Aibu? to be pissed off at this: "The cost and social implications of using an infant milk should be considered when deciding how to feed your baby."

[Selyna]

WTF do Hipp mean by social implications?

Both methods of feeding a baby are acceptable so fuck off with the whole acting like ff is poison! my dd is perfectly fine but i hate this constant making me feel like a failure because i failed to bf although i tried so so hard!

Social implications?

That wording pisses me off

As does 'artificial feeding'

Grrr dickheads

Daily Mail: "Formula feeding causes criminality"
...
"Breastfeeding causes cancer"
:o

Whatmeworry - I think your argument about the cost of calories seems to be forgetting that the vast majority of people in this country eat more calories than are required on a daily basis anyway, hence the obesity crisis we keep hearing about on the news

My point was that BF isn't free, whether you shovel the calories into yourself or directly into the baby you still have to pay for them. Shovelling too much crap into yourself is a separate issue, obese people don't get a "baby bonus".

Just pointing out that in areas of higher FF, you see higher incidences of chronic illness already, it's happening now. That is why the government wants people to breastfeed. (Although goes about it in perhaps the wrong way)

The reason those people have higher incidences of chronic illness has nothing to do with them FF their babies, and everything to do with existing poor nutritional and health behaviour...which they will inflict on their kids...who will be more sickly etc etc.

Which is why nearly all FF/BF studies are conflicted/conflated, because BF is a mainly MC pursuit and mainly takes place in naice MC areas with better access to health services, better education, and wealthier mummies who can stay at home and BF after statutory maternity ends leave etc etc.

BF won't help them very much, but it will remove most of the supposed advantages of BF from the statistics.

And I couldn't bf because of my anxiety and panic attacks mainly

I fucking hate the fact that I'm constantly bashed round the head with terms implying I'm not natural and really breastfeeding is better

Grrr I fucking know, feelfree to stop rubbing my face in it at every turn

LLL and other organisations have problems with formula companies flouting both the letter and the spirit of the law which restricts free advertising of milks for newborns.

This law was put in place for a good reason and it's right that charities which were set up to protect breastfeeding should flag up when it's being infringed.

:(
It's OK, because breastfeeding causes cancer and hair loss. Formula feeding causes criminality and an ability to hold your alcohol

(c) Daily Mail.

"Which is why nearly all FF/BF studies are conflicted/conflated, because BF is a mainly MC pursuit"

And that's why all the studies NHS recommendations to breastfeed are based on CONTROL for social class, income and education.

How many times do you need this fact to be repeated, Whatweworry, before you'll stop insisting that class differences account for all the differences in health outcomes between ff and bf babies?

"I think it's fine to normalise ff, so long as one doesn't promote the view that it is better than bf "

Or that it's the same as breastmilk.

Or that it's equal to breastmilk.

Because of course it's not.

Breastmilk is the optimal food for the vast majority of babies.

Which of course makes formula a suboptimal food.

Doesn't mean that a mum can't or shouldn't choose a suboptimal diet for her baby if she feels that the disadvantages to her baby of using formula are somehow 'offset' (offset mind - not 'negated') by other things - like the dangers of prescription medicines in her own milk if she needs medication which is contraindicated for breastfeeding, or if she finds bf psychologically or emotionally unsupportable.

We all have to make compromises in life, even when it comes to our children. I know I have.

Whatmeworry - But you were comparing the extra money people spend on food for the 500 extra calories a day they need for breastfeeding, to the money people spend on formula. What i'm saying is that for most people there would be no extra outlay on what they already spend on food, as most people eat/buy too much already, and most new mothers have an adequate supply of extra fat already laid down in pregnancy so again would not have to spend extra money on buying more food to support breastfeeding. Having enough nutrition to breastfeed, for most people in this country, should not mean bigger food bills, however I do accept there is sometimes a medical requirement for a tub of Ben & Jerrys which may increase the normal weekly shop bill

Shagmundfreud, if formula companies flout the law, it is a matter for advertising watchdogs to address. It is not appropriate for LLL to put pressure on a govt to remove an image of a man bottle feeding his baby, in an advert totally unrelated to the issue of bf/ff (it was an anti smoking advert), because they personally don't like it. That's abuse of their position, imo.

