Sparkly - thankyou. But not to worry - I expect responses like yours. Whenever anyone on these boards raises a concern about formula use they get flamed, no matter how hard they try to keep the comments objective and not make personal criticisms of individual mums.
"for what its worth......breast is best but a mothers mental health is paramount". This is so simplistic. A mother may be depressed because she is finding feeding difficult. She may feel less depressed when she stops, but sometimes, she continues to feel sad. The answer to difficult breastfeeding isn't always 'stopping bf is best'. There are countries like Norway where almost EVERYONE breastfeeds, and breastfeeds for months and months. We should be asking ourselves, what is it about the way mothers are living in this country that is making something which is normal physiological function, something that has been a central part of motherhood and infancy since we crawled out the bogs, emotionally and physically impossible for so many of us?
Instead we say 'oh it doesn't matter' and shout anyone down who says it does.
Would also want to point out that higher rates of breastfeeding in general are associated with better maternal postnatal mental health. Bet there are just as many women who don't breastfeed who would have avoided PND by breastfeeding, as there are women who are tipped into PND by difficult breastfeeding.
"what's the alternative...starvation"
The alternative is vastly better breastfeeding management in hospitals, so that hardly any women are put in this difficult situation to start with. Unicef argues that about 1 in 10 babies born in UK hospitals might benefit from some supplementation at birth - either with expressed breastmilk, colostrum or with formula. In my local hospital over 50% of breastfed babies are getting formula before discharge because of the lack of support for breastfeeding on the postnatal wards, plus the widespread use of pethidine which is leaving a lot of mums with babies too sleepy to latch on in the first 24 hours.
And if it wasn't for people like you accusing anyone who shows any concern about this situation of being a 'zealot' then they'd probably start to get to grips with it all a bit faster.
"i felt the ref to child abuse and mental health very severe to put on here".
Why? If breastfeeding might affect the manner in which a mother interacts with her baby in a way which minimises the likelyhood of abuse - isn't this interesting and worth knowing about? Whose interests are protected by making this subject unmentionable?
"but if you aren't able to\don't want to breastfeed for whatever reason then why shouldn't you be able to see advertisements about formula".
If you are choosing the main source of sustenance for your baby for the first year of its life, surely you shouldn't be looking at adverts to help you decide which one to use, as adverts are - by their nature - the least likely source of honest and unbiased information about a product.
"i really don't think an advertisement is going to prevent anyone from bf do you".
Thats a very simplistic way of looking at it. Advertising and marketing doesn't work that way. Formula companies do everything they can to present their product as scientific, safe and good for babies. They create an aura of acceptability, trust and reliability about their product. They will never tell you about the risks to your baby of using their milk, and beyond putting in tiny letters 'breastfeeding is best for babies' will also not point out how their product compares to breastmilk (its main competitor) in respect to how well it's tolerated by babies.
And the wide availability and high profile of formula does impact on breastfeeding rates. There is clear evidence of this in country after country.