Why would the charity Tommy's think it's a good idea to "team up" with Aptamil?!

[tabouleh]

Tommy's and Aptamil's midwifery training grants.

Unbelievable.

It gets the Aptamil logo onto Tommy's website.

Tommy's should be encouraging BFing not giving space to a formula company on its website and sposoring midwives!

Aptamil must be so pleased with themselves.

Agree with MoonFaceMama.

Just finished politics of breastfeeding so now this makes me so angry.

I have nothing against ff at all, just hate the way bf relationships are deliberately, subtley and constantly undermined just so that a company can make a profit.

Tommy's aren't at fault here, as said they are a charity and need funding. But Aptamil certainly are.

I agree with MoonFaceMama - I would not at all have a problem with Tommy's recieving funding from Aptamil.

The logo on the website is iffy, but if it was confined to that (and not on all Tommy's leaflets, etc) then that would not bother me too much either.

It's the training courses which are worrying. That's not anti formula, it's just a concern that the "breastfeeding" information is not exactly going to be unbiased.

I mean, the information on their own website about breastfeeding is full of subtle wording which is strictly correct but taken at face value reinforces many breastfeeding myths.

www.aptamil.co.uk/breastfeeding/article/healthy-diet-for-breastfeeding
Loads of stuff in here implying that inadequate diet, not drinking enough water, and not getting enough rest can affect BF. (Which is all untrue.) It doesn't explicitly state it so it's not incorrect, but it is misleading.
Reinforcing the myth: Breastfeeding requires a special diet and is restrictive.

www.aptamil.co.uk/breastfeeding/article/the-science-of-breastmilk
Discusses all the ingredients which are present in synthetic form in their formula, and does not mention things like antibodies passed from mother to baby which are impossible for formula to recreate.
Reinforcing the myth: Formula is just as good as breast milk

Also on this page:
"LCPs can also be made in the body from essential fatty acids found in leafy greens, nuts, vegetable oil and seeds, but the process is not always very efficient, and may not supply enough LCPs to meet the needs of young babies." Oh, better use their formula then with LCPs handily added, unless you eat seven portions of oily fish a week! (I notice no mention of the fact that they can add synthetic LCPs as much as they want but they have no evidence that they actually do anything)

There is more stuff (and much more blatant advertising once you get to the post 6 month stuff) but that was the worst of the under 6 months breastfeeding "advice". If this is what they have on their website I dread to think what spin they will put on the training courses. And while it's easy to take with a pinch of salt advice found on a formula website, it's hard to do the same when HCPs are telling you something, and you shouldn't have to - the information HCPs have should be correct!

BP, i have finally got the politics of bf from the library (have been in a que...buy more copies library) so will read and come back and be even more angry with you!

BuongiornoPrincipessa totally agree. Why can't the profit from the people who want to formula feed, safely, in developed countries, be enough? They are bloody well off already, why do they need to make MORE money? The third world promotion is despicable. There is more than enough food to feed the world and yet greedy formula manufacturers would take the most natural, freely available food in the world from the mouths of babies in order to line their own pockets.

Am just ... well ... disgusted with Aptamil. As my DH just remarked, once you've got the HCPs in your pocket, you've got vulnerable, susceptible new mums in your pocket too (he's a GP and I recently made him read the Politics of Breastfeeding - he's now recommending it to his colleagues). I was re-reading this the other day and thinking about the effect of those subtle ways of undermining womens' confidence in their ability to feed. The Aptamil website is already a lovely example of this.

Careercarer

I started this thread.

I am not a "BF fascist" or a "sanctimonious b*tch" that is a horrible term to use.

This is not "all bull" - if you disagree with things on this thread, please respond in a sensible calm manner without throwing attacks around please.

hildathebuilder, disagrees with me but she has stated her point of view politely.

"Ever felt like a complete failure to your tiny child because there is something so natural that you cannot provide?"

YES - I am that "failure" so you can't throw your "BF fascist" tag around at me.

I was glad that there was formula to feed my baby, BUT if there had been less advertising, less FF culture in this country then there is more chance that I'd have got the help I needed from family/friends/HCPs - are you aware of the massive inverse correlation between FF advertising and BF rates?

Please try and let go of your upset wrt to Formula - I think you'd like this blog - Fearless Formula Feeder.

People who have struggled to BF but not had to move to FF DO NOT understand fully the feeling and the issues - but why should they - they have not had the same experience.

