Infant feeding bottles, infant feeding & consumer protection

Infant feeding bottles, infant feeding & consumer protection

A few thoughts about the infant feeding bottles with inaccurate markings issue – yes, it’s an ‘old’ story in New Zealand but one that’s bugged me for a while.[1]  [2] Let’s unpack this and look at some other associated issues at the same time.

Starting with the history – after health workers expressing concern that measurements on some infant feeding bottles were inaccurate, this issue became ‘live’ in New Zealand in 2013, with informational, warning notifications to health workers about the issue, accompanied by media releases. This information outlined the dangers of too dilute or too concentrated feeds and suggested that parents take their bottles to a pharmacy for a measurement check, with the added note that pharmacists could charge for this service.

Now firstly, issues are NOT just confined to the measurements on the bottles and the powder scoops to water ratios, even though this is important. Consumer Affairs point out that some bottles overestimate the fluid volume by up to 40 percent and that may have serious health consequences for infants.[3]  Even though media messages at the time suggested ‘all’ ‘we’ needed to do was make sure the measurements were correct and all risk would be reduced, this is quite clearly not the case. Although the formula industry would like the world to believe that a parent making up a feed correctly is the only issue, the research evidence about infant & young child health would quite significantly beg to differ.

Secondly – health workers such as midwives and nurses in maternity facilities are there to support ALL parents with ALL aspects of infant feeding – the protection, promotion and support of breastfeeding AND ensuring parents using infant formula/bottle-feeding have access to non-judgemental support and information about how to prepare bottle feeds/reconstitute powdered infant formula as safely as possible. Lead maternity carer midwives and Tamariki Ora Well Child Nurses continue the support for parents in their own homes. Are we really suggesting that the pharmacy is the only place where parents can get support with feeding bottles?

I’m pretty sure that midwives and well child health nurses would see checking the feeding bottle, if necessary, as being part of the essential information and support that they could give to families using infant formula/baby bottles. All it takes is a plastic syringe and some water. Do parents really need to go to pharmacies to get their bottles checked where they may also be charged a fee and potentially steered towards expensive bottle purchases? I don’t think so.

Another related issue – mothers who are expressing breast milk for their babies who are concerned about the accurate measurements of amounts being expressed, or being given to their babies. If you are a mother with a baby in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit – you can be pretty certain that the amounts given to your premature or unwell baby will be measured accurately in the NICU so no need to add another worry into your life about bottles. Many NICUs use sterile, liquid ready to feed products as well. If women are expressing breast milk for a well baby at home the slightly inaccurate measurements on any bottles being used for expressed breast milk really don’t matter.

However, a serious issue related to scoops and water amounts, is the one of formula stretching. Nothing to do with bottle-markings but a lot to do with poverty – but wait, bottle markings do have something to do with poverty. Parents who are struggling with a low income do not tend to purchase the expensive feeding bottles which are more likely to be standardised with accurate measure markings, but the very cheap ones instead with inaccurate markings. These parents are also unlikely to pop into a pharmacy where there may be a charge for a bottle check.

But, back to formula-stretching; a study of families in the US in 2012 found that both food insecurity and formula stretching were common. [4]  Formula stretching happens when parents try to make formula powder last longer and they hold back feeds or dilute them to the detriment of nutrition and infant development. One of the issues mentioned in this US study was that parents bought expensive branded formula products and saw the cheaper generic products as not being equivalent.  Formula literacy can be elusive in the face of misleading industry marketing, but parents using formula should know that they do not need to purchase the expensive products, nor do they need to use any formula milk after their babies reach one year of age. Most unlikely they will get this information from industry of course – just more misleading health claims tempting parents towards the more expensive products and enticements to use formula products for longer than necessary (if formula feeding the formula is only necessary until the infant is one year old and a stage one product is suitable for that year).

