to think that the new SMA advert is very close to breaching the WHO code.

[sickoftheholidays]

Just seen that nauseating advert from SMA "Theres nothing more important than what you do for your baby at the start" cue mum handing lap top with big SMA logo on the screen over to dad, and then picking up newborn baby.......

I thought the UK we werent allowed to advertise breastmilk substitutes for babies under 6 months of age? yet here we are with a newborn and a clear implication that SMA is a great thing to do for your baby at the start.

I honestly dont want to get into the whole bf/af debate, I dont give a sh*t what mums choose to feed their infants as long as its nutritionally adequate, correctly made and in sufficient quantity, but I do support mums having accurate unbiased information regarding feeding choices for their infant, and also about manufacturers of artificial milks sticking to the rules regarding their adverts! The cow and gate one was misleading enough, but at least the baby was over 6 months!

redbin

If you bothered reading said "pamhplet" you would find out that extensive research was done before it was written.

Yeah, that poxy World Health Organisation, what do they know eh.

Ninky

I needed a laugh, thanks!

Redbin - 11 pages of fully-referenced material (92 academic references, from peer reviewed journals; professional bodies; international-standard review bodies; major textbooks ) from one of the leading international medical websites is opinion????

A very marginally nourished woman - chronically underweight, verge of starvation - will find it difficult to sustain her own health and to breastfeed....but if we can get away from that extreme situation, even poorly fed women on rubbish diets will breastfeed perfectly well and make sufficient breastmilk. Midwives and others tell women to eat well in order to bf because they are badly informed. It's good to eat well, of course, but the direct effects on breastfeeding are virtually nil.

Milk quality is unrelated to the quality of the diet, Tatty - this has been known for decades, but some HCPs have yet to get the message :(

Redbin: The WHO 'pamphlet' of 'unfounded opinion' has about 70 academic references.

Whatever. You're probably right. They'll have made them all up, I should think.

'Cos that's what they do. They pretend they're referencing a study from the Lancet, or the BMJ, or the NEJM, or whatever other prestigious journal you might want to name, just to make it look good.

It's a disgrace, it really is.

Who would think a world body of scientists and doctors would dress up personal opinion with a load of made-up references?

But they do!

Thank goodness there are people like you able to spot their lies and deception.

Well done to you !

(Dear God......)

Ninky - actually, they founded their guidelines for bf/ff nearly 30 years ago on the basis of "isolated" cases in the third world and people a bit too stupid to understand how to look after a baby. Really and truly those guidelines don't affect me. :)

(Living in 3rd world does not mean being a bit stupid. Being stupid is universal.)

Although I do have a wonderful story about a friend's mother who "raised" him in one of these third world countries in the 70s. Would make your eyes pop out on stalks but sadly don't think it'd put this entire bf/ff debate to rest because some nutjob would claim that Nestle/Kraft/Abba made her do it.

Hence "hide this thread" because I think we're all done with the "re-record, not fadeaway". Oooh check me out under the influence of ads.

I'm going to repost my rant form page 1 as we have still ended up talking about BF/FF instead of what the op was about...

formula companies couldn't whine anyway if someone complained.

the restrictions are their own fault for years of making false claims and doing everything they could to undermine breastfeeding.

no one thinks that formula shouldn't exist, but the manufacturers are no more special than any other companies. they should stick to the rules and be honest.

it wouldn't piss so many people off if they weren't trying to stretch the truth at every opportunity to maximise their profits.

Alpine - "they founded their guidelines for bf/ff nearly 30 years ago on the basis of "isolated" cases in the third world and people a bit too stupid to understand how to look after a baby."

Wrong, in every respect. Please try to avoid commenting so dogmatically on issues you don't know about.

rollittherecollette here is the actual code for all that time on your hands

???? It's a breach of 21.1.

The ad is not in a scientific publication, it's not in a trade publication.

