To demand a harder hitting campaign to promote breastfeeding?

[WashwithCare]

I?m sometimes taken aback to hear mothers gave up bf-ing because it was sore, or involved feeding for hours at a time? What did they expect? What did they think newborns do? Didn?t they imagine that anything chewing on your nipple for 10 hours a day was going to nip a bit?

But then again, who can blame them? Breastfeeding for the minimum WHO recommendation of 2 years is practically unheard of. Nearly everyone will tell you it?s absolutely your decision, and fine to stop. The public info campaign is fluffy and vague about the benefits, and the baby on the follow-on formula milk box looks decidedly peachy. Lots of women are so mis-informed, they believe that formula is almost as good as breastmilk.

Is it time for something a little harder hitting? How about this for a tv ad; (scene 1) mum feeding her newborn a bottle telling her mate how hard bf-ing was. Caption: Breastfeeding Hurts. (scene 2) same mum, but now older, bald and sick, hugs toddler. Caption: So does breast cancer. FADE to caption: "Breastfeeding significantly Reduces your Life Time Risk of Breast Cancer". Followed by cheesy inspirational slogan.

Piglet, I was responding to SDTG who asked: How big is the difference between the number of breastfed babies and the number of formulafed babies who land up in hospital? What are the comparative figures.

I tried to respond with facts. Sorry if that sounded dictatorial but she asked.

That website is interesting, Carmen, but it extrapolates conclusions from the data that aren't necessarily there. For example, "Here an 18 year longitudinal study of over 1,000 children found that those who were breastfed as infants had both higher intelligence and greater academic achievement than children who were infant-formula fed."

Well yes, there probably is that correlation. But you will also find that breastfeeding is more prevalent among more educated, better-off women. It is probably that factor which leads to the higher intelligence of the children later. It is far from conclusive that the higher intelligence is to do with breastfeeding.

The 101 facts or the Dr Sears site, Brahms?

I agree that the research varies in quality and there is room to quibble on exact figures. The particular studies I cited are the more reliable ones as far as I can see. That's why I went with a conservative answer of three times the SIDS cases. 101 suggests up to 5 times.

I'm not so convinced by the IQ argument for the exact reasons you stated, but many of the health studies have been very well conducted.

Carmen. Your approach is very unhelpful.

If bf works out for people, great. The baby has had a great start. If not, then there are good alternative options. In Africa - yes. Babies die. In the UK where there is proper water and hygiene, it really and truely is small fry in the wider scheme of bringing up children. Maybe not in your eyes.

And for what it is worth - from my own (anecdotal) observations, bf babies are not necessarily healthier, cleverer and mroe importantly not ill. Everywhere I look, the sickest children I know were exclusively breastfed. I appreciate this is very likely to be nothing to do with breast v formula, and much more to do with the fact that the mums themselves are so wrapped up in doign everything perfectly that they are themselves quite unhappy (albeit proud of hitting those high targets they set themselves).

How dare you refer to cancer again in your justifcation - you disgust me. Crawl back into your warped hole.

The 101 facts one. It has been proven over and over again that a child's best chance of a good life is to be born into a wealthy family. All other factors are minor (which, incidentlally, is why the Tories can shove their 'children do better with married parents' policy up their arse). Wealth almost automatically = better education (although you can be educated without being wealthy). The SIDS thing - again, if someone has taken the time to educate themselves about how best to put a baby to sleep etc. then the kid is less likely to get SIDS. Leukemia, cancer etc. (especially breast cancer in later life) - very dependent on diet and exercise, and children from better-off families tend to eat better.

It doesn't matter how many studies are done, it is impossible to separate the variables in a satisfactory way. So the benefits which are often attributed to breastfeeding may well be due to other factors. We'll never know.

Yes, bf probably is marginally better and should probably be the automatic way to feed a baby (apart from anything else, the benefits for the mother, losing weight and not having to sterilise bottles etc. is a good reason to do it). But saying that your child will get cancer in later life if they're not breastfed is not borne out by the facts.

Well the OP has got what she wanted... a right royal bitchy bunfight about breastfeeding. And surprise surprise the OP has disappeared into the sunset!!!

I don't think I have an 'approach.' What exactly do you want me to say, PP? I answered the questions SDTG asked.

I believe people should have straight facts. It's a poor society when we have to suppress facts to spare feelings.

How on earth do I disgust you? Do the researchers who publish their findings disgust you?

I am very sorry for everyone who struggled to breastfeed. I accept there are some who can't, no matter what they try. I accept there are some who couldn't get the support they needed.

I'm on your side. I want support for those who struggle. I'm actively campaigning for that and I am personally doing a lot of work to help women and babies irl.

But this is a discussion about education and advertising. It's not a counselling session. Mentioning cancer isn't a great taboo. It's a fact that is relevant to that discussion.

FWIW, I did ask Carmen for the information, and appreciated her taking the time to answer my question.

But Brahms, what have researchers got to gain by biasing their studies towards breastfeeding? And I absolutely agree with you on your wealth point and accept that it is difficult to study because there is a tendency for more middle class women to breastfeed and those women have different factors going on.

