It WAS very childish of me, but I got a dig in at some Formula companies today......

[VeniVidiVickiQV]

Got sent a market research survey today asking me my opinions on formula milk.

So i gave them.....

Jools - I missed a off - I know it wasn't you

Tik Tok for Prime Minister... Showing mothers the true list of ingredients would certainly be the way for mothers to make an informed choice.

LucyJu - I had thought that formula companies could not advertise Hungrier Baby formula as it is still considered a "first milk"? I hate the blimmin stuff too btw.

Mothers who choose to formula feed are pitifully under-informed and that's a scandal.

Of course there are mothers who have no choice but to formula feed and they deserve as much non-commercial info as they want.

Tiktok - you have no idea how refreshing it is to here someone as 'pro-breastfeeding' (don't like that term myself think most mums are whether they choose to breast or bottlefeed) say something like that.

When I made the choice to switch to formula with DS2 I had absolutely no idea what I was doing - didn't even know how much, how often etc etc I should be feeding it to him - never mind what formula to use. Ended up with whichever one it was DH brought back from Tesco at 2am one morning LOL. Then switched to the hungry baby one after a few weeks as he was such a piggy baby.

They do list though don't they? Just in teeny weeny writing?
TT,ref further down to an HV with an office full of Milupa paraphernalia (I'm presuming pens,diaries and so on.)
Never come across this but i am staggered. is there no legislation against such marketing tools?
How can our govt. be (ostensibly) promoting b/feding if their workforce is receiving these freebies?

I always assumed that we are currently denied the access to information on formula milk so that there is less chance we will try using formula milk instead of breastfeeding.

If there are major important differences between each brand of formula why is that information not available to a mother who has stated that she intends to use formula milk ?

Surely if the baby's health could be affected by which formula is chosen (and remember we are only talking about mums who have stated that they will be using formula milk), is it not irresponsible to be complicit in denying them such information because this is what the NHS currently does.

The NHS has a policy of giving drug addicts drug substitutes (methodone etc) and clean drug paraphenalia to try and avoid potential health issues despite the fact that they need to give up drugs altogether if they are to get healthy long term. Information on formula milks and how to make up a bottle thereof, completely out of the question however.

izzybiz, moondog will now pull apart my posting but I just wanted to show a little suppport for you.

Tiktok, had the parents-to-be seen actual examples of formula milk cartons etc then they might not have come home from the supermarket with actimel. Prohibition of information can clearly be a dangerous game.

Parp

I really really really worry about what is in store for people who were formula fed

How long has formula been around?? - I've found some articles that say it reached the UK in 1904 - that means that many of our older people were probably bottlefed. Indeed up to 1976 National Dried Milk was still available - now that was evil stuff..... