Brand Power ad.

Private Breastfeeding Advocacy discussion area.
The Advocacy topic is for forum members to discuss issues relating to
Breastfeeding Advocacy, such as purpose, strategy, techniques, etc.
Constructive debate is encouraged, but arguments about the relative merits
of Breastmilk and ABM or breastfeeding and bottlefeeding will not be
tolerated. The Australian Breastfeeding Association strives to educate the
community about the importance of human milk and support all mothers in
their feeding choices.

Post Reply
User avatar
Bec Mc
Posts: 5307
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 3:41 pm

Brand Power ad.

Post by Bec Mc » Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:46 pm

I did post this in ABA and the media, and Carrie suggested I bring it up here.

There is a new brand power ad, promting a particular baby food, that states on the label it is for 4 months plus. I know we have an agreement with NZ and we sell some of their products that say 4 months plus, because that is what they do over there, but I believe this ad is very misleading as it is promoting the early introduction of solids. The label is clearly visible throughtout the ad. I think it is very different having these foods on the shelf and promoting them on tv.
I just got on their webpage and sent them an email telling them I thought that too.
Does anyone else agree??
DS 7 (breastfed for 18 months)
DD 5 (breastfed for 30 months)
DS 2 (breastfed for 21 months)

User avatar
Posts: 8605
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 10:23 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Giggles » Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:52 pm

Yes totally agree...they should have at least just had a 6month old one shown on there instead? Unfortunately they may have done it delibrately to get more mums see that and go oh ok bubs can start solids at 4months!

but in total agreement!


User avatar
Posts: 4322
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2005 4:06 pm
Location: NT

Post by Dash » Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:54 pm

I agree, I've had a look at the website

The product itself looks fine, apart from the labelling, but their write-up :evil: all about solids from 4 months if you want and definitely at 6 months.

I've also put in a message, starting with a positive about the product then pointing out that their information goes against both the WHO and Australian standards for infant nutrition.
Widget 4! Midget 2 - two little WHO babies
Science@home - Fun activities and information for babies, toddlers and big kids.

User avatar
Posts: 1649
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:10 pm
Location: Far Nth Queensland

Post by phoenix » Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:03 pm

I've had mums on other forums recommend particular brands of baby food because it's especially made for 4mth olds(popular at the moment is rafferties garden). They are dumfounded when someone explains that they are not specially made for this age group that it's all just a mraketing ploy to get more sales.
DH:- 32
Finally married after 12yrs together!!!
David:- 8 (breastfed 23mths)
Rylee:-5 (breastfed 3yrs 3mths)

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world."-Mohandas Gandhi

User avatar
Posts: 3788
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:01 am
Location: Canberra

Post by charndra1 » Mon Feb 04, 2008 4:42 pm

You might also add in recommendation #21 from the breastfeeding inquiry:
Recommendation 21
That Food Standards Australia New Zealand change the labelling requirements for foods for infants under Standard 2.9.2 of the Food
Standards Code to align with the NHMRC Dietary Guidelines
recommendation that a baby should be exclusively breastfed for the first
six months. ... /front.pdf

he he, while I did a search so I didn't have to type it out, look at the first link I clicked on: ... og/478460/ There I was thinking "Oh, these are good letters to share!" Then I looked at the name at the top!

Bailey's Mum
Posts: 17986
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 4:23 pm

Post by Bailey's Mum » Mon Feb 04, 2008 5:00 pm

Oh bugger - I've made a total goose of myself "out there" - but my little advocacy journey has continued today.
DS1 born sleeping
DS2 BF 2y2m (using supply line)
DS3 BF 2y2m2w2d (because we like patterns - 9 months with SNS)
DS4 BF 3y10m3w4d (8 months with SNS)

User avatar
Posts: 536
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 3:53 pm

Post by nilmerg » Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:29 pm

Having just joind this forum, I'm a bit behind the 8 ball, but since I completely agree with this issue, I shot off a messge to them too. Will let you know if I recieve any response.

Posts: 2454
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 10:15 pm

Post by greenie » Sun Jul 06, 2008 3:46 pm

I was just looking at the Food Standards website the other day for another matter and decided to check if anything had changed with infant food labelling. The answer, as far as I can see, is: almost.

In October last year FSANZ released a consultation paper for final assessment of their proposal to change the minimum age for food labelling. Now that NZ has decided to adopt the 6 month recommendation, FSANZ proposed to change their minimum age recommendation on food labels to "around 6 months". They will also keep the current warning of "not before 4 months", though.

In my opinion the "NZ hasn't adopted the WHO recommendation, so we're not changing the standard" explanation was a crock. Why not take the safest approach of changing it to 6 months when Australia, the more populous of the two countries covered by FSANZ, changed their recommendation? Aren't they supposed to be protecting consumers' health and food safety? :roll:
So long everyone! Thanks for everything :-D

Post Reply