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.

sort not post. Sorry. Phone.

Thatsthe whole point niecie bfing mothers do not have the financial clout of global companies, therefore they need protecting when they are most vulnerable. they also need good advice and support, which is why it is so important that midwives aren't misinformed/influenced by marketing disguised as "training".

Aprimil should put the £20,000 into finding a way of manufacturing elephant or horsemilk for infants as it is, in fact, 'closer to breastmilk' than powdered, adulterated cow's milk with spurious LCPs added which are in fact made from fungus and algae and do absolutely NOTHING for the infant and EVERTHING for the profits of the companies that use them DESPITE what the FDA and the EFSA say about them not being approved as a satisfactory foodstuff. The companies themselves have in fact said that they do nothing but would be good for marketing so lets keep them. On the side of the breastfeeding mother MY ARSE.

Hilda thanks for responding about the prem baby's need to put on weight. I am entirely sceptical but it is interesting anyway.

I have read that mother's with different sized breasts need to feed differently but size doesn't indicate this. It is the amount of little round things which store the milk. So a small breast can have 50000 little round things (can't think of the name) and therefore store more so a greater quanitity is released at let down. Can't think where I read this - will try and think. Of course milk is manufactured quicker in an 'empty' breast so if your baby is hppy to carry on suckling they will get another let down pretty sharpish - if they are a distractible little thing though, they might like the little and often thing... That is why some women can happily feed every 4 hours and some women can't without a hungry fussy baby and a dwindling supply. But anyway, a breastfeeding relationship is so much richer than this little fact so...

MFM, it's not research but training bursaries for midwives. Aptamil are spending just £20k on brand awareness for the most important HCPs of all.

Buongiorno - that is what I am saying. It is up to Tommy's to use make sure that the BF message does not get shoved to one side.

Tommy's need the money. Presumably they aren't batting people away from their doors with other offers of cash. IMO they should take the cash but make sure that the Aptimil message is suitably balanced when these training courses are put together. If they can't do that then they shouldn't take it. It is their responsibility to protect the breastfeeding message because they aren't going to get funds from anywhere else to do that.

Presumably it is Tommy's that is doing the training. Why else would Aptimil need to donate the money if they were doing it themselves? On that basis I think Tommy's should have some input. If they don't then their are selling their charitable souls for nothing imo.

'they're' not 'their are' . [blush}

Yes Ruby you are right - bigger breasts are made up mainly of fat. A woman with small breasts may well have more milk glands (little round things! ) than a woman with larger breasts. Or vice versa. So it's nothing to do with size at all...

I am willing to believe there is a need for supplemental feeds to a degree when babies are born premature, after all, in the past a lot of premature babies would not have survived. However I am also pretty sure that the need is exaggerated, and would be even more lessened if kangaroo care was practised much more.

BB - and yes, kangaroo care def would help as it actually helps them grow better doesn't it! I don't understand why human milk won't help them grow better and healthier than thicker (?) formula?!?!

at the end of the day do we really think that some women will go:

oh aptgamil are spomsoring Tommys. hey you know what, I am going to STOP BF and FF instead

of course not

so let Tommys have their money, and we will all make an inmformed decision anyway

Whether Tommy's or Aptamil do the training is in some ways besides the point (only 20 midwives will be benefiting if they all get the max grant of 1000) as it it a way for Aptamil to increase their brand awareness to many more midwives and promote their professionals website which as others have pointed out contains quite a few subtle points which can undermine successful bf.

Also allying themselves with a respected medical charity confers those values onto them by association.

Like MoonFaceMama said, if they really cared about promoting bf then they would fund milk banks for donated bm as this is far better for babies than artificial milk, especially for prem or sick babies.

Obviously Tommy's needs donations, but Aptamil should not be associated with midwife training in order for them to donate.

"oh aptgamil are spomsoring Tommys. hey you know what, I am going to STOP BF and FF instead"

er, yes! 'and i will use aptimil'. its called brand loyalty isn't, and is exactly why aptimil/numico/danone are doing it.

you don't think any women say eur breastfeeding is disgusting - give the baby a bottle. in this culture, plenty. or, god breastfeeding is difficult i'm going to FF, and aptimil is 'closest to breastmilk' so that is what i will use. and they sponsor tommy's aaaaaaaaaahhhhh nice formula company, or i don't have enough milk, so i am going to use aptimil because they are the best... etc. etc. etc.

Porcamiseria - I agree.

I also think MW have more intelligence that we are maybe giving them credit for and wouldn't fall for the message.

"If you are unwilling to receive money from a company that promotes breast milk substitutes, please do not apply for one of these training grants."

This makes their aims as clear as they can be. No midwife worth her salt is going to go on that course thinking that Aptimil's motives are altrustic.

As I say, the responsibility is with Tommy's to take the money and use it against them. In a sense it is about keeping your enemies closer.

