirational moms will go to excellent causes. But if that money came from duping breastfeeding moms, can it make up for the damage that is done? The cost of formula feeding is significant. In terms of the price of formula alone, I saved around $2400 by breastfeeding both of my children. Beyond the cost of formula, a significant study last year found that the United States incurs $13 billion in excess costs each year and also suffers 911 preventable deaths because of low breastfeeding rates. Suddenly, the $50,000 in "blood money" that Babble is handing out seems like nothing compared with the significant cost that comes with sabotaging a mother's ability to breastfeed her child successfully.
Emma Kwasnica isn't the first person to take a stance like this (and hopefully won't be the last). In 2007, children's author Sean Taylor was voted by children as the winner of the Nestlé Children's Book Prize. However,Taylor refused to accept the prize money. According to Mothering, :
In an open letter explaining his decision, Taylor said that he was honored to have won the prize because it is awarded on the basis of children's votes, but he could not accept Nestlé's money because "their interpretation of the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes sets up the risk that profit is put before infant health." After examining their baby formula marketing practices, Taylor said, "I do not feel that Nestlé are the most appropriate sponsors for this major children's book prize."
I applaud both Emma and Sean for taking the stance that they did, but I really wish that they didn't have to. I wish that companies were more willing to do something about the business practices that they are criticized for instead of just trying to sweep them under the rug by handing out prize money or donating to charitable causes.
In the conclusion of my post about whether good cancels out evil, I noted:
In the meantime, I would like to see less applauding of corporations for the good things they are doing when those are obviously intended to help us conveniently forget the evil they are doing. I would like to see more people looking under the rug before they agree to participate in or support a campaign. I would like to see these companies held accountable by bloggers and consumers alike, especially when regulators and courts aren’t willing or able to do so.
I'm proud of Emma for taking the stance that she did and I'm sure it will pay dividends much higher than the $5000 she had a chance of winning. I dare say that if Babble were to change its advertising policy and commit to upholding the International Code of the Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes that it would reap benefits greater than what it currently charges for those ads.
What do you think?
Reader Comments (61)
Thank you for sharing this, Jodine.
Debbie: Like you, I am generally more capitalist in my approach.
I am not in favor of using the stick of legislation to prohibit formula advertising.
I do, however, want companies and individuals to consider the ethics involved.
And I support people voting with their wallets, so to speak, and making their opinions known.
The one point on which I disagree is that this is more than symbolic. I do believe these marketing tactics are effective...these are very savvy companies and they are not going to waste money on initiatives that don't convert.
You mention the general goodwill of being seen as supportive of breastfeeding...but formula companies are different than many others because of the intense brand loyalty. Good will might make me switch from Coke to Pepsi but moms stick with the formula brand that works for them initially, unless the baby has health problems.
Price, good will, cause marketing...none of this is going to influence a brand-switch the way it would with almost any other product.
For that reason, formula marketers need to get to the mom first...in the hospital, at WIC, or when she struggles with breastfeeding. Since statistically mom will most like start breastfeeding but will most likely eventually supplement and the switch to formula, getting mom to associate your brand with infant feeding and breastfeeding challenges is very smart.
The real message is "breastfeeding is tough...so when you stop, use our brand".
Now, do I think this should be illegal? No. But do I personally wish to profit from it? No.
Anyway, that's a long exposition of a minor quibble...because I really do agree with the other things you say. My primary interest is that we support women to make the choices we wish to make. But I can spare a few brain cells for some distaste that when a new mom searches for breastfeeding help, what pops up is formula-branded sites, lines, and ads.
Oh, Candace. I couldn't agree with you more. And I am blogging about just this right now. This is America. It is unconstitutional to place restrictions on formula companies BUT via social networking and other means we can let them know they are on notice and we expect them to follow the WHO code. Gotta vote with those dollars and I was sad to learn Stouffer's is owned by Nestle since they make the best mac n cheese.
Not to sidetrack the discussion but as a legal matter, under the US Constitution, it is most definitely *not* unconstitutional to legislate the conduct of formula companies. The federal government is empowered to under the Commerce Clause which authorizes the federal government to (among other things) protect the safety of items in the stream of commerce. Formula most definitely meets this definition. It is also marketed through mechanisms that cross state lines making the marketing itself interstate and thus under federal jurisdiction.
Just sayin.
You beat me to it. We definitely have the right to legislate these matters. I have a preference to avoid legislative solutions but there is definitely precedent.
My primary issues with formula marketing in the West are misleading medical claims and the targeting of breastfeeding moms. I have no issue with companies marketing their products but feel these two aspects of formula marketing are unethical.
Thank you for your information. I love you people on here. I've got a lot to learn!
While I totally support and champion breastfeeding, I wonder, who is a reliable source of information on formula? Do you think Lactation Consultants would be unbiased? Hardly. Where should mothers turn if they are seeking information? What do you propose?
It would be wonderful if hospitals and pediatricians could have access to a feeding consultant-- someone who can give information on both breastfeeding and formula feeding, without the inherent biases that plague the current situation.
I do think that giving samples to breastfeeding moms is ridiculous and undermines their decision. I do think that a full scale revamp of education must be done for staff in labor and delivery floors of hospitals. I do think that some babies need formula, and parents should be able to turn somewhere to get information on that formula. If they are not supposed to turn to the formula companies, where should those parents turn?
[...] or illness, or why preemies shouldn’t have powdered formula (if they even know that). Women are not getting good information on breastfeeding or formula [...]
[...] or illness, or why preemies shouldn’t have powdered formula (if they even know that). Women are not getting good information on breastfeeding or formula [...]
[...] or illness, or why preemies shouldn’t have powdered formula (if they even know that). Women are not getting good information on breastfeeding or formula [...]
[...] or illness, or why preemies shouldn’t have powdered formula (if they even know that). Women are not getting good information on breastfeeding or formula [...]