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?

Bitters does not mean you are ff our baby

pickled I've got towels and hot water

pickled I've got towels and hot water

Excellent, so you can have a long leisurely bath and a cup of tea while she's screaming

uber bright" kids

spose it is different from gifted ach ive an uberbright kid she is 19 and was never BF god she would be a genuis if I did eh

Exactly worra

What did you think I meant?

I won't be screaming, apparently I've been hypno birthing!

Now isnt intelligence one of those debatable things that is very definatly influenced by so many things its hard to prove?

As BF is the biological norm, and formula is 'less healthy' than BF, surely that would make formula 'unhealthy'?
Composition/Division logical fallacy.

It's perfectly possible to acknowledge that there are far greater influences on a child's health and wellbeing over the years than BF or FF in those first six months and still accept that BF is preferable for most babies.

I am still intrigued to know just how many babies are admitted to hospital with malnutrition and dehydration as a result of breastfeeding.

Aren't we allowed to have bright healthy kids?

Aren't people told to expect x-number of wet nappies, to keep an eye on their baby's fontanelles etc?

I was never told that, although support from post natal was poor to say the least.

That said surely common sense comes into it? when DS was ill and struggling to feed dry nappies was one of the alarm bells which led us to A and E

I don't think it helps to split hairs over the healthy term.

It's indisputable really that there are additional health benefits. Even if its just a reduction in gastro.

I do think the intelligence side is not as easy to establish?

Some calming :) facts:

• babies who are not breastfed need formula milk. Babies need clean, nourishing, high quality formula (the reason we have regulations about its content and means of production)
• babies who are not getting sufficient breastmilk need i) the breastfeeding fixed or ii) formula
• no one sensible disagrees with this
• no mother, and no mother's mothering, should be judged positively or negatively in the context of breastfeeding/formula feeding
• this issue is separate to the marketing issue, which is primarily an ethical one

If women are so intelligent and savvy and perfectly able to see through advertising and remain unaffected by it, why are they unable to separate these 2 issues?

I think the answer is some are not able to see through advertising (or not in sufficiently huge numbers for it to cease because it's not shifting product) and some are not able to separate the 2 issues too well, either. They see a viewpoint on advertising as some sort of coded comment on them.

Here's another fact:

• it isn't. Honest. It really isn't about you, your children, the life-saving properties of formula, your right to choose how to feed your babies.

I'd like to know that jenai too.

Also re brain development childhood stimulation was supposed to have the biggest long term impact.

Re powdered mash,it's only unhealthy if it's loaded with salt,fat and sugar. Compared to many foods young kids both bf and ff eat nowadays methinks formula would be one of the healthiest.

YANBU

I am pro ff if that's what the mum wants.

I am very anti ff advertising because it commercialises something that I think should be free from profit motive.

I am also anti the unethical behaviour of formula companies in countries where bf/ff is a life or death decision.

I would prefer that formula was free on prescription. The unnecessary branding of what, nutritionally, is a homogeneous product just increases the price of formula.

Doesn't mean I think ff is poison or ff mothers are bad mothers. Those straw man arguments always come up when this is discussed.. Studies have shown marginal population effects of bf v ff. As a statistician I can't see why social class and education levels are particularly hard to control for, but I haven't read the actual studies themselves. At an individual level it's one of millions of choices we make for our children. At a population level maybe it costs the nhs enough money to make promoting bfing worthwhile.

Also, I think there should be more information available from the nhs on ff. although very few people seem interested in the information they do provide on how to make bottles up correctly if the threads on here are anything to go by

pickled don't you go giving birth before me!

I feel really peculiar today.

Tanka a reasonable post,refreshing to see on this subject when you so often see stat twisting and scaremongering.

Dawndonna - nope. As formula puts a child at increased risk of several negative health implications, it is unhealthy. How could it be anything other than unhealthy?

"additional health benefits"

Additional?? But that would assume that FFing is the norm and BFing is just a great optional extra? A bonus.

This is biologically not the case.

Oh stop splitting hairs man.