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.)

mainly due to lack of sanitation and clean water.
also formula manufacturers providing free samples or subsidised formula, or giving offers on it, only to up the prices afterwards meaning that poorer families can no longer afford it. breastfeeding has been knocked on the head and mothers have to use less formula to make up each bottle because they can't afford it- child is left malnourished.

but it isn't only in the third world that children are dying, yes, it is less frequent over here, children get ill but can usually be treated, but there are still deaths that are directly attributable to being fed infant formula

for example:
contaminated formula

but it isn't just in the developing world!

formula fed infants in the uk and america are more likely to die in their first year than breastfed babies

I take the point about other countries and agree that there are entirely different issues to be considered there. However I was referring only to the UK in my post and I still feel that in this country we should not be subjected to this or other, similar kinds of censorship. I take no side on the b/f or bottle feeding debate with regard to UK families - my view is that if it works for you and your child then thats fine.

I would be equally miffed if adverts for peanuts were banned because nuts can cause anaphylactic shock in some people here in a country where the risks and advantages on such matters are usually widely available and understood.

I appreciate that I am onto a loser here, Thisisyesterday, as I said, I don't expect others to agree! :O

Oh bugger, that symbol was supposed to be a friendly smile! I wish I could edit my frequently overlooked typos on here!

see here
and
here

hardly the same thing valhala

peanuts are not going to be the main source of nutrition for a new baby unable to take the decision on whether to eat them itself!

this is from wikipedia:

Toxins

Infant formula contains significantly higher levels of manganese than breast milk ? 80 times as much in soy-derived, and 30 times as much in animal milk-derived. This level of manganese and its presence in infant formula has been implicated in learning disabilities such as ADHD.[35][36][37]

[edit] Health effects

Use of infant formula is cited in numerous health risks. Studies have found infants in developed countries who consume formula are at increased risk for acute otitis media, non-specific gastroenteritis, severe lower respiratory tract infections, atopic dermatitis, asthma, obesity, type 1 and 2 diabetes, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), eczema, necrotizing enterocolitis and autism when compared to infants who are breastfed.[38][39][40][41]

Although some early studies have found an association between infant formula and lower cognitive development,[42] other studies have found no correlation.[38] However recently more questions have arisen. It has been discovered that iron supplementation in baby formula is linked to lowered I.Q. and other neurodevelopmental delays.[43]

I take the point about other countries and agree that there are entirely different issues to be considered there. However I was referring only to the UK in my post and I still feel that in this country we should not be subjected to this or other, similar kinds of censorship.

The issues are the same. The only difference is that they are restricted from doing some of the unethical things they do in other countries (pushing milk powders in hospital, branding babies with the Nestlé logo, etc.) here.

We are all mammals, a word derived from mammalis (of the breast), and it's pretty ridiculous to argue that infant formula is being 'censored' when only 3% of British babies are being exclusively breastfed at five months.

Breastfeeding is a highly marginal activity in the UK, something that's been achieved by the formula companies in the space of a hundred years, against millions of years of evolution.

So much for censorship.

Yep, a bad example, I know, but the first I could think of before I took so long typing an answer that the area of conversation changed.

In my own case I can only say that I made a decision which I was happy with and felt in the cases of both DC, one of whom was b/f then bottle fed and the other of whom was bottle fed from day one. Both have been in very good health all their lives thank goodness.

I guess that this UK mum just doesn't like the inference that she doesn't know what the hell she is doing and needs the government to push her in any one particular direction. I'd feel the same if the decision had been made to advance bottle feeding and ban the promotion of breast feeding.

L'Oreal are unable to make certain claims about their wrinkle creams in adverts - is that censorship too?

Formula marketing is a triumph: it has persuaded women worldwide to switch from something that is ideal, and free, to something that is expensive and not as good.

I was damaged by formula as a baby - I was also whisked off like UnquietDad's baby and given a bottle after I was born. Unfortunately I turned out to have a dairy allergy and ended up a very sick little infant. Fortunately for me my mother was able to wrest control and I was subsequently breastfed.

I guess that this UK mum just doesn't like the inference that she doesn't know what the hell she is doing and needs the government to push her in any one particular direction.

It's not about the government. Industry has successfully pushed the country in a particular direction. And I don't think that the majority of people make up their minds by considering both sides - formula feeding is entrenched and is backed up by billions in annual revenues. Breastfeeding doesn't generate any revenue.

I'd feel the same if the decision had been made to advance bottle feeding and ban the promotion of breast feeding.

You're implying that the two are just the same. WHich isn't really the case.

like UnquietDad's baby

ahem.....

I don't know about the third world, but when I was in hospital they brought round the ready milk trolley like a sweet trolley in posh restaurant, but of breast feeding support I saw nothing, despite being on a ward with two very young Mums.

My DS was on SCBU. I had one visit from a nurse collecting my breast milk, after that -despite clearly having a note on my chart to say I should be assisted to express breast milk - I was entirely left to my own devices. I had a machine I couldn't work, painful boobs, and was surrounded by woman cuddling their babies and I was alone.

I object to lip service being paid to the support of breastfeeding when the reality is they are selling - like those telesales people who tell you they are running a survey.

but i don't think it's because they think people don't know what t're doing.

at the end of the day breastfeeding is the optimal way of feeding a child both personally and as a whole.
it is important for the country as a whole because a breastfed child is less likely to fall ill for example (saving the nhs money!)

the government have a duty to ensure that ALL children are given the best possible start in life and they can't do that if formula manufacturers are allowed to advertise, supply free formula and basically do as they please

it is well documented that those on lower incomes, and particularly people entitled to formula vouchers have much lower rates of breastfeeding.
mums who are less educated are more likely to formula feed, and those who come from a background of formula feeding rather than breastfeeding are more likely to do the same.

marketing breastmilk substitutes DOES affect the amount of people who use them, otherwise the companies wouldn't spend millions advertising them
and if we know that allowing them to market their products lowers the rate of breastfeeding then they shouldn't be allowed to do it

Leonie if she's anything like mine, in a few years your DD will be able to recognise the logo and tell you off when you're desperate for a Kitkat

Thisisyesterday, I think I have added a fly into the ointment of the documented surveys then, as I don't come into any of the categories listed as those who are more likely to feed formula. Trust me to be awkward!

Anyhow, I'm not here to cause argument, just thought I'd say it as I see it. Thank you for the figures, interesting stuff. I hope that all the mums here are happy with their choices and their babes healthy, whichever option they take.

yabu
why not post in the right topic

My ds is autistic. He has no imaginary play at all, - until one day a couple of weeks ago I saw him pretending to feed a doll a bottle of milk.

Don't tell me that ff isn't so embedded in our culture that we are immune to the effects of it's promotion.

I breastfed my ds and am currently bfing my dd.

2shoes - huh?
She was asking if she was being unreasonable, so isn't she in the right place?

(Not being arsey - just wondering what you meant)

or he

Oops, sorry. Must. Pay. Attention.

YABU - the advert is for formula and not breast feeding. They acknowledge that it is advised that breast feeding is best but they are still selling a product. Don't like it, turn the advert off.