"30 years of breastmilk research" by Aptamil

[jaggythistle]

wouldn't you just love to know what they've 'discovered'?

just saw the above bold statement in a shield on some advert and kind of thought wtf? seems a bit meaningless.

sorry for pointless pondering, spending way too much time on here sitting feeding my 8 week old!

Formula companies also target HCPs though- things like paying for some training, giving them freebies, pens, diaries etc, it all helps to promote brand awareness. It's all linked in together, I don't think there are two clear separate issues.

I agree it is all the same issue.

Also, as someone who wanted to BF all of my DC but changed to FF quite early on with my first 3 DC, lack of correct knowledge and support from HCP's was definitely a factor (and at no point did I feel that BF was 'pushed down my throat, quite the opposite in fact) but also it was quite clear in my mind that BF was what I wanted to do and it was 'best' but also FF was completely normal to me and what most people did. All the advertising formula companies do goes further to normalise it, IMO.

Spirited that's a very good informative post which I do agree with.
I suppose my earlier post was kind of in disbelief that a company wouldn't talk up their product, which in fairness, is very well researched and effective.

I am on both sides of the fence really, having had one horrendous breastfeeding experience with my first, and a wonderful one with my second. So I am both pro and anti breastfeeding

I had to get my latch right by watching videos on YouTube, my nipples were raw and despite visits from HV and midwives galore, my DD only latched properly when I researched it myself. Spirited when it comes to bfing knowledge is power so your setting yourself up well.

Maybe there should be breastfeeding adverts on tv! I do like the start of aptimils follow on milk advert though when they say nothing compares to breastmilk, that always made me feel rubbish when I gave up.

Tango - That 'nothing compares to breast milk' is a really horrible bit of marketing I agree. It looks like it's supporting breastfeeding, but it isn't really. It's there to make ff mothers feel guilty (which of course they have no reason to do) so that, in choosing their formula, they have to choose the best possible one. And which one could be the best but they are all the same the most expensive. It then throws in a subtle undermining of breastfeeding by normalising the idea that it is something you 'move on from', just to finish up.

I actually have quite a high level hatred for Aptimil as a brand. 9 out of 10 formula feeding mums I know use it. And why, because it has so successfully marketed itself as somehow better than many identical products (nutritionally speaking) and guilted them into paying over the odds. It's not like buying premium sausages or chocolate, but people believe it is. My especial venom is reserved for the fact I know mothers on tight incomes who scrimp on other things to have 'the best' for their baby. It is unconscionable to do that to families.

You'lllaugh I agree 100%, after 2 months of using aptimil I wised up and changed to hipp organic, nearly £3 cheaper and much more pleasant smelling and tasting.

But nowhere near as nice as my breastmilk was :)

sorry to post and run I have fallen asleep replying a few times!

if it wasn't clear, i was just amazed that the company has the gall to put such meaningless and misleading stuff on their products.

it's obviously meant to look like a good thing and increase sales, it's not there to provide any information.

I'm not anti formula, i just hate crappy meaningless marketing of any kind, like sticking the word 'wholegrain' on everything on the shelves these days. or making up 'science' words for shampoo and cosmetics!

formula companies just happen to be experts at trying to stretch the truth and break bend every rule possible. it'd just be nice if they were honest about a product providing sole nutrition to tiny babies.

i guess it also feels a bit wrong that they're happy to undermine people's attempts to bf just for profits, or refuse to be clear about how to safely prepare the product.

thanks for trying to understand my wee rant!

Why is it misleading? They could have researched breastmilk for 30 years.

But it doesn't mean that that Aptamil have done anything with what they have found in those 30 years or even if they wanted to change their formula milk to 'replicate' BM that they have been able too!

That's why it's meaningless - it doesn't say anything about what they have done to their formula it's just jingoistic IMHO.

thanks truth, i was struggling to put it into words.

it's using the word breastmilk to make their product sound better and associated with breastmilk, when it just isn't even similar.

Exactly jaggy - if you create the infer/suggest that your product is like or equal to something then people do think that it is similar.

Dialysis has been used successfully in patients with kidney failure since the 1940's but no-one would buy the idea that with 70 years of experience of replicating kidney function dialysis and using your own kidneys were equal options if you said it out of the blue. So why are we so 'happy' to accept this from formula manufacturers? Is it because they have spent the a large portion of the 20th century convincing us it was better than BM but when science discovered it wasn't they switched to trying to convince us it was just as good.

I say this as someone who bought the Aptamil is almost as good as BM clap trap. DH bought it first, I think because it says/said 'BM substitute' on the carton and he/I wanted to give DD1 BM, I continued to believe it because then me failing to pump enough wasn't too much of an issue even though I would have chopped off my leg if someone had told me it would increase my milk supply and get DD1 to latch. Luckily for me she did without amputation .

But it is similar. It feeds newborn babies up to six months. It allows them to thrive. It allows people who would not be able to normally feed their baby, feed their baby.

But it isn't similar, LST, that's TruthSweet's point. It is modified cows milk that will provide adequate (but not optimal) nutrition for a baby but with added risks.

yes that is the purpose of formula, I've never heard anyone dispute that.

but they want to sell Aptimil as something more and better and have been trying it since the 'closest thing to breastmilk' campaign.

they also want to sell a product that some people really need to sustain their baby at a premium price, when in reality there is little difference between the artificial milks available. it's unpleasant.

What I would LIKE to see is Formula Milk companies investing in breastfeeding. Instead of spending thousands on marketing and pens and cuddly toys et al, actually associate yourself with a BF support group / company. Plough your money into helping women who want to BF, nationalise the help and make it readily avaliable. THEN when and if women decide to stop BFing they will chose your milk as a knowingly second best product.

Brilliant post Spirited

I also second 'The Politics of Breastfeeding' if anyone wants to know why people get so riled about Formula milk companies.

Gnocchi, it would not be ethical for a ff company to associate itself with an organisation that aimed to support bf women - it would be a way to be in direct touch with mothers and that is proscribed by the WHO code.

Formula manufacturers would love to team up with any of these organisations, for purely commercial reasons, but all the ones I know about proscribe this sort of connection.