To think that if you're going to start an advert 'Breast feeding is best for your baby' you shouldn't turn out to be selling formula?

[SomeGuy]

I'm sure I'm not.

(This is an advert for Aptamil follow-on.)

Obviously it's not as bad as the ad with the bloke who says he's doing night-feeds for his baby (who obviously is over six months, oh yes), but still....

Are there any milk adverts that aren't actually secretly shilling for infant formula?

(Like the Aptamil follow-on milk advert 'Aptamil 3' - conveniently almost identical in name to 'Aptamil 1' and 'Aptamil 2', both of which are illegal to advertise in the UK.)

I fail to see how someone can conclude, from all the information given, that the risks of using formula and not breastfeeding are negligable. They are significant. Even in the "dubious" areas as mentioned by TheShriekingHarpy, is it not the case that some studies have shown no difference and others in favour of bf? No studies have found in favour of ff? In that case then surely bf makes a difference, albeit a slight one. And in the areas of gastrointestinal infections and respiratory diseases, we know that significantly more ff babies than bf babies suffer, some seriously - see the hospitalisation stats. This is not a negligible risk. It's not propaganda. FF is adequate, and in some cases life saving, and thank goodness we do have it - but it is not the physiological norm and it never will be. I don't believe it is fair to mothers to play the risks down, nor to overinflate them as some are guilty of doing, I know. Imo this has not been done on this thread, though.

Well there's a first. I have never before felt embarrassed for a poster on Mumsnet.

So, ShriekingHarpy, what exactly is your background then? What makes you so confident that your "take" on the risk/benefit analysis of breastfeeding versus formula feeding is so superior to that of the WHO, NHS, AAP and so on?

(BTW, there is more than one piece of research suggesting a protective effect of breastfeeding wrt SIDS.)

Hi, Glenn.....eh, harpy.

There is a large amount of research on SIDS and infant feeding.

It really is a poor show to pick one study and parade it as if it is the one piece of work that recommendations are based on.

Get back in that bath, why doncha?

I am with Puzzlerocks in her most recent post.

yes, I am now curious on Harpy's CV (for want of a better word) on Infant feeding.

Harpy tiktok has always been very clear on her background with regards to her advice on MN, would you mind just filling us in a bit on yours? Are you just a mother with strong opinions? Are you a scientist, a paediatrician? Do you work for a formula company?

Um.....but it is poor to pick one study and do this with it! Why is that 'unmitigated rubbish'?

SIDS and infant feeding recommendations form part of public health policy all over the world. This is based on a huge amount of research, which controls for confounding variables.

Sabire's link was not to a paper but to the FSID's statement on feeding and SIDS - to show she wasn't making it up about the UK's cot death charity's position.

Research differs. I think I am going to have to spell it out for you - I can't tell whether you are pretending to be ignorant of all this, or you really are, sorry.

Paper A controls for variables x, y, z. Paper B presents a purely observational picture. Paper C looks at babies in Country X. Paper D looks at developed settings only. Paper E controls for variables p,q, and r. Paper F looks at pathology results only. Paper G examines 10 different environmental factors as well as feeding patterns. Paper H....well, you get the picture.

I will also repeat what I said before as you don't read posts very accurately. The FSID was for a long time reluctant to make any statement encouraging women to bf in relation to reduction of risk of cot death. They did not want to risk upsetting bereaved parents with a recommendation they were not totally confident in, albeit as part of a multifactorial, possibly symbiotic, range of causes. So they waited until they felt sure enough that the link was strong enough.

I don't see the 'self-congratulatory gloating' in my post at all....you really are deeply unpleasant in your posts, you know, and deeply unconvincing.

It's just bizarre to imply that the evidence on SIDS and infant feeding is the same as claims that Elvis is alive, and not even remotely funny, given the nature of the topic (the quality of evidence that babies at greater risk of dying if not breastfed).

I don't think harpy can be a scientist, pofaced

might be a paediatrician though

Hardly a paed...with such a horrible attitude?

hope not tiktok - just remembering that Professor George Haycock when he came on here for the webchat [and advocated use of dummies to prevent SIDS when research very flawed] saying that the benefits of breastfeeding were overinflated.
Not remotely suggesting Harpy is Prof Haycock though!

Why do people mess with tiktok on this subject - they just come off looking stoopid.

Look - she had read more than you on this topic, she clearly keeps up with emerging research, it is obviously part of her job, or at least a major part of her life.

Of course, you can come and debate with her. But when the gulf in your respective knowledges (not 'wisdom', or 'righteousness', but just knowledge of peer-reviewed RCTs and similar) becomes obvious, do yourself a favour. Don't try and catch her in a lopphole, make hysterical allegations, or get sarky. She doesn't do these things, and you look ridiculous by comparison.

Ha!

I think it's true that sometimes, bf advocates stray away from the scientific when it comes to discussing the 'benefits' of bf, when the evidence can never show 100 per cent cause and effect...that's in the nature of the scientific method though, rather than in the nature of breastfeeding.

Breastfeeding is a lovely thing you can do for and with your baby. Most mothers want to do it, not because they feel forced or pressured, but because of a deep feeling inside them that they want to connect, emotionally and physically, with their baby in this way. Even mothers who don't find the experience very lovely will do it, because there is that wish to connect, I think. None of this fits into a scientific paradigm very easily, of course.

On a public health level, more breastfeeding would have positive health outcomes which would save the health service a lot of money over time. We should resist pressure to diminish or dismiss the health effects, which are well-evidenced in ways other than randomised controlled trials (which can never happen), and we should resist commercial undermining of breastfeeding which is what the formula ads do.

People like Harpy are a bit of a mystery, though. Why should she want to throw her unpleasantness around on this topic?

Last post was to po

Big sloppy kisses to charitygirl

Has Harpy gone then? I was so interested to know her background...

Harpy - sabire's link was to the FSID's statement. They (the FSID) may well have linked to a particular paper; that does not matter. The research on SIDS and infant feeding is extensive and much (of course, not all) controls for confounding variables.

I have not been especially unpleasant, or rude to you, though I have pointed out your own shortcomings in the manners department.

I think you are suggesting that I am taking on multiple identities in order to create an impression of support. You can check with mumsnet about this if you wish. I am not, and doing something as daft as this is something I wouldn't do.

I'm a long-standing contributor to mumsnet, and I strive to be tolerant...I manage it, on the whole I don't appreciate being accused of fanaticism and intolerance, blustering and being absurdly misinformed and the other behaviours you've apparently seen in me, but I'm confident enough in my knowledge and approach not to take it all too personally

You've been insolent tiktok! Bend over and I shall punish you with this ruler!

[sorry but can only laugh at this point]

I am tiktok.

[waits for others to do spartacus impression]

I AM TIKTOK

although wondering what is the driving force behind TSH and whether she will at least acknowledge this.

Just to explain a bit more to Harpy: the study you have written about from the FSID site is a systematic review. It is not itself an 'observational' study. It takes other reviews, meta-analyses, RCTs and non-RCTs, and a whole load of other types of research and picks out the quality studies. Some of these will have controlled for confounding variables.

No study can say that infant feeding is causative in some way - the science won't allow it to do so. The only way you could do that would be to take a few thousand mothers and babies, divide them into 2 matched groups and order one group to bf and one to ff, and to keep them locked away from the rest of the world to make sure the only difference between them was feeding method....and all this is a mite unethical to do.

So essentially even the RCTs are 'observational' when it comes to infant feeding.