- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
Austin Babies
if you bought formula in the last 5 years...
there's a formula settlement going on. got something in the mail and an email too. details here link
09/21/09 and 08/16/2011
This discussion has been closed.
Re: if you bought formula in the last 5 years...
The O'Baby Blog
falsely represented that Enfamil LIPIL? is the only infant formula that contains the healthy fatty acids DHA and ARA
I can't do it on principal. People are suing because of advertising. That's ridiculous. Just like the Camel didn't cause me to smoke at 15, Enfamil didn't mislead me about formula. I'm capable of making my own decisions and I find it insulting to think that I've been mislead by a commercial.
ali--if i understood it correctly the suit has to do with enfamil (and other big name formulas) claiming that they were better than generic or store bought formulas. i have some old parenting magazines that placed both formulas side by side in ads and claimed the store brand formula was not as good. now the fine print reads differently in the ads.
it makes me mad and i'm glad that this came out! it's hard enough making choices as a mom without false claims by big corporations.
Any brand of any product claims to be better than their competitor. Come on now.
The O'Baby Blog
no, it wasn't like other ads. i'm not sure i can explain it. they more or less claimed you were malnourishing your child when you bought generic brands.
that's not like any ads i normally see. again if i hadn't seen it in the stack of old parent magazines, i wouldn't even know. my friend gave me all hers from 2000-2002. it was disturbing.
hmm...Jakob's pedi was telling me in 2002 not to buy store brand. But honestly, I hardly ever saw store brand formula back then. Everything was Enfamil, Similac or GoodStart. And they didn't have the Gentlease, the AR, or any of the other options. You could get the regular stuff or Soy. And then they had the super expensive Nutramagin (or whatever is it) but not every store carried that.
It seems crazy that it was only 9 years ago but formula really seems to have come along. They didn't even have the DHA in the formula back then. The first I ever saw DHA was when my nephew was born in 2007 and you had to pay extra for that fancy stuff.
my brain is fried! the girl i got the box of magazines has a 6 and 4 year old, so the magazines can't be that old! don't remember the years, sorry...our house is under construction. i think i'm gonna pull my hair out!
And *this* is the point of the suit. You DIDN'T need to pay extra for the fancy stuff, but Enfamil wanted you to think that you did. The DHA and ARA was also available in the generic versions, but Enfamil was marketing their product as if it was the ONLY formula w/ DHA/ARA.
Yes, you're an adult and yes, you know that advertisements are just that- advertisements. You don't *have* to purchase anything you don't want to. But, this suit claims that Enfamil intentionally used false advertising/ claims and that is illegal.
You are not allowed to say things that are patently untrue in commercials. Using the Joe Camel example, Camel is not allowed to say that cigarettes will improve your lung function or that they will make your blue eyes turn green.
Enfamil is not allowed to say that it's formula contains something that others don't, unless it's true. Now, they could say something like, "Your child will grow up big and strong when using our formula!" But, they can't say, "Your child will grow up w/ better brain development than if you were to use the generic brands b/c our formula has DHA/ARA and theirs doesn't." That's just a lie. It's not about being *mislead* it's about being given false information that you would use in making your purchase decision.