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.)

"Breastfeeding is not ideal for all."

is it ideal for all children, which is what i said. and regardless of how the mother feels about it, it IS the optimal form of noirishment for her child.

the only reason it wouldn't be is if the child had a lactose intolerance or other disorder that meant it physically could not tolerate breastmilk. that, however, is a teeeeeeeny tiny chance

the reasons from wikipedia on circumstances in which formula can be beneficial (note, not OPTIMAL!) are on the whole based on the mother, not on the child. things like mother not feeling comfortable.

it has actually been proven that exclusive breastfeeding is best for children with HIV positive mothers and it is what the WHO recommend.
a child in ANY of those situations is better off with breastmilk either from the mother or donated, than with formula

of course it is a useful tool. but it is never better than breastmilk (except in the case of something like a lactose intolerance in which case thebaby would have to have a totally lactose-free formula)

Harpy: "As proven by Michael Kramer recently, the suggestion that formula exacerbates the risk of obesity, asthma, sids etc etc etc is both archaic in nature and unfounded."

Michael Kramer did not 'prove' anything. Sloppy use of words like 'prove' don't help any discussion. He pointed out the relative weakness of the obesity and asthma links with formua. His explanation of what he said, in the Independent: www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/press-twisted-my-words-says-academi c-in-breastmilk-row-1766147.html

The use of formula has measurable risks to infants, all over the world, in all settings. In the UK, it is a sensible public health measure to restrict its promotion and to ensure any marketing of it is truthful and honest. This is a political position: unrestricted marketing activity of anything at all is favoured by extreme right-wing libertarians who shout 'censorship!' at the idea even the most vulnerable in our society (newborn babies) need protection from commercial pressure.

We're all influenced by marketing - it wouldn't happen unless we were. It's not just advertising, but public relations, influence-peddling, sponsorship and so on - all carried out at a cost of many millions of pounds a year in the UK by formula manufacturers.

The 'competition', in marketing terms, is breastfeeding - free at the point of production and delivery, but socially and in today's world, culturally quite costly, and as a result, not always easy to do by any means...so needing quite a lot support.

That support includes some justifiable restriction on formula marketing. I don't object to formula being freely available in shops and stores, at a permanently low and affordable price, with proper information about contents and preparation on the pack.

What do we get? Expensive powder in expensive packages with stupid slogans (which treat adults like morons, BTW - why does no one object to that?) ...and the laughing babies on TV.

Harpy: women with HIV/AIDS should definitely nt breastfeed for 2 years and no one suggest they should. Current best practice is to breastfeed exclusively for 6 mths and then stop.

This gives the best balance of protection against vertical transmission and protection against other illnesses. The exclusively bit is important - the worst rates of vertical trasmission are seen in mothers who use formula and breastmilk.

There is no reason why women with TB cannot breastfeed, but if a mother is very ill and unable to care for her baby herself, then of course the baby needs formula.

No one suggests babies who are ff are 'knuckle dragging apes'. But on a population level, there are health deficits in babies who are ff - this is not controversial!

ShriekingHarpy - the HIV transmission is lower when exclusive breastfeeding is the case. BF should cease as soon as any other food/formula is introduced, as mixed feeding is shown to have a far higher rate of transmission. At least thats how I understand what I have read, anyway.

Oh x-posted with tiktok.

I think follow on milk is fine, I figured that it wouldn't do any harm and might do some good for DS instead of cows milk, so he had it in his sippy cup. Sneaky advertising is sneaky though.

As a slight aside, I have seen on here people saying their babies where fed formula in the hospital without their consent. Am I going to have to rip someone's face off when I go in to have this baby? Oz hospitals are very pro-breastfeeding so it was never even suggested. Anyone know whether the Queen Charlotte midwives (in particular) are likely to try this? I wouldn't want to have to hurt anyone!

Morloth, I don't know about Queen Charlotte's but I was at Kingston Hospital with DS and there was a great deal of pressure to give him top-ups. I was tired, emotional and blue and figured it wouldn't hurt so just gave in. This was after they told me that I didn't have enough milk, my baby was starving and my refusing was damaging his health. I still don't know if that was true but when I have DC2 in Feb I am going to go into that hospital armed to the teeth with information so that I can make better decisions - and tell anyone who needs telling to back off if necessary. I can't imagine that they can feed your baby without consent unless say you are very ill and unable to give it.

Thanks stillstanding pressure I can handle, but if I am out of it there might be a problem. Hopefully this will just be an in and out job so I shouldn't be there too long. I wonder if a note on the baby bucket thing would help?

Top ups in the first couple of days? Surely the actually milk doesn't arrive until day 4ish in anycase? DS was pretty much on colustrum until then.

You would have thought, no? It really was very confusing - at the time and now. Am going to start another thread about this as really am determined to get this right next time and I fear that I digress from the OP!

