I understand where the idea came from. But the all-male creative team at ADN Comunicación, in Buenos Aires, don't seem to know the difference between human breastmilk, infant formula, and cow's milk.
While human milk is recognized by all health authorities as the ideal infant food for the first one-two years of life, manufactured formulas are a reasonable substitute. But while many
formulas include cow's milk as an ingredient, it is highly processed to extract purified whey and casein as protein sources.
Normal cow's milk is actually bad for babies. From the American
National Institutes of Health:
Cow's milk is not recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics for children under 1 year old. Infants fed whole cow's milk don't get enough vitamin E, iron, and essential fatty acids. They also get too much protein, sodium, and potassium. These levels may be too high for the infant's system to handle. Also, whole cow's milk protein and fat are more difficult for an infant to digest and absorb.
Cow's milk
could actually make a baby quite sick.
You could rationalize that the concept implies that more babies means a need for more formula, which will increase demand for cow's milk. But that's a rather indirect way of communicating the idea.
The other two ads in the series indicate that a much more direct link is intended:
 |
| I won't even get in to the other awkwardness here... |
 |
| ...or the fact that nobody has used quills for 200 years or so. |
Overall, it's just bad advertising. But bedsides that, it might have unintended negative consequences of making women without good prenatal education think that giving "milk" to their baby is OK. And that's a bad idea.
Let's fix it, shall we?
Yay!
Campaign found on
Ads of the World
