To think this comparison is unfair and misleading?

[LemonMarshmallow]

A formula v breastfeeding visual I’ve just seen on fb.
2 rainbow bottles side by side detailing the components of both except on the formula side they’ve not included that formula (always) contains minerals too
Plus there are some things like probiotics, ogliosaccharides and nucleotides that a few also contain.

I feel really bad for anyone seeing this . Yes breastmilk is amazing and I bf my toddler but I KNOW formula contains more than this is indicating and I think it’s unfair it’s being shared on fb and it’s not correct and it going to make people feel bad

[quote Winter2020]Just a note to say Vegan mums that are pregnant/breastfeeding must supplement their diet with B12 or else their milk won't have "everything their baby needs at all". A severe lack of B12 would cause developmental problems/delay. Don't assume breastfeeding contains everything your baby needs ...if you are strict vegan and not supplementing your B12 it won't.

www.vegansociety.com/resources/nutrition-and-health/life-stages/pregnancy-and-breastfeeding[/quote]
Strict vegans can get all the B12 they need if they consume fortified plant milk (which the NHS recommends). There is no need to supplement on top of this unless you have malabsorption issues

@LivingNextDoorToNorma

The problem with social media, news outlets, Internet forums etc, is that they’re accessible around the world.

The graphic was initially published by an American breastfeeding group. The information they have shared is true to their intended audience. The problem occurs when people outside of the country read it, and assume it’s correct. Here in the UK we have much higher standards for formula, so the information doesn’t apply. So you can ask the UK based groups to correct it (and they absolutely should). However having it removed completely for ‘misinformation’ just isn’t possible, because what’s written is actually true.

It’s similar to mumsnet. If you read threads on inheritance, education, divorce, covid rules etc, there are many differences in laws between England and Scotland. So if I was to post that children have no automatic right to their parents inheritance, that would be absolutely true (in England). However it would be terrible advice to someone in Scotland, where children do have a claim. So someone in Scotland would potentially be negatively impacted by it, by having it removed would deny information to someone in England.

What we need to do is better educate people on how to critically asses what they read on the internet. The alternative is to only be able to access sites etc from our own countries. But that’s a level of censorship that I really wouldn’t be comfortable with.

Yes true

Dopes, not doors.

@aSofaNearYou how’s it a dick move? does it upset you or something?

@aSofaNearYou I have never, even once, encountered anyone pressuring mothers to use formula. lucky you. I’ve never experienced many unpleasantnesses, I wouldn’t dream of suggesting they don’t happen or if they do it’s not a big deal because it happens so rarely.

[quote 5zeds]**@aSofaNearYou* I have never, even once, encountered anyone pressuring mothers to use formula.* lucky you. I’ve never experienced many unpleasantnesses, I wouldn’t dream of suggesting they don’t happen or if they do it’s not a big deal because it happens so rarely.[/quote]
Did you read my comment? I literally said in it that I'm not saying it doesn't happen. But I don't think it's the majority at all, in fact I think we currently live in a culture that pushes breast feeding far more than it pushes formula.

[quote healmebaby]@aSofaNearYou how’s it a dick move? does it upset you or something?[/quote]
I mean, I feel like I'm going back to basics of something that has been covered a lot already on this thread by explaining this, but it's a dick move because it comes across as judgemental and preachy to people that don't, or more importantly can't, breastfeed, to deliberately call out how rubbish you think formula is. Because many people that don't breastfeed tried and failed and already feel terrible about it. Just read back on this thread if you want it explained better.

No it doesn't upset me personally, certainly not now, but the whole culture around breast is best did have it's upsetting elements while I was ripping my hair out with low supply, yes. I have a thick enough skin that it didn't and doesn't devastate me, but that doesn't mean I don't still think it is a dick move.

To be fair if its being shared in a breastfeeding group then its probably not going to upset the majority of mums there.

@Winter2020 your link says

Ensure a reliable intake of vitamin B12 from fortified foods or a supplement

So not actually true to say vegan mums must supplement B12

WhensomeonementionsMN

5zeds
^The real alternative if formula didn’t exist is the babies would starve to death. no, they’d be fed by other women and probably weaned early.
I was going to say this there would be wet nurses and support for women who want to donate.^

No babies would have been fed diluted cows milk with a little sugar added. Considered acceptable into the 1960s. The original baby milks were just more convenient and consisted of dried full cream milk, sugar and added vitamin D. Carnations Milk also had infant feeding instructions on the label. SMA was the first of the modern formulas introduced in the mid-60s, widely advertised and far more expensive than alternatives. Wet nurses were really for the rich.

@aSofaNearYou

We absolutely are, most people probably don’t know it. We have been marketed formula aggressively in the U.K. since about the 50. It’s part of the reason rates are so low and there’s so much misinformation around breastfeeding. Where do you think those billions of marketing budgets go? If formula is such a necessity ( which it absolutely is) why do they even need to market it? Never have companies marketed products so unscrupulously and with such little science to back up their claims. I think outrage over a graphic shared on FB that isn’t totally accurate for either is misplaced tbh.