Industry should not be providing feeding information of any kind to parents as they have an obvious commercial interest. Health workers need to get up to speed here, but they need support and access to good information themselves. In the UK it’s easy as the excellent First Steps Nutrition Trust provides all the information needed about the infant milks on the market. [5]

But wait – there’s more – one of the FAQs about inaccurate measurements on bottles does ask a pretty reasonable question about why do we (NZ) allow these faulty products that could harm babies into the country at all? This is a very good question. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment says that this issue falls outside of the scope of current consumer law; “The provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1986 allow mandatory standards relating to products which may cause injury. Baby bottles which do not meet the EN14350 standard are not in themselves unsafe, rather they may have the potential in some cases to lead to adverse health effects.” [6] At this point I need a cup of tea and a lie down due to serious head banging activities. We can’t protect our babies from companies making faulty products? The smallest and most vulnerable of consumers?

I spotted a media report a few days ago from Canada about a self-feeding baby bottle. Health Canada announced a recall of an ILLEGAL hands-free baby bottle system. [7] Yes, illegal. “Products that position infant feeding bottles and enable infants to feed themselves without supervision are prohibited by law, Health Canada said, adding that babies could choke or inhale the liquid in the bottles. Unattended infant feeding practices are discouraged by Health Canada and Canadian professional medical associations the alert said.” [8] I may be out of order here, but I have searched for a similar regulation in New Zealand without success. Feel free to inform me if I am wrong – that snippet of news would be very welcome.

So, in the end there’s more to be concerned about alongside baby bottle-markings. Recently in New Zealand we’ve had another scare about contaminated formula powder (to add to the real melamine tragedy, the terrifying botulism concern, the nitrates worry, and the fertiliser aid dicyandiamide (DCD) in milk powder). This latest concern is related to an individual, or individuals, [who must be seriously deranged], threatening to add the poison 1080 to infant formula powder. No 1080 has been found yet in any products but this threat has been terrifying for parents using formula products. Suddenly the tins on the supermarket shelves have their own rather bored bodyguards (young employees who have to stand next to the shelves watching the formula tins), there are big signs telling parents how very safe formula products are and reassurances about all the checks the ultra-processed baby food goes through from the cow to the shelf. Worried parents have found suspicious looking defects in the foil lids but no contamination of 1080 in any of these tins has been found, thank goodness. I thought it interesting to note there were quite a few processing issues blamed for these faulty looking products– but nobody pursued that manufacturing concern.

Another thing never mentioned is that the powder in the tins is not actually sterile. I noted a recent media report from the UK where a baby was admitted to hospital with a serious campylobacter infection and parents said the baby’s diet was just one brand of formula.[9] In a media statement the company involved said that “the milk was pasteurised and heat treated to very high temperatures.” That would reassure parents and make them think it was a sterile product wouldn’t it? But the company is talking about the MILK, not the end result powder. Formula powder cannot be sterilised as the temperature would destroy some ingredients. That means that contamination with bacteria such as chronobacter sakazakii, campylobacter and salmonella is possible during the many processing stages. If the feeds are made up and used correctly then any bacterial contamination will be dealt to, but in many countries parents are not given the correct information and it’s certainly not on the tins I’ve looked at in New Zealand. Here’s a link to the real story from the World Health Organisation where it explains clearly why the temperature of the water used to reconstitute the non-sterile powder needs to be at 70 degrees centigrade.[10] Some countries, including the UK, are following these optimal recommendations. [11] [12]

In 2013 I had a look at the products on the shelves in some NZ supermarkets (I wouldn’t want to be doing this now). In total I examined the labels on nine different companies’ tins. Instructions ranged from stating fresh or safe drinking water should be boiled and allowed to cool, to instructions stating that water temperatures should to be from 40 to 60 degrees C, but despite the diverse range of instructions not one was optimal. There is also no such thing as a standard scoop across all brands, so scoop-water ratio varies from brand to brand.

It’s time for a re-examination of the recommendations for making up a powdered formula feed in New Zealand, and time to look at consumer protection laws and regulations with infant advocacy and protection in mind.

Oh, BTW, avoid Googling ‘scoops of formula.’ It’s not very helpful, you get ‘extra scoops’, ‘3 scoops’, ‘5 scoops’, and ‘per ounce.’ Talk to a midwife or well child nurse about infant feeding concerns, scoops and bottle measurements. Check out First Steps Nutrition Trust as well for some great information. [13]


[1] Ministry of Health. (2013). Inaccurate volume markings on baby feeding bottles.

[2] Inaccurate baby bottle markings. (2013). Media release.