I hate the way FF companies make false claims/push formula in devloping countries etc - there is no need for this.

I passionately believe that a charity like Tommy's should not be sponsored by Aptamil.

MoonFaceMama it really made my blood boil! And the formula manufacturers probably love it that the bf debate is always reduced to bf v ff (mother v. mother) as it takes them out of the frame. We're so lucky to have a 'choice' (albeit in many cases uninformed) in feeding our babies, most of the world does not.

meant a safe choice, obviously they have a choice to formula feed in the developing world, just not a safe one

Danone 2009 Annual Report - thought I'd see what info the Aptamil parent company's financial report gave about medical sponsorship/charity work etc.

See page 18/57 on the pdf - very interesting to see their sucessful strategies laid out.

eg in Indonesia:

^"Working with midwives to improve public health. Promoting best practices in nutrition and hygiene for newborns and their mothers is the heart of Srikandi, a program launched by Sari Husada, one of our Baby Nutrition units in Indonesia. With mortality rates high? 35 per 1000 for children and 3.07
per 1000 for mothers?better public health means longer, better lives."^

^"Srikandi relies on a network of 110,000 midwives to disseminate lifesaving public health information, especially in isolated rural areas. In the program?s education component, midwives study infant nutrition,
learn how to advise mothers on breastfeeding, and visit model maternity hospitals. A second component instills personal initiative: trainees, who number 6000-7000 a year, are encouraged to submit
practical ideas for reducing infant mortality or improving nutrition or hygiene. By late 2009, 500 projects had been submitted, 150 selected,and 83 implemented with funding from Sari Husada. Run in partnership with the Indonesian government,
Srikandi has won several honors,
including one recognizing its contribution to the Millennium Development Goals established by the United Nations."^

Complete and utter conflict of interest!

Just in respect of one point, formula can be like medicine in some limited circumstances. It's a bit off point for the rest of this thread - as it turned out - but Infitrini for example is extremely high calorie, which when you have a prem baby who won't put on weight is often prescribed to boost weight gain (or get any weight gain) It is usually given alongside ebm for those infants who need it, as bf is better generally for the very prem babies due to the risks of NEC etc. To a lesser extent nutriprem, neocate, nutramigen are all also sometimes prescribed as they are like medicine in some circumstances. Fortunately I did not need to give these to my DS but I did have a number of conversations with consultants where we were actively discussing whether it was best to carry on with BF given my DS tiny weight.

Careercarer - you forgot ' breastfeeding nazi'; that's the usual preferred term...

I'm not anti formula, I'm anti formula advertising. Like I said above to hildathebuilder, read The Politics of Breastfeeding. I think all women should read it, not just nursing mothers.

slhilly - I have never seen that claim (that breast size influences how often babies need to feed) made in any of the 50+ books on BF I own/have read, on any of the courses I have attended as a doula and BF supporter, on any impartial website, or, well anywhere actually.

Oh, other than from my exMIL

hilda those prescription formulas along with all other prescription drugs are prohibited from being advertised:

Prescription drugs are not like any other consumer product. Advertising for such products aims to get consumers to buy them. Prescription drugs are part of a complex system of medical care that must be ruled first and foremost by science and careful human judgement, not the profit motive. The chief purpose of prescription drugs cannot be consumption for consumption?s sake. (from Pharmacoeconomics 2001;19(2): 109-119)

So those formulas could not put their brand names on the Tommy's website.

I am shocked that a charity such as Tommy's would associate so widely and publicly with Aptamil and allow them to so visibly sponsor training.
I hate the promotion of the link to the "aptamil professional" website.
However, what it really highlights to me is that perhaps those of uswho're interested in avoiding this kind of thing need to give more to such charities ourselves.
How many people on this thread have donated to Tommy's? Some, but not all I would think.
I wonder if a quick donation, referencing this Mumsnet discussion might be in order, along with a letter sugggesting that you'd donate moreif such alliances were not made in future...

