Health knowledge made personal
Join this community!
› Share page:
Go
Search posts:

Store Brand Formulas Found to be Nutritionally Equivalent to More Expensive Brands According to Recent Federal Court Hearing

Posted Jan 08 2010 3:42pm

This is a Sponsored Post written by me on behalf of . All opinions are 100% mine.





LLC which supplies store brand infant products to Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, Target, Kroger and Wal-Greens received $13.5 million in damages from a false advertising lawsuit against Mead Johnson and CO, the makers of Enfamil® LIPIL®.

PBM's Store brand formulas cost up to 50% less than Enfamil®. ThePBM's formulas do not contain the same nutritional value as Mead Johnson's brands.


PBM's CEO Paul B. Manning stated that, "This decision by a jury of the people confirms that Mead Johnson's ads have been false in suggesting that there is a nutritional difference between our store brand formula products and their products, when in fact the only major difference is price."

The case examined two nutritional supplements, DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) and ARA (arachidonic acid) Mead Johnson calls these supplements LIPIL® for marketing purposes only. They claim that it helps with infant eye development. PBM stated that Mead Johnson mailed a blurry photo of a child's toy duck which was next to a clear picure of the same image to over 1.6 million parents. The direct mailing suggested that anything other than the Enfamil® LIPIL® blend of ingredients is inferior and will result in poor eye and brain development.

This is the third time that PBM has sued Mead Johnson for false advertising claims. Although we agree with the court and jury's verdict Healthy Moms strongly recommends that you feed your infant breast milk for the first 12 months. There isn't a single infant formula on the market today that compares to the nutritional value found in nature's finest, mother's milk.



Discuss this in our forum



Post a comment
Write a comment:

Related Searches