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!

Hmm. Well, I did definitely eat more breastfeeding the twins, but I'm not convinced it totalled £18 (+ electricity for steam steriliser) more each week.

I started getting cravings (which I never had in pregnancy). Thus we bought more rice (40p per 500g from Aldi, isn't it?), potatoes, carrots, (generally fairly cheap), bread and lots of (seasonal) lettuce and tomatoes, etc. I ate lots of fruit, but our spending didn't go up there. My husband always wants to buy those bloody multi-buy fruit offers. That year, instead of 1/3 to 1/2 of the box going in the bin, I ate the fruit before it went mouldy.

It was great actually- for the first time in my life, I didn't have to force myself to eat a balanced diet. (Lifelong fussy eater ) I just naturally ended up at 5 or more a day!

The benefits to the NHS of my superlative diet then may be none, minor, or major.

Whatmeworry - every single health organisation is either 'being scammed' or 'scamming' in relation to the information its disseminating on infant feeding?

You really think this is true?

Also - I asked you your thoughts on the FSIDS advising that bf reduces the risk of SIDS. You didn't respond. Are they also 'scamming'?

One last thing - are you happy with the quality and scope of the research done by formula companies when they introduce novel ingredients into formula milk? Would you be happy to use formula with these new ingredients without having really good quality evidence that they pose no risk to health over the medium and long term?

Pickles - It IS true that some women choose not to breastfeed because they find it inconvenient. Evidence? The many comments on this thread and on others all over mumsnet about bf being time-consuming and therefore interfering with other aspects of family life, the value of sharing feeds with other people (usually mentioned in relation to mum being able to get more sleep).

BF is not 'convenient' for some women and these women have no problem admitting it. Not every one who chooses not to breastfeed does so because of a deeply felt emotional conviction that they couldn't cope or wouldn't be happy.
From the survey:

"In 2005 a number of new reasons were given by mothers that had not been coded on the previous survey. Among these other reasons, the most commonly cited was that infant formula was more convenient or fitted in with their lifestyle, which was mentioned by 13% of mothers. First-time mothers were slightly more likely than mothers of later babies to give this
as a reason (15% compared with 11%)."

But if you think breastmilk and formula milk are equally good for babies, as many women do, then why should this matter?

For some women yes of course. It's equally true some women choose to bf as they find this a lot more convenient. If you re read your earlier post it was a lot more inflammatory that merely saying that however. In many instances it's not possible to breast feed. Formula is not a convenience food, in some cases it's an only option. You were involved in a discussion about the merits of various research, you can do that without bringing other peoples feeding choices into play. You are of the opinion that research indicates various benefits to breastfeeding, what is not. I'm not sure that the point that SOME women have chosen to use formula as they find it convenient has any merit at all.

Shagmund I mentioned FSIDS also linking cosleeping with SIDS earlier but you endorse that. You do seem to pick and choose

Anyway I switched off when you said people who feed infants formula do so for their own convenience.

How rude and shortsighted

And your initial post on convenience did not say some mothers I see you are nicely backtracking

A few more facts:

• the evidence for bf and intelligence is contradictory. At the moment, we have no evidence to 'prove' anything either way. The theory would be that as bf is the normal, physiological way to 'eat' for infants, brain/neurological and therefore cognitive performance would develop as it 'should', but we don't really have the long-term demonstration of this. That's why no one can say 'public health support for breastfeeding is needed because of the IQ benefits' and actually I don't know of any reputable organisation that says this - most are more concerned with the physical health effects where the evidence is less subject to variables, where it is easier to measure (you can count hospital admissions, you can count doctor consultations, and you don't need to haul kids in to testing centres or look at highly-flaky teacher assessments of intelligence)

I have found no study that indicates formula improves IQ over bf, but even if it did, even if it was possible to prove formula raises IQ, you would still have to balance this against the physical health effects before you announced a campaign to support more and longer formula feeding.

• formula is the intervention - the baseline is breastfeeding, and actually, the onus on formula advocates is to prove the product is not harmful. This has never been done in any systematic, scientifically-sound way, and the only testing is of so-called 'novel' ingredients (prebiotics, probiotics, nucleotides and so on) - this is subject to internationally-agreed norms to protect the consumer (baby) which aim to ensure none of the novel ingredients affects the growth or immediate health of infants who have them. There is no long-term testing r follow up required. Claims of 'better than ever' or 'boosts babies' brains' or whatever are not permitted in many countries (including the UK) under advertising law, because the claims cannot stand up as correct.