WhattheWhat what a very good point. From my position I do not feel able to tell people to give money to Tommy's, Bliss, Sands etc on a forum like this. In RL I do very much, but I accept we all give to charities which touch our lives in some way. (or at least we do when we have money to do so) despite not criticising Tommy's for taking their 30 pieces of Silver i think its a very good idea, as if they thought they could get more money by not taking Aptamil's money then the incentives would be different. Which is tangentially back to an earlier point about the nature of the society we live in

Tabouleh I note (and in some ways accept) your point about the prescription formulas and advertising, but someone had commented formulas weren't like medicine. That was the poitn i was responding to. Sometimes they are and we all have to accept that it is the formula companies who make those precription formulas which are sometimes crucial (as are non prescription formuals if you can't BF). If Aptamil and their research and the midwives they fund even remotely helps with looking at the dietary needs of prem babies (which would be consistent with Tommy's mission) and the forumals they prescribe I personally have no problem with this. Everything in life is a balance and I still think that Tommy's must have actually undertaken the balancing exercise when taking the money, given we don't and can't all donate as individuals. We just don't have the information about why they took the money. perhaps we should ask them?

this is on their website (that BB linked to)

In most cases you will probably spend more time resting than you would normally, which saves energy for breastfeeding.
No - most breastfeeding mothers, once they have recovered from the birth do NOT spend any more time resting than any other mother. This makes it sound like breastfeeding is an illnes

Whilst breastfeeding, it?s important to make sure you?re drinking plenty of water. You?ll need about 2 litres a day as it?s essential to the production of breastmilk.
Oh here we go. The seed of "supply problems" is planted

It?s advisable to avoid alcohol when you?re breastfeeding as it can pass from your blood into your breastmilk and on to your breastfeeding baby.
Whose advice? Not the NHS's

Although you can still enjoy a cup of tea or coffee, keep an eye on your caffeine intake as too much can cause over-stimulation in your baby.
Another reason to make breastfeeding awkward and life changing. If you think there's a problem try cutting it out. If not, don't

All scaremongering crap designed to wreck breastfeeding. And they are going to train HCPs

does anyone think Aptamil has an aim other than its own profit in this?

Despite my other posts, and the fact i am clearly in a minority herem I certainly don't. I am sure its about Aptamil's profit for them, and about receiving money for Tommy's. That's why I see this as a balance and part of the nature of the society we live in.

But Hilda aptamil's profits rely on undermining bf so it has far reaching consequences especially as the targets are hcps. It's not just a simple transaction of research funds for an advert, and they know that.

Hilda. Regarding the nutritionall requirements of prem babies. There is already am ideal food for them. Breastmilk. Mothers or donated. But aptimil would not make money from this. So instead of improving infrastructure for donation of bm they might encourage further research into formula? From which they would profit? I donate my bm for free. They come from chester to leeds to collect it which seems ridiculas.

sorry for crap composition of post.

I'm not condoning Aptimil in any way. However, Tommy's can't get similar funds to those they receive from Aptimil from breatfeeding mothers - they don't after all need to buy anything to breastfeed and breastfeeding supporters are themselves charities or the NHS.

I agree with Hilda really. Why not take the money if it is on offer from Aptimil?

I think the onus is on Tommy's to balance out the promotion of Aptamil by promoting BF more. If they have any part in these training grants, then they should be in a position to do that.

The problem is that accepting money from formula companies to operate training courses (midwives, I assume, have a number of training hours they must do every year and it costs the hospital money to provide this training) contributes to the formula feeding culture in this country.

This culture is what leads to crappy support for breastfeeding mothers, the persistence of silly and counterproductive advice and, ultimately, the reasons most women try to breastfeed but do not succeed.

Some of these women are left with a sense of guilt and sadness for the rest of their lives, which sometimes manifests in hostile attitudes towards those who wish to promote breastfeeding.

So, no, I don't think that Tommy's should accept Aptamil's money: if they were paying for a new incubator it might be different but they are paying for midwives to be trained using Aptamil's paradigm of infant feeding.

And so the cycle continues. New midwives get the wrong message, established midwives get their misinformation reinforced, new mothers don't always get the help they need, breastfeeding mothers who want to be helpful get called fascists.

The only people ultimately benefiting from this are, of course, Aptamil.

I said before that i didn't have a problem with aptamil funding tommys research. But this was a post of no strings hypothetical funding in my head which obviously doesn't happen in the real world.

The fact is there is a conflict of interest there. For example my post above. Would aptamil be happy if tommys decided to spend their "donation" improving infrastructure for donation of bm for preemies rather than, say, researching artificial foods for them? I doubt they would "donate" again.

Also, just to be clear...is there even a suggestion that aptimil have given tommys money for research? Or are they just using them to add a venere of respectability to their attempts to misinform hcps?