Grrrrrrrr. This makes me so angry, Tommy's are just not thinking of the big picture here. Improved bf rates would do an enormous amount to help babies in the UK.
Sombody's already said this, but to all those who think it's just money, would you honestly feel the same if a weapons manufacturer or cigarette company donated and had their brand promoted as a result?

As an aside, preterm formulas do have a place within neonatal care. However fortifiers, that can be added to breastmilk, are available to boost calorific and protein content. In my experience, these and other dietetic options are considered first, prior to introduction of formula. Necrotising enterocolitis is horrific, NICUs are hugely aware of this are always attempting to minimise this risk.

Of course not porcamiseria, it is simplifying the argument to say that a bf mother would give up due to an advert, but how many mothers have stopped bf early due to poor advice and lack of appropriate support from hcps?

I had researched to the max before the birth of my dd about how to successfully breastfeed, but I was an emotional mess after her birth and if I had listened to some of the midwives I would almost definitely have sabotaged my supply, it was only my determination that kept me asking questions so I could get it right. It really does not take much to make a vulnerable new mother doubt her bf ability, and it is the subtle misinformation that is the worst because it is not questioned when presented as fact.

'As an aside, preterm formulas do have a place within neonatal care' Doesn't breastmilk work or is there not enough? (genuine question).

Boobbuffet - do you really think formula = cigarettes or weapons? Seriously?

What a heavy handed comparison to make! Not the same at all!

porcam your argument is simplistic and naive. Do you not believe that we live in a ff culture that makes it very difficult to "make an informed decision"? Especially if thu informationn is coming from formula companies via hcps. Have you seen the information they are providing? I'm on my phone so can't link i'm afraid, but believe me, it is rubbish designed to make bf seem much harder than it is.

And as we know from these threads when a woman does make an informed choice to bf she is frequently let down by hcps (funded/trained by fcs?) and society at large. It's a cultural norm to ff. To try and do otherwise, esp if it requires kicking up a fuss to get the help you need, is difficult.

Mrsgf i realise that. But we seem to be having two debates. Should formula companies training for hcps (which they are doing) and should charities such as tommys accept donations from formula companies? As the later appears not to be happening this is hypothetical, and thank you for clarifying this. I had somewhat got caught up in my point!

As someone who both bf and ff my babies I find it massively offensive to see ff companies likened to drug dealers and arms sellers.

My dd1 wouldn't be here without formula because I wasn't in a position to feed her. So I can see that a knowledge of formual is very important for mws.

My mum used to work for an AIDS charity and they were offered free milk by Nestle for their orphanges in Africa. Because they knew it would alienate their supporters in the UK they turned it down and had to fund it themselves- even though babies whose mums have AIDs one group for whom bf definitely isn't best.

But hey, better to stick to our principles, right?

porcamiseria: an "informed" decision is difficult to make and I think every woman, properly informed and capable of doing so would decide to breastfeed.

This whole notion of formula being an equal "choice" is bollocks put about by formula companies for decades.

And how do they put it about? By, amongst other things, sticking their logo on training grants for midwives.

ruby i would be interested to know. I believe women who give birt to preterm babies produce milk that differs in composition from full term. Perhaps tommys would be interested in investing in a stratergy to help mothers pump/donate this special milk?

I also believe mums who try to bf and then use formula are a more fertile market for fc's than those who set out to ff so it makes sense for fc's to attempt to appear supportive of bf. Sorry for lack of evidence. Wish i had a laptop.

I dunno, spiritmum, they have all been responsible for the deaths of children.

I'm not equating them myself, btw, just an observation.

It is really refreshing to read a nuanced discussion of why charities need to be very careful as to who they accept sponsorship from.

My take on it is this: organisations like IBFAN, Baby Milk Action, NCT, La Leche League have a huge influence on what formula milk manufacturers do because they have chosen to refuse advertising from these sources. They and organisations like them rely on this ethical stance when lobbying for measures like the Innocenti declaration and for its full adoption into domestic legislation. If, as a charity or similar organisation, you rely on a particular source of funding, then it follows that your actions can be influenced by threats to withdraw that. Sadly, the current example suggests that sometimes charities don't understand what they are giving away in return for tiny amounts of money.

Just to qualify this, I am a mother of an ex-27 week BF prem baby. Sick and prem babies do benefit from formula but much, much more specialised and sensitive support helping mothers to breastfeed those babies is necessary.

Ruby, do bear in mind that babies whose respiratory function is compromised or with other issues (eg cardiac problems) may need more calories than breastmilk can provide.

'even though babies whose mums have AIDs one group for whom bf definitely isn't best.'

not quite as clear cut as that here

the major point for me is that formula companies shouldn't get anywhere near tommy's or any other charity, or hcps. the government should grow a backbone and stand up to them AND provide adequate breastfeeding support and training.

spiritmum the promotion of formula milk in the third world causes baby who do not have AIDS to die. In fact for this reason BF s still recomended for the first 2 weeks due to the danger of infection in a newborn.

the problem is the baby is more likely to die of diahorreah thn Aids.

thanks lizzytee, know nothing about this particular part of the discussion.