[3] Consumer Affairs. Inaccurate baby bottle markings.*

[4] Burkhardt, M. C., Beck, A, F., Khan, R. S., & Klein, M. D. (2012). Are our babies hungry? Food insecurity among infants in urban clinics. Clinical Pediatrics, 51(3):238-243.

[5] First Steps Nutrition Trust. (2015). Infant milks in the UK: A practical guide for health professionals.

[6] Ministry of Health NZ. Questions and answers on inaccurate markings on baby bottles.

[7] Health Canada. (2015). Bed Bath & Beyond Canada L.P. recalls Podee® Hands Free Baby Bottle System.

[8] Bed Bath & Beyond recalls illegal self-feeding baby bottle

[9] Aptamil infant formula linked to UK Campylobacter case given all clear at plant.

[10] World Health Organisation. Safe preparation, storage and handling of powdered infant formula: Guidelines.

[11] NHS Choices. Making up infant formula.

[12] NHS Guide to bottle feeding: How to prepare infant formula and sterilise feeding equipment to minimise the risks to your baby. NHS, UNICEF UK, The Baby Friendly Initiative, Start for Life.

[13] First Steps Nutrition Trust Homepage




A brief overview of principles contained within human rights documents related to infants, children, women and mothers. Useful for policy development, submissions about human rights in pregnancy, birth, protection of breastfeeding and more ….



  • Childhood is entitled to special care and assistance
  • Recognises that children are living in difficult conditions globally

Article 3

  • The best interests of the child shall be the primary consideration

Article 6

  • State parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child

Article 24

  • The rights of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health


Article 16:3

  • The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state

Article 25:2

  • Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance


Article 10:2

  • Special protection for mothers during a reasonable period before and after childbirth

Article 10:3

  • Special measures of protection and assistance should be taken on behalf of all children

Article 12:1

  • The rights to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. The provision for the healthy development of the child


  • The Convention defines discrimination against women as “…any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.”

Article 12

  • 1. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of health care in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, access to health care services, including those related to family planning.
  • 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph I of this article, States Parties shall ensure to women appropriate services in connection with pregnancy, confinement and the post-natal period, granting free services where necessary, as well as adequate nutrition during pregnancy and lactation.


Article 23: 1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 24: 1. Every child shall have, without any discrimination as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, national or social origin, property or birth, the right to such measures of protection as are required by his [sic] status as a minor, on the part of his [sic] family, society and the State.


Article 5

(e) Economic, social and cultural rights, in particular:

  • The rights to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work, to protection against unemployment, to equal pay for equal work, to just and favourable remuneration.
  • (f) The right of access to any place or service intended for use by the general public, such as transport hotels, restaurants, cafes, theatres and parks.


General principles

(a) Respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make one’s own choices, and independence of persons;

(b) Non-discrimination;

(c) Full and effective participation and inclusion in society;

(d) Respect for difference and acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity;

(e) Equality of opportunity;

(f) Accessibility;

(g) Equality between men and women;

(h) Respect for the evolving capacities of children with disabilities and respect for the right of children with disabilities to preserve their identities.

Oh, and a link to the recently published (2015) document, ‘Fault Lines: Human Rights in New Zealand’ written by Judy McGregor, Sylvia Bell and Margaret Wilson –

What’s for dinner? Food security for babies.

There’s a lot of talk about food security, or food insecurity, plus a correspondingly large volume of writing about this important topic. How people access and afford appropriate, acceptable nutritional and sustainable food is a growing concern along with rising levels of poverty and inequity. It’s a growing social disaster with no end in sight under the current business, ‘economic growth above everything/everyone’ environment.  I searched for New Zealand writing about food insecurity and was startled to note a common theme throughout all the articles I accessed, which was the total invisibility of breastfeeding.  Breastfeeding does not exist in the land of food, milk and honey, nor, it seems, in the land where people can’t easily access food, milk and honey.