• the idea that breastfeeding support is 'massive, elaborate and expensive' is laughable. More and longer breastfeeding - which basically means enabling women who want to breastfeed to have a better experience - requires some training of HCPs, some removal of cultural and social barriers, and some restrictions on unethical marketing of formula. Much of the rest of the 'expensive' system relies on volunteer help (of the sort I give, unpaid). Any costs are off-set by the savings to the NHS. If we are talking 'massive, elaborate and expensive' systems, I give you the multi-national marketing of formula - whose artificially-high prices are paid for by consumers

Of course some women decide their infant feeding method on 'convenience' and there is nothing wrong with that! Women have a right to base their decisions on what suits them in their own circumstances. Other women don't actually 'choose' at all, but find themselves swapping to formula after a painful struggle to breastfeed.

There are a zillion and one individual reasons, many of them multiple reasons, why people decide to breastfeed, to formula feed, to mix, to do one and then switch to the other.....that's not an issue, to me, anyway.

Some people equate unethical marketing of formula to any marketing of formula. People upthread were incensed that they should be allowed to advertise in newspapers.

Why not? As long as they have the endorsed bf disclaimer that I find oh so helpful because as a ff mother I must be a total ignorant moron... I don't see how in our society it's unethical....

They also changed their practices and are monitored closely throughout the world. You know you have a fucked up society when people get their knickers in a twist over an advert for formula but ignore the 3 for 2 alcohol ad on the next page....

Or when some people get smug about BF to help their child's IQ but don't think it's their job to help teach them to read at night etc...

There are other things far worse than formula.

Kayano, the definition of ethical marketing is pretty well-set out in the WHO code of marketing. You can google this, and see what you agree with and what you don't.

It's true that formula marketing practices have changed in some ways over the past years. It's also true that these practices are monitored. I am not sure what point you are making there.

I think the difference between an alcohol ad and a formula ad is that alcohol is not the sole diet of a vulnerable person, but I agree with you that unfettered alcohol promotion is harmful. This is because people do respond to marketing, and it should be done ethically as far as possible.

I don't know of any smug parents who say they BF to boost a child's IQ and then don't support their kids' reading but I'm sure they exist. I don't understand your point. Bf does not make parents into perfect parents, and people can get smug about all sorts of stuff :)

I also agree there are things far worse than formula - and I'd include neglectful or unkind parenting in this. Again I don't understand your point, unless it's just to state the bleedin' obvious for fun, or something....?

I know bf doesn't turn people smug it's just some of the stuff I have seen on MN said in this and past bf/ff threads.

And the ff advert came from a post on this thread actually that mentioned seeing a full page ad in a parenting mag and being pissed off.

Why? Surely it would be well placed in a parenting mag? I wasn't aware you were not a parent or wouldn't buy those mags if you were a ffer?

Kayono, FSIDS do not advise against co-sleeping unless it is on a sofa or armchair. They state their is a proven risk in certain circumstances, which there is. In fact, they jointly publish with UNICEF a guideline on how to co-sleep safely.

There's nothing wrong with choosing the most convenient option at all tiktok but looking at shagmunds post can you see why some might find it inflammatory? It certainly does not fit in with the ethos of supporting all mothers. It's fair for her to have said that's the reason she in particular chose the option she did, without feeling the need that formula is just there for the mothers convenient when that's not the case is it? There is a distinct brush of the smug IMO.

Kayano - I don't 'endorse' co sleeping! (and neither do I condemn it). I acknowledge it as a fact of life. I also acknowledge that loads of people end up doing it despite their best intentions, and that ff makes co-sleeping more risky.

Pickles - I'm sorry that I didn't make it clear that not all mothers who choose to ff do so because it's more convenient.

Not that there's anything wrong with valuing convenience above everything else - particularly if you believe that your baby isn't missing out on anything important if you choose not to breastfeed.

"And the ff advert came from a post on this thread actually that mentioned seeing a full page ad in a parenting mag and being pissed off."

No - it's not the one full page ad. It's the fact that every single parenting magazine has MANY pages of full-page ads. And almost no images of mothers breastfeeding. Most pregnancy and baby magazines have very, very poor coverage of breastfeeding. Lamentable. But then there's not much money to be made from breastfeeding so it's understandable that they're not going to bother with it very much.

"I don't know of any smug parents who say they BF to boost a child's IQ and then don't support their kids' reading"

Kayano has bought up this point on many threads - saying that it's pretty worthless to breastfeed if you're going to neglect your child's diet later on in life.

