To believe that formula companies have PR agents working the BF/FF threads on here?

[CocoDeMoll]

They are a multi million pound set of companies that are invested in keeping Britain’s low breastfeeding rates down and keeping their profit margins up.

Any positives about breastfeeding seem to be shot down in flames on here.

So much pro formula and anti breastfeeding rhetoric.

They can easily afford to and have the best at the jobs be it lawyers, pr teams or spin doctors on their sides and they’re not exactly renounced for their ethics are they (nestle?!?!).

Or am I just getting a bit tied up in conspiracy therorys?

Not true Bertrand. It’s about putting pressure on women to breastfeed. I’ve never seen anyone criticised on here for breastfeeding. Never.

BertrandRussell

They are getting trashed, Bertrand, because they are - typically - going beyond a statement that BF was a good thing for them and they are moving into territory where they are suggesting it would be a good thing for other mothers. People who do so are deservedly trashed.

Word pengwyn. No one cares if you say oh”breastfeeding was right for me” it’s all the “formula is poison/ you’re not trying hard enough/ it’s all a conspiracy of the formula companies as to why you’re not breastfeeding). And so on.

I know someone who works in policy in the NHS. They apparently have just put a load of funding into campaigning against giving older children formula. Apparently we should give them vitamin pills and cows milk instead. When I pointed out it’s not any cheaper and formula has everything in it (and my dc is used to drinking it) she said I was “just giving the formula companies money”. The stupidity and paranoia is crazy. And what a huge waste of public money.

Fair enough. I think there is a discussion to be had and progress to be made. But let's just call each other names instead. So much more productive.

I have, you see it on extended breastfeeding threads. And sometimes on threads where a child over the age of about one isn't eating much in the way of solids. To be fair that's about the only context in which it's ever criticised.

I think sometimes there is a conflict between wanting to support individuals and wanting to look at population-level differences in BF/FF.

For an individual I always think it's important for them to weigh up all factors according to their individual importance to that person. It's very unlikely that somebody is making their decision on feeding method solely based on the statistical chance of their child having asthma at 5 years old, for example - that's ridiculous. You've got to think about things which are far more personal than that including how you feel about your own body, how much you want to be responsible for feedings, how easy breastfeeding is for you, who else is involved and how much, how much free time you have, whether washing bottles and buying formula is easy or difficult for you, whether you have older children, your own personal feelings about breastmilk/formula, and about a hundred other possible factors.

But on a research/population level - yes it is relevant and useful to look at 5 year olds' levels of asthma or the incidence of something like SIDS in relation to breastfeeding status. And once we have the results of research like this, it becomes part of the body of general scientific knowledge about BF and that's useful, IMO - and stating facts like breastfed babies have lower levels of SIDS might be relevant on a discussion about pros and cons of various feeding methods. It might be something which factors into a person's preference or decision. What I don't agree with is somebody using a fact like this, deciding that it's the most important factor in their opinion, and claiming that anybody who doesn't consider it the most important factor is wrong and/or a bad parent. It's simply one of a multitude of factors. It shouldn't be shut down or dismissed but it's also up to people to decide for themselves which factors are important to them.

Blimey, do people still buy formula once their children are old enough for cows milk? How odd. I can understand a campaign, food poverty is a growing problem in the U.K. and maybe people don’t realise that it’s totally unnecessary to feed formula past 1year (allergies aside)?

How are cows milk and vitamins not any cheaper than formula?

This is something which I've noticed recently actually - a move to insist that follow on formula (the 6 month+ one, not the 12 month+ one) is almost something bad. I don't get it - I understand that there is no NEED or even benefit to switch to follow on from first milk, but provided a baby is six months old, there is no harm in changing, is there? And one of the more worrying changes I've seen (on MN actually) as a result of this (sometimes quite strangely aggressive) insistence is that some parents are being confused and think that follow on is the same as first milk so there is no problem with giving follow on to a baby under six months, especially if they can find it cheaper.

I can understand not encouraging use of the 12m+ milks which are often sugary and not very more nutritious than plain cow's milk, but any infant milk sold as suitable for under 12 months old is quite heavily regulated as I understand it.

IME it is made abundantly clear that cow's milk is perfectly fine past a year so a campaign to "discourage" formula past a year is surely a complete waste of time - it's parental choice at that point!

I thought follow on milk (from 6 months) was shady because it was a way of getting around the regulations for selling formula. They created a product they could much more freely market rather than there being any need for it?

Ok, I didn’t even know that they made 12+ month formula. If it’s made abundantly clear cows milk is fine why are people still buying it? This stuff is £10 per tin. I imagine the campaign is by healthy start (or that sort of thing) which would come out the overall NHS budget. But if it prevents parents being conned then I think it probably is worth while.

