AIBU - to think that adverts for follow on formula should acknowledge breastfeeding...

[GillianLovesMarmite]

Having just seen the advert on tv for heinz (now hideously overpriced) Nurture (follow on forumla) which delivered the message that it is the best thing you can give your baby for its development...
Do you think it would be unreasonable that these adverts should recognise breastfeeding - eg saying that if you are breastfeeding that this is great and providing what your child needs, however, if you have chosen not to breastfeed or have chosen to formula feed, that this is then the stuff for you... and that the 6 month time thing is not a deadline to stop at but a target to aim for.
I realise that by 6 months I am now in a minority of mothers who are still breastfeeding. I acknowledge that everyone has a right to choose how to feed their child, or that sometimes the choice is made for them, often by conditions or factors outside of their control and I would NEVER presume to judge how another woman feeds her child.
However, I just think it would be appropriate for these adverts to acknowledge that if you are breastfeeding you don't need this stuff - although in the real world I know that this will never happen as they have a product to sell - but do you (whether bfing or ffing) think that this would be an unreasonable thing for the companies to do?

(Sorry for the long post - just really really annoyed by the advert).

But how can using info provided by formula manufacturers be seen as informed choice?
Its hardly unbiased info is it?!

I agree there should be info available to new mothers about formula feeding (esp on how to make up bottles safely), but we should not rely on formula companies providing it.

FWIW, there is a lot of talk on this thread about judging of those who FF. I b-fed both my DSs (DS2 is still breastfed) but I have never judged another mother for how she feeds her baby.
However, I have had countless negative comments about breastfeeding, eg why don't I formula feed, when I plan to give up, why I fed past a year etc etc, so it goes both ways.

The really really irritating thing is that the normal formula, the one they arn't allowed to advertise, is fine for as long as you like. There is no need to change the milk - the formula was invented to meet the manufacturer's need for advertising.

I'm sorry that was an incredibly useless contribution.
Every time this debate happens the same old stuff comes up:

-Everyone knows breast is best
No, they don't
-Advertising isn't going to make women who want to breastfeed choose to formula feed
No, it's not as simple as that. Advertising formula contributes to the overall impression that that is how you feed a baby
-Of course they should advertise, how else are we going to find out information about it
Advertising is advertising. Information is information. The two rarely mix.
-Banning formula ads / mentioning breastfeeding in a formula ad makes women who chose to ff (or didn't have a choice) feel bad
Surely everyone has the right to make their choices based on complete, accurate information which presents the options, benefits and risks of all in an unbiased way as possible?

surely any information about difference brands enables a mum to make an informed choice? she will be able to see what's available at the very least and as with any advertising, it will let the consumer know what is available.

Oh just ban all the adverts. All of them.

It made me laugh reading 'I don't think adverts should be banned - I just think they should be more balanced'. They're adverts ffs! They cost the manufacturers a fortune and they're designed primarily to PERSUADE.

In Norway infant feeding isn't approached as though it's primarily a lifestyle or consumer choice - it's perceived primarily as a health issue, and 98% of women are discharged from hospital with their babies breastfeeding. The majority are still bf six months later. There is some advertising of formula there, but nothing like the amount we have here.

"shouldnt we advocate informed choice?"

Yes - agree. But you'd have to ban advertising if you want to ensure that all women are able to make a choice free from commercial pressures. Give women information on how formula is made, which brands are best tolerated by the largest number of babies, and on the health risks associated with artificial feeding and let them make up their own minds away from the barrage of images of fluffy cows, sniggering infants and plastic ducks.

And I definitely think that all formula companies should be banned from providing advice on breastfeeding. It's like allowing Cadbury's to advise women on losing weight and eating healthily - totally bonkers!

so do you pick:

-closest to breastmilk
-closer than EVER to breastmilk
-fortified with immunofortis
-complete, balanced and nutritious
?

willweeversell, please do enlighten us on the risks of bf? I am totally unaware of them and like to be educated.

YANBU, the small print at the end of the ad always says "not intended to replace breastmilk/breastfeeding" but I think this is a blatant lie. After all, it's a milk, so if it's not replacing breastmilk what is it replacing? A baby of 6 months plus who is eating solids and breastfeeding and drinking water/juice has no need of any kind of artificial milk, so if this product is not replacing breastmilk what is it replacing????

I think all formula ads should be banned, follow-on milk was only invented to get around a loop-hole in the law, in the states (where fomula advertising is not banned) there is little or no advertising of follow-on milks, and not all milk brands produce a follow-on milk, because they don't need to^ because they can, and do, advertise thier first/infant milks.

