Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula (England) Regulations 2007

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for introducing the debate, which has not been entirely what I expected, although if I had really thought about it I might have known that it would concentrate largely on breastfeeding. I will not do so. The main objections to the regulations are, first, that the implementation is being unnecessarily rushed. The date of l January 2008 does not give opportunity for companies to put into action the new labelling required, on either new or current products, in a reasonable timescale. The detail on the labelling in the directive is extensive, so it cannot be fudged. Secondly, there has been insufficient consideration of the guidance, which has not yet completed its consultation process. Normal procedure, whereby guidance is published at least three months before statutory instruments come into force, has consequently not happened. Any guidance that is now published, if the timescale of the regulations is not changed, will be well after the statutory instrument has been implemented. As the Minister will know, and as has been said by other speakers, the rushing of the regulations, and their timing of January 2008, has been challenged in the High Court by the Infant and Dietetic Foods Association, and this action has yet to be heard. However, it has been brought about because of the unexplained alteration in the timetable for labelling and advertising from a two-year transition period to implementation by January 2008. No explanation appears to have been given for the move from the original timetable in the draft regulations of July 2007. This is one aspect that the Minister might like to resolve tonight, since it is clear from the information that I have been given that every other European country is giving the two-year transition period to 31 December 2009. What is the rush? Why cannot these regulations be implemented in a businesslike and careful way, allowing time for new products to contain the right information and allowing those products already produced and either on the market or ready for market to retain the current labelling until then? Of course it is important that the differential between infant formula and follow-on formula can be clearly demonstrated, but I fail to understand why that should be done against a background of extreme urgency and incomplete guidance. The Minister will also know that there is concern about the bias, which has partly been demonstrated today, against the advertising of products and the fact that guidance notes go beyond the restrictions in the 2007 regulations, which would have limited advertising of infant formula to scientific publications. However, under the new guidance, this is now restricted to where such publications report the results of original scientific research and reviews. That is a very limited range. As the Advertising Association makes clear in its briefing to me, this removes the right to advertise infant formula in professional journals, which are largely accessed by healthcare professionals. I appreciate that there are those who believe that there should be no advertising of these products. Most other speakers tonight have supported that view. Like others, I have been briefed by Baby Milk Action, but to be realistic people need to know that there are formula products available and they need to have good information about their use. There is no doubt that there are many mothers in this country and elsewhere who are either unable or unwilling to breastfeed. While it is accepted that breastfeeding gives a baby an excellent start in life, such mothers should not be intimidated into believing that using a formula product is going to give their babies a lesser chance in life. I know from recent experience the great upset that there can be to a new mother who is unable to satisfy the appetite of her baby by breastfeeding, when formula products are either withheld—this does happen—because breastfeeding is perceived to be the only feed that should be given, or else are not available. The sounds of distress from an underfed baby are not helpful to it or to its beleaguered parents. There is more concern in the directive to prevent the promotion of formula products than to present them as a reasonable alternative. I am afraid that that is my view rather than that of the professionals. However, professionals need to be informed, and well balanced and controlled advertising in their own publications seems to be a straightforward way of doing this. Clearly, these matters are still unresolved in relation to the new regulations. The Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee draws attention to Baby Milk Action’s concerns that the question of labelling giving details of the minimum temperature of water used for mixing the formula does not seem to have been resolved either. It would seem logical that the manufacturers should be involved in discussions as to whether and why this is necessary now, before they have to introduce new labelling, rather than in 12 months’ time, or 12 months after the FSA’s independent review. That is another good reason for giving a proper transition time. From those points alone, there seems ample reason to suggest that the regulations are premature. The Government should give their own consultation on the guidelines time to be completed and time for responses to be carefully considered. The transitional timetable that is being implemented in all other countries should be available in this country.