to point out that formula feeding doesn't necessarily require you to be sterilising bottles and scooping out powder in the middle of the night...

[itsakindarabbit]

Keep seeing this on threads which mention ff...how people couldnt be doing with getting up in the night andstsrilising bottles/making up feeds.

I bf and ff but found ff no problem at night - i would take up a carton of ready made formula and a pre sterilised bottle and i could feed without getting out of bed.

And yes, i know ready made formula is expensive and not everyone uses it. But some of us do/did.

Zara are the SMA teats suitable from birth? DS happily fed on SMA and thankfully smelt of lovely baby (with occasional top notes of poo) and not peanuts, so will use again if nec. I just want to make sure I've got stuff in because I was a bit naive last time, resulting in hysterical mum, starving baby and bleary eyed dad down the 24 hours Tesco at 2am. We do NOT want to go there again!

peazle "I don't understand why people think some parent use formula as a result of being bombarded with marketing."

Well because research data shows that if you restrict formula advertising in prenatal settings, the rate of BFing at 2 weeks goes up. Hence the introduction of said advertising brings the rate of BFing down in the first 2 weeks and hence "some parent use formula as a result of being bombarded with marketing"

Simple.

mydarling you can have faith in the studies precisely because they get updated and change occasionally. The reason this happens is that more evidence is found.

You have a choice:

A) follow what the consensus of the best medical evidence currently says is the correct course of action.

B) ignore that consensus.

It is always possible that for a specific decision, new evidence will overturn A) and it will turn out that B) was the better bet. However it is far more likely that it will not.

Or in other words if you want the best chance of getting it right you should go for A) every time.

We currently suffer an anomalously high rate of change because we are moving from parenting being based on common sense, old midwives tales, etc. to being evidence based.

You probably thing the advice on sleeping babies on their fronts/backs has changed but actually the advice based on evidence has always been the same (sleep on back). The previous version was just some shit some bloke dreamed up with no evidence at all....

But marketing of formula is restricted. Formula for newborns is not advertised on tv and you have to specifically look for it on makers' websites. Tv adverts all start with 'obviously breast feeding is best but should you want to...' And the ads are only for follow on milk. Special offers on newborn milk is banned.

I was given NO information about formula at anti natal classes only advice/leaflets/video of breast feeding. This is the same experience that I had with my first 17 years ago. Yet still most of the women at my clinic FF. they do it because they choose to not because of advertising because there isn't any. Where is this advertising in the UK?

Nicely put icbineg

Of course formula marketing works - if it didn't formula companies wouldn't spend millions of pounds on it. It is banned completely in Scandinavia and since it was banned bf rates went up.

Shall we just leave the zealots to it and go and have a and a nice, practical chat about FF tips elsewhere? Non-passive aggressive

Well because research data shows that if you restrict formula advertising in prenatal settings, the rate of BFing at 2 weeks goes up. Hence the introduction of said advertising brings the rate of BFing down in the first 2 weeks and hence "some parent use formula as a result of being bombarded with marketing"

I thought it was restricted? I've certainly not seen it advertised in pre-natal settings.

Im not a zealot I promise - and I have found some of the FF tips here useful! I didn't know you could add teats to cartons - that is genius...

I do think this is complex and not as simple as 'formula is what people choose because it's best for them' - I believed breastfeeding was best - and am still doing it at 10 months. BUT....I was really relieved when DS dropped feeds and felt such a burden lifted. I did not enjoy the feeling of being tied to him which breastfeeding gave me - I felt very claustrophobic and anxious when he fed all the time. I liked the act of bf itself if at home in private - but not in a busy cafe or pub or carpark struggling to get comfy.

so - for me formula was indeed a relief, it helped me get my time and energy back - and I love mix feeding - but if we lived in a culture where breastfeeding was more normal and seen more often - and psychologically we are not in that place as a society - maybe I would have felt differently. Maybe our modern culture of individualism is why I struggled with that dependency that breastfeeding creates. I don't know - it's too bound up with deep cultural issues that I can't pick apart....

Good posts ICBINEG

Would also point out that marketing doesn't persuade people to ff by logically persuading them of the benefits of formula milk, unlike health promotion of breastfeeding. Baby milk marketing persuades people to use formula by creating 'feelings' around the product - intangible feelings mainly to do with nurturing, love and trust. They encourage people to think that their product is very similar to breast milk and contains many of the same properties.

Really - it's utter shite that when it comes to something as important as infant nutrition, people are given no hard facts at all on which to choose a product, but are instead won over by fluffy ducks, cuddly cows, and babies pretending to play instruments.

Where are the adverts saying 'Use SMA - in clinical trials babies fed on SMA experienced fewer episodes of constipation compared to other leading brands?'. Or 'Mothers using Aptimil report 20% less vomiting in their babies'. Oh hang on, they won't do any clinical trials comparing how well each of the brands is tolerated by babies, because they might have to use exclusively breastfed babies as the control group, and the results of that sort of testing are never going to show formula in a good light are they? So instead it's a case of 'Bring on the fluffy ducks, and bugger the facts'.

Seriously - why aren't ff mothers complaining about the inflated price of baby milk (inflated by hideous levels of expensive marketing)? Or the lack of decent research comparing how well different brands are tolerated by babies?

I think the slavish devotion to branded products in the UK probably has something to do with it. The trust that people put in these companies to put babies and not shareholders first is pitiful really.