But the cancer link is quite strong. Both the pre-menopausal breast cancer link and the leukemia link have been borne out by several studies.

[http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/91/20/1765?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESUL TFORMAT=&titleabstract=leukemia&searchid=QIDNOTSET&FIRSTINDEX=&fdate=10/1/1999 Here] is the abstract from the National Cancer Institute journal re: leukemia.

It indicates that researchers suspect the link comes from the interaction of breast milk on the immune system, rather than a lifestyle link.

The OP defo deserves a medal. She's a superwoman!

8 months pg, still bf her 3 year old, holding down a 'super high earning' job, baking and icing her own cakes and preparing 'healthy suppers' for her family as well as seemingly being a voluntary bf peer, not to mention that can fit all that in and still find time to post on MN too! Phew, I'm worn out just thinking about it! What a slattern I am!

I just waiting for the post that tells us she grows her own organic vegetables and raises chickens in the back garden, then I'm off to top myself

I bet her DH gets a blow job every night as well!

try that again

"I believe people should have straight facts"

Carmen, I think it is the assumption that those who choose not to BF for whatever reason do not have those facts which grates.

I am directing this more to the OP than to you, but it is the self-appointed 'fact giver' role which supposes FF mothers' ignorance of the facts which irks.

It is just possible that, armed with the same facts as you, mothers will make different decisions on how to feed their babies. It is churlish to assume that decision is borne of ignorance.

I'm not saying it's biased, just that because it's impossible to separate the variables there is no way of proving how strong the links really are. The scientific evidence is greater for the benefits of bfing up to 6 months or so, because those investigations produce discrete data, and it is within a narrow space of time. But trying to make a connection between a ff baby who gets breast cancer as an adult is ridiculous, as there are so many other factors which intrude during the 30-40 yrs between the two events.

Also, when it comes down to it, all researchers are just academics trying to enhance their own reputations, and you do that by conducting a study and saying 'This is definitive'. But then someone does another study which contradicts you, and someone else contradicts that. I'm not being a complete anti-science troglodyte, of course, but saying 'these studies say it so it must be true' is overlooking a lot of complexities.

i always find it interesting how some people seem to think the word "mother" means you have to have natural birth and a baby hanging off your tit how middle class. maybe you should get off your pedestal and go and live in a developing country where breastfeeding is a matter of life or death and not a privelege. i know, because i have. my personal definition of a mum is to keep my dc fed, safe, clean, well loved and give them plenty of attention. my ds was ff and my dd was bf due to very different circumstances. i made the right decision on both occassions. spare me the bf lecture you ignorant pleb

Carmen - I still don't see how more advertising about BF is going to help women who struggle with it....they have accepted that they should try and BF, but find it hard. Banging on about the benefits doesn't help them, whereas sympathetic and relevant support might. Which is sadly lacking in many areas (and as for the OPs suggestion that the very poor should save up £3k for a IMW, that is ludicrous - £3k is more than a lot of women spend on kitting out, clothing and feeding their baby for their whole first year or two!)

Tethersend, I think most people know 'breast is best.' The majority of people only have a hazy idea of why though. And all the IQ stuff is a bit of a red herring. Most Mumsnetters are pretty well informed, but I have spoken in a more professional capacity to groups of pregnant women and found that many of them are very confused about breastmilk v. formula. In the US particularly, formula manufacturers make all sorts of implied claims.

I also support women's choices. But those choices should be informed.

Brahms: Yes. I'm willing to agree that there are a lot of complexities. But I'm willing to defend well conducted studies because afaik, they're the best available information.

Secretgardin: 'Ignorant pleb'?

CarmenSanDiego - the law re advertising formula in the US is very different to the law in the UK, though, so you can't really compare the situations.

TheBoss: Completely agree with you. Advertising isn't about making 'failed' breastfeeders feel guilty

Targeted education/advertising does help pregnant women who don't know or are very hazy about the benefits of breastfeeding (and there are a lot of them, although this isn't reflected on MN). It would help them plan their support structure for after the birth in particular. I do think breastfeeding education should be more specific though.

And yes, I completely and utterly agree with you that support needs to be in place. Breastfeeding is a matter of public health and the health service should do all they can to support it.

Carmen - don't flatter yourself, was intented for OP

Charming

"bottlefeeding makes it 30% more likely their baby might get leukemia"

Really??

What research proves this? As Brahms has already stated, there are too many variables in the whole situation to be able to pinpoint one single thing as a cause. And any statement that includes the word ''might'' is not exactly definitive is it?

Tethersend - agree with you - sometimes this preachy 'how can you possibly want to do aything different now that I have enlightened you' attitude can be, in and of itself, enough to put you off participating in the debate any further.

That advert would be very informative

If the NHS really want to market BF , they should tell everyone about the nappies. I decided aged 15 that I would BF my future children because I read in a leaflet / book that BF babies poo does not smell and they poo far less often than FF babies. Mine pooed like fountains but it didn't smell bad.
Seriously , that is why I always wanted to BF. Less poo nappies and poo that doesn't smell = brilliant!
Crazy troll.