Photo: 123RF
Marketing, lobbying, conflicts of interest, an industry back-down and a ministerial flip-flop over the infant formula industry.
Breast is best, but not all new parents can do that.
That is why infant formula forms such a vital part of the lives of people just trying to feed their babies.
The rules around the product are highly regulated - actually it is one of the most highly regulated products in the world.
Some of those rules are changing - they are 20 years old and science has advanced, so Food Standards Australia New Zealand is proposing moves including taking ingredient claims off the front of tin labels, on the basis they are mostly not backed by robust scientific studies.
Some of the reasoning is that they could persuade parents to pay more for 'extras' in the formula that they do not need; or parents could be trying an off-the-shelf product to solve a problem that actually needs medical help.
But New Zealand may not sign up to the new rules: our infant formula industry - worth nearly $2 billion a year to the New Zealand economy - is pushing back.
RNZ investigative reporter Anusha Bradley has discovered that part of that pushback involves the sister of the minister making the decisions, and she tells The Detail about it on today's podcast.
She says the changes on the horizon would be world-leading, which is one of the problems as far as the dairy industry here is concerned.
We are competing internationally in rich markets such as China, and the rules would remove a marketing advantage.
Bradley says this all started in 2012 when FSANZ did a big review on formula standards.
"I think they issued something like 36 public reports for comment; they held various rounds of consultation, they've done five market studies over the last decade; and the conclusion of all that work was that there was some impact to businesses by upgrading these regulations but there was an overall public benefit to families and babies by making these changes," says Bradley.
"And so after all this work New Zealand was set to adopt the new standards ... but really in the last few months before that decision was made, what I found out is there was a lot of lobbying from a handful of companies that really changed the government's mind. And they opted out. So New Zealand will now create its own baby formula standards."
FSANZ looked at the latest scientific research and came up with a new formulation of what baby formula should contain - which the industry agreed with.
"The sticking point was how it should be sold."
There would be no more highlighting of ingredients that supposedly would be good for brain development, or would make a baby less fussy, or sleep longer. Those ingredients would still be listed on the back of the tin.
"This is where the trouble started," says Bradley.
"The formula companies really became quite opposed."
One of the reasons is market advantage.
Because it is such a highly regulated product, all formula is pretty much the same, guaranteed to provide the same nutritional content. Additional claims are a selling point. And if they can't be made on tins sold in New Zealand, they also can't be made on tins sold in China, our biggest market, because of an agreement that the packaging must be the same.
Of the nearly $2 billion in exports a year, half of it goes to China.
New Zealand formula companies competing in international markets against products produced under less strict rules would be at a disadvantage.
"That Chinese market is really important for companies like Danone and the A2 milk companies," Bradley says.
"The companies argue that this is a huge industry, and New Zealand employs hundreds of people... it's a huge export earner so it's important.
"But I guess the other side of the coin is that because all formula is essentially the same, are parents buying formula they don't necessarily need, or expensive products that maybe don't do what they promise."
One of the other changes by FSANZ that formula companies initially pushed back against but eventually agreed to, is that formula that does have a specific purpose - for example, for lactose intolerant babies or bad reflux cases - would be sold only in pharmacies so that parents could be given medical advice.
Gergely Toldi is an immunology researcher and scientist at Auckland University's Liggins Institute, and is also a hands-on neonatologist at Starship Hospital looking after pre-term and sick babies.
He does not know what formula brand Starship is using - they are rotated - and his advice to new parents is to use the one that best suits their budget.
"It can be scary and confusing," he says of the early days of parenting, especially with a first baby.
But "they're not going to disadvantage their baby by not using the most expensive brand available."
He says some extras make a difference, "but whether those extras actually deliver the claims that they make about them on the labels ... that's the big question."
Toldi says the other consideration is that this is a very vulnerable period for families. Reaching for their own off-the-shelf "solutions" for babies can either be unnecessary, or on the other hand, could delay a diagnosis that should be made by a health professional.
"Formula milk will always be second best to breast milk. That's not to say that formula milk doesn't have a place in society - there are many families who have no other options, because they don't have a good milk supply for example, or they just choose to use formula which is also absolutely fine - but we'll never be able to fully replicate breast milk when it comes to formula and all those different components."
That is why it is important to go with the best scientific evidence we have when it comes to the formulation and marketing of alternative milks.
"It's sad to see that the industry or specific manufacturers have such a great influence on policy making or decision making at such a high level," says Toldi.
Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here.
You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter.
