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.

WWC - I know that the Swedish paper came in for criticism but I would rather trust the peer-reviewers on the journal than Mumsnetters when it comes to science (no offence MNetters!). I am a scientist myself and can differentiate between fact and poor understanding. I am also a middle-class woman with 2 degrees whose son failed to gain weight when breast-fed. I had to give up and feel v guilty about it (does that make me selfish?)

What I don't understand is how you think your attitude is going to persuade women to keep trying? Surely support and advice is the way forward rather than insulting women?

So HappySeven - have you read the actual study yourself?

Because the mumsnetters who criticised the way this study was reported, had read it and also accessed the UNICEF response to press reaction to it. The concerns that have been expressed in response to the reports on this research are about how the findings of the study have been misreported in the press, not about the research findings themselves! The study is a very interesting one - but it's been very bizarrely interpreted by many journalists keen to find a controversial angle on it.

What was that about untreated decay in the study you quote WWC? So my comment about not being able to access free dental care was not quite so 'doh' after all...

I see on other threads you complain about the incompetance of your nanny (apparently she fails to do enough housework aswell as look after your three year old) and that you brag about your OH being a 'super high earner', and yourself as not being far behind him.

How would you feel if someone posted a thread making outrageous judgemental statements about working middle class mothers being 'selfish cows' who were more concerned about their next skiing holiday, than with caring for their own children?

Quite rightly you would be outraged surely? Think about it.

Yes you muppet, it wasn't natural for MY son, SO my BM went down the gutter as that's where it belonged as it COULD HAVE killed him!

Very clearly and evidently, you fail to see from the end of your nose and see that in some cases breast is NOT best!

simples!

Yes, I have read it thanks. I found it today and while I don't take it as gospel (no good scientist would) I think it's an interesting theory. I intend to breastfeed the baby I'm carrying BTW so it's not that I'm anti-trying, just anti-bullying. And I'm not convinced the OP has found a good way of trying to persuade women to try. I was heavily encouraged to continue BF my first son by my HV and midwives but sadly didn't get good advice on how to get enough milk into him. He was on the breast for an hour and a half, never came off on his own and didn't gain weight so he obviously wasn't latched on correctly. My HV told me I'd never bond with him I gave up but thankfully she was wrong.

Yes, I have read it thanks. I found it today and while I don't take it as gospel (no good scientist would) I think it's an interesting theory. I intend to breastfeed the baby I'm carrying BTW so it's not that I'm anti-trying, just anti-bullying. And I'm not convinced the OP has found a good way of trying to persuade women to try. I was heavily encouraged to continue BF my first son by my HV and midwives but sadly didn't get good advice on how to get enough milk into him. He was on the breast for an hour and a half, never came off on his own and didn't gain weight so he obviously wasn't latched on correctly. My HV told me I'd never bond with him I gave up but thankfully she was wrong.

"then there are quite a number of positive things that can be done, without insulting or offending those women who have chosen not to bf."

Of course, but women can't make an informed choice as to whether to breastfeed/continue to breastfeed unless they are aware of the advantages as well as the disadvantages of both breastfeeding as well as formula feeding. If you hold back information on the health risks associated with formula feeding for the purpose of saving the feelings of those people who can't/don't wish to breastfeed, then you are distorting the issue in a way which, in my view is morally indefensible. We are adults and we have a responsibility to make an informed choice for our children.

But the information is already out there, isn't it, unless you have some secret access to reports the rest of us haven't seen?

The question remains, what is the most effective way of increasing the number of women who not only bf initially but then continue to bf beyond 6 weeks?

What do you reckon? Should we be standing in the aisles in Tesco haranguing women buying formula? Shoving statistics in their faces telling them that they'll die of cancer if they buy that tin of SMA? Calling out "Are you thick, you low life, don't you know you're baby is going to suffer because you're such a selfish cow?"

In my mother's generation, practically no-one breast fed, those trends are reversing, I see no need for using what amounts to emotional blackmail on those women who make their own decisions for their own reasons.

