Sentences with phrase «advertising by formula companies»

She agrees one of the issues facing new mothers is aggressive advertising by formula companies, but also says negative public perceptions of breastfeeding have seen women asked to cover up when feeding.

Not exact matches

* Wiser: Getting Beyond Groupthink to make Groups Smarter by Cass Sunstein and Reid Hastie * The Sales Acceleration Formula by Mark Roberge * Peopleware: Productive Projects and Teams by Tom De Marco, Tim Lister Kaizen Express: Fundamentals for your Lean Journey by Toshiko Narusawa and John Shook Team of Teams: New Rules of Engagement by Gen Stanley McChrystal Targeted: How Technology is revolutionising advertising and the way companies reach consumers by Mike Smith Inside Cisco: The Real Story of Sustained M&A Growth by Ed Paulson Opposable Mind: Winning through integrative thinking by Roger Martin Inspired: How to create products customers love by Marty Cagan

Fun story: at a birth I did last year in another city south of where I live, I picked up mom's freebie «breastfeeding support» bag, and then, with her sitting by, watching from her hospital bed as she breastfed her babe, I helped her methodically remove every piece of advertising for formula companies it contained.

The International Code of Marketing Breastmilk Substitutes (known in lactivist circles as the «WHO Code»), prohibits formula companies from advertising in any conspicuous way: «There should be no advertising or other form of promotion to the general public of products within the scope of this Code,» proclaims article 5.1 of this policy, coauthored in 1981 by UNICEF and the World Health Organization (WHO).

Follow - on formula is marketed for use from 6 months of age and was introduced by baby feeding companies in an attempt to bypass restrictions on advertising and promoting infant formula for use from birth.

That this House is concerned that the provisions of the Infant Formula and Follow - on Formula Regulations 2007 are disrespected in the UK, as evidenced by the current promotion for Nestlé SMA infant formula by Tesco in breach of Article 23 of that regulation, the near identical labelling of infant and follow - on formula to make them cross-promotional in breach of Article 19 of that regulation, the widespread advertising of infant formula brand names and logos in breach of Article 21 of that regulation and the use of idealising text and images on labels in breach of Article 17 of that regulation; therefore rejects the Department of Health's proposals to decriminalise certain of those requirements, such as labelling provisions in planned draft legislative proposals, related to EU Regulation 609/2015 which will replace these 2007 regulations; and stresses that any move to a system of Improvement Notices must have the purpose of speeding up compliance and be backed by prosecutions rather than giving companies who have flouted the law for many years additional time to Formula and Follow - on Formula Regulations 2007 are disrespected in the UK, as evidenced by the current promotion for Nestlé SMA infant formula by Tesco in breach of Article 23 of that regulation, the near identical labelling of infant and follow - on formula to make them cross-promotional in breach of Article 19 of that regulation, the widespread advertising of infant formula brand names and logos in breach of Article 21 of that regulation and the use of idealising text and images on labels in breach of Article 17 of that regulation; therefore rejects the Department of Health's proposals to decriminalise certain of those requirements, such as labelling provisions in planned draft legislative proposals, related to EU Regulation 609/2015 which will replace these 2007 regulations; and stresses that any move to a system of Improvement Notices must have the purpose of speeding up compliance and be backed by prosecutions rather than giving companies who have flouted the law for many years additional time to Formula Regulations 2007 are disrespected in the UK, as evidenced by the current promotion for Nestlé SMA infant formula by Tesco in breach of Article 23 of that regulation, the near identical labelling of infant and follow - on formula to make them cross-promotional in breach of Article 19 of that regulation, the widespread advertising of infant formula brand names and logos in breach of Article 21 of that regulation and the use of idealising text and images on labels in breach of Article 17 of that regulation; therefore rejects the Department of Health's proposals to decriminalise certain of those requirements, such as labelling provisions in planned draft legislative proposals, related to EU Regulation 609/2015 which will replace these 2007 regulations; and stresses that any move to a system of Improvement Notices must have the purpose of speeding up compliance and be backed by prosecutions rather than giving companies who have flouted the law for many years additional time to formula by Tesco in breach of Article 23 of that regulation, the near identical labelling of infant and follow - on formula to make them cross-promotional in breach of Article 19 of that regulation, the widespread advertising of infant formula brand names and logos in breach of Article 21 of that regulation and the use of idealising text and images on labels in breach of Article 17 of that regulation; therefore rejects the Department of Health's proposals to decriminalise certain of those requirements, such as labelling provisions in planned draft legislative proposals, related to EU Regulation 609/2015 which will replace these 2007 regulations; and stresses that any move to a system of Improvement Notices must have the purpose of speeding up compliance and be backed by prosecutions rather than giving companies who have flouted the law for many years additional time to formula to make them cross-promotional in breach of Article 19 of that regulation, the widespread advertising of infant formula brand names and logos in breach of Article 21 of that regulation and the use of idealising text and images on labels in breach of Article 17 of that regulation; therefore rejects the Department of Health's proposals to decriminalise certain of those requirements, such as labelling provisions in planned draft legislative proposals, related to EU Regulation 609/2015 which will replace these 2007 regulations; and stresses that any move to a system of Improvement Notices must have the purpose of speeding up compliance and be backed by prosecutions rather than giving companies who have flouted the law for many years additional time to formula brand names and logos in breach of Article 21 of that regulation and the use of idealising text and images on labels in breach of Article 17 of that regulation; therefore rejects the Department of Health's proposals to decriminalise certain of those requirements, such as labelling provisions in planned draft legislative proposals, related to EU Regulation 609/2015 which will replace these 2007 regulations; and stresses that any move to a system of Improvement Notices must have the purpose of speeding up compliance and be backed by prosecutions rather than giving companies who have flouted the law for many years additional time to comply.

This one was hosted by a formula company, presumably out of their PR and advertising budget.

I do think that formula companies should be held accountable for medical benefits they claim, however I don't think it's a toxic substance nor should it be treated so by way of advertising.

Indeed, after complaints registered by Baby Milk Action, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) investigated claims by Danone and Pfizer Nutrition / Wyeth (prior to the Nestlé takeover) that Aptamil and SMA are the «best» formulas — the companies were unable to substantiate these claims.

The formula companies agreed to encourage mothers to go to physicians to get advice about infant feeding, and not advertise directly to the public (though this part of the understanding has fallen by the wayside recently), while the physicians helped market the new products.

In addition to advertising, the main way that companies undermine breastfeeding is by influencing health workers — pediatricians, neo-natologysts, family doctors, midwives through training, dinners and sponsorship — including fully paid trips abroad and donations to Maternity Hospitals who order formula.

By then, pediatricians, caught up in the «scientific parenting» vogue, were pushing formula hard — and new mothers, eager to live up to the Eisenhower housewife ideal, were reluctant to disobey; formula companies advertised with corresponding enthusiasm.

The fact that the pediatrician quoted in your article recommends a specific brand of Nestlé formula — the same brand for which the company launched a nation - wide advertising campaign earlier this year — and has recommended this specific brand on other websites despite the fact there are identical products made by other companies, seems to suggest that she has ties to the company.

We refer to the company as Wyeth (or more fully, John Wyeth and Brother Ltd) as that is the company that was taken to court by Trading Standards in 2003 for breaking the law with an illegal SMA formula advertising campaign.

A debate over breast - feeding vs. bottle feeding went to the top Philippine court Tuesday, with health officials arguing that advertising by U.S. and British companies has some women believing formula is better than their own milk.