So it is in breach, if it refers or implies infant formula ie formula for a baby under 6 mths. If the baby appears to be under 6 mths, then it is a de facto ad for formula under 6 mths.

If challenged, the manufactures might claim that the pack shot is of follow on.

Oh for the love of chocolate biscuits!!!!

It is an advert. Just an advert. If you watch an advert and say actually because of that advert I am going to formula feed then u are pretty fucking stupid and probably not intelligent enough to have children anyway.

Get over it. I don't like seeing the news. And guess what I change the channel. Maybe you should do that to and then u won't see the evil advert!!!!!

rollittherecollette, love your posting name! Gaybo fan?

houseworkwhore (and my god that name is quite something) why do you think companies spend vast sums of cash on advertising if it is of no influence? It is not as straightforward as 'ooh, there is an ad for x, I shall by x'. It is the slow drip. It is the normalisation of ffing. I have no issue with ffing at all - I ffed ds1 - but I do have issue with formula companies particularly since reading 'The Politics Of Breastfeeding'. That book is the reason I am bfing ds2.

Intelligent women don't get influenced by adverts? I'd like to believe it... I suppose you mean that you are an intelligent woman and aren't influenced by adverts, unlike the rest of us plebs.

I have a PhD in a scientific subject, but when I went to the HV for my DD's 8 month check I asked her about iron levels. I was concerned that my DD wasn't getting enough iron. The HV, thank goodness, was very well informed, and told me that the iron in my breastmilk would be absorbed better than any supplement, and not to worry. It wasn't until ages later that I saw the "it would take this amount of cows milk to get the daily recommended amount of iron for your toddler" formula advert, and realised that I must have absorbed it unconciously and that was the reason for my concerns about iron levels. I am pretty about it; in fact, I hate that advert and tend to shout at the television when it's on. But I was very vunerable when I had my first baby. I felt as though I didn't know anything about looking after her, and was obviously very suggestible.

But then, I'm obviously a thicko.

"It is an advert. Just an advert. If you watch an advert and say actually because of that advert I am going to formula feed"

You must know that marketing doesn't work that way.

The advertising works because it creates a culture of social acceptability and normality around bottle feeding, and encourages trust in the companies who make formula.

And fine - you don't like the news, you make the choice not to watch it. But babies have no say in how they're fed, though they're the ones most affected. They deserve to be protected. It's wrong that their mothers are exposed to inaccurate claims and emotionally manipulative marketing strategies.

"it would take this amount of cows milk to get the daily recommended amount of iron for your toddler" formula advert"

"Cows milk"? So what's formula made from then? Unicorns milk?

Houseworkwhore, you have absolutely zip understanding of how marketing and advertising works.

How can someone complete 11 years of compulsory education, and still be so unaware of marketing in our society, and how advertising works as a part of this? And to think that because they are somehow immune to the effects of it, only 'stupid' people are?

Quick lesson:

Product is made.

It needs to sell.

Potential consumers need to be aware of it.

They need to feel the marketing/advertising is relevant to them.

They need to feel ok about using it.

It needs to 'speak' to them emotionally in order for this to happen.

It does not need to necessarily inform them of everything about the product and in fact, it's usually a good idea not to.

Example: yoghurts with 'gut friendly bacteria' in them were unknown to the UK market a few years ago. The marketing strategy followed all the above rules - including the last one.

I don't suppose it would be a good idea to inform consumers where the 'gut friendly bacteria' they are eating actually come from originally.....lets say it would not be a selling point :)

Tiktok:

I thought that the vitamin content in breastmilk varied depending on what the mother is eating?
I know a lot of vit D status of BM is laid down in pregnancy, for example, (which I know mostly depends on sunlight) but I thought the diet during bf could affect vitamin content?

What I don't get is why women can be so vociferous against BF.

Why does it bother you that some women get annoyed/upset at the big multi-nationals' marketing strategies to increase even further FF's share? FF has already won the game. What is it to you?