Let’s take a quick trip through a few New Zealand documents. Susan Bidwell is the author of a district health board paper entitled, ‘Food Security, a review and synthesis of themes from the literature’, written in 2009.[1] The key points outlined in this review include an estimate of 10% of New Zealand households experiencing low food security, the effects on child health and development/overweight/obesity issues, and that policy change at all levels of government is necessary for any meaningful change. There was one mention of breastfeeding in Bidwell’s paper and that was on page five where it pointed out food insecure households were linked to lower rates of initiation and continuation of breastfeeding. This statement in itself makes the lack of attention to breastfeeding in documents concerned with food insecurity inexplicable.

Carter, Lanumata, Kruse and Gorton looked at the determinants of food insecurity in New Zealand in 2010.[2] Food security was defined as the “assured ability to acquire nutritionally adequate and safe food that meets cultural needs, and has been acquired in a socially acceptable way” (p. 1). Carter et al, estimated that food security was a concern for about 20% of New Zealand households with females being identified as more likely to be affected than males. It was also noted that for Māori, Pacific and low income peoples, income and cost of healthy food are the most pressing issues for these communities (p. 2). Higher rates of poverty and the burden of nutrition related disease within these communities was also highlighted. The lowest documented rates of breastfeeding in New Zealand are to be found in the statistics for Māori, Pacific and families suffering hardship.

In 2011 Stevenson authored a paper for the public health service in the Bay of Plenty about food security policy. This was a literature review and a synthesis of key recommendations for Toi Te Ora – Public Health Service. [3] Stevenson points out in the executive summary that the literature review findings suggest forming a collaborative group is the best approach to address food insecurity issues at a local level, and such a food policy council could advise and promote locally driven work. Again in this document there was reference to the disproportionate representation of Māori and Pacific households in poor health and premature death statistics. Included in the key summary points was a statement about the negative effects of food insecurity on health status and social well-being and how this was damaging for child health and development.

Three well written and valuable papers spanning three years, with two including literature reviews, and still not a mention of how breastfeeding punches above its weight in the food security for infants stakes, even in the most deprived of homes.

Parnell and Smith of Otago University put together a power point presentation (unknown year) which is freely available on the internet. [4]  Parnell and Smith suggest that food security affects health and well-being and it needs to be addressed. Proximity to supermarkets and other food sources was mentioned but the opportunity to mention the proximity of babies to breastfeeding mothers to ensure the optimal food security of our most vulnerable consumers was missed again.

Caritas, Aotearoa New Zealand, a Catholic association, published a booklet in 2012 for Social Justice Week around the topic of food security.[5] The increasing struggle to put food on our tables was examined and unfortunately the sole mention of breastfeeding was found in a section entitled, “who misses out”, where a statement about victims of hunger including “babies whose mothers cannot produce enough milk” was made (p. 10). The comment had no references and no recognition of all the babies who survive globally only because they are breastfed. This omission is a great disappointment, considering how Pope Francis has become a much lauded breastfeeding advocate for encouraging mothers to feed their babies in the Sistine Chapel. [6]  Pope Francis was reported to have said, to the mothers of thirty-two babies, at a Vatican Baptism Ceremony. “If they are hungry, mothers, feed them, without thinking twice, because they are the most important people here.”

The admirable Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), in New Zealand, prepared a series of documents with part one entitled, ‘Our children, our choice: priorities for policy’ written in 2014. [7] According to the authors there are now 285,000 children, or 27% of all New Zealand children, living under the poverty line. CPAG point out that social policy in New Zealand has been driven by a focus on paid work with limited or no attention being paid to the value of parenting. Along with the undervaluing of parenting comes the lack of awareness of the contribution of breastfeeding to our country and to the health and well-being of our children and mothers. Despite the excellent policy document produced by CPAG with poor child health outcomes due to poverty highlighted, there was no link made to the optimal nutrition and health protection offered by breastfeeding. In a document that speaks of antenatal care and childhood nutrition, breastfeeding was still a silent loss. There are more documents about poverty and food security that also miss breastfeeding. [8]

Added value when used as a tem for food means added economic value for food manufacturers and not the consumer. Added value in the context of infant feeding, when you really think about it, means breastfeeding – exclusive for six months and continued breastfeeding for two years and beyond, after other foods are introduced into the diet at six months. Added value through breastfeeding means a reduction in infant and childhood illnesses and infection, and protection against a number of diseases, including cancer and heart disease in mothers. Unfortunately breastfeeding advocates and breastfeeding women do not have friends at the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI). By the very definition of ‘primary industry’ [9] breastfeeding women should be counted by the MPI as value added sustainable resources with ‘all’ that would be needed to improve sector productivity, being support and protection. Can you get more primary industry, added value, than breastfeeding? I think not. Unfortunately, as Caroline Walker & Geoffrey Cannon pointed out so well in 1984, ‘An apple a day may keep the Dr away, but a Mars Bar a day helps the directors, shareholders and employees of Mars Ltd work, rest and play’.[10]  Replace apples with breastfeeding and Mars Bars with formula and it’s the same old story.