There is no information being imparted in these ads, they are just blurb, it doesn't matter which brand you use, none of them are close to breastmilk, the ingredients all change on a weekly/monthly basis depending on what is cheaper at the time so one is not better than the other. If they really wanted to make formula "close" to breastmilk they would base it on goats milk or asses milk as it is far more digestable than cows milk. As for not saying "breast is best" or discussing the risks/inferiority of formula for fear of upsetting those who use it (be they women who wanted to bf or chose not to) does this mean we shouldn't talk about the risk of passive smoking for fear of upsetting those who have smoked around children in the past? No, of course not, we still need to educate everyone about the reality of formula, so that all women try to breastfeed, and in the process demand the right help support and information to help them succeed.

Monkies

In my opinion, we live in a world of bias, even those people conducting clinical research are open to bias and it is extremely difficult to irradicate.

The best we can hope for at this present time is that the formula companies are able to present their product in anopen and hopefully honest manner, informing us of what they see as the benefits of their particular product. Unless its an out an out lie then surely any information is better than none?

But eh premise of what you are saaying is surely that the formula companies are trying to push/promote an inherently undesirable possibley even usef product, which I think is a grossly unfair judgement given that as I have said most babies do really really well on formula and that it is fit for purpose.

But which would you pick?
It's not information, it's not iseful, just taglines

They're not lies, because they're meaningless claims

Green monkies

My point about the risks of bf are things that I have observed/been told about by bf mums/etc brief examples of which i gave in my previous post. I am sure many people would deny there are any downsides or risks to bf but all I can say is that I do not think this is always the case.

Like I said I am truly in favour of bf IF THAT IS WHAT IS BEST FOR THE MOTHER AND BABY AS A UNIT.

I don't think it helps anyone to imply that formula is awful/poison/unethical or any other thing in a similar vein, because it is not. It is simply one way to feed your baby.

it is a way to feed a baby, sub-optimal

Heavens above i despair......

willweeversell,

It is not simpley one way to feed your baby. It is an unhealthy way to feed your baby which should only be used if breastfeeding is not possible. Breastfeeding may not always seem like the best thing for the mother, but it is always the best thing for the baby.

All the cases you quote are actually classic examples of poor support. It should not take 4 months to get breastfeeding established, (and breastfeeding can actually help soften PND due to the endorphins it releases), mastitis is easily treated and should never be allowed to get so severe it results in surgery, and again, poor breastfeeding support etc is almost certainly to blame, and there are several ways to resolve weightloss before it becomes failure to thrive which do not involve formula top-ups.

sigh

Monkies

Having watched ads from America on FFing (have a quick look around YouTube) I've not seen any that say anything other than the "closest to breastmilk" type tag lines. They don't tell you what's really in it and what they do, the risks of FF, how to make it, why they are superior to their competitors.

Choosing a pushchair on a "this one looks best" or "I like how this one feels when I'm pushing it" basis is great. You can go around Babies 'R' Us when you're pregnant and have a play with all the different chairs they have on sale. You can watch ads, read reviews in P&B, ask your friends what they use and generally when baby comes along you've chosen the chair you are going to use, you've practised putting it up etc and there is nothing to think about when the baby comes. If you choose the cheaper option because you're a bit tight on cash, it's not going to harm the baby.

How can formula companies do that? You can't try out the milk before baby comes. They can't honestly tell you what features they have. You can't read reviews or ask friends because each baby is different.

Green monkies i am not arguing that maybe its support, but this is the real world I am living in and we are far from having a society that will pull out every and any stop to 'support' a woman to breastfeed. And you know, some women just cannot BF no matter how hard they try. To tell them that the way they sare feeding is 'unhealthy' is downright cruel. its the same as people who roll out the reaserch on having drugs during labour and how it can have far reaching effects on the baby. People FF because that is best for them in one way or another, people have drugs in labour to bloody well 'survive' the pain, everyone else should take their noses out of other peoples bloody business.

And Bf is not best for baby if the mother feels so inadequate/ desperately sleep deprived/ isoltated/exhausted that she starts to hate her own baby, as my friend ended up feeling. the day she started formula feeding was the day she finally allowed herself to start loving her daughter. Believe me PND is much more harmful to a baby that being given formula.

The figures of women who have a real case of lactation failure are a lot lower than our friends would have us believe.

