Why advertising formula milk is illegal and why what Milupa is doing is wrong

I'm obviously deluding myself then! I really don't believe I am affected by advertising, I switch them off they annoy me so much and flip the page over very quickly when I see them in magazines. The posters advertising breast is best weren't influential to me or anyone I know. My experience is that most women make their mind up from their own research, from their friends opinions, from their Mums anecdotes and advice and from health professionals. I am not saying at all that m/w and h/v aren't hugely influential and sometimes in a negative way, but I don't believe that anyone will read this advert and believe that suddenly formula milk is in some way better than breast milk, I give women more credit than this. If that makes me deluded, simplistic, sneering, so be it but its my opinion and everyone is entitled to their own I think. Some people on here are getting very arsey when someone has a dissenting view which is not necessary.

Anyone who thinks they're not affected by advertising is deluding themselves.

We don't quite know how we're affected by it,
(the advertisers themselves don't quite know, they spend millions every year trying to find out) but we do know that we are. Nobody would advertise, otherwise.

Advertising works in mysterious ways. If it didn't the advertisers wouldn't spend billions on it. We're all susceptible.

Bosscat - that's my entire point. Most of us, when watching tv or reading a magazine etc can see through the ads. We know that BMW aren't advertising for the good of mankind. We can logically see that and it doesn't matter to us anyway because buying a car is not a life-or-death, emotive matter. But feeding a baby is. Especially when it seems to be going wrong.

Then SMA, Milupa, Cow & Gate etc etc etc swoop in with 'Pioneering the benefits of prebiotics, supporting natural defences, taking good care of babies, protecting babies from the inside out, supports baby's natural defences' (all quotes from the ads I have in front of me in the British Journal of Midwifery) As Cow & Gate says 'That's why we're here to help' - right?

Ack - said I wouldn't get into this

"I could not disagree more with the idea that a mother who chooses to breastfeed will always breastfeed and not be swayed by any influence. I considered myself educated and aware and set on exclusive bf-ing. But I was still taken in by 'expert opinion' telling me I should supplement for my own health and sanity. "

Couldn't agree more Snafu. It was only by sheer bloodymindedness that I didn't succumb to the well-meant entreaties by health professionals and family to f'feed ds when I was struggling to bfeed. Think it easy to forget how vulnerable new mothers can be - exhausted, with the shock of life with a newborn, a seemingly never satisfied infant crying etc. If someone offers an apparent solution you'd be hard pushed to resist it.

It took a lot of effort to admit I was struggling and attempt to seek a more supportive solution rather than just rely upon the opinion of my midwives and HV.

This has been said on another thread, but it's not one ad that makes the difference. It's the drip drip drip of many ads, many promotions over the years, plus the cultural context, plus the emotional context, plus the professional back-up .... there are so many factors, it is just so simplistic to say "one ad's not going to sway anyone". Of course one ad isn't going to sway anyone - but that's not what the discussion's about, surely?

Well I would class myself as intelligent (and some would class me as very intelligent) but in the aftermath of childbirth with a very strident midwife I succumbed to the 'big baby so needs supplement' argument and within 2 weeks was struggling to get a drop of breast milk out

My DS was as a result bottlefed, not so bad some would say, except that he was intolerant to dairy and got glue ear, speech deficiencies, etc etc etc as a result.

Not all bottlefeeding is inocuous, as I discovered to the detriment of DS's health. For most bottlefed babies it won't matter, for mine it did. And all because 'he needs a little supplement'!

F*ck load of good all my supposed intelligence did!

Its just not that easy - not easy at all, and I think it is time that we all stopped pretending that it is!

And I agree that not everyone has access to the amount of information we have but I do think the vast majority of women possess common sense and can assess for themselves that a formula feeding company advertising formula is doing it for the money it makes them not for the good of mankind.

Not "I'm intelligent" Snafu, but "most women are intelligent", there's a huge difference in those statements.

But the attitude of 'I'm intelligent so therefore I'm not influenced by advertising' doesn't really take into account the very emotive and often distressing circumstances that can surround breastfeeding and associated difficulties. It's just not the same as choosing a washing powder or a car, is it?

