What are you good people at MN doing getting involved in a tie in with *Aptamil*???????

Message withdrawn

The more I think about this the more I realise how hypocritical I am objecting to these ads, yet contiuing to use the sites that take them.

I was SO please that mumsnet was a breath of fresh air compared to babyworld and the like, yet I continued to patronise babyworld occasionally.

However I am going to try and have the strength of my convictions, I know me leaving these sites won't make a difference in the huge scale of things, but it will mean I am standing by my principles.

Yes, I had heard that too Aloha. NAtional Dried Milk was supposed to be the woman's saviour allowing her to get back into the workplace.

I think the main point here is that advertising is not provifing correct information, it is simply marketing spin. A clever marketingteam can make anything sound attractive.

There does need to be info on formula so that bottle feeders can make an infomed choice, but I strongly beleive that the info should NOT come from the formula companies themselves.

Just look at the follow on milk ads and the rubbish that they come out with such as the scare tactics over babies iron stores running out.

Pregnant women and mums who see these ads often think they are seeing ads for infant formula, I know I did. The Farleys ad on Discovery Health was a classic example. The strapline closer by nature which actually means nothing but can easily be misinterpreted to closer to nature. The only thing that distinguished this milk from infant formula was the colour of the tin.

I have also lost count of the amount of times I have heard people say that Aptamil is the closest milk to breastmilk. This perception has to come from somewhere and I think it is the result of clever advertising.

I am a university educated intelligent woman but I was totally taken in. Just think of the amount of less well educated mums out there who believe everything they see in advertising. My own HV said that she was almost taken in by what seemed to be a scientific article in her professional journal that turned out to be sponsored by SMA.

That's interesting aloha- as would tie in wiith the age group I came acrooss who were using coows milk an evaporated milk (yuk) rather than bfeed!

Interestingly I saw some stuff about breastfeeding rates plummetting because the wartime and postwar economy needed women workers in the factories, not at home breastfeeding.

TBH I don't think that MN is particularly representative of most people's feelings in RL. We are more pro BF on here than elsewhere I think which is excellent. Don't know if it is due to the type of people this site attracts or the increased access to info and support (I'd like to think the latter ). Being at work has made me realise this I have been described as an 'earth mother' for continuing to feed my 9 month old once a day up until a couple of weeks ago - WTF? Not at all, there are plenty on here who have done longer. It kind of insinuates as well that I am doing it for me and not for DS, which I resent TBH. RE the advert, I'm not too worried either. You don't have to click, and MN provides so much info anyway that you'd be more sensible to click on the BF topic anyway .

well. if formula stays banned, at least it forces the formula companies to keep promoting breastfeeding.

Bizarre.

What concerns me is the spin that they already put on breastfeeding research - downplaying the benefits of breastmilk, and playing up the seeming benefit of being able to see how much your baby's had at a feed, for instance.

Who knows what they'd spin if they could advertise infant formula?

They already advertise follow-on milk - perhaps those ads could be taxed before they're allowed to advertise infant formula - give breastfeeding support a head start!

I don't mean completely unregulate. You can allow advertising but not freebies. Have regulations about wording (same as cigarettes etc). But why not tax that (with the money going directly to bfeeding)- it would go someway to starting to promote breasfeeding. I think the debate should be apositive one about ways to promote and encourage bfeeding rather than a negative one about formula advertising. I'm certain from talknig to the 60+ age group that breastfeeding was at a low level before formula was introduced.

I think there are huge problems with the volunteer bfeeding supporters out there at the moment. Too judgemental, preaching to the converted etc. Moondog's schemes sounded just the sort of thing needed on a national scale. Of course that's ££££

Perhaps not, JJ, but they're evil on a big scale and with buckets of money behind them. Regulation is the only way to go with them, or we'll end up with formula being doled out on wards, midwives sponsored by SMA and breastfeeding support lines being run by Milupa (hang on, one of those is already happening ).

I agree with you about the CHAT test - looked at it from a link you posted a while back. On a somewhat different scale, dyslexia was denied by some local authorities because if they admitted it existed, they had to provide support for the children in schools - at considerable expense.

