Easing law on marketing baby formula just helps big brands, campaigners say | Food & drink industry

Campaigners have spoken out against proposed changes to the law that would ease restrictions on marketing baby formula, arguing that they would not help cut prices for hard-pressed families but instead give free rein to powerful brands.

The boss of Iceland, Richard Walker, has written to MPs proposing an amendment to the competition bill currently going through parliament that would remove the ban on advertising in stores, free samples, discount promotions and “any other promotional activity to induce the sale of an infant formula”.

The prohibitions were introduced to avoid discouraging breastfeeding. Walker said that while breast milk “is always the best for babies” the regulations were “making it harder for families to access more affordable formula”.

The competition watchdog is expected to make recommendations this summer on how to tackle profiteering in the baby formula market after an initial investigation last year found prices had risen 25% in two years.

The Competition and Markets Authority found parents could save as much as £500 a year by switching brands but were reluctant to do so while competition was hampered because only one own-label alternative existed – from the cut-price chain Aldi.

Families could also be buying more formula than required, the CMA said, as manufacturers’ feeding volume guides were “systematically higher” than those recommended by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition.

Campaigners, including Walker, have called on the government to introduce measures such as a price cap that would control profiteering on baby milks.

Alison Thewliss MP, the head of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Infant Feeding, said Walker’s proposals would enable formula makers to spend more on marketing than they already did, adding to the costs and price of their products.

Brands get around the limits on advertising infant formula by promoting “growing up” milk – a type of formula targeted at toddlers who do not need a special drink to remain healthy. She said Walker’s plan “played into the hands of formula companies and I don’t see how that cuts costs for people at the till. The UK government should be challenging companies directly on how much it is costing for product that for many is an absolute essential”.

Dr Vicky Sibson, the director of the First Steps Nutrition Trust (FSNT), a baby health charity, said Walker’s proposals “would not make any difference for struggling families” and could lead to the sale of unnecessary products to those on low incomes.

She added: “These laws on marketing formula are there to protect all babies no matter how they are fed. Weakening those laws runs the risk of affecting babies’ health.”

Sibson said enabling the use of loyalty scheme points or vouchers for the purchase of formula would not help families on low incomes, who are most affected by high prices, as they would have to spend potentially thousands of pounds in order to get enough points for a tin.

The FSNT is calling for a public health campaign to highlight that the content of all infant formula is strictly regulated, no matter the price or brand, so that they are nutritionally equivalent.

Prof Amy Brown of Swansea University, who has researched the marketing of baby formula, said the most simple way to cut baby formula prices was for brands to reduce their profits.

“They are making huge profits and that is what needs to change,” she said. “The rules [on marketing] are there for a reason and that is because they can’t play nicely. They use [free samples and discounts] to hook people in and persuade them to buy more expensive products.”