Fuck off Aptamil...

[MsFox]

...with you Facebook targeted adverts.

Since announcing my pregnancy on Facebook, I have been targeted by so many formula companies advertising 'baby clubs'. Aptamil are offering a free polar bear, and '1 to 1 advice'.... I wonder if this advice includes breastfeeding advice? No? Oh... no money in breastfeeding I suppose...

"The fact that people on here are so disgusted about Formula advertising is offensive to those who choose it"

Why?

Government has a duty to promote behaviours which safeguard the health of children. Unethical marketing of a product which puts children at higher risk of ill-health than a free and widely available alternative needs to be policed.

"I don't need some patronsing bollocks pushed down my throat which assumes I am under educated or ignorant or "have cultural barriers"

Well, when it comes to health education and government policy on infant feeding the government has to base its decisions on research and evidence, and make policy which will hopefully impact positively on the greatest number of people. Whatever your individual circumstances, the evidence shows that there are large numbers of people who are not clear about the important differences between breas tmilk and formula. It's also the case that the majority of mothers in the UK, particularly the least educated and most underprivileged, are very unlikely to have had significant cultural exposure to normal breastfeeding through the media or in their day to day lives. We know this affects their perception and understanding of breastfeeding and how it works, and impacts on their chances of having a positive experience with it.

"We not in NORWAY, or the third world, and the UK will never legislate FM, as we get the taxes from these companies

But they HAVE legislated to control the unethical promotion of formula milk. The code is just not being policed properly.

And nobody is suggesting banning or restricting the sale of formula, so the government would continue to get money from taxing this product (although as it's not a VAT rated product they probably don't get as much as you think - most companies being highly skilled at protecting their profits by paying as little UK tax as possible. These products are hugely expensive partly because of the colossal sums formula companies spend on marketing).

"however advertisement of a "product" is not going to sway someone from using formula MILK"

Well - lets beg to differ on that point. I think if we're looking for proof on this issue, the evidence would support my view that aggressive promotion of formula encourages more mothers to use it OVERALL, including breastfeeding mothers (who as a group use just as much formula as mothers who never even begin breastfeeding, as they're more likely to continue to use formula milks after 12 months).

"however it may allow them to choose their brand"

How do adverts help you make a rational and informed choice as to which brand you use? The only thing that would help you do that would be independent, evidence based advice which compared outcomes for babies using different types of formula - showing which milk was best tolerated by babies, which caused the least and most vomiting and constipation etc.

How can you trust what the companies tell you about their products? They ALL say that they're product has many similarities to breastmilk and is safe.

What brand do you use? What persuaded you to choose that brand over the others?

Actually - can I throw that question open to the rest of you here? How did you choose what brand to give your baby?

If you decide to breastfeed then you will, and advertising formula wont change your mind?

What a naive attitude!

What are the stats, Tiktok? Over 50% of babies are breastfed at 1w, but less than 25% are still being breastfed at 6w?

Maybe some of these mothers had decided to bf for 1m and then go over to ff.

Maybe the rest were unable to bf for physical, medical, or psychological reasons.

Or maybe the vast majority were inadequately supported and informed. . And surrounded by advertising and culture that supported ff.

Cleo...."We know this affects their perception and understanding of breastfeeding and how it works"

So "we" whoever "we" is...know every underprivileged persons grasp of the issue do "we"?

Sounds like "we" assume those people have nothing else to worry about...such as getting to work, dealing with being a single parent (especially in the case of many underprivileged Mothers) and that they actually don't need or want to be educated about something which is a natural bodily fuction.

Pushing the issue does not persuede peope to try it....if people want to then they will. If they don't then they won't...no matter how much "we" get on our high horses.

Sounds like you have no understanding of the underprivileged except to play Lady Bountiful with your obsession knowledge.

Great posts ShanahansRevenge :)

Those who say the marketing (I won't say just advertising as the campaigns are far,far wider)has no impact...how do you think we have got to he point where an artificial substitute with less health benefits than the original (and costs) is more popular than the original? Think about it, that's nuts! An amazing coup. At only 4 mo old most HPs assume my dd must be FF,that is the default.

We haven't got to this sorry state without much concerted and expensive marketing effort on the part of the formula companies. Let's not assign altruistic motivations to it.

altinkum - the fact your baby's consultant chose the brand of milk makes you far from typical.

The vast majority of the 98 per cent of mothers who use formula milk at some point select a brand based on....I dunno, a lot of them use trial and error, some use what they used last time, and some use what their sister used. For most babies it won't make much difference; for a few it will. There is no information on the pack to help you decide. Nothing that says 'this brand appears to make some babies very constipated and uncomfortable. For this reason, you might want to give it a go for a couple of weeks and then if it does cause problems, you could switch to Brand X. This one seems to increase a colicky baby's distress, so if your baby is colicky, you could switch to Brand Z, and hope your baby is not one of the babies who seem to get awful diarrhoea with it.'

The 'added ingredients' that supposedly make one formula better than another should be tested independently and if they make a difference to health, then they should be in each and every brand.

The government makes no tax - bar companies tax - from formula as the product is zero rated for VAT. But even if it did, I don't understand the attitude that says 'it's all about money - there's nothing you can do about it and anyway, I am not influenced by ads anyway'.

Governments have a public health duty to ensure the best health for the majority. They do this in many ways.

Why is campaigning for ethical marketing for formula 'offensive' to people who formula feed?

altinkum - you are far from typical because most women who formula feed don't have a baby with multiple allergies or other issues that mean the doc makes the selection of formula - what did you think I meant???

altinkum - you said women breastfed less in the 70s " as it was "cooler" and att, a lesser risk with the HIV epidemic... its continued, and has been around for centuries, even when people use condensed milk with sugar in it etc..."

What are you talking about? You could not have got it more wrong! Where to start....ok:

• women breastfed less in the 70s because this was part of a gradual, general falling off of breastfeeding over a period of about 100 years or so. Many, many reasons why, but one of the reasons for drop in the 60s and 70s was when the vast majority of women had their babies in hospital and were told to feed 4 hourly, 10 mins a side, to fit in with hospital routines and pracitice. Bf cannot succeed with these rules

• there has been no HIV epidemic in the UK among women of child bearing age

• not breastfeeding has been around 'for centuries', true enough, but not at a population level. Individuals, and specific sectors of society, have not breastfed for many reasons - at great cost to maternal and infant health and survival. This huge disparity between breastfed and non-breastfed babies has only closed in comparatively recent times.

You are right that advertising of formula milk is only one aspect of the fall away from breastfeeding. But it is a contributory factor and one that's amenable to legislation in a way that woman's preference and social attitudes are not.

The main purpose in govt. promoting breastfeeding is to reduce costs, you say, altinkum?

You say this as if it is a bad thing?

Improving the health of mothers and babies means less money spent on hospitalisation of sick babies, less money spent on breast and ovarian cancers, less money spent on community treatment of babies with infections and so on - I don't think this is remotely controversial and it's certainly the case that the health service costs would benefit if there was less formula feeding; there are health economists who have done the maths on this.

I have never seen any evidence that this is a major factor in government policy, to be honest, but maybe it's at the back of their minds.

I chose cow and gate because there was a choice between that and SMA. I had heard that SMA made some babies sick. Aptimil didn't exist then and if it did I wouldn't have chosen it as it is around £1 dearer /tin.If I was buying formula today I would still buy cow and gate, simply because I found no problems with it.
I never bought follow on milk either, they went onto blue milk when they were old enough.

"There is NO aggressive advertising in the UK, yes we have follow on milks (not illegal) we dont have any advertisements in the NHS or are the MW allowed to give advice on formula (some do lucky) etc... "

Point by point:

How can advertising not be considered 'aggressive' when it's 1) taking out full page ads in professional journals. 2) taking out large numbers of full page ads in high selling mother and baby magazines 3)making unsolicited approaches to new parents through social networking sites encouraging them to accept direct marketing by joining 'mums clubs' 4) sending reps out into shops to promote the brand directly to parents 5) running expensive ads on national tv 6) promoting directly to health professionals.

The Cow and Gate rep who visits our local hospital used to regularly dump piles of leaflets promoting cow and gate products in the parent craft room where the breastfeeding classes are run.

"you seem to have take the attitude that people who FF dont research what milk is suitable to their child, or make no informed knowledgeable choice in choosing to feed their child that brand etc... I cant certainly tell you that from MY own experience that's incorrect."

How can they make decisions based on reliable, independent evidence comparing these products when this evidence doesn't exist?

It doesn't exist!

You had the advice of a consultant, who hopefully recommended a particular formula for your baby based on good quality research.

What about other mothers who don't have access to this?

"So "we" whoever "we" is...know every underprivileged persons grasp of the issue do "we"?"

Oh come on - don't try to distort the argument. Those bodies who are responsible for policy in health education and promotion don't believe that 'every' underprivileged persons grasp of the issue is inadequate. Of course you know this - you're just trying to make me out to be unreasonable and prejudiced. But they do know that rates of breastfeeding initiation and continuation are lowest in those groups, and that ignorance about the basic physiology of breastfeeding is also poor in those groups.

"Sounds like "we" assume those people have nothing else to worry about...such as getting to work,

Interestingly enough, breastfeeding initiation rates are highest among those mothers who are most likely to return to work after the birth and lowest among those mothers who've never worked. Most mothers in the UK who do return to work after giving birth return after 6 months, when the vast majority of mothers are no longer breastfeeding anyway.

"dealing with being a single parent (especially in the case of many underprivileged Mothers)

Is the implication here that breastfeeding is a less logical choice for single mothers? I would have thought that it would be a more logical choice, given that they may have less money and have to do all the night feeds themselves?

"and that they actually don't need or want to be educated about something which is a natural bodily fuction."

Women do need to know how breastfeeding works if they don't haven't had exposure to normal breastfeeding in their day to day life. And there's very good evidence that antenatal breastfeeding education improves initiation and continuation rates, which is how the NHS can justify their costs in offering it.

"Pushing the issue does not persuede peope to try it...."

Sorry - but you're wrong. Breastfeeding promotion campaigns have increased bf initiation rates in this country significantly in the past few years. And part of the promotion of breastfeeding is educating people about the drawbacks of using formula milk.

"if people want to then they will".

Yes - and they're more likely to want to use formula if they're exposed to a barrage of marketing persuading them that using this product will promote their baby's health and development, which is what formula advertising does.

"no matter how much "we" get on our high horses."

..... ho hum. Was waiting for the accusation that those of us who are arguing for restrictions on formula advertising believe that breastfeeding is somehow morally superior.

Wait for it...... wait for it........

"woman wanting a choice, freedom, where BF was outraged in public, prudish britain and there objections and sexulsation on breasts"

In the main, prudery about public breastfeeding started AFTER ff became the norm.

Now it's a vicious cycle - more women ff (including bf mothers) = less public breastfeeding = more embarrassment among mothers who do want to breastfeed when out and about = more bottlefeeding.

Altincum - you are simply WRONG about heterosexual hiv rates in the UK in the 1980's. Heterosexual HIV rates have risen over the past three decades in the UK as have breastfeeding initiation rates in the UK.

Worry about vertical transmission of HIV has not impacted on breastfeeding initiation rates in the UK in any significant way.

So listen..carry on with whatever you want to do..but don't get angry about advertising...if a Mother chooses to FF then she has the right to be infomed about formula as much as anything else...and yes...that will probably be through advertising as will as word of mouth.

You would rather stop advertising formula in order to force the issue...to make information less available to Mothers who do not want to BF..thus force women to BF when they may not want to.

And the issue of single parents not being able to afford formula as easily as they can access their own free breastmilk is NOTHING to do with their choice.

No Mother should feel that she has to BF as it is cheaper. What a lot of tory sounding twaddle.