If you want to do something, do something positive. Why not campaign for all public buildings to offer breastfeeding facilities? Why not ask cafes/restaurants to advertise broadly and loudly how bf friendly they are? Why not demand that every woman is given the opportunity to rent a breast pump and is shown how to use it before she leaves the maternity ward? Why not stop all this anti top up stuff, which seems to force women into choosing either, or, and accept that the world isn't bloody perfect and doesn't always sing to your tune?

Wubblybubbly and CreditCrunchie for government!

HappySeven, I don't really understand what you're getting so exercised about. Even the most enthusiastic promoter of breastfeeding wouldn't want a baby to be breastfed if it was detrimental it his or her health.

You're frothing at the mouth over this and being very abusive, as though someone has actually suggested that you've done something wrong in not bf a baby who was seriously allergic to your milk. Nobody has suggested this!

Doesn't change the fact is that only a very, very small number of babies are better off on artificial milk - that for the vast majority their mother's own milk is healthier and safer for them.

And Yes I have read the reports, before I am called ignorant etc.... in these reports, the WORD "may" is branded about too much, I also dont believe in the SIDS claim either, as simply their is no definite way in how a child has died from SIDS, so therefor theories and just that a "theory" babies who are BF also die form SIDS as does FF, it also says in one of the report that they "believe it may" help protect against SIDS as BF is best.

on all of the reports supplied I have question to every singe one of them, as it does not guarantee to protect against cancer, SIDS, etc..... it just MAY protect against them!

I am saddened by this thread. Ignoring Op for a moment, I am sad to see how many people for whom bf hurt. and those that think this is normal or that it is supposed to. is this not he real problem - that people think it is difficult and that it hurts ?
I struggled. I had to go to he bf clinic many timeas with both ds's. they were fab. but it never hurt. and i never thought it was supposed to. I assumed, as Flamingo said at the start. that if it hurts that something was wrong, probably the latch. but I don't think the adverage woman knows this. or the average MN'er doesn't seem to. and we spend copious hours talking about bf'ing here. so if we haven't managed to get this basic fact across, aren't we a bit doomed. sadly ?

Standanddeliver - I am sorry if I have been abusive but am not sure I have been (could you point out what I said that offended you so I don't do it again?) My baby was malnourished but not allergic, could you be confusing me with someone else? Would love some good advice when the time comes so that I manage to bf this baby. If I'm brave I'll come on here and ask for some.

"But the information is already out there, isn't it"

Sort of. Almost all bf promotion materials are angled in such a way that formula feeding is presented as the acceptable 'norm', with bf presented as something 'extra' healthy - ie 'breastfeeding reduces the likelihood that your baby will get an ear infection'. I believe that the majority of people who use formula are not aware that there are any risks associated with its use for, them or their baby. I find this a bit jarring and odd, as the concept that there are additional risks attached to bottle feeding is common currency among health professionals working in maternity services.

"The question remains, what is the most effective way of increasing the number of women who not only bf initially but then continue to bf beyond 6 weeks?

What do you reckon? Should we be standing in the aisles in Tesco haranguing women buying formula? Shoving statistics in their faces telling them that they'll die of cancer if they buy that tin of SMA? Calling out "Are you thick, you low life, don't you know you're baby is going to suffer because you're such a selfish cow?"

Is anyone on this thread arguing that women should be 'harangued' or abused for not breastfeeding? No? What's the point you're trying to make then?

The OP was (clumsily) trying to make the point that bf promotion might be more effective if it used the same sort of tactics as many other health promotion campaigns - ie warning people of the risks of certain behaviours, rather than emphasising the benefits of the behaviours we want to encourage. She put it very badly, but it's actually an issue which has been very widely discussed by health professionals engaged in health promotion work.

Nobody is arguing that women should be personally abused for not breastfeeding or made to feel like failures. It's about what approach will get the best results - 'carrot' or 'stick'. I'm sure you can see how both these approaches are used in relation to other health issues - smoking, healthy eating etc. Why shouldn't they be used in relation to infant feeding as well?

