to think MN shouldn't support boots co-advertising newborn bottle sets and "follow on" milk

[ICBINEG]

when there's a national campaign on to promote BF?

Presumably this advert passes the letter of the law regarding the non-advertising/non-special offers on formula for new born's but it defies the spirit in every way possible.

AIBU to expect a little more social responsibility from MN?

I posted it worra but here it is again - link

ali if that's the case then with all respect that's the area that should be targeted. More education for those women and free birth control etc etc

Instead my choice to see ifs formula is on offer which milk next etc etc is being taken away.

Sockmuppet - I can't link as I'm on phone, but for example on the UNICEF site there is a list of Differences in health outcome associated with infant feeding method, and it says above 'the studies have all been controlled for social and economic variables'.
It's google-able - I can post direct link later from computer.

but by objecting to the legal advertising you are objecting to formula feeding AND CHOICE this is baby bottles that somebody might buy to feed their baby formula because if they are in boots buying bottles they may wander over and buy a tin of sma or whatever, this is what the OP is objecting to this is what she thinks is the spirit of the law, or whatever she said, but tbh she thinks that anything to do with formula shouldn't be advertised

Breastfeeders have to worry about supply, intake, quality at every feed

I know that a lot of women struggle with BF and do need support, but ime "supply, intake and quality" barely featured. It's one of the joys - lots of wet nappies, baby growing - you're fine.

Maybe people over-complicate BF sometimes. If it's going well (and I appreciate that it doesn't for everyone) then you don't need any paraphenalia (beyond pads I suppose) and you don't need to monitor anything beyond nappies.

I agree advertising is not information but you can pair the two, get information about what ingredient is what and what purpose it has then you can understand the advert and make a better informed choice about the product.

Formula advertising is not about infant feeding or babies' health and welfare, they are about getting women to become consumers - if you begin using it, you are then "hooked" until you wean your baby. Very lucrative.

In an ideal world we could have a non-profit-making NHS-run system of producing cheap, good-quality formula for women who want or need to use it, and hospital staff properly trained to help, inform and support women whatever their choices are. Rather than greedy amoral companies (like Nestle for example) cashing in on poor breastfeeding support and lack of information and confidence in new parents.

FairyJen - these companies are huge though, and have enormous revenues. The whole promotion of infant formula should be banned IMO, in favour of the kind of centralised distribution and information that Queen is talking about.

And infant formula shouldn't be on offer, that is also illegal. Follow on milk for over 1's can be promoted, but by then cow's milk is perfectly adequate so no need to spend ££s on formula.

bottles are irrelevant, lots of mothers need those whether they bf or not

Have you never looked at the mn logo? Or the strap line?

I still want to see the advert thats started this though! Where is it?

With regards to the link- no one knows what causes SIDS they can only offer advice in what MAY help prevent it. They can't possibly ever know! I mean it mentioned about most stopping at six weeks and it could contribute but isn't that just another unproven coincidence. They can't ever know. Babies are only exclusively breasted for a Maxof six months before food is introduced and it's their only source of nutrition. After then it could be any number of things that then go on to contribute to the progression of other complaints. What about environmental causes , life style choices the. Mum made etc. u can't say for sure your baby will be healthier if u feed a certain way cos u won't ever know what that child woulda been like if u had made a different decision

I agree with OP here. There's a reason advertising formula isn't allowed. It makes breastfeeding seem less of the norm. It could discourage some women who are already feeling unsure about being able to feed in public so on, by making them feel that "everyone" or a large proportion are FF and it is what they should do too.

Everyone should promote breast feeding as the priority, as it is best for the baby. Anyone advertising formula is doing it for profit, not the best for the baby.

sock I have PMed you a trial that states in a nice way how the data is controlled for confounding variables. I would rather discuss it via PM than here for reasons stated in the PM.

