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 met a paediatrician who didn't know that the powder supplement he was suggesting to supplement breastmilk was basically cow's milk.

I have to say, being "a paediatrician" doesn't protect you from being pig-ignorant about matters concering lactation and infant nutrition. Even one from Yale.

Peace and lurve and sloppy kisses, Harpy

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Spiesel

ahem.

Well based on my recent saturday night viewing cogent critical study of the movie of The Da Vinci Code, I wouldn't trust any Yale academic full stop. Judging by Robert Langdon they are clearly nutjobs of the highest order.

(Or is he Harvard? Perhaps I'd better widen my generalisation to include the entire American Ivy League just to be on the safe side.)

VLC - I met a mother whose paediatrician who sent her to A&E (after an outpatient visit in the same hospital) to arrange for urgent tests for severe diarrhoea in the baby...who had soft, yellow, sloppy poo of the happily and healthily breastfeeding newborn.

Make the entire USA, YV, why doncha?

Well on the plus side we now know who to consult about our children's emergency nit situation.

tiktok - @ yellow poo.

I find the worst and most offensive one to be the "do I look like I've got an upset tummy?" "Do I look like I'm susceptible to infection?" or however it goes. It's vile, attack by stealth....

at YV

I don't see the point of the advertising either.

They can't even use the 'encouraging users to switch brands' excuse that was used for fags.

All of the information argument is a bit too - mainly because different babies are suited by different ones I think.

I'm still breastfeeding my 8 month old but have been giving him a beaker of Aptamil Follow on (from the carton) during the day to get him used to a cup - I've see a couple of people mention that cows milk is just as good, is this true?

Also after watching the video clip about nestle at the beginning of this thread I will most definitely be boycotting nestle!! Is this still going on today?!?! I find it unbelievable that they can get away with it? It's sounds similar to the way drug dealers operate...

Nothing spesh about Aptamil...cows milk fine in cooking but not as a 'main drink' according to guidance until 12 mths. A cup of cows milk once a day at 8 mths would seem to me to be ok...using common sense

"Sabire, please don't talk down to me. If you had studied past first degree level then you would be well aware that critique of academic papers is extremely important and you would have been encouraged to do so."

Have studied past first degree level, and actually it's part of my present job to read and critique research related to my field.

"I am not saying they are wrong, merely pointing out that you also can't tell me they are right unless you have also read and critiqued them all"

You are suggesting that there will always be confounding factors that are outside the researcher's knowledge or ability to control for. I agree that there may be - but I don't arrive at the conclusion that you do, which is that this makes the research categorically unreliable and therefore worthless.

I also challenged you to be more specific about the research you are criticising. I think that's fair. I personally have read a lot of research into issues surrounding infant feeding over the past few years and am certainly familiar with the large and very high profile studies on which NHS recommendations are based. With respect I would suggest that you probably aren't familiar with this research, as you yourself admit in your post of 14.39

tiktok, please help!
ds is now 16 weeks (11 corrected for prem) and has only gained 5 oz in 2 weeks. i don't understand - why would my supply suddenly run out after nearly 4 months?

i will feed him more often at night (every 3 hours) but what else can I do?

my hv says to start giving a ff, when can i do this?

I want so badly to keep bf him please help me!

i feel like my heart is breaking.

chibi - will try to help, though not on this thread.

Please start a new one in breast and bottle feeding

have started thread

Sabire, my point is that no-one actually knows what all the confounding factors are.

I would imagine if you critique research you are used to taking nothing at face value so am rather puzzled by your faith in bf studies particularly.

Not that I'm saying they are wrong, they may well not be.

The NHS does make recommendations based on flawed research however - the not eating peanuts in pg advice springs to mind.

It just amuses me somewhat that people on mn very often jump to discredit any research which questions the benefits of bf (there was a piece I read recently), but if anyone dares to question research in favour then someone has to jump straight onto them.

It is perfectly reasonable to critique all, that's all I'm saying.

I'm still breastfeeding my 8 month old but have been giving him a beaker of Aptamil Follow on (from the carton) during the day to get him used to a cup - I've see a couple of people mention that cows milk is just as good, is this true?

