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

i do hope that everyone complaining has paid a large sub to mn recently....
(actually I know where you are coming from slightly but the mn team don't run the site purely as a charity)

Illness is also related to socio-economic factors, which are also related to liklihood of breast/bottle feeding.

Whilst I am not saying that this is true of the statistics you quote, it is certainly true of statistics related to SIDS.

Anyway, this is off the topic - one which I am watching with baited(sp?) breath as it is very interesting - in particular Caligulas post was very meaningful, and has given me much food for thought. Thank you Caligula.

Pruni - if you wantwide margins, try this one:

The rate of admissions in babies bottle fed or breastfed for only a short period is just over 5 times more than in babies breastfed for 13 weeks or more. (UK Dept of Health published source)
or this one:

A study in the USA indicated that women who breastfeed their infants have a net reduction in absenteeism of 27% compared with those who bottle-feed their babies. This is because the bottle-fed babies have more episodes of illness which lead to the mother?s absence.

Source: Study by Rona Cohen and Marsha B Martek. reported in Wall St Journal. 13 December 1994.

I agree that the advertising campaign seems warped.

Choose to feed your baby as you see fit, but I don't think formula milk companies should be cashing in on Mumsnet.

If you bf you pass on some immunity to your child. Surely you can't get that from formula?

Mears, is it true what I read recently that formual is based on what they knew about breastmilk years ago rather than recent research? I also read that there are hundreds of ingredients in breastmilk but scientists only know a fraction of them.

This a huge debate. The Royal College of Midwives carries advertising for formula companies in it's professional magazine - it is criticised every year for it but basically it boils down to money. As a Baby Friendly Hospital no formula advertising is allowed. As a mum of new babes I used to get pi**ed off with the formula adverts all over the room. You may think 'sensible' women are not swayed by it but if you are having a rocky time of feeding baby you are more likely to supplement with formula milk which says it is 'closest to breast milk' that see a B/F counsellor. To me, counsellors should be available at all clinincs but it would cost too much to train and pay them. Formula milk companies spend MILLIONS on advertising because it WORKS.

Misdee - when I was a student midwife, breastfeeding mums were given free samples of formula milk powder home 'just in case'. Banning the promotion and advertising of breast milk substitutes stopped all that. However, it led to the birth of follow-on formula which is not covered by the legislation as it is not a breast milk substitute. That means that subliminal advertising is allowed to go on. That logo will be imprinted on your brain. You may not buy the formula but you might be temped by their baby foods.

I do not think that formula milk companies should be advertising on mumsnet. Formula milk companies giving breast feeding advice is just a round about way of advertising their products be it milk or baby food.

There is no one standard formula better than another - they all have LCPs in first milks. They still do not contain all of the nutrients of breastmilk as there are more discovered every day.

Message withdrawn

I understand that MN needs money. I understand a lot of money is tempting, but wonder if Milup pays more than other advertisers? I can imagine being allowed to advertise on a MN site is gold to them. Will other formula company also try to advertise now or is only Milupa allowed? We could end up having lots of formula company advertising on parenting sites, or if only Milupa then it really must be gold worth for them. Still leaves a bad taste in my mouth I'm afraid. I see it as lacking principles.

money keeps mumsnet going I assume atamil pays decent money the site is pro breastfeeding but serves to promote the brand name it is not illegal think its a bit much to hold mumsnet up to such scrutiny when they provide you with a forum for free to discuss issues like breastfeeding and childrearing

Message withdrawn

Steppy, the reason the NCT ban Nestle products is because of their long and unapologetic history in underhand marketing of formula to mothers in the third world, not simply because they make formula.

Message withdrawn

...I breastfed both my DS and DD for 6 months then switched to formula (Aptamil actually !). i did't have a problem with the NCT (on my antenatal course) and my Community Midwife (at my parentcraft) and my health Visitor (at baby clinic) bashing on about "Breast is best"....and I didn't have a problem reading the different literature available when I chose to introduce formula...in fact it was important to me to be able to find out about the differences in formula as part of MY choice for MY children. What I always have a problem with is how invariably people tend to fall into the "Breast" or "Formula" camp then get into serious arguments with each other on what is and always should be personal choice. Did you know also that the NCT also ban any NESTLE products (including kit kats and other loooovely choccie) because they are associated with milk manufacturers...bit too extreme in my book. All those NCT committee meeting with no Nestle products !!!!

