to think that cunting Cow and Gate with their 'clever' marketing about babies 'needing iron' and funding 'research' have fucked up the last 10 years of improving and supporting breastfeeding?

[AtYourCervix]

1. 3 of the authors of that 'research' are funded by formula milk or baby food companies.

1. physiological third stage anyone?

I don't see it as sinister. It's marketing, yes.

What I resent is ill-informed health-professionals telling vulnerable parents of newly-diagnosed autistic children, some with huge sensory issues and some who have been vaccine-damaged that they should have weaned at 3-4 months because there is a "window" that they have missed.

My DS ate everything and anything when he was tiny but after the MMR he was horribly ill and his diet has never been the same and he has serious gut and bowel issues which nobody will investigate. Every other parent on that course had similar issues with their children and it was all being glossed over!

I asked for the details of the peer-reviewed empirical studies which the course-leader was alluding to and was told, "oh it isn't in the teaching material for this course but it's what I've heard"

Great

It's not "a sinister plot to poison babies" though. It's the same as any other company which has something to sell - they want to sell as many and as much as they can. They want to maximise their market. Getting you to buy the products earlier IS in their interest, because it's such a small window that baby food applies to.

You might well say well, if nobody cares, why don't coca-cola and heinz beans start marketing their products at babies? Answer - they don't need to, because their products are aimed at anyone from age 2-80 or whatever the life expectancy is now. But realistically an extra 18 months of buying their product is nothing in that window. But if parents are currently weaning their babies at 6 months and using baby food until, say, 9 months, and they start weaning at 4 months instead then that's an extra 2 months added to the 3 they already use - practically doubling the length of their customer base.

Obviously this is simplified. The point is it's not about it being a sinister plot, it's about money, same as anything else, it's just people get pissed off with it because there are health implications which never seem to be as important to the companies as the money is.

I was weaned on carnation milk. Yes really! 70's baby. I have not done that to my dcs tho

I was adopted and raised on that and Rose-hip Syrup. I think it was a sort of concentrated more evil type of Ribena

Miraculously I still have teeth but I do love Carnation milk when I can sneak it into the house.

You don't HAVE to buy it though. Any more than you have to buy anything advertised, or on Promo in the supermarket at any given time. My dd is nearly 7. Adverts and marketing never played ANY part in my parenting choices. I did what I thought was best.

Yanbu atyourcervix

And you are completely entitled to rant and rave about something that concerns you. The way things have been worded does seem to make out that breast milk might not be enough for first six months and the implication seems to be about using formula even though the real message is about maybe some babies are ready to be weaned earlier.

There is a lot of misconception about iron in breast fed babies - and that is undermining bf

Can someone explain why it is so important to them how other mothers feed their babies?

Genuine question, because I have never questioned other peoples choices and I wonder why it causes so much concern, as long as you are happy with what you are doing.

Most women want to breastfeed. Most women give up before they want to. A big cause of this is society's warped view of breastfeeding. So when I see newspaper pieces that spout misinformation that further undermines this most natural of activities, I care.

But she isn't questioning other peoples choices she is just annoyed at how they have put things across

And tbh even if she did question it, where is the harm? If a person is secure in their choice they won't mind someone asking a question surely?

I have recently heard that topical shows will not allow a bf/ff debate as it is too taboo! It is amazing how taboo this is!

Very good point MsKlo.

I'm actually very shocked that I'd never noticed.

Total agree that there is a lot of misinformation out there and a lot by people who stop - especially the 'I didn't have enough milk' statement
Now of course there are people who did not have enough milk, but this is quite unusual and not something that can be self diagnosed. I know many women who have said this after bf for jus a few days and they just don't want to listen to the fact that building milk supply can take weeks and babies need to feed a lot - I remember sitting and being in tears because my boobs felt like they had nothing left but thankfully i got great advice and listened to te fact that perseverance was important.

I wish the right info was there In plain sight as so many women seem surprised that building supply can take weeks

^ arf.

So essentially you're saying it's OK to underfeed a baby for weeks even though there's a better solution?

Weird. I'm not really a starve a human being/animal kind of a person.

EAch to their own - and as you so rightly pointed out KLo - if a woman is happy with her choice (e.g., underfeeding her baby) it doesn't matter.

From what I remember the cow and gate ad is comparing iron levels in formula to cowsmilk? Breast milk isn't mentioned though there maybe a subtitled line at the end mentioning bf for first six months. So IMO cow and gate havnt done anything wrong. (Newspapers have) but I dont read them for that reason

But you're not starving them They just appear to want more than is there because they're constantly trying to build it up. It's normal and how babies existed for millennia before we had alternatives to feed them, they didn't just starve.

Charming heading op!

Agree ladyintheradiator

OP doesn't say anything bad about ff at all! I think if people get defensive it is about their issues!

so where is the evidence to support the claims that it is unheard of for women to not produce enough milk? The fact is that there isn't any. The claims that all women can breastfeed have no factual basis because, let's face it, most women who give up don't present themselves for medical testing afterwards so there is no way of actually knowing.

Whereas there is plenty of evidence that women can and do have to stop bf because of not producing enough milk - the evidence being the women themselves. But we're not allowed to say that because it apparently undermines bf.

It is the claims that all women can bf, that not being able to breastfeed is untrue that lead to so many women feeling the guilt they do over giving up breastfeeding.

I didn't produce milk. None. I produced lots of collostrum but once that went the milk never replaced it. And no amount of latching a baby on changed that. And I know this happened because you know what? I was actually there, and it was my milk that never came in. I had no desire to starve my baby for several weeks to try to prove a point to anyone, and I have often wondered how much damage is done to babies by women who insist on keeping on trying to breastfeed with a limited supply while the baby fails to gain weight. Just who is it you're benefiting here, the baby? I don't think so.

It is thought medically that somewhere between 0.2 to 2% of women cannot breastfeed. However most of these studies have come from developing countries where there is obviously a much more desperate need to breastfeed.

Applying that to the UK - well, we have the same biology and would be better nourished. However we have many many more factors that stand in the way of women being able to breastfeed.

A minority of women will not have any or enough milk that is true. Many many more will end up with not enough milk through their own behaviour, misinformation or the acts of others (e.g. midwives giving bottles or top ups when not needed). Certainly some women produce more milk and do it more easily.

You are right some babies might be damaged by lack of milk - however we should have a society where bith health professionals and those around the mother recognise that quickly.

Formula milk is not evil - it can be a lifesaver. However the formula companies who promote it to women who do not need it are evil in my opinion.

I also wish we had a system where, if mothers genuinely can't breastfeed for medical reasons or genuine biological lack of milk then formula could be on a prescription for those babies.

If it was then seen as a medical need (for those in the true medical minority) then I would hope some of the guilt would be erased.

And no I don't mean formula should be medicalised and taken off the shelves before anyone jumps to that conclusion!

Oh and as for the iron content in follow on milk. Why not get the iron, from, erm, iron rich foods? Or alternatively vitamin drops if really needed....which would be a lot cheaper than the follow on milk.

Milk is not an iron rich food. Why would you get your iron from it?!

YANBU. Not the only ones though.