Actually I can see far more justification in using these sort of health promotion tactics in relation to baby feeding than I can for other health issues. One of the biggest problems women experience in establishing breastfeeding in the UK is linked to heavy use of formula by bf mums in the first few weeks after birth. At a national and at a individual level, formula use damages breastfeeding (ok, ok, I know many people successfully mixed feed, but it doesn't change the fact that many, many others have their bf curtailed because of supply problems caused by formula use). It's not enough to just encourage bf by emphasising the positives of bf if this is the case. Women have got to be discouraged from using formula too readily if the overall aim is to stop women from failing with breastfeeding in such large numbers.

"If you want to do something, do something positive."

Yes - some of us are doing this anyway! It al needs doing!

"Why not stop all this anti top up stuff"

What - stop telling women that using formula while they're trying to establish breastfeeding has strong chance of curtailing their breastfeeding in the medium and long term? And not making available to them information about the disadvantages to them and their baby of mixed feeding as well as the advantages? Why? How can women possibly make an informed choice if they're being given half truths, and misled in this way? I think it's an absolute betrayal of mothers not to give them the fullest picture possible, so they can make a properly informed choice as to whether they want and need to supplement, or not.

That is right.

If a baby is latched on correctly, breastfeeding should never be painful.

There is so much misinformation about regarding breastfeeding, which the op is also propagating despite her evangelical zeal!

Many women do experience pain, but that is because we no longer instinctively know how to latch a baby on to the breast 'correctly'. If we saw women around us doing it every day, as girls do in 100% breastfeeding cultures do, we wouldn't be having these problems.

However we have to work with what we've got like I said before, so there's no point telling women breastfeeding is easy when it clearly isn't for lots of us. But on the other hand, with the correct knowledge and support it can be for some women.

But that is no reason to tell anybody they have to do it, even if they don't want to!

Meant that as a response to Oblomovs post. Not quick enough, me.

"on all of the reports supplied I have question to every singe one of them, as it does not guarantee to protect against cancer, SIDS, etc..... it just MAY protect against them!"

Some mothers smoke all the way through pregnancy and give birth to healthy babies. Other mothers smoke and lose a baby to stillbirth. This means there is no clear, unambiguous 'cause and effect' relationship between smoking in pregnancy and stillbirth. This is also true of drinking in pregnancy and fetal alcohol syndrome. Actually this is true of every health concern I can think of. I'd be interested to know in your own life if you disregard all advice based on medical research or whether you are selective. For example, do you ignore the advice on avoiding listeria in pregnancy? Or all the SIDS advice on putting your baby to sleep on his or her back, avoiding overheating and exposure to cigarette smoke....

TBH I'm wondering how old you are and how much schooling you've had that you can make such bizarrely ignorant comments. You don't understand the first thing about health research - really you understand so little it's difficult to know how to challenge your opinions, and I suspect it's a waste of time anyway, as you're clearly someone who has a very narrow frame of reference and isn't to be swayed by reason or logical argument.

But well done to you for one thing LittleMrsHappy, your comments are so silly and infuriating that I've found myself throwing my hands up and saying 'oh why bother!', so now I'm going to get off mumsnet and deal with the laundry explosion on my upstairs landing.....

HappySeven - apologies, my comments weren't directed at you. You haven't offended me at all! I just got a bit confused about who said what (oh dear - happens all too often these days!)

Oblomov - I think the problem comes when every feed is agony, throughout, and yet no one can find anything wrong. As it turned out for me, no one had checked for tongue tie (until it was too late at 4 months when my milk had all but dried up) and I'm sure that had a lot to do with our problems.

Incidentally for me it wasn't just the pain - although spending every feed in tears and stamping your feet in agony is not fun. DS was also a complete nightmare to feed - we had to swaddle him to stop his arms flaying about and it still took me and DH to get him on the breast and keep him there.

With both situations combined, it's no wonder I got seriously upset and depressed with the whole thing really.

People have made good points about Sweden and mixed feeding. The fact is that in this country we are way too prescriptive over the divide between breast and bottle. Sometimes the best solution is both. If I'd tried to carry on with exclusive b/f I'd have given up completely within 2 weeks instead of mixed feeding for 4 months. Some breast milk is better than none.

Anyhow, I'm feeling a terrible sense of deja vu here - I've written all this stuff sooo many times before.

happyseven standanddelivers post was aimed at me.

I cannot see the post where she has said the thing you have mentioned, can you C&P it for me please.