It is a government requirement that formula packets must state that breasteeding is best. Is it also the case that follow-on milk ads must also give this message?

It is illegal to advertise infant formula in the UK but there is a loophole which means it is legal to advertise follow-on formula.

Harpy - you well know (or should) that using words like 'prove' to mean 'said' are greater errors than a typo...and just because you have yet to see studies which show 'measurable' differences in outcome doesn't mean they don't exist. I will post some later.

Your posts here indicate a lack of knowledge in this field - and some pretty flaky knowledge of the academic conventions. The use of the word 'may' is academic convention - no one can prove epidemiological cases, because of the limits of epidemiological evidence. You find the word 'may' in these contexts.

No one is calling for an 'outright ban on infant formula'. I explained I was in favour of free availability and a low cost.

I think marketing should be restricted and controlled....just as we do for many legal products (including alcohol and junk food, as it happens).

Of course there is a risk of HIV transmission - the lowest rates of transmission are seen in exclusively ff babies of HIV mothers and exclusively bf babies of HIV mothers. I explained that.

There are many, many studies showing measurable risks to formula feeding in developed and developing settings.

A UK one is from the big Millennium cohort - obv epidemiological 'cos you can't have RCTs with infant feeding -

Quigley MA (2007) Breastfeeding and Hospitalization for Diarrheal and Respiratory Infection in the United Kingdom Millennium Cohort Study. PEDIATRICS Vol. 119 No. 4 April 2007

It's on the web.

The argument that formula feeding produces worse outcomes than breastfeeding is a bit daft, though. Formula is the intervention. The physiological way infants feed is on breastmilk. The onus for research is on the question 'what is the health impact of this intervention?'

To clarify: I meant the argument to 'prove' breastfeeding is better than formula is a bit daft. The onus is on the intervention - formula - to prove it is safe and beneficial.

??? Harpy....I don't get you. When I talked about 'current best practice' with regard to HIV/AIDS, I thought we were talking about situations where formula feeding was not 'acceptable,feasible, sustainable and safe' ie a lot of the developing world where HIV/AIDS is endemic....were we not? Or did I not check that we were?

I think in the UK, formula feeding for women with HIV/AIDS would be the safer option, yes.

My knowledge of epidemiology is pretty fine, ackcherly....

Here's what I don't understand.

DS is on a prescription formula. There are perhaps 3 that he could be prescribed which I have discussed with the Paediatrician and the dietician. I had a very specific query and called the manufacturer who was really nervous about making any representations qualifying absolutely every sentence with, 'this would need to be discussed with your Paediatrician...'

There is a general sense that the prescribed formula, or rather the brand, should be discussed in a professional environment. (and with respect do not include H/Vs in this catagory)

So, why not the commercial fomulas? (formulae? )

I think this is bloody fabulous, it shows a woman bf her baby and then says (as most people don;t bf after six months) that there's a product to support you. What's the issue?

If there isn't a 'genuine need' for formula and it was 'just created'what do mothers who can't breastfeed do?

NH, They should let their babies die

Wow. Who said that babies should die?

What an odd thing to say.

I'm getting a bit lost here.

There is and always will be a need for a safe, cheap, easily storable and easily available product that ensures babies who are not breastfed (for whatever reason) can feed and grow.

What is important, surely, is that the need for this product is not artificially increased by the use of spurious health claims, or inducements to recommend on the part of midwives and others, or advertising that makes it look like something it isn't.

We're all susceptible to marketing - and as babies' health and well-being is affected by our own susceptibility, I think there is a strong case for restricting and controlling the marketing of formula.

I don't understand why this is equated to suggesting that babies who are not breastfed should just die....

TheShriekingHarpy, what?

In which 'popular opinion' are formula fed children 'knuckle dragging apes'? That's a complete straw man argument.

Funnily enough it is not legal to promote alcohol as a baby food either. We are talking here about what is fed to children, not to adults who have freedom to make choices - though whether alcohol should be advertised is a whole other debate, that's true.

In the wikipedia links above, financial pressures and societal structure are two of the things that pro-breastfeeding campaigners work to improve. They are not unchangeable aspects of human nature but constructs that can be changed to benefit babies and parents.

In the wikipedia links above - absence of the mother - for crying out loud, when has a breastfeeding campaigner ever said that a baby should not be fed at all, rather than be fed formula??? I agree that for a stressed parent it can sometimes seem like this, as your howling child once again seems unable or unwilling to just bloody FEED and people want you to keep trying - but it is NOT the same as telling a man who is looking after a baby that he should be trying to breastfeed - when has that EVER happened!

Too cross to carry on.

Perhaps this is due to people being lax about the hygiene of formula feeding, such as not cleaning the equipment thoroughly enough? I'd like to know whether there are still "health deficits" among those who follow the FF instructions to the letter.

"there are health deficits in babies who are ff"