I don't think women need 'protecting' but neither do I think that all women have access to the information that we have, or - indeed - the capacity to make an informed decision. And, as I say, even if you do make what you consider an informed decision, the very particular and unusual circumstances of feeding a baby (as oppposed to buying a dishwasher) often leaves even intelligent, clued-up women open to pernicious influence.

And where do the professionals get their information from? I wish I could believe that all midwives and HVs do in-depth study and research - some do, and many definitely don't. Midwifery journals advertise formula milks, and not just follow-on ones either.

I don't think the tone was sneering at all. I had b/f problems myself, I might have been swayed by a professional telling me something but not by an advert. Aren't most women intelligent? Why is it sneering to attribute common sense to women? Should we assume all women need protecting? Isn't that very patronising?

ooh ain't you observant Jools. Incognito I have been.

Must agree with Snafu here. This whole sneering tone of "if you're intelligent you won't be swayed" is just so simplistic and offensive and dismissive of the real experience of how distressing it is to be have problems with bf which become insurmountable because of lack of support.

In your HV's defence, Snafu, she probably genuinely believed that she was giving you the best advice she could. And in fact, from her pov, she probably was, because she probably didn't know any better.

The HV suggested it, milkymouth. The HV who had seen me through the first couple of weeks of breastfeeding after an awful, confidence-sapping experience on the postnatal ward, and who knew exactly how committed I was to continuing. I trusted her and I thought she was telling me that for the best. Ironically, the only reason I didn't follow her advice was because I knew damn well I'd be on a hiding to nothing asking my then-dh to take over feeds at night so i might as well just carry on bfing anyway [insert rueful smile here]

I could not disagree more with the idea that a mother who chooses to breastfeed will always breastfeed and not be swayed by any influence. I considered myself educated and aware and set on exclusive bf-ing. But I was still taken in by 'expert opinion' telling me I should supplement for my own health and sanity. It's purely by dint of circumstances that I didn't do so.

where's your capital 'C' gone? have you been incognito?

The ITVA vet TV ads before they're aired, but ASA is for posters and print ads and only after.

I can't remember who vets internet ads. Is it the ASA?

"Aptamil is an upmarket brand. I think it might even be more expensive than the others. They were certainly targeting upmarket mothers, rather than all mothers."

oooo - that must be why I'd never really heard of it before - I'm too common for it

The Guardian ran an article last week about the spurious claims made by cosmetic firms and how they operate,which is basically to run the ads and then see if people complain.
Another David and Goliath scenario.

Someone recently posted a link to a formula ad that fell foul of the law a few years ago. Birmingham Trading Standards took them on and won. The fine ran into tens of thousands.

CD, because the ASA don't get to vet the campaigns - in the main they respond to complaints (after the event).

CD,look at mears' initial link to Baby Milk Action to see numerous examples of adverts which fall foul of the law. All the big names are shamed and named.

It really is a case of David and Goliath and yet people still seem to think that they should defend these companies.
I amamazed at the naivety demonstrated here.

Who suggested this snafu?

not read all this but

if it is illegal then why do the ASA allow it?

snafu has just said it all for me. I wouldn't mind an advert, actually, but this is so much more cynical and devious. I am disappointed in MN to be honest.

I am in Leicestershire, and when I asked my midwives which formula's were best, they refused point blank to comment. she was very nice about my decision to FF, but would not in any way help me choose a formula.

I chose Cow and Gate in the end, after a friend told me that was what she had used.

The lady in the bed next to me chose Cow and Gate because she saw me using it.

I was also told to use Aptamil, when ds was a few weeks old, feeding beautifully and growing like gangbusters. I had complained of tiredness - as any new mother would. A couple of Aptamil feeds a day - 'to take the pressure off you' - was the answer, apparently... It is insidious.

I've avoided much of this debate, intentionally. There are lots - tiktok and mears especially - saying it far more eloquently than me. I have no issue with formula feeding by informed choice. But this is much more than just an ad.