SAD also why bring another thread into this, I haven't! nor on the other thread, it was a general obversation from this thread, so really your comments on it is neither here nor their tbh. and unneeded to be brought herex

"But that is no reason to tell anybody they have to do it, even if they don't want to!"

Last word: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Who is telling anyone that they 'have' to breastfeed - whether they want to or not?

Please - heartfelt request - can we address ourselves to the opinions that people actually hold and express, rather than imagined directives and slights?

Nobody here or anywhere else wants women to be harangued, abused or insulted for not breastfeeding. Everyone here believes that women should have a choice as to how they feed their babies. Even the OP! Please can you all stop attacking views that nobody here has expressed!

Right I am barging in a bit here having flitted in and out of this thread all week but I have been pondering on something today -

I wonder if a good way to help increase the number of people who initiate breastfeeding (i.e target those who wouldn't normally consider it) would be to simply make that first feed part of the normal birthing experience- so once the baby is born, it's placed on the mother and if it needs help to latch (which is the normal run of things it shouldn't) it's given gently without really even going into how it's going to be fed in the future.

Perhaps if more women got a positive experience of that first (very important) feed they might consider continuing.

I think telling women that they are being selfish and risking their baby's health is pretty close to haranguing, abusing and insulting those who don't (or can't). FWIW, I can't understand anyone who doesn't even try, although I'm sure they have their reasons.

But it's really no surprise that most women who give up do so in the first couple of weeks - that's not lack of commitment or persistence, it's just that it's the hardest and most painful part of the whole experience. If you're going to be put off, it's the first couple of weeks that will do it.

I am NOT selective in any medical research I see it from what it is, IT MAY help to reduce cancer, IT MAY help to reduce SIDS! I dont go about scaremongering people into thinking that it will! as this thread does! and WWC comments are somewhat narrow minded and infuriating, ignorant and self righteous amongst other things.

Im sorry I dont (not srry at all tbh) that I simply dont condone this way of thinking, as it is all theories, I take FACTS not theories and then will pass comments in a non scare tactic way and let the person decide for themselves what is the best option for themselves.

I can read endless amounts of research, but when it "cites" it MAY help I will therefore take it with a pinch of salt, then I will take it more seriously by adding lifestyle and diet into the equation and then take it more seriously, but I will not be dictated one just one source of method which is biased!

Your own stance on the matter, makes your look like a BF activist and not a supporter that you claim to be, you can only see one side of things and not put the WHOLE context of ALL information and make a opinion from it.

BUT when people do, we get called upon our education or called ignorant or lack of understanding, when simply we just dont sing from the same hymn sheet!

Standanddeliver.

First off, I just don't buy that smoking and ff are in anyway equal in the health risks they pose.

Secondly, the premise that ff is the norm is born out by the stats you yourself have quoted. You may well be outraged that ff is considered acceptable by most women, but in all honesty, you're going to have to take that on board if you're going to get anywhere.

The terms and the manner in which you express your outrage suggest that ff is almost poison, which is not going to convince anyone, is it?

Any campaign has to reach real women in the real world and quite frankly, you can't expect to achieve utopia overnight. What is better, giving up bf all together for ff, or maintaining bf and using forumla to top up if you want to?

Why do you think top up feeding curtails bf? What are the stats on this? I introduced top ups pretty early on, against all advice I should add. It didn't affect my milk production and DS was happy to take a bottle or the breast, whatever was offered to him. Whilst my hubby gave DS a ff, I expressed. Dh loved being able to be involved in the feeds and he would usethe expressed milk to give DS feeds and give me a well earned rest.

I'm not only a mother, I'm still a woman in my own right, with my own needs. If that makes me selfish, thick or uneducated, so be it, I can live with it.

oh gaelic, i so understand. ds2 was tongue tied. undiagnosed. they snipped but not properly done. I so understand. i was battling through wanting to bf. I suspect you and i have so mucch in common.

wubblybubbly, I so wish I am not stressed today, as I could and would be able to get my words out more coherently. and you have said what I wanted to say more clearly and precisely.

My ds2 has been poorly with yet another chest episode and amongst other things. Im dyslexic and it becomes more noticeable when I am stressed.

x x x