...sorry just answering some questions I saw on the thread

Oh except to say that I have seen a lot of formula advertising and I don't even own a TV....It was all over the trolleys at tesco one week, on the bus stops last week, and even on MN occasionally. If there was genuinely no advertising how would it come to pass that I know exactly what all the major brands look like, what their strap-lines are, the fact they do tins of powder, or pre-made up, or bottles apparently for taking on picnics....that there are grades of formula for different ages, and that they do a 'diet' version for hungry babies (it's a diet version because it is harder to digest hence your baby gets less calories rather than more in a given 24 hour period), and all the details one could ever need on how to make it up safely.

This is all for a product I have never used, never bought and have never actively tried to find information on.

This thread has now officially eaten itself.

Oh - I just came up with another way you can avoid having to make up formula in the night!

You can hire a live in Nanny and he/she can do it for you.

DarlingClemintine (I think it was you anyway?!)

If it came to saying =- a baby should be BF but the mum cant do it/cope with it/ and will be under immense emotional pressure to actually care for that baby, Id say FF wins hands down?

YY and thrice again bloody yes.

For me formula marketing had no impact on why I ff'd the fact that my baby was starving due to non supply did I expect it's commonly the case.

I chose my brand due to fact it's what local shop had when emergency stocks were needed on a stressed boxing day morning again nothing to do with marketing.

Those Chilli things look fab,sooooo wish they were around when I was ffing.

And Shag one tiny little Australian study does not a risk make.If we worried ourselves over every " study" published regarding parenting choices we'd all be in early graves.Why aren't you linking to all the hundreds of studies published yearly on all sorts of parenting issues with rather bigger risks,bigger numbers and better science?Why just tiny little bfing studies?

Also said study was comparing those bfing for less than and longer than 6 months(very few people in this country)too so rather tenuous(and grasping at straws) if you don't mind me saying.

Chairman yes the SMA teats are good from birth! Have a look at them on Boots website.

To add to Chillipeeps teats awesomeness, you can attach them to a water bottle too!! Volvic and Evian IIRC

Wonder if you can attach them to Fruitshoots-sorry couldn't resist!

I put them on the whiskey bottle when DS won't sleep

'One for mummy, one for you'

BabiesInPompousSlings Am genuinely jaw-dropped that you have popped up again here after the sheer number of people who overtly responded to you with how frickin' vile/smug/patronising/offensive you were being?

ALL If you didn't see all of the charming Babies comments previously, would suggest you wade through thread to see just how frickin' 'beyond' (is only word I can think of) they were.

So Babies, in your words - 'I am lovely'. Really? REALLY?? Need to tell you REMIND you that that really hasn't translated here oh fellow Mother - or did you not read all comments to and about you? Or forgotten your "I don't give a shiny shit what others think"... only to then come back and post AGAIN? Ergo clearly you DO care (although suspect it as as another poster said, you don't care about OTHER MOTHERS but rather your own ego and arrogance).

itsAkindof was so clear her OP and thread were re FF, and helping smash down some of the barriers to it and - as she has now SHOUTED BLOODY REPEATEDLY - THIS IS A THREAD ABOUT HELPING PEOPLE FF???? You crashing in (whilst simultaneously claiming you DON'T give a 'shiny shit' what others think of your, pretty nasty & inhumane towards those who CAN'T BF, comments/'opinions' on those who do FF) about your own oh so awesome - & fortunate vis ability - BF'ing is akin to the following: A.N.Other starts thread about, oooo, say:

INFERTILITY? Stoic - wholly off thread topic and bang fucking out of order - posts on there: "It's down to you y'know; I've got pregnant every single time I've wanted to and before that month was out.

Or poss this for an act of Maternal Support?

NATURAL BIRTHING DIFFICULTIES? Stoic - "Reallllllyyyy? Are you SURE you KNEW your facts first? As I've given birth THREE times wholly naturally... and never once did even a SNIFF of gas & air come near MY DC's, never MIND that vile opium derivative Pethidine that de facto also goes into your precious baby's brain - you nasty, selfish, foisting drugs on your unborn child Mother" .... to a Mother who did her DAMNEDEST to do as she wanted to but in the end, and for whatever reason (inc. those ones needed to save babies lives via intervention), just couldn't.

Am assuming you are capable of analogy & comprehension - so if you ARE, please do as others have already said and fuck right off to a BF thread to regale all with your successes and reinforce other's 'failures'.

Zara I'm sure somebody could find a "study" to link.

"And Shag one tiny little Australian study does not a risk make"

Actually the study involved 2900 parents. It was also undertaken by a very reputable organisation.

As for 'one study does not a risk make'

Studies supporting the use of novel ingredients like DHA/AHA, extracted from marine algae, which has never been part of infant diet in the whole history of human nutrition, yet have been added to formula on the strength of a couple of studies involving tiny numbers of babies - many of whom dropped out of the original tests.

And yet this research is considered reliable enough by mothers - even though it is recent and only involves small numbers of babies - to put their trust in feeding it to their children. While much larger scale studies showing benefits to breastfeeding produced by reputable organisations are consistently rubbished by people like yourself? I really, really don't get it.

And sometimes a single study WILL change parental choices - look at the dodgy research done suggesting a link between the MMR and autism. That was enough to make huge numbers of parents decide not to give their child the MMR.

And at least if parents make a choice to bf on the strength of these studies and they're later found not to be valid, well - at least the babies will still have benefited from being breastfed, unlike with the MMR vaccine, or for those babies in the US who were hospitalised after having a bad reaction to the novel ingredients used in some formula's in the early part of this decade.

here