Marketing ploy comes in handy for some infant formula manufacturers amid a strong pro-breastfeeding campaign which has already created a culture for a following, consequently threatening milk substitutes to oblivion. Such driving force has allowed milk companies to go around the provisions of Executive Order 51, otherwise known as the Milk Code, which rests as a cornerstone for the “breastfeeding is best for babies” advocacy, at the same time penetrate a good share of their supposed public—in a subliminal and devious means.

As stated in the Milk Code, “no advertising, promotion or other marketing materials and activities for breastmilk substitutes intended for infants and young children up to 24 months shall be allowed.” This order manifests a godly stance, all-powerful and encompassing. But like the Israelites who once worshipped a golden calf at the foot of Mt. Sinai, milk companies have found their way to be defiant of the law for the gains neither of mothers nor babies but of their crusade to commercial supremacy.

In Cagayan Valley, reports have been verified that Wyeth Nutrition, a manufacturer and distributor of nutritional products, has deployed some of its crew to survey pediatricians in the area by disseminating Q&A leaflets. According to the report, pediatricians who answered and gave back the questionnaires to Wyeth representatives were, in return, gifted giveaways (i.e. Wyeth tumblers, etc.), an act which clearly violates the provision abovementioned; more so promotes the products of Wyeth shadily.

A separate but similar account took place in La Union, where the same milk company held an event tagged La Union Buntis Day. In the gathering, mothers were wooed with different gift items from Wyeth and were later on subjected to the promotion of Bonna, Wyeth’s infant formula milk. Not only did the event defy the Milk Code but also The World Health Assembly International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, which affirms the prohibition of any form of promotion that seeks for direct or indirect contact with mothers.

Further, Wyeth took its hand at sampling—a no-no still incorporated in EO 51—as it provided the Ilocos Training Regional Medical Center free 180-gram packs of powdered milk through the Center’s Pediatrics Department. Rumor had it that these free samples were sold by doctors to patients. The sampling made was untraceable as there were no signed papers that could serve as material proof.

Milk magnate Mead Johnson, on the other hand, had gone from sponsoring European trips for pediatricians in exchange of their prescription of Alactamil, MJ’s starter milk, to deceiving consumers that theirs is the cheapest instant formula in the market, when in fact, if closely computed per feed (the number of scoops one needs to make a milk-filled bottle), it is the most expensive. In addition to this, Alactamil’s main ingredient has been disclosed to be corn syrup instead of milk, which should be the chief component of infant formulas. Health issues may then arise as the early intake of sugar (from corn syrup) can result to an untimely acquisition of the so-called “sweet tooth” which entails a preference of sugary yet unhealthy food.

Into sampling as well, MJ introduced a promo of giving free vitamins and other baby necessities (e.g. cotton) upon a P150 purchase of its products. Too, it remains heavy on giveaways, including mechanized massagers in its list of freebies to be handed out to loyal patrons.

Ever wondered what’s the difference of Bona from Bonamil from Bonakid from Bonaline? How about Alactamil from Alactagrow? Enfakid from Enfagrow? Yet another marketing strategy plotted by the milk companies. Can there be no observance of the One-Brand policy so as to avoid advertising’s power of establishing a name recall even in the light of confusion? (A research concluded that 50% of mothers are influenced massively by advertising in choosing their starter milks, not by friends, families, or even doctors.) This trickery pits the consumer to buying infant formula milk having the brands of growing-up formulas—which are not covered by the Milk Code—that are closely related to them.

As these facts have been unraveled, mothers may be left shaking their heads in front of grocery shelves where in sight are myriad choices for the nourishment of their babies. But wait, there’s more to shake: how about Alactamil’s box, just to check if the content slips not from one side to another. What, it does? Another magic of marketing, perhaps: packaging 180 grams of foiled powdered milk in a box capable of containing more.