Hercules, Caligula, Moondog, Tinker, Harpsichord .... and others, Yes, yes, yes.

I went to bed worrying about this thread last night and keen to have a valuable imput and express my anger over the advert without causing unecessary offence or allowing the thread to branch off onto irrelevant tangents which cloud the real issue.

Sadly though, I awoke to find my brain is still mashed banana and jam (thanks to all this darn Breastfeeding but my imput isn't needed because you argue so well.

Respect to you.

Agree with you Tinker!
Edging away from the breastfeeding and bottlefeeding I think the point is corporate greed. Finding any loophole they can to get there own selfish greedy little fingers aroound anything they want.
If it was a child trying this with its parents the majority wouldn't put up with it.
As they have money they can employ people to get ther e own way.
Did you know that advertisers aiming at children hire in child psychologists. Makes me livid!!!

Many people have strong views about breastfeeding or bottlefeeding and people do what they do as they believe its best. I'm certainly no authority to say which benefits a child more, to me as long as they are healthy and are putting on weight and doing everything they should be doing for there age.
However for those parents who are vulnerable, who have had no sleep for weeks and have been in constant demand I think this is who all these corporate greedy people aim at.
Don't trust advertisers/these big comapanies as far as I could throw them. All they are interested in is making money to please their shareholders and the or the fat cats. They are trying to get people to part with their money and they have very clever ways and techniques of acheiving that without you even realising it.

Gosh, I woke up thinking about this as well! I think it's the corporate greed bit that bugs me, still trying to slyly get round the rules for their own profit. I might ring the "Helpline" later with a bf "problem" - will be interesting to hear their response.

Pruni - there really is a HUGE amount of research worldwide which demonstrates the benefits of bf over formula, reduction in rates of all sorts of diseases and infections, for baby and mother, which is frankly not disputed even by the baby milk industry. I can point you to some websites/sources if you are really interested.

Info from babyfeedinglawgroup.org.uk website:

"In countries (in Europe) where there is little or no advertising and where the hospital practices support mothers who want to breastfeed, breastfeeding rates at birth are very high. The following figures are taken from country reports compiled by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) and national statistics where available: Norway 98%; Sweden 97%; Denmark 98%; Rumania 91%; Czech Republic 92%.

In contrast, in countries where most of health information is provided by the baby feeding industry, breastfeeding rates are low: Ireland 31%; France 50%; Scotland; 50% (parts of Glasgow less than 7%)

"BF rates are comparitively low in this country with other parts of Europe and if banning the advertisement of formula helps to push up the rates then i don't actually see what the problem is."

Is it not illegal to advertise formula milk in Europe then???? I thought it was illegal there too...........yet they still have higher BF rates than us!

I was thinking about this this morning after reading this thread, and I had an unexpected revelation about why I personally find formula advertising red rag to a bull. I realised from reading this thread, that the reason I gave up bf my dd at two weeks, was because I had unconsciously imbibed that insidious message they give, that of course breast is best, but formula is so near to bm, that it doesn't make that much difference really. And because of that subliminal message that it's not best by a mile, just by a negligible amount, some of us give ourselves permission to give up when the going gets tough, when we wouldn't do if we hadn't unconsciously imbibed those messages.

I gave up bf my DD when she was 2 weeks old. It was a decision made on the basis that I was under an appalling amount of stress at the time, the details of which are too boring to go into, but I just felt that with all the other stress I had in my life, I didn't need to put myself through the stress of bf too (and it had taken me 9 weeks to properly establish bf with DS, so I knew damn well how much hell it could be). And the subliminal idea that actually, there wasn't really that much difference, was the deciding factor, I now realise (I hadn't realised that till this morning). If I'd known then what I know now about breastmilk, I wouldn't have given in at 2 weeks. And I gave in because even though i knew the benefits, the subliminal message that I'd grown up with and which is everywhere in society, and which is one we all use to comfort ourselves when we have to give in, that there isn't really that much difference, had really effectively penetrated my consciousness. And I think that's why people jump up and down when they see formula companies trying to get round the advertising and promotion bans. It sounds OTT, but it's part and parcel of that isidious and incredibly powerful message that simply permeates our culture.

And I'm not criticising anyone who bottlefeeds by this post, just trying to give an honest assessment of why formula company advertising is so enraging to some people.

when I was trying to get ds off the breast after 8 months Aptamil was the only thing he would take, and I was really glad of it
See no problem with this whatsoever, surely we are intelligent enough to make up our own minds?