Mead Johnson Enfamil Ads Withdrawn After Restraining Order
This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet
Executive Summary
Mead Johnson distributed roughly 90,000 letters in late April informing pediatricians its previously circulated literature regarding store-brand infant formulas contained incorrect information about calcium and folic acid levels.
|
Mead Johnson distributed roughly 90,000 letters in late April informing pediatricians its previously circulated literature regarding store-brand infant formulas contained incorrect information about calcium and folic acid levels. Disseminated in response to a court order, the letters reference two ads released in February purporting store brand formulas require more volume than Mead's Enfamil With Iron to meet the recommended intakes for the two nutrients. The action was prompted by PBM, the primary manufacturer of store-brand infant formulas. "We have since learned that the recommended levels described in our literature were inaccurate," the Bristol-Myers Squibb subsidiary admits. The ads referred to a 1999 American Academy of Pediatrics position paper that includes a 1994 government finding on calcium. "We now understand that a 1994 National Institutes of Health recommendation...was there for historical context and did not represent an actual recommendation by the AAP," the letters state. Similarly, Mead maintains it had misinterpreted the National Academy of Sciences Dietary Reference Intakes for dietary folate for infants. In both cases, the firm concedes PBM's formulas meet the current recommendations. Mead issued the corrective letters to more than 300 sales reps on April 26, three weeks after Richmond, Va. federal court Judge James Spencer granted PBM a temporary restraining order requiring Mead to immediately retrieve and stop distribution of the ads until the case is resolved. During a May 1 contempt hearing, Spencer determined Mead's delay in retrieving the materials represented a violation of the order. The judge also awarded PBM attorney's fees and costs but deemed corrective advertising unnecessary. The Gordonsville, Va.-based private labeler filed the suit in Richmond after Mead initiated litigation in Indiana over PBM's infant formula promotions (1 (Also see "Infant formula lawsuits" - Pink Sheet, 30 Apr, 2001.)). In a separate motion filed April 27, Mead seeks a protective order to keep confidential all documents submitted during the discovery phase of the trial, which has not yet been scheduled. PBM plans to oppose the motion. |