Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Formula companies battle it out

Expand Messages
  • Marshalact@aol.com
    Abbott Nutrition has filed a complaint against Mead Johnson with the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau regarding misleading claims.
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 26, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Abbott Nutrition has filed a complaint against Mead Johnson with the
      National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau regarding
      misleading claims. When Mead Johnson refused to change this after 3
      challenges, it was referred to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). NABA
      and the Cornucopia Institute www.cornucopia.org, also filed a petition
      with the FTC regarding false and misleading advertising by formula
      manufacturers. Maybe 4000 letters to the FTC would help them move
      towards doing their job of stopping this type of marketing. You can
      file a complaint with the FTC at their website at www.ftc.gov.

      Marsha Walker, RN, IBCLC
      Weston, MA


      New York, NY – Feb. 24, 2009 – The National Advertising Division of the
      Council of Better Business
      Bureaus has referred advertising Mead Johnson Nutritionals for Enfamil
      Lipil infant formula to the
      Federal Trade Commission for further review, following NAD’s third
      compliance review.
      NAD, the advertising industry’s self-regulatory forum, initially
      recommended in April 2008 that Mead
      Johnson modify or discontinue certain claims for the product or clarify
      the claims to assure that
      consumers are provided with all pertinent information.
      NAD examined advertising claims for the product following a challenge
      by Abbott Nutrition, a
      0Amanufacturer of Similac brand infant products.
      NAD recommended then that the advertiser make clear that Enfamil Lipil
      has not been shown to
      outperform Similac Advance with respect to mental and/or visual
      development. Further, with respect
      to a consumer-directed coupon that featured a chart inviting consumers
      to “compare the
      differences” between Enfamil Lipil and Similac Advance, NAD recommended
      that the advertiser
      either discontinue this comparative advertisement, or modify it by
      removing the comparison to
      Similac Advance.
      Since its initial inquiry, NAD has opened three compliance reviews
      related to the same or similar
      advertising claims, including reviews in June 2008, November 2008 and
      finally in February 2009.
      In the most recent compliance proceeding, NAD again found that the
      Enfamil Lipil advertising did not
      comply with NAD’s decision.
      NAD noted in its decision that the “self-regulatory process cannot
      function properly when advertisers
      state, on the one hand, that they respect the process and will comply
      with NAD’s decision, and then
      do the opposite. Accordingly, NAD has no choice but to refer this
      matter to the appropriate
      government agency for possible law enforcement action pursuant to
      section 4.1(B) of the NAD/NARB
      NAD's inquiry was conducted under NAD/CARU/NARB Procedures for the
      Voluntary Self-Regulation of
      National Advertising. Details of the initial inquiry, NAD's decision,
      and the advertiser
      's response will be
      included in the next NAD/CARU Case Report.
      About Advertising Industry Self-Regulation: The National Advertising
      Review Council (NARC) was formed in 1971 by the
      Association of National Advertisers, Inc. (ANA), the American
      Association of Advertising Agencies, Inc. (AAAA), the American
      Advertising Federation, Inc. (AAF), and the Council of Better Business
      Bureaus, Inc. (CBBB). Its purpose is to foster truth and
      accuracy in national advertising through voluntary self-regulation.
      NARC is the body that establishes the policies and
      procedures for the CBBB’s National Advertising Division (NAD) and
      Children’s Advertising Review Unit (CARU), as well as for
      the National Advertising Review Board (NARB) and the Electronic
      Retailing Self-Regulation Program (ERSP).
      NAD and CARU are the investigative arms of the advertising industry’s
      voluntary self-regulation program. Their casework
      results from competitive challenges from other advertisers, and also
      from self-monitoring traditional and new media. The
      National Advertising Review Board (NARB), the appeals body, is a peer
      group from which ad-hoc panels are selected to
      adjudicate those cases that are not resolved at the NAD/CARU level.
      This unique, self-regulatory system is funded entirely by
      the business community; CARU is financed by the children’s advertising
      industry, while NAD/NARC/NARB’s sole source of
      funding is derived from membership fees paid to the CBBB. ERSP’s
      funding is d
      erived from membership in the Electronic
      Retailing Association. For more information about advertising self
      regulation, please visit www.narcpartners.org
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.