JenaiMorris - the over complication of BF is part of the whole thing IMO. Yes it is tough to gets things started, sometimes, but once it is going then it is so easy.
I have never worried about supply, intake and quality beyond DS1 being about 2 weeks old.

Good god you certainly DO NOT need to worry about supply and quality at every breast feed! That just works. No worry required.

Thanks Queen, that's a long report so I admit to having speed read it

But I can't see that they're taking other important factors into account...like the baby's home environment, whether the mother smoked/drank during pregnancy or whether she was overweight or obese.

These are all important factors regarding childhood illness.

So for example, if 100 FF or BF babies were admitted to hospital with certain conditions/illnesses, they may have something in common ie they were born to smokers or overweight obese mums.

I've saved it though so will read it properly later.

Hello. What advert? Where? Can you please let us know?

That's just what I said worra :)

If bf promotion is so strong right now (and it is believe me) then that doesn't explain why people still choose to ff.... all it proves is advertising doesn't work!!

So by proxy advertising a few bottles and or milk isn't going to make much of a difference to people choosing not to bf.

I chose to ff both mine. My reasons were nothing related to health or advertising. It was simply because I didn't like the idea of a baby on my breast ( again that is my choice) and also I wanted to share feeding with my dh. I wanted to be able tosshare night feeds completely without expressing or breastfeeding.

I also chose to have an elective section. (Which ironically it turned out I needed anyway).

I'm a truly awful mother.

Great minds caffeine

Didn't have time to read the whole thread (300 posts), but I would add this. When I had DC1, I had not considered that I would have to have an EMCS. So I had not researched it. I had not considered that I would have to FF, either. DH had to go and buy bottles, etc while I was still in hospital. Neither he nor I had any idea about what he was buying. The staff in Boots were very helpful, but if I'm completely honest I would not have bought the brand that he did (they didn't push him towards the most expensive, either) for various reasons.

I think you, OP, AB completely U. You seem to be a person who looks down on those of us who were physically incapable of breastfeeding. Fwiw I did try very hard to breastfeed DC2, but made both the rest of the family and me very miserable whilst trying. That is the kind of pressure that your attitude puts on new mothers. Despicable.

I think MN are doing nothing wrong at all. Only wish I'd discovered the site much earlier.

Cat98 I have searched but not found it. Please link later if you do find it. I did find this on unicef though

It is always important to bear in mind the following when considering the strength of any evidence:

Carrying out randomised controlled trials which are clearly recognised as the ?gold standard? is not always possible as it is not ethical to randomly allocate mothers in a way which arbitrarily may decide that half of the group will bottle feed.
Many studies are flawed by staff or mothers deviating from the protocol as this may seem counter-intuitive or too hard to follow in the situation in which they are being cared for or living.
Sample sizes, particularly for older infants, become very small, particularly in countries such as the UK with low breastfeeding continuation rates/exclusivity. It is therefore difficult to accurately infer statistics.
In specialist areas such as caring for preterm infants, it is difficult to recruit mothers at such difficult times and again, small numbers are reflected in a lack of solid evidence about many aspects of care.
Breastfeeding may be documented as having a ?small protective effect? against certain illnesses. Whilst it is clearly accurate to say that that the risk of not breastfeeding is greater with some conditions than others, what is a small protective effect in one child is likely to have a much more dramatic effect across a whole population.

And this omits the socio demographic question.

tbh I agree with what worra said ( she is always right ) BF is only beneficial when it is included in a healthy lifestyle same as formula, you can breast feed your child till they are 7 but if their lifestyle is unhealthy their enviroment is chaotic then what chance has a child got same for FF

Icbineg try telling that to all 3 of my 3 who get desperately underweight whilst bf in particular my dd who was rushed into scbu malnourished and underweight thanks to bfing.

Try telling that to the consultant who treated my dd who said they'd treated countless babies in a similar situation who had suffered from over zealous and incorrect midwives saying what you just posted.

Supply and quality doesn't "just work" for every mother.