Actually I'd say the opposite. If you're going to feed your child poorly later on (or neglect their intellectual development) well sheesh - at least they've had a bit of a head start from being breastfed in infancy so over all will still end up better off than had they never been breastfed in the first place!

(unless you're with Kayano in imagining that there is such a thing as a parent who believes bf is so brilliant, such a 'golden ticket' to a lifetime of perfect health, that they can then go on and neglect their children in clear conscience, having played their parenting 'trump card' in the first year of life )

I disagree. But it's another way for people to feel superior about breast feeding I guess. Bless them

Non judgey former breastfeeder here but surely it does have social consequences because it frees you up so someone else can feed your baby easily (yes I know you can pump but you get my point).

Actually I think the people who put out these ads have to have degrees in non-literacy these days and that's why they put such twaddle on the boxes.

Ok ta shagmund.

Whale, you might have missed my question to you before - you said that you were an HCP and did not believe there were long term benefits to breastfeeding, and I wondered if you thought there were short term benefits.

Still wondering :)

Ah....shagmund, is it kayano who keeps saying things like what's the point of breastfeeding if the kid then has sausage rolls and pasties when they move on to solids? And that she knows/reads/is aware of/has heard about smug breastfeeders who feed their child junk and allow them to watch rubbish TV?

It is an odd viewpoint, I agree. In the context of this discussion, which is currently about public health programmes to support breastfeeding and whether they're justified, it's mystifying and irrelevant.

Whatmeworry - every single health organisation is either 'being scammed' or 'scamming' in relation to the information its disseminating on infant feeding? You really think this is true?

Based on what I've read of what most papers actually prove vs what is being done, then yes, I think theer is a great deal of quackery going on. I think its analogous to homeopathic medicine a few years back.

Also - I asked you your thoughts on the FSIDS advising that bf reduces the risk of SIDS. You didn't respond. Are they also 'scamming'?

I've never looked at the SIDS thing, but a quick Google tells me that the research there is subject to the same confounding problems with BF research for health, intelligence etc. In other words BF is a common practice among the sort of parents who will also be vigilant over SIDS, not necessarily a cause of the benefit

One last thing - are you happy with the quality and scope of the research done by formula companies when they introduce novel ingredients into formula milk?

Tell you what - I reckon they are being scrutinised a darned sight more closely than the BF research is being scrutinised.

I didn't say it is worthless to breastfeed if you are going to give the kid sausage rolls for the rest of its life so fuck right off misquoting me

I said..... Bf can't overcome things like that. You can't feed a kid shit all it's life and think it will be fine because you bf. NOR am I saying anyone here said that.

My point in saying that was that there are far worse things that can harm a child as it grows up (ie a diet of crap) than picking formula over bf.

I was just musing really as personally my crusade would be to target foods aimed at young kids with ridiculous salt and sugar contents rather than a vital substance that has been a life and sanity saviour for a
Lot of women.

And what do you mean brought this up on many many threads?
Errrr no I haven't

I'm just musing over other things in the feeding children debate. I am allowed to and conversations do evolve.

I live next to that obese 8 year old who nearly got removed from his parents. It wasn't because he was ff. it's because they had McDonald's every other day. I believe that some people now link ff to obesity.... I'm not entirely convinced

Ok tik and shag. I don't say stuf like that on many threads and I don't like the way you are teaming up to try and say my point is irrelevant on a thread about feeding our children?

I dont like how you twist things so completely to say that I said breastfeeding was worthless when I never said any such thing and wanted to bf myself.

Why would you even to that? It's quite awful behaviour

most [BF studies] are more concerned with the physical health effects where the evidence is less subject to variables, where it is easier to measure (you can count hospital admissions, you can count doctor consultations.....you would still have to balance this against the physical health effects before you announced a campaign to support more and longer formula feeding. Any costs [of increased funding of BF] are off-set by the savings to the NHS

tiktok, you keep on talking about these health studies, but the research shows - over and over again, study after study - that once conflating factors are removed, they are illusory.

Given the provable health benefits from these studies in the 1st world are negligible at best, and the NHS doesn't subsidise formula, I can't see why there are any major savings?

Whatmeworry - the main SIDS charity in the UK held back for years from recommending bf as a way to reduce SIDS deaths. They changed their stance a while back following a thorough and wide ranging review of the evidence by specialists.

You have a 'quick google' and come to the conclusion they've simply got it wrong because they have controlled properly for confounding factors.