There is a difference between food security and food sovereignty, “Food sovereignty puts the individuals who produce, distribute and consume food at the centre of decisions on food systems and policies, rather than the corporations and market institutions that currently dominate the global food system.”[11] Breastfeeding puts the individuals who produce and distribute breast milk and home-made food to the smallest consumers at the centre of decision making and not the corporations and market institutions. Therein lies the problem and this is why mothers, infants and breastfeeding are collateral damage in these times of milk wars.

It’s a strange world we live in, where those, with minimal funding, who try to support or mentor breastfeeding women have limited opportunity to have their voices heard. Where those who could pin breastfeeding protection, promotion and support securely to agendas that count for something, do nothing, because they are unaware, unable, misinformed, lobbied, exhausted or disinterested.  Where there are vested interests in short-term ‘economic growth’ agendas that do not count either the contribution of mothers’ breast milk and breastfeeding, nor deduct the huge costs to the environment of intensive dairying from the dairy boosts they claim.[12] Galtry (2013) points out the narrow economic measure of well-being that the NZ dairy industry is based on, and questions whether the industry is undermining global best practice infant feeding. [13]

There are some encouraging signs that may provide comfort. Women are still interested in initiating and establishing breastfeeding, women from diverse backgrounds are interested in providing mother to mother support for breastfeeding, La Leche League continues globally with their mission to provide support, encouragement, information and education, the Baby Friendly Initiative continues to make a difference globally and good people are fighting for the rights of breastfeeding women, parents and maternity protection.

Breastfeeding really is the only sustainable way to feed the babies of the world and as described so well by Pamela Wiggins, “Breastfeeding is a mother’s gift to herself, her baby and the earth.”

(This piece was originally written in August 2014 and published in the La Leche League NZ Communiqué. Reworked in 2015)  


[1] Bidwell, S. (2009). Food Security: A review and synthesis of themes from the literature. Christchurch, CDHB Community and Public Health.

[2] Carter, K. N., Lanumata, T., Kruse, K., & Gorton, D. (2010). What are the determinants of food insecurity in New Zealand and does this differ for males and females? Australia and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 34(5) doi:10.1111/j.1753-6405.2010.00615.x

[3] Stevenson, S. (2011). Edible Impact: Food security policy: A review of literature and synthesis of key recommendations for Toi Te Ora – Public Health Service. Whakatane, BOPDHB.

[4] Parnell, W., & Smith, C. (Year not specified) Food Security: Current research initiatives, globally and in New Zealand. Department of Human Nutrition, University of Otago.

[5] Caritas Aotearoa New Zealand. (2012). Our Daily Bread: Putting Food on the Table, Wellington.

[6] Pope Francis encourages mothers to breastfeed in the Sistine Chapel – accessed at

[7] Child Poverty Action Group. (2014). Our children, our choice: priorities for policy. CPAG.

[8] Agencies for Nutrition Action

[9] Ministry for Primary Industries. “Our vision is to grow and protect New Zealand. We do this by: maximising export opportunities for the primary industries; improving sector productivity; increasing sustainable resource use; and protecting New Zealand from biological risk”

[10] Walker, C., & Cannon, G. (1984). The Food Scandal: What’s wrong with the British diet and how to put it right. London, Century.

[11] World Development Movement. (2012). Food Sovereignty. Tricky Questions Briefing. London. WDM.

[12] “Dairy’s $14.3b boost to the regions” New Zealand Herald July 2014.

[13] Galtry, J. A. (2013) Improving the New Zealand dairy industry’s contribution to local and global well-being: the case of infant formula exports. The New Zealand Medical Journal, 126(1386):82-89.