to think this formula company is dangerous and misleading?

[Starberries]

Going to the US in a couple of weeks to buy a few bits for baby due in a few months and see family.

Was browsing babiesrus.com website and found this Enfamil formula 'RestFull' which is marketed for babies 0-12 MONTHS that has RICE CARBOHYDRATE in it to thicken and make them sleep longer!!!

www.toysrus.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3711366

HOW ON EARTH is this legal??

Formula saves lives. It might have saved my babies lives, in fact.

So, you know, considering how breastmilk is widely known to be superior to formula (exactly how superior, I don't know, and have no interest in finding out), I think that maybe, just maybe, parents shouldn't have to pick between different brands of formula at a shop.

I think that maybe the manufacture of breast milk substitutes should be a non-profit activity, perhaps conducted by a governmental organisation. I don't think parents of babies should have to depend on a profit-making organisation that might care more about its shareholders than babies' health. Finding the right formula for your baby should be an easy process of assessing the baby's needs, not trying to read between the marketing lines on the side of the box.

Okay, mumsnetters, tell me (gently) why my idea is stupid.

Summerbird73 Mrs JT did not suggest that you were 'convinced by profit making share holders that i couldnt breastfeed' she stated that:

"multinational corporation who's main aim is to make profit for its shareholders by persuading women they cannot breastfeed"

There is a moral question to them advertising a product which for many is unnecessary. For some it is necessary - especially with the lack of BF support in this country.

Unlike drug companies (who obviously have a conflict between profit and unnecessary sales of a drug) who are not allowed to advertise prescription only drugs - FF companies are allowed to advertise (all be it follow on formula).

Please note that MrsJT also said that she FF!

In this country we have access to clean water for making up bottles, sterilising etc and have enough £ to buy the correct amount of formula. In developing countries they don't and many many babies die due to FF.

"It is not the formula feed that makes the tiny percentage of babies ill - it is the poor preparation." - no actually I think that there is evidence that a lack of BF leads to more illness.

Please note that I say this as a FF'ing Mum who was very grateful that formula exists.

This is not incompatible with my view that FF companies are shockingly profit chasing, do not follow the WHO guidelines and undermine BF due to contributing to a FF "culture".

This is not in anyway meaning to disbelieve any personal experiences of anyone on this thread.

In my situation I believe that if I had been surrounded by experienced BFers (family/midwives/doctors etc) then my BF problems could have been overcome.

In countries with no FF advertising the BF rates are much much higher. Look at the brilliant case study from Brazil.

Look at what Nestle say on formula packets in, for example, Egypt:

"Strengthening the immune defenses and reducing the incidence of diarhhea in the crucial first year of life"

terryble - not a stupid idea!

However, politically I generally prefer privatisation to public services.

If formula was treated as a drug then the NHS would negotiate how much the sale price was and would require tighter control over the marketing/information given to parents.

But Altinkum - there isn't much difference between the formulas is there?

There is normal infant formula/hungry baby/goodnight milk/soya based/lactose-intolerent etc so different types - but within those types the brands are pretty similar.

UNICEF state that "There is no evidence that one company?s milk is better for a baby than any other, and no need for the parents to stick to one brand. Commercially available formulas contain very similar ingredients, but there are some differences in the amounts of, and sources of, some of the ingredients. These differences may affect tolerance."

usualsuspect, another assumption from a ff'er that a bf'er will negatively judge them.....

Anecdotally, some parents claim that switching between brands caused upset tummies/green (er than usual) poo, and constipation.

I'm sure that somewhere once I saw official advice (from NHS maybe?) that you should only change brand if your baby seemed to be having problems on your present brand.

Sorry what is misleading about what UNICEF say.

They are saying that the differences may affect how a baby tolerates the formula, but they are also saying that the formulas are very similar.

They have to be similar because:

"The composition of all cow?s milk?based and soya infant formulas have to meet The Infant Formula and Follow?on Formula Regulations (England and Wales) 2007, which enact the European Community Regulations 2006/141/EC. The composition of other enteral and specialist feeds have to meet the Commission Directive (1999/21/EC) on Dietary Foods for Special Medical Purposes. This means the minimum and maximum permitted levels of named ingredients, and named prohibited ingredients, are now laid down by statute."

AFAIK there is no "official" advice to stick to one brand.

Per UNICEF: "no need for the parents to stick to one brand."

Now, that's one of the things that's bothering me. Parents are having to find out by trial and error what suits their newborn! Surely there must be a better way?

Altinkum - please back up your statement "you shouldn't use, say apitmel one week, and then cow and gate say the next week etc".

There are too many FF myths out there.

terryble - BF suits newborns (I am sorry bit you asked for that!)

BF is natural - FF is artificial - of course there is trial and error involved!

This is why there should be more support for BFing and BFing should be normalised. There would still be a choice of FFing.

So just to be clear Altinkum it is just your opinion "no medical evidence to prove this" that FF brands should not be changed (unless there are problems).

I repeat: UNICEF state that there is "no need for the parents to stick to one brand."

I am ordering this booklet which contains info as to the different ingredients in each formula. This will mean that I can better answer Q's about formulas.

nods

Yes, breastmilk generally suits newborns, but if the parents are buying formula, breastmilk can't have been an option, what ever the reason.

My babies needed formula supplementation for the first week of their lives. It would have been nice to have had more to go on when I was picking the brand.

and I need to sleep. Night all.

"Breastfeeding is normalised" - I disagree.

DOH statistics for Breastfeeding initiation and prevalence at 6 to 8 weeks Quarter 3, 2009/10:

Initiation of breastfeeding - In England the breastfeeding initiation rate was 72.3% at 2009/10 Q3.

In England the breastfeeding prevalence rate at 6-8 weeks was 49.1% as a percentage of those infants with a known 6-8 week breastfeeding status.

Less than 50% at 6-8 weeks that makes FF more "normal" IMO.

Plus in some areas the figures are much worse, eg 29.7% BF at 6-8 weeks in the North east.

Link to main DOH page.