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.)

pofaced - the research is as I said a maelstrom.

Human infants get a whole load of antibodies across the placenta so they are born like that...but this does not mean they are fully protected. Antibodies in breastmilk appear to work in two ways - locally, in the digestive tract but also systemically, via (possibly) the bloodstream...in studies looking for specific antibodies, made in response to the pathogen the mother has met since pregnancy, infant blood samples turn up with the same antibody as in the milk so it must have got there somehow.

The handy thing about breastmilk and immunity is that antibodies are made dynamically - they are actually made by the mother first when she meets a pathogen, and then they either travel to the breast or else mirror antibodies are made in the breast (I can't remember without looking it up). Either way, they get into the baby in the breastmilk next time he feeds. Similarly he can order up his own antibodies when his mother kisses him or touches him or of course when he is at the breast - the mother's body takes the order to make what he needs

that is interesting tiktok, thankyou.

fruitshoots, I think you are oversimplifying the problem massively.

"I don;t think it ever convinces a happy bfer to switch to formula and grass roots education and support make women choose bf over ff."

The statistics just do not bear this out. There are obviously women who have the education and support which you speak of which would make them confident in persevering with bf but this is a very small group. The prevalence of formula adverts increases the sense of formula being the norm which is an enormous problem for any woman who is not part of the exclusive educated middleclass over-30s group to which you belong.

The way I see it - formula exists. People use it. Some through choice, some through no choice of their own. I come under the last category. I've got no problem with the companies advertising. What I do object to is the level of disgust and outrage advertising evokes which seems to suggest that those of us who FF are virtually poisoning our babies.

In fact I am firmly of the belief that formula should be made available on free prescription to those that need to use it,(and by need, I mean, physically cannot breastfeed due to physical difficulties on the part of the mother or baby) but that's a whole nother can of worms there!

Harpy - I did ask you to read better, but here I am again, telling you I don't believe anti-aging ads.

Sorry it was a bit difficult for you to understand.

You actually can't say, legally, 'banish wrinkles' - you can say 'reduce the appearance of wrinkles'. I am sure some ads break the law, nevertheless.

What manufacturers do, in the absence of permission to make spurious medical claims, is create an image and a dream.

They do the same with formula ads. They highjack breastfeeding imagery for instance. They also make spurious claims - 'the best formula' or 'the closest to breastmilk' - and use packaging and branding to attract customers. I think mothers who use formula should be enabled to choose a brand based on the health needs of their baby - not on the colour of the tin or a slogan. If it really doesn't matter which brand they use, then lets be honest about that and tell them, on the pack.

Why should infant health not be protected in that way?

'The composition of infant formula is similar to breast milk, but it isn't a precise replica because the exact chemical makeup of breast milk is still unknown'

Well actually, there are about 50 ingredients in your average formula milk whilst breastmilk has at least 450. One of the biggest problems is that its made from cows milk and cows have very different growth patterns and needs to ours.

There is a very interesting recent study actually where they managed to match the level of protein in a formula to that in breastmilk and those babies fed long term that formula showed similar growth patterns to breast fed babies. Only a small study but interesting all the same.

Anyway, my point has no emotion, just fact. Doesnt make it evil poison, just responding to your statement.

I don't agree that normal formula should be on prescription. That means doctors get to decide if a baby needs it and I think the decision should be a mother's. If she isn't brastfeeding, for whatever reason, her baby needs formula - that's for sure. I don't want doctors approving or disapproving of her decision.

Specialist formula - for rare medical conditions - is already on prescription, which is as it should be.

I don't think formula is poison. I think breastfeeding is socially and culturally fragile in this country, and it needs protection from commercial and industrial interests who are best served by there being less breastfeeding. Advertising and marketing are aimed at increasing sales and this means knobbling the competition - in this case, breastfeeding.

Just as important, women and babies who use formula deserve open, transparent and health-based information; currently they get pretty pics and slogans.

You don't need to have advertising to sell a product that's needed. I buy safety pins and coat hangers and shoe laces. I don't think I have ever seen any of them advertised.

Advertising is intrinsically manipulative of people's feelings and desires. The choice as to how and what a baby is fed is too important to allow mothers to be exposed to this sort of manipulation - particularly in the absence of good quality, independently produced information about formula and formula feeding.

It's not about whether advertising works in some crude way to directly persuade a woman to choose ff when she might have breastfed; it's about advertising creating a climate of opinion about a formula which lessens resistence to using it. It creates a climate of social ease about formula and formula feeding, even in the face of medical information that it puts a babies at increased risk of illness - a basic and incredibly important fact which you will not find alluded to in any of the extensive marketing and information materials produced by formula companies for parents.

I simply don't think that 'normalising' ff on an advert makes it a better choice for some, I think those people have seen all of their friends and family ff and that's what makes it normal.

Thanks for the kind words before, sabire

Tiktok, of course every product you buy has some marketing value somewhere.

frutshoots - what you say is true of some people, of course it is. But not of everyone, by any means.

In any case, shouldn't the people you refer to, who are doing what friends and family do, be able to have decent information and to avoid the meaningless slogans, to enable them to select a brand?

fruitshoots: "of course every product you buy has some marketing value somewhere."