If you read the threads on this topic you will see that everyone agrees that the govt isn't doing enough to ensure adequate training and that HCPs are getting far more back up sometimes from FF comanpies. No one has ever said that babies should be BF at no cost, it's always been about what should be done to support women better. But FFers tend to get so wrapped up in the supposed bashing they miss that. The bashing is the Govt and the FF companies, not mothers!

Can we also please drop the BM = PND, FM = no PND line, it may have helped some women to move to FM, but it's not a universal truth. For me not being able to BF when my baby was born at 31 weeks was a lot of it, when she started I felt a million times better and when my HV panicked about something that wasn't there and I had to top up to get her off my back (never going to happen again) I got worse. I'm still feeding her now at 25 months and 15 weeks pregnant and every time I put her on it's the best feeling in the world, I can even forgive her when she has an early start! If I hadn't been able to BF her it would have been the end of the world, the reasons they didn't admit me wouldn't have been there as far as I'm concerned.

"But what is wrong with a company wanting to sell its product, especially if it has done lots of research and development and it has a licence to sell its product"

willweeversell, if you read any of the recent threads railing against heinz, you would have seen that the research they conducted on their super fabby dabby new ingredient which helps ease constipation in FF babies was tested for a few weeks on a very small test group, more than half of whom pulled out before the test was concluded, yet they still went ahead and added this product to their formula. A product that by anecdotal evidence on here has only served to give non constipated babies diahorrea. I can't see how this is acceptable in any way shape or form.

This is the health of our children we are talking about, and I for one would want to know that information before deciding to use that particular formula rather then trusting a fluffy add with sleepy handsome dads or silly giggling babies or babies with ready brek like shields around them. They are not information, they are marketing.

And the old assumption that just because someone is pro information means they are anti FF is raising its ugly head on this thread as it usually does . As someone who has both BF then FF their children, though necessity, not choice, I want the information on what I am feeding them to be in the public domain so that I, and any other woman who chooses to use formula, can make an informed choice on what can have future health implications. Why is this so wrong?

fledtoscotland....informed choice is exactly what the anti-advertising peeps want, but when all you have to judge one formula against another is a fluffy advertising campaign with meaningless unproven claims, how can anyone say they are making an informed choice?

Tinkerbelles mum no one is saying that BF= PND but I quietlyt supect a lot of women do suffer from this to some degree, but are desperate not to admit it for fear of being pilloried.

I totally hear what you are saying about the need to breastfeed and thankfully for you it worked out 'in the end'. But imagine how devastated you would have felt if it hadn't 'worked out in the end' for whatever reason and you had to FF, plus take on all of the negativity and quietly coveyed disapproval and sometimes outright disgust at you having to FF your DD. That is the reality for many many women, and being told agina nd agian and agin that 'breast is best, breast is best' can be agony and it is so unnessesary!! Why do we women feel the need to do it to ourselves!

I chose not to BF about a month after I found out I was pregnant and spent my whole pregnancy being bullied by my MW to try it because it's best for baby, yes it may be but only if the mother is comfortable with the idea so I found the adverts helpful in the sense of it let me know what brands were out there. I didn't go for the one that said it was closest to BM I went for the one that I trusted because I knew others who had used it and I was fed with.

Saying that though I do think there should be alot less of the lies that they tell in the ads about being closest to BM and that basically there is very little info on what is actually in Formula, there needs to be more truth involved but I don't think the ads should be banned, I live in Scotland and we have an advert for BF so why not for Formula?

willweeversell, the "breast is best" message is widely disparaged on here and you will find that most women who get involved in these debates on the anti-advertising side don't ever say it. In fact in all the debates I've taken part in on here it only ever seems to be those who are arguing the case for the formula companies who mention it.

LackaDAISY

there is nothing wrong with information, nothing whatsoever, but to ban all formula advertising is no better in my opinion than certain people saying women should not breastdfeed in public. It sends out a really clear message that there vis something about it that is undesirable/wrong, thus in effect making women feel guilty/ confused/ isolated etc.

We all know (surely?) that advertising is just that, but if it were not for these FF ads then you would never see any positive images of women FF, would you?

D

Do you mean positive, Government sponsored images of mothers ff-ing, like this?

mamdiva, the fact that you chose the brand that was most recommended to you, rather than any of the others surely just confirms the case for no adverts? You weren't swayed by the fluffy advertising so what purpose did they actually serve?

And the reason why infant formula advertising is banned (ie under six months) is that it undermines breastfeeding. And the formula companies know this and exploit the law by showing babies who are clearly younger than six months being bottle fed in a follow on milk advert. Subliminal, crafty and only just inside the law.