Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think that the formula companies are succeeding with their campaign to promote formula to be as good as breast milk...

462 replies

MissyKLo · 01/03/2011 14:12

...when it isn't?

this article rang true in so many ways

www.analyticalarmadillo.co.uk/2010/10/how-breast-is-best-came-to-be.html

Breast milk is of course, full of amazing antibodies and nourishment etc that formula can never replicate - but the formula companies are winning in their campaign to make people believe that formula is as good as breast milk aren't they? A lot of people don't see bf as a big deal and that babies are 'perfectly fine' on formula. But what about all the benefits of breast milk and the fact that so many babies don't ever get these?

Breast milk cannot be beaten on so many levels so why are the formula companies allowed to get away with this?!!!!!!

OP posts:
altinkum · 01/03/2011 16:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

bubbleymummy · 01/03/2011 16:57

"The trots can be serious in 3rd world countries,we don't live in a 3rd world country."

Have you heard of dehydration Milamae? Tell someone whose baby is hooked up to a drip in hospital because they are dehydrated due to vomiting and diarrhoea that 'the trots' isn't serious Hmm

MilaMae · 01/03/2011 16:59

Oh I know all about dehydration Bubbly all 3 of my dc had whilst bf,one ended up in SCBU because of it......and your point is?

bubbleymummy · 01/03/2011 17:00

"I suspect that Diablo, as a Dr is perfectly well aware that the antibodies in bm cannot not pass through the gut into infant's bloodstream , and thus only protect against gastric- type illnesses"

Not true rollit. It also protects against respiratory infection, Hib etc.

altinkum · 01/03/2011 17:00

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

allsquareknickersnofurcoat · 01/03/2011 17:00

Can I just go back to the AIBU for a second...

How have formula companies "promoted" that formula is the same as BM?

allsquareknickersnofurcoat · 01/03/2011 17:01

We're not supposed to be arguing FF vs BF, that debate just goes round and round in circles and neither camp will back down...

I fear Hecate predicted this, very early on......

GwendolineMaryLacey · 01/03/2011 17:02

So having a bf/ff topic is working then... Hmm

Diablo82 · 01/03/2011 17:02

Actually, I think there is a higher incidence of hypernatraemic dehydration in exclusively breastfed infants requiring a drip in hospital. In formula fed infants there is a risk of diarrhoeal illnesses. A small proportion of these are linked to intolerances. The majority are related to poor hygiene and lceaning when preparing formula.

bubbleymummy · 01/03/2011 17:03

Diablo - how can you accept that they have a benefit if you do not believe that their absence does not cause harm? What benefit do they have then if they don't offer protection and help the baby fight off potentially serious illnesses?Illnesses that could potentially cause harm...

TattyDevine · 01/03/2011 17:04

"And what exactly are all these illnesses my 3 dc,my sister's dc, my friends dc are supposed to have had as newborns-but didn't"

Its not that they are supposed to have had them, just that they were at an increased risk. As was my son. He didn't have any illnesses either.

Beveridge · 01/03/2011 17:04

Formula advertisements might be banned for formula suitable from birth but come on, we've all seen the numerous adverts on TV for follow-on milk (Cow and Gate laughing babies, 'big cup', SMA ones with mathematical symbols, etc.) It's the formula companies way of creating a brand association that extends 'backwards' to encourage consumption of their products across the whole range.

Most watchers of TV adverts would probably only register that they have watched an advert for 'baby milk' from a particular company. And even if a particular viewer is not a parent at the time, they may well be one day and this is one way of ensuring that a companies name 'sticks' in someone head for the future (if you don't believe me, try and sing sing the Shake and Vac jingle from the 80s)

If advertising doesn't work, why do companies spend such a fortune on it?!!

MilaMae · 01/03/2011 17:05

Diablo is right my dd's SCBU consultant told us this 6 years ago,shall we all stop exclusively bfing then Bubbbly? Hmm

TattyDevine · 01/03/2011 17:05

They are just analysing statistics. This many formula fed babies were hospitalised with this illness, but only this many breasfed babies were. Its a statistic that gives insight into increased risk.

Nothing to get narky about, but hard to argue with it too.

bubbleymummy · 01/03/2011 17:05

WEll of course it's not AS risky altinkum- but to say that it isn't risky at all because we don't live in a 3rd world country is ridiculous.

clinkers · 01/03/2011 17:06

I dont agree companies promote formula as being the equal of breast milk. I am privvy to a lot more information (and advertisement for early stage formula) due to my job and I dont see it. The aim is to emulate or try to get some way close to the gold standard, breast milk. Trying to do that suggests it is superior.

I dont believe any person thinks their formula is equal to breast milk. I think they (people who have to go down the ff route) might prefer that the companies try their damn best to try to get it somewhere, even a little bit near breast milk in some ways so they can give their child the best they can . i know I would.

NinkyNonker · 01/03/2011 17:06

To go back to the original question, if people here are not disputing that breast milk is 'best' why is formula so popular?

bubbleymummy · 01/03/2011 17:07

Milamae - what? Where did I say you shouldn't exclusively breastfeed? What did your SCBU consultant tell you?

MilaMae · 01/03/2011 17:09

If you prepare formula following the correct guidelines it isn't risky,that's what guidelines are for.

bubbleymummy · 01/03/2011 17:09

Sorry - missed some posts - just trying to catch up....

MilaMae · 01/03/2011 17:10

Exactly what Diablo said.

altinkum · 01/03/2011 17:12

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

bumble34 · 01/03/2011 17:12

Clinkers you're right i missed that comment Unfortunately suggesting that ff cuases harm is exactly the sort of comment that stops people listening to the rest of the reasonable debate.

Not everyone who smokes gets a smoking related illness like wise not all Bf children have perfet helath and not all FF babies have any health consequences However the research does support the fact that Bf babies are less likely to suffer from some problems That does not mean that every pro bf is accusing ff mums of putting their child at risk.

Worraliberty do you think that maybe the increased obesity rates in children may have any connection to the increased rates of formula feeding?

Going back to the original thread Is it right that ff has a multi million pound backer whose aim is to make more money whilst information about breastfeeding is funded by a cash strapped nhs Shouldn't the funding be on an equal footing at least?

clinkers · 01/03/2011 17:12

How can you accept that they have a benefit if you do not believe that their absence causes harm?

Because that is bad science

bubbleymummy · 01/03/2011 17:13

I haven't actually got a clue what you are arguing - that bm doesn't have protective antibodies. That formula doesn't carry risks? I honestly don't have time for another one of these ridiculous debates. It is completely off topic for a start and only got here because people love to jump on anyone who suggests that ff carries a greater risk of bf!