And your point is?

My point is that given we have a range of formulas available in this country, all of them making claims and spouting slogans and dressing up their packs in nice colours, should we not be controlling this marketing, to enable open and health-related honesty to inform the decision to formula feed?

Or do you just shrug and say, 'doesn't matter that this is the sole source of an infant's nutrition for his first months...can't fight the right to market a product in any way that shifts it off the shelves in the greatest number...."

This thread reminds me of a previous thread and a post by phishfood which I thought was a good point and often not thought about re: formula advertising.

By phishfood Sun 02-Aug-09 09:44:10
Add a message | Report post | Contact poster

Sorry if this has been said on this thread already, have tried to read most posts between nappies and feeding.

I think that to a certain extent the full intent of the adverts has been missed. Its no solely about capturing the 'just had/about to have a baby' market -- its about capturing the future market. SMA etc of course run the ads to increase there current sales, but that isn't their only goal.

These companies know that younger women and girls are seeing these adverts. A young girl or woman probably won't know about the rules of marketing formula and won't know that there are different types of baby formula (eg. follow on milk) but from an early adulthood will subconsciously see that happy smiling babies have SMA, that helpful dads do the night feeds to make it easier on mum. In years to come, when she starts a family, that comes back to her. She is then more likely to choose FF from the outset.

It is very clever marketing and companies spend millions each year on this type of long-term marketing techniques. Its one of the main reasons they banned smoking adverts from sports, because the same effect happens. If you become brand aware when you are younger it stays with you.

I do not have the answer.

Very good point, conga. Until I started reading threads on this subject I had absolutely no idea of the concept of follow-on formula as distinguished from newborn forumula etc. Formula was formula to me and the adverts were advertising formula-feeding - I certainly didn't distinguish between ages of babies. So depressing.

Wasted my breath asking you to think your crummy point through, then, didn't I, fruitshoots?

TBH, whilst stealth ff indoctrination is all around it simply backs up people's decisions. I thought the aptimil ad was for bf for the first 10 seconds and I was really impressed. Perhaps that's what La Leche or whoever should do?

My point was everything is advertised whether it be on packaging or screaming out of the TV. Even packageless packaging has some thought about the consumer.

fruitshoots - but the 'stealth' indoctrination you're rightly aware of includes marketing (the baby clubs; the sponsorships; the freebies to HCPs; the 'care lines'....and all the rest) which (my view is) needs to be controlled as part of legislation.

The bf support groups work very hard on this issue as well, and there are campaigns like the Baby Feeding Law Group (for the UK) and Baby Milk Action (international).

Oh I said I would not get involved, but never mind, I want to say this, (it's probably a bit late in the thread now anyway) - to the people who don't understand why it is such a big deal, it is because in other countries where advertising is unrestricted, it is very difficult for mothers to establish breastfeeding.

Obviously part of the outrage to do with this is to do with the fact that clean water is not always available, families don't have the resources to sterilise bottles, people are not as educated or informed as we are in the West with access to the internet etc helping us to make an informed choice, but I have seen posts on here where a well-informed, Western family living in one of these areas had breastfeeding utterly ruined by their experience in the hospital which was practically controlled by the formula companies. (And sorry to use stereotypes and Western/developing world type language - I am generalising here I know.)

I think it is naive to believe that if the formula companies were allowed free reign, the same would not happen here. Of course you will always have people who question and do their own research but the majority of people - intelligent people too - do not, because they don't see a need to. Why would you question a doctor about a health issue?

Of course in comparison with hospitals controlled by formula companies, an advert which says "Breastfeeding is best... but our formula is good too" seems ridiculously insignificant, but it's about the fact they are always pushing the boundaries, finding loopholes, trying to make things seem acceptable so that they can push a little bit more and wheedle their way in, and if you let them get away with one thing they will be pushing for more. It's not about making mums feel guilty, it's about preventing the marketing from taking control.

Perhaps the comparison is lost (probably because once you are at this stage you are past the baby stage ) but it's like when you say "No" to a child watching more than a certain amount of TV, because you know if you give in to that before you know it it will be on 24/7.

fruitshoots - yes, everything is packaged (or most stuff is....you can get unbranded unpackaged stuff still) to increase sales. Point of this debate is that when it comes to formula, the marketing should be restricted and controlled, to stop spurious claims and obfuscation.

Shrugging shoulders and saying 'oh well, it's a commercial product, obviously they want to sell more, what can you do?' is not the only option!

But I've never heard of them. bf is mwcentric only, as far as I'm concerned. For some it represents a little unwanted bullying at the beginning of their baby's life. Perhaps if there was more bf on the TV young girls would actually bf. Perhaps the indoctrination should be counterbalanced with more visible action by bf groups. Perhaps there is a 'normalising' of bf needed? Let's not make ff feel terrible but make bfders feel more accepted. More vunerable mothers like younger mothers feel that they have a choice to bf.

Perhaps bf groups are not in tune with the audience they wish to promote to?

Heard of the campaigns.

Bertie - that's why it has to be legislation if we want any changes to take place. You are right about loopholes and lack of legislation permitting serious abuses.