But there's lots of things you can say that about. Do the CHAT test, give proper early intervention and you'd save £££££££££'s. I'm not completely cynical though as I'm going to try and start a campaign for that (well for the CHAT -- that's cheap as chips- then they'll HAVE to introduce early intervention- which is bloody expensive).

Problem with bfeeding support is that it'll always be pricey.

Go back a generation though- it's not just the formula companies who are sooo evil. My aunt was told to stop breastfeeding (by an aunt type figure to her) and shown how to boil normal cows milk - she fed all 4 on that. My friend's mum gave her children carnation! I suspect that's the void the formula companies filled- rather than converting people away from breastfeeding- they were already converted.

Not all over Europe though - France has very low rates of breastfeeding, for instance.

Support will never be funded by tax on formula advertising at the levels it would need to be to counter the message that formula is as good as breastmilk - that message would be massive if they were allowed to advertise - it's pretty huge now!

The government ought to do more, but I know that they won't. It's a shame though, because more money could be saved in the long run if more women breastfed - both from babies and children not being hospitalised as often and mothers not developing breast cancer, etc. Not saying that to be inflammatory, just realistic.

But first they need the midwives and health visitors. The hospital I had ds1 and ds2 in did a lot to promote breastfeeding. But only realy antenatally. postnatally they were so understaffed they couldn't even get painkillers to c-sections, or empty catheters- there was no chance of supporting bfeeding.

Twice in hospital I have seen bfeeding go pear shaped- in both cases the women were trying to put their babies into the fishtanks and theynwoke up crying. So they picked them up and fed and fed and fed and fed. When one woman had had her baby latched onto the breast without a break for ovr 12 HOURS (I kid you not) I suggested she may be getting a bit sore and that her dd was probably complaining because she was being put in the fish tank rather than because she was hungry. She called for help and a very very young helath care assistant came- no midwife available - and that was it. She had bleeding nipples blah blah. Had ds3 (In a different hospital) and saw exactly the same thing happen. That poor mother was bottlefeeidng by the time she left because she was so sore- and she really wanted to bfeed.

The funding for bfeeding is not going to come from the govt that easily- there are bigger priorities.

Bfeeding is obviuosly better, easier (once established), cheaper - there's no need to be fearful of advertising- if the support (paid and sensible) was in place then you would have more bfeeders. I think its telling that there is a higher % of bfeeders in Europe than the UK despite not banning ads.

Yes, JJ, but not formula-company sponsored ones - and not through the small percentage of tax their adverts would raise.

The government needs to be more proactive about supporting breastfeeding - training midwives and health visitors on an ongoing basis, making sure they have up to date information (and put it into practice) and providing "out of hours" support to women who are struggling. Often it's just a friendly "you can do this, have you thought about x, y or z" that helps - when that is lacking, the "formula's almost exactly the same as breastmilk" message gets through.

true moondog-but having peer role models and confidence that it can be done makes it more likely to happen surely....

However much tax is taken, it won't be as much as formula manufacturers use to promote their product. I agree with the ban staying in place.

Infant formula manufactuers have pots of money which allows them to pay medical experts to produce arguments that suit their paymasters as well as marketing and communications experts who can subliminally influence us all and dream up clever ways to get round the ban.

A recent publication by the formula manufacturers designed to influence Department of Health, midwives, and others in positions of power or influence claimed to agree that breast was best but then went to a great deal of trouble to undermine all the evidence behind breastfeeding, with selective quoting of research etc. etc. They were arguing for a lifting of the ban because the say they aren't allowed to 'inform' mothers who bottlefeed. It seems to be one of those areas where constant vigilence is needed to fight against powerful interests.

It's not just a question of information, though is it, it's also help. I had loads of information, but no help. Part of the decision was the subconscious belief that there wasn't that much difference anyway, and part of the decision was knowing that I needed informed support to do it, and recognising that there was none and I was on my own (the nearest BF counsellor was 2 bus rides away and only once a week).

And that first bit of the decision comes back to advertising and promotion. Even if we taxed ads to get money for promotion, how would we stop that subliminal message that "it's near as dammit" without producing counter-propaganda which was a complete militant turn-off?

Message withdrawn