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).

scottishmum007, no-one has said that giving your child formula makes you a bad mum, just that people need to be aware of the risks so they can make an informed decision, and that because of this, it shouldn't be allowed to advertise any form of breastmilk substitute or that they risks should be on all information based on both FF and BF.

A C+G rep came to our clinic to give an update on their milks (very interesting it was and a nice lunch). The rep gave a really good talk about pre and probiotics and their role in aiding digestion and reducing colic.

No prizes for guessing which formula the staff were advising parents to switch to if their babies were not getting on with the current brand.

The Heinz Nurture people are in to update within the next few weeks and no doubt the advice about which milk to use will then change again.

Honestly - don't take the advice of HCPs or if you do just remember that they have probably been updated by the company's reps recently (and had a free lunch out of it). Likewise don't listen to the babymilk companies - do your own research.

Am now totally off topic. Just remember that Follow on milk is rarely needed.

From NHS Direct:

"babies who are bottle fed using formula milk are more likely to develop illnesses, such as diarrhoea, or a chest, ear, or urine infection. There is also an increased risk of premature babies who are bottle fed developing a rare, but serious condition called necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), where the intestines are damaged due to infection and a poor supply of blood"

Just as a matter of interest how long do you have to breastfeed a baby to mitigate these risks? If say you give up breastfeeding at 4 months would the risk still be the same as if you had given up breast feeding in the 2 month?

No idea, libra! And it gives no indication whatsoever of how much more likely these infections/illnesses are.

Iorek, The rate of admissions (note, not just visiting the GP for a poorly tummy, or ear etc.) in babies battle-fed or breastfed for only a short period (for gastroenteritis alone) is just over 5 times more than in babies breastfed for 13 weeks or more.

OTOH, In the UK, babies breastfed for 13 wks or more were 3 times less likely to contract gastrointestinal illness regardless of socio-economic conditions. Howie et al. BMJ 1990 300:11-16

At a cost per inpatient stay of about £1200, the saving associated with each one percentage point increase in breastfeeding in the average health district is about £4000 - about half a million pounds in England and Wales. If all babies were breastfed, this would be equivalent to almost £300,000 a year for the average district or £35 million for the country as a whole.

In 1997, Milupa (Aptamil) spent £2 million on promotion its range by advertising, direct mail and sampling to new mothers.
(source: Independent Retail News)
In 1997, the gov't spent &70,000 or about 10 pence supporting breastfeeding.

The funny thing is, in a couple months ago, some health minister announced that an extra £2million is being given to the NHS to support breastfeeding. It makes me smile wryly.

This 10 pence figure is making me wondering if I am misremembering and really, the govt is only spending 18pence per baby rather than my earlier 80pence on supporting breastfeeding.

See why bfing doesn't stand a chance?

Libra, read this it explains when things start to make a difference.

has this kicked off?

Coming late to this, (and can't quite engage with the ff/bf debate - though v impressed with the knowledge from Daisy and VS and am still bfing (though its only 12 weeks) largely due to support from the MNetters) but back to the OP - YANBU.

I think SMA advert is worse actually as it is really selling formula as a life-style choice for your family - the only equivalent I can think of is something like the old Gold Blend adds - if you drink this you are cool and sophisticated or perhaps some of the recent car ads for family cars. Its really tapping into some advertising family ideal of trendy, sensitive fathers who are really involved and still earn enough for you to have a stylish home. Its really insidious - it made me a bit soppy and weepy the first time I saw it, until I realised what is was for - its all shot like an American drama series (something like Brothers & Sisters or the West Wing).

BTW - have to say in our area the support has been incredible from the HCPs too. Saw Midwife in hosp who helped and also same woman came to home to help - at a (anytime)time convenient to me. Going to see her at Breast feeding Cafe thing tomorrow too for a bit of encouragement.

Didn't mean to sound smug about help - just had a very hard time at the beginning and felt rubbish and failing, even tho' its my second time and BFCs really were great (real and virtual). Re-inforces the every mother every baby is different thing..

Actually, being a devil's advocate re IorekByrnison's post of Tue 12-Aug-08 14:35:55, you don't just need to know that a risk has increased (eg) 50%. You also need to know what the initial risk was in the first place. If the risk was 1 in a million, then even if it double, it is still only 1 in 500,000.

So if the risk, eg of necrotizing enterocolitis is incredbly small, then even if you ff, the risk is probably still very small - even if it is "higher".

But going back to the OP, I think thiere should be more of an emphasis on ensuring that viewers are aware that follow-on is not a substitute for breast milk. And if the manufaturers squeal - then that only proves that the advertising does work to convert breastfeeding mothers onto formula. Nobody (now) complains about the lack of cigarette advertsing - why should this be different?

Brothers and Sister has Rob Lowe in it (a reason for watching i think). Iw ould def weatch Sons and Daughters if it were on again tho'

Aptamil deliver a bfing sppech on their advert dont they?
It says that theres nothing better for your baby, its helps protect your baby and you cant beat it.

Shouldn't people top up baby's feed with vitamins if BF only after a certain period? I never have as mine have all had very very good diets but that would mean substituting breastfeeding for formula is a little sketchy... I don't know but can't we just promote bfing and let Heinz promote their own product. Reminding women that bfing is great will not change anything.

