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?

Yes you are being unreasonable. Formula feeding is an alternative and one that lots of parents need.

As a first time mum I wanted nothing more than to breastfeed my dd. But unfortunately it didn't work out due to several reasons. I tried for six weeks and ended up very reluctantly stopping. The guilt I felt and still do is sometimes unbearable. I desperately tried to make it work but didn't get the help I needed in hospital right from the start. I felt totally let down by the NHS. On first night dd wouldn't latch no mater what I did so mw said " well do you just want to give her formula?" I was so exhusted after not sleeping for nearly 3 days I felt I had no choice. After coming home a mw came to check me and dd and I still couldn't get her to latch on mw said "I'd try her with a bottle." after trying to help dd latch on for half an hour. Dd is now 6 months healthy, happy and bright little girl. I'm glad I had formula to feed her because I didn't get help I needed to bf. The mw's are so over streched in my area that they don't have the time to help. And yes I know now theres bf cafes and I even got a nct bf coucillor out but she had to travel so far I felt i couldn't ask her to keep coming out. while its great theres a breastfeeding campaign some of us slip through the net as there isn't the help to back it up.
So please don't let people like me feel like shit with your statistics on how dangerous formula is. It really doesn't help.
Sorry rant over.

which bits has OP made up three socks?

olovetheothetreindeer - advertising breast shields etc is likely to sway people more towards Ff than Bf by suggesting they are likely to encounter probems

I suggested that children are more at risk from drunk drivers than from formula.

You said no, because children are more likely to die from SIDS than car accidents.

So presumably, you are attributing SIDS deaths to formula.

According to government figures, nearly 10,000 people a year are killed or injured in road accidents involving alcohol.

Now, I'm sure you have some study showing that maybe possibly potentially there could be 10,000 people a year who suffer some medical harm because they were fed formula during their first six months. But this is much more speculative than the evidence of harm caused by drink driving.

I only raise this comparison because people like the OP tend to always cite 'public health' as their reason for caring so much about this, and yet compared to many other things the public health effects of FF are minimal and/or indirect and don't really justify the hysteria.

mrshels presumably the other option was not feeding your 16 week old? I would say you went for the healthy option!!

I can't really imagine after the barrage you get at antenatal appointments that anyone with a baby is actually surprised to read that BF is healthier than FF...or that FF is massively healthier than starving/coke/cocaine/mcD's or even mashed potato...

surely none of this is news to anyone on this thread?

Because it makes out its less healthy in the same way a burger is less healthy than a salad whereas I'm sure the difference isn't as marked.

A lot of FF mothers feel bad enough for not BF without the implication that formula is unhealthy & being told their baby is at higher risk from SIDS. It may be true but I don't think MN is the place to discuss it.

How many of those babies who die of sids also fall into other at risk categories?

"It may be true but I don't think MN is the place to discuss it"

I disagree. I think MN is the perfect place to discuss it. Why on earth wouldn't it be? You can always not click on feeding threads, if you favour the fingers-in-ears approach.

In my opinion as the SIDS issue is so awful and unproven it's best not spoken about in discussions such as this.

There are guidelines on the FSID website on the myriad of factors which is currently believed to have an influence.

dreaming the study states that FFing doubles the rate of SIDS. So if children under 1 are far more likely to die from sids than a car crash, then those extra cases caused by FF are going to exceed the number that die due to rtas. In part this is because the number of under 1 year olds that die in crashes is very very small.

Once you look at 18 year old boys there is massively more chance that they die due to an RTA than due to anything that happened in their first year of life.

If you make it out of the first year in one piece then the chances of your feeding method making any serious difference to your life is very low.

In other news you are far more likely to have problem in later life if you were exposed to lead as a baby than due to any difference in feeding mode.

Lead is an absolute fucker. In fact it is way more important that you not let your kids play in a room with lead paint than any sort of anti-sids advice.

I bf three exclusively and fed the fourth for a week and switched to formula. She is rude with health compared to the others. Bright,inquisitive, happy. I doubt very much this is down to a week of bf.
What is the socio economic breakdown of your SIDS stats?

Yanbu. I dislike the formula companies and all their follow on milk advertising, brand promotion etc. Before dd was born I thought at six months all babies had follow on milk, as its so heavily advertised. It came as a surprise to me that WHO recommend two years of bf, I never see that promoted, just bloody follow on milk on every baby magazine, website etc.

We'll have to agree to disagree then Greensleeves, but I resent the implication that I have my fingers in my ears...I had a choice of FF or starve my child...I don't then want to be told my child is suffering because I couldn't sort BF out. I certainly don't want to hear about SIDS.

dol enough with the personal abuse. I have supported several people to move to formula and would never EVER advise or apply pressure to anyone about ANY feeding choice.

I have complained about formula advertising not formula feeding.

I have provided facts to back up why the ban on advertising newborn milk exists as and when it has been demanded by others.

areyou I pmed the data. You can see what they did to control for socio economic influences.

Well I still don't agree with your reasoning on this issue, but I agree with you on lead. Terrifying impact and lots of people aren't aware of it.

I switched to formula and felt like shit about it too. But it doesn't mean I don't want to know about risk factors, for SIDS or anything else - I'm an adult, I want all the relevant information I can get, even if it worries me.

Interesting that some of those who squawk about not infantilising women by banning formula advertising are those who want us to shut up about the health implications of FF in case we upset someone. Are we big girls or not? You can't have it both ways.

If you don't want to know the facts then stop asking for "proof".

This thread should have been very simple.....

And is now going around in circles.

I will leave you all to it.

Id like to see the study that shows it doubles the risk of SIDS.

And if that's starting to get discussed please ask mn to put a warning in the title as seriously I saw a lot if very upset people on a previous thread on this issue.

It's not fair if people think this is a debate on advertising to walk into this .

and you'll have to do a bit better than shouting "fuck" and "cunt" I'm afraid

From what I understand, the rules on advertising formula are very strict. If you think they are being broken in this case OP, then you should report it.

I certainly don't put my fingers in my ears. I get it from a reputable source.