In the UK they do not advertise formula other than follow on milk any longer.

But regardless, this does not address the other part of my comment. Of course companies will advertise their product, if allowed. The point is, random people on Facebook do not need to advertise breastfeeding. They do so to lecture others, and dress it up as being supportive. Medical advice should come from medical professionals.

Follow on milk only exists purely to get round the ban on advertising infant formula. Follow on milk doesn't exist in countries whose governments allow the advertising of infant milks or who allow no marketing of any formula at all. So yes, formula is still aggressively marketed in this country.

Follow on milk only exists purely to get round the ban on advertising infant formula. Follow on milk doesn't exist in countries whose governments allow the advertising of infant milks or who allow no marketing of any formula at all. So yes, formula is still aggressively marketed in this country.

Yes, but not to mothers of babies up to 6 months, who are the people most likely to be affected by the culture of shaming people for not breastfeeding.

My understanding was the uk has the worst bfing rates in the world.

@aSofaNearYou

Follow on milk only exists purely to get round the ban on advertising infant formula. Follow on milk doesn't exist in countries whose governments allow the advertising of infant milks or who allow no marketing of any formula at all. So yes, formula is still aggressively marketed in this country.

Yes, but not to mothers of babies up to 6 months, who are the people most likely to be affected by the culture of shaming people for not breastfeeding.

Women see the formula brand advertised and are influenced by it, regardless of whether the formula is infant or follow on milk. This is how advertising works and why the formula companies created follow on milk. As a way of still keeping their brand advertised to all mothers, including those of newborns. It exists purely for this reason and no other.

Women see the formula brand advertised and are influenced by it, regardless of whether the formula is infant or follow on milk. This is how advertising works and why the formula companies created follow on milk. As a way of still keeping their brand advertised to all mothers, including those of newborns. It exists purely for this reason and no other.

Yes I'm aware of all that, but I'm not sure what your point is. They do not claim to be better than breast milk in their adverts, in fact they usually say something like "we know breast is best, but if you decide to move on..."

It's not aggressive advertisement at all. The very fact they have to comply to so many rules and pretend infant formula doesn't exist, shows there is a strong push towards breastfeeding in this country.

And in any case, there is still a big difference between a company advertising their own product and a random person choosing to tell everyone the ways in which breast is much better than formula. The motivation is clearly completely different.

It is aggressive and insidious. Formula companies subtly and cleverly undermine breastfeeding at every turn. Nestle even have their own information and troubleshooting sheet about breastfeeding that is easily found on the Internet. Almost every sentence is cleverly designed to undermine breastfeeding, whilst ostensibly seeming to be trying to help. Women will come across this 'information' sheet without realising it was produced by a formula company and be negatively influenced by it.

True, the aggressiveness is forcibly toned down because of rules and laws in Britain, but the brands find their way around it and it becomes more subtle and potentially even more effective because of its lack of obvious advertising.

I read it all wrong first time, d'oh. I took it as reassuring towards mothers who have been unable to, or had to give up, breastfeeding. I don't think it is very kind, frankly. Most women breastfeed for a while or try to, even a little while is beneficial. I remember the beating up I gave myself because I couldn't go on feeding.

Yes sadly formula companies have found ways around advertising laws. Insidious is exactly the right word. Another example is that they are also the main driver behind spreading ‘info’ about CMPA. They fund training days for NHS staff (which breaks the WHO code), they actually funded the main U.K. website dedicated to cmpa. It’s been described by the BMJ as a Trojan horse. It not only undermines breastfeeding by making it hard for mums following special diets (of which there is currently zero evidence to support) but they can also flog expensive formulas (which have very very shaken evidence to support. I think I read that prescription formulas have gone up something like 600% in a few years.

If anyone can be arsed, this ^ is a brilliant lecture on the way formula companies operate in the U.K. and that’s the best of what they get away with. Some countries have almost no regulations.

@Ozanj @RealBecca

“Strict vegans can get all the B12 they need if they consume fortified plant milk (which the NHS recommends). There is no need to supplement on top of this unless you have malabsorption issues”

Yes you can supplement with a fortified food. Fortified as in vitamins or minerals have been added to the food artificially. The supplement is in the food rather than taken as a pill yes. The point being you have to make sure you are getting the supplement (and yes you can do this by buying a food that has had it added and been fortified) because your diet will not include naturally occurring B12. If you would rather buy a fortified food/drink(with the vitamin added to the food/drink) than take a pill directly then yes you can do that. You would need to calculate to eat/drink enough of if it to get the recommended daily intake and ensure you are always buying the fortified version (as there will be no B12 in the natural product).

There are misleading and inaccurate pictures circulating on social media?

I'm horrified and surprised to hear that. You should get right on that.