Kayano, there are thousands of pregnant women walking around every day deciding how to feed their baby. There are thousands of fathers and grandparents-to-be walking around who won't be talking to HCPs, but who will have an influence of the mother's decision. The publicity is aimed at them. It is Not About You. Are you really saying that nobody should tell the truth about bf, whatever the cost to the health of the nations' babies and mothers, because it might hurt your feelings?

There's been a lot of talk on MN about good practice in making up formula. I didn't know that at the time my DC were having formula, so I did things which weren't ideal, and I possibly did make them ill because of it (DD had a nasty case of gastroenteritis). But I do not complain that people should stop saying these things because my right not to feel bad is more important than other mothers' children's right to safe food. Instead I acknowledge that I did the best I could with what I knew at the time, and I am pleased that today's mothers may be able to do what's best for their babies.

"Shagmundfreud, if formula companies flout the law, it is a matter for advertising watchdogs to address."

Watchdogs generally take advertising companies to account for inappropriate, offensive or illegal advertising following complaints from the public. If there are particular groups who are believed to be disadvantaged by certain adverts then charities and pressure groups believe it's their role to step in and raise concerns.

Babies can't express their concerns about this issue. I'm glad that organisations like the BFLG and LLL are prepared to stand up for their interests against the multinationals.

"It is not appropriate for LLL to put pressure on a govt to remove an image of a man bottle feeding his baby, in an advert totally unrelated to the issue of bf/ff (it was an anti smoking advert), because they personally don't like it. That's abuse of their position, imo"

If the government is wanting to promote breastfeeding for the good of babies and children, then it doesn't make sense to normalise bottlefeeding by in it's other health campaigns.

Though actually ff and smoking are not entirely unrelated, given that ff mums are more likely to also be smokers, to smoke while pregnant, and to live in smoking households. (not being judgemental there - it's just that this happens to be true).

'social implications' to me suggests that they are saying you are an idle lower-class slapper who feeds crap to DCs and self out of laziness and stupidity.

Better repeat that I said they are saying and not that I am saying, before I get blasted by responses.

If the government is wanting to promote breastfeeding for the good of babies and children, then it doesn't make sense to normalise bottlefeeding by in it's other health campaigns.

This.

Karma, where is the value in making someone feel like a pariah for doing something which isn't wrong or harmful

There is none, you are right. However, you are wrong when you say FF is not harmful. In our Western World the risks are minimal because we have access to clean water and good medical care. Diarrhea here is not really that serious in a young baby because of those things, neither is gastronenteritis, but in a developing or third world country it is life threatening. More than 4,000 babies die every day worldwide because they are not breastfed. I'd say that was pretty harmful, wouldn't you?

Fine to raise concerns, but if a law isn't being broken, then the advert should stand. If it does break a law, then it ought to be removed. It's not for LLL to decide what is appropriate for the public to see - that's condescending and implies we are all idiots, who are totally sucked in by advertising.

Wrt the anti smoking advert, more harm than good was done by removing the image of Piri Weepu feeding his baby. I think his presence in that advert was much more likely to encourage people not to smoke than encourage them to not bf, just because they see him bottle feed his baby. And if it comes to a direct choice, I think it is better to eliminate smoking, because that is actually harmful and ff is not.

No wonder ff mums feel so badly judged, when they are just lumped in with the sort of people who smoke during pg. Never mind that they might have very good reasons for not bf.

midori, I said right at the start of this thread that ff is not harmful in developed countries, but isn't suitable in places where the water supply isn't safe to drink and where it is hard to properly sterilise bottles.