Flubdub, breastfeeding is not best for babies though. Breastfeeding is normal. Breastfeeding is the what babies physiologically expect to have after they leave the mother's womb.

So if breastfeeding normal, then what is bottlefeeding?

12legs, no, your baby does not need extra vitamins or follow on or formula etc after a certain period as long as your baby was a normal term baby. You have done right.

What you are asking is exactly what followon advertising want mums to ask and hopefully be reinforced by our cultural expectations that yes, they need something extra.

I went our local bfing support group last Wed and the HV who runs it (she is also a trained MW) recommended to a woman who has recently started to wean her bf baby to give him Vitamin drops as well, so it is easy to see how a mum can think, well after all formula has milk and extra vits. Why not?

Flubdub, tbf, aptmil use that line to equate themselves with breastfeeding, kind of 'bfing is great for the first six months, we agree, we want the best for your baby, then use us at six months'.

"I find that some of the pro-BFers on here can be real bitches and I wouldn't ask them for BF advice if they were the last people on earth. I feel very sorry for them that they get so aggressive on a mere website with people they don't know"

As far as I can read, the only people getting aggressive are thosee who are bleating on about pro-BFers. If those who feel they are being attacked and likened to harpies with axes to grind then of course they will retaliate.

It saddens me that every time this issue comes up it turns into an us and them situation with those posters adamant that BFers are a bunch of militant bitches totally failing to see beyond their own failure to BF their baby and realise that they can be doing all they can to help others achieve what they could not. People like VS, kiskidee, tinksmum and myself amongst others.

We want to help others; we want people to be aware of the risks of feeding formula; we want people to have as much information as possible in order that they can make an informed choice. And, as the majority of us FF our children in whole or in part, then we are hardly saying you are a bad mother for feeding your child formula as that would mean we were, ourselves, bad mothers.

Jeez

and BGP you have it soo right about the only people making anyone feel bad is that person themselves.

I don't see the ffing a baby is a 'risk'. I think that is an over exaggeration and intended to inflame the issue.

Most people who bottlefeed out of choice do not think that bottlefeeding have risks attached to it. That is because mothers are driven by instinct to protect their babies, not put them at risk.

Bottlefeeding to them is normal hence it is not risky.

Normal, however, is a scary word when it comes to infant feeding.

It's just how you look at the information Bumdiddley. We're so used to seeing the 'benefits' of breastfeeding. If you reverse that thinking and accept breastfeeding as the normal expected standard of feeding (i.e. as mammals we create milk to meet the specific needs of our babies), then what you've actually got are the drawbacks of FF.

"Aptamil deliver a bfing sppech on their advert dont they?
It says that theres nothing better for your baby, its helps protect your baby and you cant beat it."

Aptamil specially targets bf mothers with its marketing. bf mums are more likely to supplement with or switch to the most expensive formula - parents often equate price with quality and bf mums want the best for their baby. As a group BF mums also, somewhat paradoxically, use more formula overall than women who don't bf because they tend to buy formula long after other mums have switched to ordinary cows milk. Aptamil emphasise the scientific research behind their product more than any of the other milks, and make constant references to the qualities of breastmilk, inferring that Aptamil has the same ingredients: 'Inspired by breastmilk'.

All the flannel on breastfeeding from Aptamil also has another effect: it make the company seem trustworthy and altruistic. After all - they're promoting breastfeeding aren't they? Despite the fact that it's in direct competition to their product. And yet the information on breastfeeding on the site once again is partial and subtly skewed. Like C&G - there is a whole essay on coping with common bf problems which doesn't contain a single mention of the help available from bf counsellors or the voluntary agencies.

"sorry to disagree Tittbangbang but a baby will pick up on a mum whose stressed at trying to BF and feeling guilty that she is struggling."

Many women struggle with breastfeeding. Some continue and overcome their problems, others stop breastfeeding. There is no evidence that their babies of women who continue (because they wish to breastfeed) in the face of sometimes overwhelming difficulties do less well in terms of their physical, emotional health or in terms of their development.

If a mother becomes postnatally depressed from problems with breastfeeding then obviously this may affect her baby if the pnd isn't addressed and treated. If this is the case then she needs help either to overcome her problems with breastfeeding or to stop breastfeeding - but only if this is what she wants. Some women struggle and give up because of a lack of help and then go on to become very depressed because they are very unhappy to have had to stop breastfeeding.

"He would have been much better off having formula and me having medication as I would have been more relaxed and able to care for him better. There is nothing wooly and or wishful about that."

That may be true. What about if you'd stopped breastfeeding and he'd got a bout of gastro-enteritis? Or a chest infection? Or been unwell in some other way? How would that have affected your feelings about not breastfeeding? Babies do become ill you know. And I know that however stressful I found bf my first (and I had loads of problems), my anxiety levels went through the roof when my child was unwell. I'd much rather have coped with the stress of difficult bf than with increased episodes of illness in child.

In any case - does it always have to come down to this? Most cases of difficult, stressful breastfeeding can be overcome with expert bf support and care. It shouldn't just always be 'if bf is difficult formula will solve all your problems.'