Hi, my point was that these products serve no purpose. DS was fed on SMA Gold. When he reached six months we switched to SMA follow-on, because it was marketed as a 'follow-on milk', and the marketing as such made us think that it must be a good idea to move onto it at the earliest opportunity.

It didn't agree with him, so we switched back to the SMA Gold product until 12 months, when we switched to regular cow's milk. We were advised that the follow-on products are completely unncessary, and not 'beter' than the first milks.

Cows milk is only recommended from 12 months, but the issue is more the way the formula companies market their wares:

Formula 1 - from birth - cannot legally be advertised

Formula 2 - from six months - heavily promoted, often using babies that look of Formula 1 age

Formula 3 - for toddlers - this is marketed rather less than the Formula 2, presumably because the cross-promotion for Formula 1 is much less.

Formula 1 does not suddenly become unsuitable at the age of 7 months. If they scrap Formula 2, and sell Formula 1 from birth to 12 months, and Formula 3 from 12 months+, that would be quite adequate.

The only reason for Formula 2 to exist is to cross-promote Formula 1, which they are not allowed to advertise.

I don't think people would be very impressed, as mentioned earlier, if cigarette companies tried to circumvent the smoking ban by constantly advertising 'Marlboro 2' candy cigarettes on primetime TV.

Incidentally, here's an example of the sort of marketing that SMA do for their Infant milk:

www.smanutrition.co.uk/SMA-Products/SMA-Range/First-Infant-Milk/Comparison/tabid/601/Default.aspx

1. It is compared against breast milk
2. It is given MORE ticks than breast milk
3. It makes numerous scientific claims, none of which mean are intelligible to a lay person - (anyone know what reduced beta-protein is? And knows whether or not having it in their baby's formula is a good thing)
4. It claims that their formula is 'closer to breastmilk' in terms of weight-gain, and references scientific studies to prove it.

Pharmaceutical companies are not allowed to make similar claims about their products, so why can SMA do it?

And their 'follow on milk' from 6 months, which they claim is better for infants of that age than first formula is compared not against breastmilk, which would be the obvious comparator as the natural food of babies of under a year, but instead against normal cows' milk. This is despite the fact the protein profile they are claiming makes their formula superior is one that is modelled DIRECTLY on breastmilk.

See www.smanutrition.co.uk/SMA-Products/SMA-Range/Follow-on-Milk/Comparison/tabid/607/Default.aspx

"And I think the study of health outcomes of groups of individuals over the course of a lifetime is so complex and difficult that we'll never really fully understand the myriad of subtle ways in which how a baby is fed might affect them."

Well quite

SomeGuy: there is a real concern that follow-on is actually not suited to many babies. Constipation is a common problem, due to the high iron content. The high iron content is a marketing point - 'ooh, it's got more iron than cows milk, it must be good, 'cos babies of this age need more iron.' Yet the high iron content is bunging up babies all over the place...that's what excess iron does. It's not nice for little ones to be uncomfortable like this - I don't suppose it does long term damage, but it certainly can lead to anxiety and the use of other meds to cure the constipation, as well as distress.

As you say, the comparator should be breastmilk, as babies are not usually drinking cows milk at that age yet.

Breastmilk has actually rather less iron in it, but it is used more easily by the body, so quantities of iron are irrelevant. Babies of this age start solids anyway, so don't need high levels of iron in their milk.

The whole thing is a trades description and health promotion nightmare, and the only reason it is tolerated is because the manufacturers are big and strong and have sneaked this whole thing in.

Yes it did cause constipation in my son.

Do you know if breastmilk is significantly different at 12 months compared with 6 months?

Breastmilk changes over time, yes, in line with what we know from other work is the changing nutritional needs of the baby, SomeGuy.

Cdn't say without checking what the main diffs were between 6 and 12 mths though.

So I may as well stick to the first stage formula? Incidently I have been, and still am, taking an iron supplement for breastfeeding so he probably gets enough iron from me anyway? Is that the only added 'benefit' they claim follow on to have (as well as being able to advertise it, therefore boosting their brand name)?

This thread has really opened my eyes...