All of us on this thread though, are presumably posting about ff in the western world. I don't think anyone would advocate it for developing nations.

karma in actual fact images like that are illegal in those countries that have accepted the WHO code. the WHO has a very straightforward aim in that code - stopping people being told FF is better, especially where they live in 3rd world countries where it really could kill their child.

in this country advertising is regulated too - but not as tightly when it comes to infant milk.

and you liken the removal of one picture (which was a correct appeal to the law of that country) to nazism - serious sense of perspective needed!!!

as midori said, we are bombarded with formula advertising. On telly, On facebook. In magazines. everywhere - and the only motive is to make someone money, from companies that don't give a slippy shit about mothers or babies well being.

"In our Western World the risks are minimal because we have access to clean water and good medical care"

You are wrong.

Breastfeeding is life saving for some mothers and some babies. Preterm babies are more likely to get NEC if they do not have breastmilk.

"Human milk is protective against NEC with a three- to ten-fold reduction in NEC (compared to formula-fed)." (from that well known breastfeeding pressure group patient.co.uk )

Breastfeeding is also linked to lower rates of breast cancer:

"Breast feeding still lowered breast cancer risk by 4.3% for every year of feeding. There is also a 7% reduction in risk of breast cancer for each child born.

A 4% lowering of risk doesn't sound much. But, as breast cancer is quite a common disease in developed countries, breastfeeding every child for an extra 6 months would mean about 1,000 fewer cases of breast cancer in Britain each year."

That's from another well known breastfeeding pressure group, CancerHelpUk.

Social implications-
Baby can be comforted and calmed by quick feed,
Affects mother and father relationship,
Can be an intense relationship between mum and baby, with ups and downs,
Hormones affect mood and energy levels,
Not all mums are happy feeding in public, so worry about going out,
Mum alone has responsibility for feeding unless baby accepts expressed milk,
Peer group may not approve/support, undermining confidence,
Weaning can be difficult.

It doesn't mean people will think you're a chav if you bottle feed or a middle class hippy wierdo if you bf.

TRIGGER WARNING

KarmaBeliever Okay, I can't hold a lid on it any more.

Everything has wider implications, including social implications. Breastfeeding, formula feeding, In The Night Garden, and lawn sprinklers. Oh, and using deliberately inflammatory terms.

We have free speech, more or less. You will not be prosecuted or silenced for your metaphors by the government. But there are nevertheless social implications. Some people will read your posts, and nod along to you.

Other people, on the other hand, will think about what the National Socialist Party stood for. They will be repulsed by your attitude that the murder of millions of men, women and children is the same as an organisation getting another organisation's advert withdrawn. Censorship can be bad in itself, but your comparisons only serve to diminish the horror of true atrocities. Of women and boys raped. Of medical experiments on human beings.

I would detail much more, but hey, I don't live in a fucking bubble. It was only seventy years ago, and there are plenty of people around who lost their families to the mass-murders of a state gone mad. I don't want to dredge it all up just to make a political point on a forum.

Well was it said (by another bastard of the time) "that one person's death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic". And as he didn't go on to say, several million is just a cheap jibe at people you disagree with.

I've never said that bf isn't better(certainly for pre term babies) - only that ff isn't wrong or harmful (in a western society).

I have no issue with not selling formula in places where it would be impossible to do it safely, because of the water/ability to sterilise bottles.

I don't agree with removing images from the media, which don't support the preferred view - I think it is condescending. I have bf and ff and cannot say that advertising featured in my decision to do one or the other. We know adverts are there to sell us products, it is insulting to our intelligence to think that we slavishly believe everything an advert implies, without question.

My main concern here is that some organisations are so one track that they utterly refuse to accept that bf is not possible for all people and ff may be chosen for perfectly good reasons. They then use their influence to make people, at a vulnerable time in their lives, feel like shit. It's horrible to imply that if you don't bf, you are not thinking about your baby.

the absence of an advertising image isn't going to make anyone feel like shit though, is it?

i mean, you won't notice that it's not there...