At a year I was breastfeeding, giving cows milk and formula milk I thought I’d hedge my bets! Plus my child needed to put on weight (medical reasons nothing to do with bf) so I was giving cows milk and follow on milk instead of water.
I have to admit I was confused about follow on compared to first. The government should just produce an easy comparison chart of the nutrition of each milk - make it easier for parents to make informed decisions. I did look at the time but couldn’t see that existed that compared all the available milk types and all the different bits of nutrition in them.

Yes, but that doesn't mean it's a bad product. That's what I don't understand. And it's always been like that - I've been on MN 10 years and this was always the explanation - that follow on isn't necessarily better suited to babies over 6 months but simply that it exists in order to be a separate product which is legally allowed to be advertised.

Lately it seems like the new narrative is that follow on is (either) EXACTLY the same as first milk (in which case I can totally follow the logic that it would be fine to use it for a younger baby - problem is this isn't true, has never been true and it's NOT necessarily fine to use it for a younger baby) or it's somehow TERRIBLE and a bad product - which also isn't true, I'm not 100% on the differences/pros/cons etc compared with first milks but it's not milkshake. It's still formula.

I don't know - I just sense a kind of dramaticness about this kind of thing now which I'm sure never used to be there? I don't understand why people have to take it to such extremes simply to have an opinion.

If it’s made abundantly clear cows milk is fine why are people still buying it? This stuff is £10 per tin.

Lasts longer. Say I use formula for my twins. If my toddlers are only having a bottle at night, it’s easier for me to buy powder I can make up than cows milk, as me and DS1 are intolerant to it and so it won’t get used. The only person who currently drinks cows milk in our house is DP for cereals and tea, and so we buy very little of it.

There is supposedly this organisation which keeps tabs on different formula options. They make the first/follow on comparison as well though in a way which strongly implies first milk is better - but I don't really understand their reasoning for this.

It's not a govt operation but it is a non profit I believe.

www.firststepsnutrition.org/

And sometimes on threads where a child over the age of about one isn't eating much in the way of solids. To be fair that's about the only context in which it's ever criticised

That's fair enough though and if i saw a thread where a child over 1 wasn't eating enough because they were having a lot of milk, my first suggestion would be to cut back in it. Would be irrelevant whether it came from a boob or a tin.

@Redteapot67 there is now an nhs guide to different types of formula now I think. The follow on milk thing is really just the most well know of formula co’s marketing tricks so I think people do tend to focus on this. There’s nothing bad about it as an actual product and if it’s cheaper than 1st milk I can see why parents would shift. I’ve no idea how much of this 12+ milk they shift but presumably the nhs must think it’s enough of a concern to want to run a campaign? I don’t think they just woke up one day and thought ‘huh, let’s stick one to nestle and Danone for the hell of it’. The cost of those tins are a weeks worth of veg for a family. Cows milk and vits cost very little, I think I pay about £2/£3 for 30 toddler vit pills.

Even that website doesn’t have a handy chart of Breast milk v formula v cows v follow on as regards vitamins, minerals, iron, fats, protein etc

Imo this is really needed and every hv hand out an information booklet on feeding - how to do every type - where to get support - and what the nutrition differences of each are

It really pisses me off when people (often) say you can’t see the difference when they are at school/adults - because actually our bodies are not transparent and you can’t see a cancer that may hit at 60 or an increased risk of diabetes at 50!

It really pisses me off when people (often) say you can’t see the difference when they are at school/adults

I can see your point however there is too many variables.

A bf baby who lives a healthy lifestyle might be at less risk of cancer than an ff baby with a healthy lifestyle.

But a bf baby who now eats crap every day and smokes might have a much higher risk than an ff baby who doesn't

There are too many other things which can increase / decrease cancer risk - so imo less risk of cancer from bf is prob not a big enough reason to do it.

Anyone can get cancer for any reason and I'm not sure bf has as big an impact as we are being lead to believe

@Redteapot67 doesn’t the composition of b/m change depending on child’s needs? I don’t think you can compare the composition between formula and BM that easily, but I suppose you could take averages of samples. Still not sure it would be a good thing to directly compare though.

Why not grandma? Surely it would be good to compare directly - so people can know properly is it the same or different.
Yes average samples of breastmilk and broken down by age too as breast milk changes as baby grows
It can’t be that hard to do

Companies aren’t allowed to market infant formula do they invented follow in milk so they have something g extra to sell people.

Another thing I couldn’t find was what babies actually needed in terms of nutrition - I know it’s different from adults but I couldn’t find an easy source of what say a 10 month old needs to eat in terms of calories, fibre, vitamins, iron, minerals etc

@Redteapot67 to put it bluntly, I think it would make parents think that formula was more akin to BM than it actually is. It’s so much more than fat/protein/lactose/sugar content isn’t it? I presume that formula content is based roughly on the average composition of fats/proteins etc of BM, so in truth a table of these figures might not look too different. It’s the other active ingredients that simply can’t be replicated and the actual feeding method of baby being in contact with mums skin, giving them a little dose of bacteria, although all the microbiome stuff is relatively new Research. The actual mechanics of feeding is staring to look important for some disease prevention.