Countries failing to stop harmful marketing of breast-milk substitutes, warn WHO and UNICEF **Title edited by MNHQ**

[Horehound]

www.who.int/news-room/detail/27-05-2020-countries-failing-to-stop-harmful-marketing-of-breast-milk-substitutes-warn-who-and-unicef

If anyone wants to read. WHO are not happy with countries be blazé about breastmilk substitutes

I was quite alarmed by the statement in the title of this thread which is within the link.

14 x what amount? That's just sensationalist. I extended breastfed, but when I look at the benefits in a developed country, they really aren't that huge, mum's have too much guilt and sadly a lot of it is because of other mum's

The figure is apparently from this 2008 study: Black R. et al. Maternal and child undernutrition: global and regional exposures and health consequences. It’s been quoted in both unicef and who literature so it’s not bullshit, but obviously relates to places where it’s hard to boil water and prepare food and formula safely. Very sad figure but should not be used to shame mums who don’t bf.

My health visitor friend can tell by the shape of a toddler’s face (or maybe head) if they were breastfed, bottle fed or premature. I’m not sure if she can do it for 12 year olds though

If I hadn't bottle fed I'd probably have killed myself.
I don't need any more guilt. I'm doing the best I can for my baby, they're very very loved.

@Horehound

The point PPs have made is that the summary that you've linked to has some sensationalist stats but no detail.

So is it FF babies in poverty stricken areas of Africa are 14 times more likely to die of cholera due to infected water sources that EBF babies

Or

FF babies in affluent London suburbs are 14 times more likely to die of SIDS than EBF babies

Or

FF babies across the world regardless of any other social or economic variables are more likely to die than EBF babies

Or none of the above and something else entirely.

No one can tell you from that link you have provided, which means that the statement is nonsense because it cannot be related to a set of circumstances.

What an upsetting click bait thread title. The WHO speaks for the world, the clue is in the name. On a worldwide level I have no doubt that that figure is true. In countries with a reasonable income level, clean running water and access to sterilising facilities then no I do not believe this to be true. If babies in the UK were 14 times more likely to die if formula fed people (midwives) would be talking about it.

Thanks. My breast pump broke today, for the second time. I wasnt able to breastfeed normally. I switched to combo feeding today with my shitty little hand pump and formula.

This is exactly what I needed.

100% of babies who aren’t fed at all will die.

HTH

Lostvoiced you are a better woman than me if you are persisting with expressing. I’d be lucky if i’d get a dribble.

@Lostvoiced I have an electric pump that I opened and sterilised but never used. If it would help you at all you'd be welcome to it.

So, should i go back 8 years and tell my useless tits to buck the fuck up?

Goady fucking thread.

Lostvoiced hugs from across the ether [tea]

I'm hoping you're just not very bright OP and don't understand what a WORLD health organisation study means, encompassing almost 200 countries with numerous confounding factors in this particular study, and that you're not just being vile and pushing an agenda.

The WHO also say the majority of deaths from malaria, 67% (272 000 per annum) are children under the age of 5.

I wouldn't fret about that if you live in Surrey though.

I didn't say it was babies in the UK. People are so defensive ffs when I was just posting a WHO thread the WHO started on twitter.
It is interesting about the manufacturing laws and obviously formula companies will not want to comply with what the WHO because it's a multi Billion dollar industry.
I personally don't believe Formula companies have the best interests of woman and babies at the forefront of their mind but I can see it has its place in the world.

This appears to be a statistic from across the entirety of the WHO member states, not differentiating between jurisdictions (I scanned though so may have missed something) I doubt it’s anything like this high in the UK when it’s separated out, not least because we have tiny rates of EBF babies but not a large infant mortality rate. We have strict preparation guidance and easy access to clean water here, we simply won’t have the same challenges around formula as other countries. The statistics need breaking down.

Here we go again ... another 900 posts thread coming up

Another statistic being thrown around, can't say it's swayed me to breastfeed at all costs.

OP why don't you just get on with it like a lot of breastfeeding mums do and feel happy with your decision?

What Awwlookatmybabyspider said. Couldn't agree more

@IloveJudgeJudy I’m with you on that. I didn’t breast feed my son. I tried for about 12 hours and was then told I had flat nipples!! I certainly wasn’t aware of that before. After my baby’s blood sugar dropped I was then advised to bottle feed. I think in the grand scheme of life it really doesn’t matter whether you breast feed or bottle feed. My child is a healthy 20 year old. Never had any health issues. I feel sorry for young mums who seem to be under a massive amount of pressure to breastfeed. It’s really no one else’s business. The shaming of others that we see on social media is totally unnecessary.

@Horehound

I didn't say it was babies in the UK. People are so defensive ffs when I was just posting a WHO thread the WHO started on twitter. It is interesting about the manufacturing laws and obviously formula companies will not want to comply with what the WHO because it's a multi Billion dollar industry. I personally don't believe Formula companies have the best interests of woman and babies at the forefront of their mind but I can see it has its place in the world.

Ah, that’s why you picked the massively shitty thread title then! You could have made it clear what you were talking about but you went with dramatic

It’s quite common for formula manufacturers to give new mothers in poor countries free formula until their milk dries up, but then they either can’t buy it locally easily or can’t afford it. Those babies are much more likely to die, if not then, then later.

That's horrific. There must be a special circle of hell for the advertising execs who came up with that strategy. Bastards

What actually is the point of your thread Op? To scare already exhausted, tired young mums who bottle feed (like I did) for whatever reason, with older children who’ve been in lockdown since March, with partners (or themselves) fearing job losses, just because their wains had a bottle of perfectly safe and filling powdered milk before bed tonight?
We all know (deep down) breast is best, we’re not stupid, although personally I prefer FED IS BEST.
Awae with your badly timed scaremongering.

@Horehound people are defensive because you essentially posted a thread that says if you formula fed your baby they are 14 times more likely to die. You made no mention of why you posted it or what you found interesting about it. Plus the majority of people weren't defensive anyway they were just pointing out that the article probably isn't particularly applicable in the UK which is where most MN mums are. HTH.

Again @BeingonFBdoesntmakeittrue
Nowhere did i say it's UK babies. I also didn't post this on the baby feeding board I posted on chat because I saw the article and thought it was interesting and that even if the higher death rate isn't do relevant in the UK it is still alarming and sad.

Well obviously if you gather a bunch of 5 year olds together you are not going to see the ones who died. So that argument is somewhat flawed. There talking about the tiny proportion that are not there to be compared, but may have been if there immune system had been that little bit stronger.

Fortunately child mortality with either feeding method, is very low in the developed world, so the difference can only be seen on a population level. But just because both numbers are small, doesn't mean one can't be x14 bigger than the other. eg. 0.000014% is x14 bigger than 0.000001, but both are so small they would not be noticeably different without a very big sample size.

The latest research suggests babies who are breastfed have slightly longer telomeres than babies who are formula fed, even within siblings. That means something about breastmilk affects babies at a chromosomal level to help them live longer. This may not make a difference to rich white people in developed countries who are least likely to prematurely develop ageing related diseases but would impact everyone else and could make the difference between an early death or not. It’s a shame really because out of everyone rich white women are probably most likely to breastfeed.

Way to send women who can't breastfeed for A VARIETY of reasons, already suffering from PND and anxiety about parenting, into a complete tailspin OP.

What has it actually got to do with you? Your PFB will obviously be cleverer and better in all ways than those bottlefed so you'll have no competition when you try and get them into a top university.