Last month we learned of the recall of Similac formula products due to beetles and “beetle byproducts” tainting the very solution we give to our children. I found it odd that even the Associated Press had no information about exactly which products were recalled, but as a father using Similar myself, I followed up. What I have found, thus far at least, has been alarming on an epic scale.
From the first moment of the recall, Abbott promised quick, cost-irrelevant returns for potentially dangerous products. Much like the BP promises, these have quickly proved something short of reality.
Abbott sells more than $5-billion each year in formula products, and the recall is estimated to include 5-million items, and they estimate the losses at $100-million. That’s only 2% of their total market, but more suspiciously, it’s $20 per can, which estimates show is a massively inflated figure.
The first red flag comes from the fact that specific products weren’t even listed in the recall notice, but instead a request for qualification from the call line and website, both of which were plagued by under-performance since the recall was announced.
Scott Davies, senior director for external communications said, “We understand that when the story first went out that the website was overloaded, but we increased bandwidth and we certainly know that there are currently no issues with the site, and that consumers are able access the website and the call center with no issues.”
The news coverage thus far has been entirely clerical. Our coverage, however, is first hand, and also combined with attempts to contact based on our being journalists. We have a unique insight, and what we’ve found isn’t exactly pretty.
I first attempted to contact Similac through the traditional, consumer channels, and although I was assured I would recieve return shipping labels within 3-days, they never came (they finally arrived on day-12.)
After a week of waiting, I escalated the matter to the Corporate Public Affairs office, which wasn’t much better.
I called the office of Melissa Brotz, Divisional Vice President on September 29th, but her receptionist wouldn’t even provide her name, let alone as much as an email address for inquiries, or even the name of anyone I might reach directly about the matter.
Bear in mind, I have product in my possession that is already confirmed as included in the recall.
Later the same day I called corporate communications, I got a call back from Abbott to confirm my address, but it somehow went straight to my voicemail without my phone ever ringing, which was strange enough, but I’ll concede the possibility of a technical lapse. I immediately called Carla back at the number provided, only to find that it’s the same general number consumers call in the first place. The name and contact left on my voicemail were meaningless… There was no “Carla”, according to the two reps I spoke with.
But getting through was more of a challenge than one could ever imagine.
The first call was disconnected due to “my product is not affected”, though according to lot number, it was. Call two was disconnected for reasons unknown. Call three disconnected in the middle of the main menu. Call four disconnected just slightly after the main menu. Call five actually got through, and what a doozy of a call it was that was in store for me.
It was then I was informed that my call had never initially been received, that the claim that had them call me couldn’t be found, and that I’d have to start the whole process over from scratch.
I was asked to confirm my zip code, address, name, telephone number, zip code again, and the lot number on the product. When I gave it to her, even though she read it back to me, she denied that it was a recalled item. I provided the number again, and magically it showed up on the system.
Why didn’t it show up the first time? Simple clerical issues, perhaps, but the better question is why I’m having to go through all the calls again after so much time had passed, after I should have already been able to get my claim processed already?
At this point I was told it require yet ANOTHER ten days until I got my return shipping labels, and that it would take 4-6 weeks to process my refund from that point.
FUN FACT:
Customer service reps are happy to explain that, if you’d like to purchase another case of the product at full retail, they’ll overnight it to you with no shipping or handling charges. You know, because obviously the formula hasn’t been handled enough. Bear in mind you can pick it up at almost any store in your market for less than full retail, and you can have it this very hour if you’re so inclined.
I understand why the secretary was curt with me. She’s likely been fielding hundreds, if not thousands of calls from around the world. But a multi-billion dollar conglomerate should at least be expected to provide her with a quick fact sheet and relevant contact information, or at least permit her to disclose the name of the persons one should contact, if not at least her own name.
Best-Case Scenario Still May Bankrupt Families
If you’re unable to return the product to your local store, which you can’t without your receipt, you are told to request shipping labels, wait for them, send it back, and then wait 4-6 weeks for a refund. For families in greatest need, this time period poses a serious financial hardship, but even more if the deadlines are not met… which brings me to the point about the time lines thus far.
Best Case Scenario Myth
Consumers are told they’ll get a shipping label within 3-days of request, which clearly isn’t the case, and that they can expect a full refund within 4-6 weeks of receipt of verifiably impacted merchandise. Perhaps that’s true, I’ll have to wait to find out, but some time line gaps show their ugly heads right here.
The REAL Time Line
Baby Formula has a long shelf life, between 6-12 months. You would think you could spot the beetles and stop the product before it leaves the shelves, but I know in the case of at least one of our cans, it was a “sample” left at the pediatricians office, which had been sitting around for months. That means that the this wasn’t a new, surprising issue, but one that had existed for quite some time.
The Big Questions
– Why wasn’t this caught sooner? There is no answer to this, and my contacts at Abbott won’t posit any answer.
– What percentage of the 5-million cans included in the recall had already been consumed and discarded, precluding the possibility of refund? Likewise they won’t venture a guess, but considering it looks like some number of months passed between contamination and recall, the number looks to be significantly diminished.
– How many children impacted will outgrow formula before the recall is completed?
Looking at sheer statistics, babies only use Similar for about 10-months, you can take the first 2-months off, and the last two months as well, and come up with a figure of about 60% of recalled cans AT BEST that could ever be recalled.
Is This the BP Oil Spill of Kid Poisoning?
In terms of health impact, certainly not. Abbott tested the production line and found that 99.8% of products had NO adverse problems, and even for the remaining .02% (which is still 10,000 cans) that no serious health problems could occur. I’ve read anecdotal evidence of parents with sick or colicky kids in the weeks leading up to the recall, but those are easily explained statistically.
Did kids die? No. No wait, not “no” but “hell no.”
With that said, let’s get to the second half of the BP spill comparison. Did Abbott work to minimize losses, even to the detriment of the very consumers that have made them so very rich for all these years?
Well the answer to that certainly appears to be a resounding “yes”. Abbott has employed the best, brightest minds to create a a line of baby formulas specifically engineered to match, and perhaps even surpass, the benefits of breast-feeding. Their commitment, however, is NOT to your child, but to their shareholders, and it looks like their dual campaigns of delaying the recall and making the recall complicated have worked in tandem concert to provide substantial savings to the bottom line shareholders.