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 like your thinking cheese!

"I'm sure all women know they have a choice to bottle or breast feed whether advertising is in their face or not"

Of course they do.

Advertising changes the way people FEEL about those choices.

There is very little difference between them

So the WHO must be smacked off its face to suggest massive differences between breast milk (nature made) and formula (artificial). Whatevs.

prettuhairclips my point was relevant to my whole post so quoting little snippets won't make sense.

Picture this. My first me appointment.
"How are you planning to feed?"
"We'll I've had a mastectomy so formula I guess"
MW looks uncomfortable.
"Maybe ill refer you to the bf counsellor just in case"
Dh " what? In case they grow back"
That is how extreme things have become.
When dd was born with a cleft I had to wait for the cleft team to come as the mw "couldn't advise on ff"
No barriers eh?

Cheesenow that should be up for debate

Pretty hair clips that might settle the matter over health, if it were true but the vast bulk of that research shows statistically insignificant differences, has been contradicted by other studies or has been found to be inconclusive.

Meanwhile we actually know for a fact that people get fat because they eat too much and don't exercise, not because they were ff. Next we'll have global warming blamed on formula.

How come if Breast milk is so good for the tummy loads of bf babies stil have reflux?

That reflux is statistically likely to have been more severe if the baby was FF. Think about it, not smoking doesn't guarantee that you won't get lung cancer, but it's a great place to start.

Morris

Me too

"Shagmund, that is simply untrue. I live in a posh part of town, am university educated, older first time mum. Not one mother in my family or peer group ff. I felt absolutely awful when I made the choice to FF at 12 weeks - not for my ds who thrived on ff, but because it just isn't the done thing round here. "

Why did you feel awful if you knew you were making the right choice for your child?

The WHO focuses it's concern on areas where an upset stomach can be a major factor in infant mortality. Where clean water and sterile conditions are rare. Where people cannot readily afford or access sufficient formula to ensure required levels of nutrition and where the contraceptive protection it offers is the only avaliable source to women who may be harmed by yet another pregancy

If you do have a reflux baby, it's a sight easier to treat it with gaviscon or ranitidine in their bottles!

"Meanwhile we actually know for a fact that people get fat because they eat too much and don't exercise, not because they were ff."

Do we?

Thank you for that simple simplistic summary of hundreds of research papers on this complex subject.

Shag

Why did she feel awful?

Probably because of all the pro bf advertising. Ironically.

And obsessed health professionals as described in my previous post.

oh for fuck sake ledkr the breastfeed councillor !

pro bf advertising

Can someone point out where this can be found?

:):)

Shagmund I also like the Polar bear

ledkr in my dc3s case reflux was caused by the valve at the top of his stomach being immature so it didn't work properly and milk was regurgitated as a result. I thought this was the case generally with reflux but dont know for sure

Shagmund, you clearly have looked at some of the research. The proof that health is significantly affected by either form of feeding simply isn't there. I think it's great you want to promote breastfeeding, but I don't think you need to overstate the risks if someone doesn't want to or can't.

catgirl - I'm sitting here looking at a midwifery journal (Practicing Midwife - 2012), which puts the cost of babies in the UK not being breastfed at many, many millions of pounds.

Just one example:

If half of those mothers who don't currently breastfeed, were to do a total of 18 months of lifetime breastfeeding (so about 6 - 9 months per child) then there would be 865 fewer cases of breast cancer every year.

If 45% of babies were breastfed for four months, and if 75% of babies were dischared from neonatal units breastfeeding each year there would be
3,285 fewer babies hospitals with gastric illness, and 10, 637 fewer GP consultations. 5,916 fewer babies hospitalised with respitory illness and 22,248 fewer GP constulations, 21,045 fewer ear infection GP visits, 361 fewer cases of the potentially fatal disease NEC.

These are UNICEF figures from the UK.

Read this, and note that it applies to 'developed' countries' such as the UK and US

Errr well Who certainly think so Shag.

You might want to read their 10 facts on obesity the key one being the cause which is dietary intake in relation to activity.

On a serious not this blatant scaremongering and stat twisting is just utterly pitiful and rather unpleasant tbf.

Those projections are a joke, based on very weak data.