Advertisment
The advertising featured parents in various everyday situations with their children. The scenes were accompanied by a female voiceover (FVO) which referred to the following:
FVO: “You’ve had the adventures and you’ve watched them thrive. All those things you do every day help them develop and shine.
Introducing our new SMA PRO Follow-on Milk – 50 years of protein research has led to our most advanced formula yet. It contains nutri-steps with iron to help support a nutritional foundation for life.”
50 Years of Protein Research, our most advanced formula yet
New SMA PRO Follow-on milk – supporting a nutritional foundation for life.”
The following on-screen text accompanied the voiceover:
“IMPORTANT NOTICE: SMA PRO Follow-on Milk is for babies over 6 months as part of a varied weaning diet. Not intended to replace breastfeeding. Made with SMA Nutrition’s unique protein technology. GOS/FOS in powders only.
50 Years of Protein Research, our most advanced formula yet.
New SMA PRO Follow-on milk – supporting a nutritional foundation for life.”
The final frame included the following text:
“Nutri-Steps, Iron, Vitamin D, Exclusive Protein Process, Omega 3 & 6 + GOS/FOS. Nutritional Foundation for life. Iron to help support normal cognitive development.”
This frame also included a tin of the product, the writing on the tin read:
“Our most advanced Formula. SMA PRO Follow-On-milk 2. To complement the weaning diet. 6+months.”
Complaint
The complainant challenged the advertisers’ claim that the product was ‘not intended to replace breastfeeding’. The complainant said she considered that the primary purpose of the advertising was to convince mothers to move on from breast feeding and replace breast milk with formula milk. She said that the fact that the product was for babies over 6 months did not alter her opinion.
Response
The advertisers said their television advertising for SMA PRO Follow-on-Milk was regulated by the Republic of Ireland 2007 Regulations on Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula (S.I. No. 852 of 2007). As a company they said they took their compliance with these regulations very seriously and rejected the challenge that their product was designed to replace breast milk.
The advertisers said the statement “not intended to replace breastfeeding” was part of the important information required by law when an advertisement for Follow-on-Milk
formula was produced. They said their advertising had complied with this requirement and had never in any way discouraged breast feeding.
The advertisers said under the same Regulation, advertisements for follow-on-formulae must enable consumers to make a clear distinction between infant formulae and follow-on-formulae and avoid causing confusion between the two. They said that infant formulas were defined as breast milk substitutes which could be used from birth as the sole source of nutrition. On the other hand, follow-on-formulas were not considered to be breast milk substitutes but were designed to be fed to babies from six months of age and as part of a mixed weaning diet. The advertisers reiterated that legislation was very clear on this point and required that the age from which follow-on-milk was suitable be stated on the product.
In conclusion the advertisers said their use of the statement ‘not intended to replace breast feeding’ made it clear that follow-on-milk was not a substitute for breast milk and the additional information provided ensured its appropriate use i.e. as part of a mixed diet and from the age of six months.
Conclusion
Complaint Not Upheld
The Complaints Committee considered the details of the complaint and the advertisers’ response. They noted the advertisers’ comments in relation to the Regulations for advertising follow-on-formula and that they had been clear and concise in what their product was and the age group it was suitable for.
The Committee did not consider that the purpose of the advertising was to discourage breast feeding and did not uphold the complaint.
