The new tobacco?
BMJ 2004; 328 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7455.1572 (Published 24 June 2004) Cite this as: BMJ 2004;328:1572All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Sir:
Tobacco use in any form leads to a variety of diseases iincluding
malignancies and yearly millions of deaths worldwide. Likewise, the use of
junk foods is assciated with a variety of diseases including cancers and
yearly results in millions of deaths globally. Similarly, the use of
alcohol is coupled with an array of diseases including cancers and causes
considerable number of deaths worldwide. The common denominator of these
life-style disorders is preventable deaths, which can be radically managed
by appropriate strategies including applying governmental ban on
adertisement of the products related to these harmful items. Such ban is
easily approved by the concerned government when the election is near
approaching. So, where is the main focus of the government, most likely
the election campaign to win it rather than the overall health of the
public.
Finally, the use of cars has added many public health problems
including motor car accidents(MCA) resulting into many deaths,
disabilities among survivors, and huge burdens on the family carers of
survivors, environmenal problems including pollution causing a variety of
diseases, and numerous road safety problems to pedestrians. The car
related morbidity and mortality is again preventable.
Notably, each individual is responsible for his behavior which should
guide the individual in return to decide what is the best for him or her.
Ban on food industries, tobacco manfacturers, and TV advertisements is all
nonsense and hype and finally politicians are the ones who get a lot from
such ban.
Reference:
Rebecca Coombes. The new tobacco? BMJ 2004; 328: 1572
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I agree that the UK law is very weak in this respect, and it is
flouted by many companies. At present, the Boots.com website shows
formula milks for sale with "special offer" flagged against them, in
breach of the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations. Until
recently, Boots were marketing flavoured water for babies of 4 weeks.
This is not illegal, but should be made so; this is clearly a marketing
ploy, and the manufacture of such products cannot be justified by infants'
needs.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Junk food, alcohol, cars? When considering candidates for an
advertising ban, surely the top priority should be widening the scope of
the law which bans advertising of infant formula.
In 1981 the World Health Organisation and UNICEF adopted a code for
marketing breast milk substitutes, bottles and teats. This has only ever
been partially implemented in the UK. Advertisements to the public for
formulas for infants under the age of 6 months are not allowed, but
companies continue to advertise ‘follow-on’ milks, meaning that company
logos and information on company ‘careline’ telephone numbers are promoted
in magazines intended for pregnant women and new mothers. Bottles and
teats are advertised with explicit comparisons to breasts. Current UK
violations of the WHO code and subsequent World Health Authority
resolutions (which update and clarify the Code) were detailed in a report
by the International Baby Food Action Network presented to Parliament in
May (1).
The philosophy of the ban on advertising of these products is that
babies who rely on a single food source for their first months, and their
mothers anxious to do the best for them, are a particularly vulnerable
group of consumers. Choices on infant feeding should be made on the basis
of what is best for a particular mother-baby pair, and not on the basis of
slick ads and packaging designs.
Sadly, the issue of protection from unrestricted marketing of breast
milk substitutes, bottles and teats is unresolved after decades – so
perhaps it cannot be the ‘new tobacco’ after all, but could be labelled
the ‘pre-tobacco’ issue.
(1) Breaking the Rules, Stretching the Rules 2004
http://www.ibfan.org/english/codew00.html
Competing interests:
I am an advisor to Baby Milk Action, UK's IBFAN member
Competing interests: No competing interests
It starts early!
Babies and children do seem to bear the brunt of some of the worst
advertising campaigns. My favourite has to be a very well known fast food
restaurant near me who held a bonny baby competition. The "lucky" baby
won a year supply of happy meals. What a great weaning food!
My eldest son is particularly offended by a soft drink advert that takes
the mickey out of children who eat healthily!
As said before formula is advertised and pushed even by health
professionals despite regulations that are supposed to stop this. As it
is the rules are poor, allowing follow on to be promoted for example.
Trouble is the legislation in place as it is appears to have no affect on
milk promotion. Supermarkets and big chemist chains know full well what
the rules are yet still boast about their low prices, make special
displays of baby milk and offer you points. You complain and you get
pathetic excuses about how they didn't realise and they are back the next
week doing it again. Formula companies have targeted me personally
through the post yet nothing is done about this either. I still haven't
quite worked out the meaning of the phrase "not intended to replace
breastfeeding" used in milk adverts. What exactly is formula for then?
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests