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...

HIV has never been an issue affecting the choice of infant feeding in the UK except for a few individual women - never. It has never reached epidemic levels among women of child bearing age in the UK - that's just a fact.

Look, this is my specialist subject (history of infant feeding) which I have studied academically as well as taken an interest in over several years.

Far from a drop in breastfeeding, the late 70s and early 80s saw the first rise in breastfeeding since records began - more women started to breastfeed then, as was seen in the first nationwide infant feeding surveys.

Numbers have crept up slowly since then.

Shanahan - please tell us what information about formula feeding a mother gets from an advertisement to send off for a stuffed polar bear - or indeed any ad for any formula.

Thank you.

altinkum - can I suggest you proof read your posts, as sometimes they are hard to understand.

That's what the preview button is for.

Rates of HIV among women of childbearing age in the UK have never been anything like 'epidemic' proportions. Fear of vertical transmission (mother to child) of HIV has never been an issue in infant feeding choice in the UK, apart from in a few specific, individual cases. This would not impact on the statistics at all.

FFS.

I have made it clear in every post I was speaking generally and excluding individual, specific cases. Can you not see that?

There never was and is not an epidemic of HIV among child bearing women in the UK. Some individual, tragic cases, happened and indeed, I know of two cases where this happened, in my own immediate circle (through blood transfusion, both of them, in the early 80s). This was very rare.

HIV has never had an impact on breastfeeding statistics in the UK. Never.

Please read my post again, to make sure you understand I am making a distinction between

a) individual specific cases of HIV in childbearing-age women, which of course happened in the UK

b) the lack of a general epidemic of HIV among childbearing-age women

I'd also add

c) this had no impact generally on breastfeeding statistics at this time, which atarted to rise, not fall.

Sheesh.

TikTok...an advert is in itself information. What is available on the market is information isn't it?

I can't remember knowing you are dyslexic, altinkum - if you've told me before I have forgotten! Sorry about that. But my point still remains: previewing is a good thing.

Previewing is useful for people with dyslexia, I would have thought. If it doesn't make any difference in your case, then I accept that.

However, you asked me not to make 'nonsense assumptions' and you've told me I am naive, and am a 'one line thinker'.

I think asking you to preview your post so I can understand you better is pretty mild!

"erm tiktoc the evidence says otherwise"

What 'evidence'?

I get my information about factors affecting bf rates from a range of sources, including the WHO, Unicef and the Royal College of Midwives. Where are you getting your information from? Would you like to link us to any of it?

"but then again I read all researches"

Shanahan - so just knowing a brand name is helpful, then?

It actually helps you decide what brand to buy?

And not having these brand names in front of you by way of ads would "force women to BF when they may not want to".

Blimey.

Someone, sorry can't remember who, posted this recently.

It rather eloquently explains how formula milk advertising works.

"TikTok...an advert is in itself information. What is available on the market is information isn't it?"

The main purpose of an advert is to persuade. Not to provide consumers with unbiased information.

Boob - FANTASTIC link!

Love it!

I thought so too, sums it all up pretty neatly!

"but don't get angry about advertising..."

Why not get angry if the result of that advertising is that mothers are misled over something so important as their babies' health and welfare?

"if a Mother chooses to FF then she has the right to be infomed about formula as much as anything else"

I totally agree. So let's get the government to sponsor UNBIASED research comparing how well the different brands are tolerated by babies, rather than allow the companies to give parents partial and biased information whose sole purpose is to persuade.

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

It's reality. Unless you're on benefits you'll have to pay for your baby's formula. If you're a single mother this will make a difference to your budget.

Unless you're proposing to make formula milk free for every mother? And why would the state do that when increasing rates of formula use would also increase health spending in the NHS?

To the (long ago) post on how women chose brands: I chose my preferred substitute formulation in hospital on the basis of whether I could remember seeing it in the nearest supermarket.

And the midwife's (strictly off-the-record) advice that she would go for a brand with Omega Acids added, if she was in my position.

"I chose my preferred substitute formulation in hospital on the basis of whether I could remember seeing it in the nearest supermarket".

In light of the lack of any other sensible guidance, that's as good a reason as any!

There's an additional point here which I haven't seen really explored (I don't think, I've read most of the thread).

Regardless of your views on formula advertising (and personally I do think it is designed to encourage women away from breastfeeding not just guide their choice of brand) the fact is that every woman buying a tin of formula is paying for those toy cows and polar bears and free pens your health visitor is writing with.

Amongst those who formula feed, there will inevitably be a large number on low incomes (I think, statistically, they are actually more represented than other groups). For many of those families, the cost of formula is a real struggle, a real dent in the budget. It makes me so cross they are bearing the costs of all this crap.

If it was really about information, there are much cheaper ways to do it.

"And the midwife's (strictly off-the-record) advice that she would go for a brand with Omega Acids added, if she was in my position."

I can only wonder if the midwife knows how the DHA and ARA in formula is harvested....

Fish, isn't it?

Lots of debate here but cleofarta you still haven't answered my previous query on bf...

Omega 3 fatty acids are in most infant formula - I can't think of any standard brands that don't have them.

They are synthesised from algae.

There is very little evidence they are beneficial www.thpc.scot.nhs.uk/Priorities_Topics/Breastfeeding/Infant_milk.htm.

I don't have any comments on the problem, but regarding the freebies:

take them, they cost the company money and if you're not buying anything, then more fool them.

but! with the Polar Bear - the logo will only be sewn on, and if you get an unpicker, you can carefully unpick the stitching and have a logo-free bear.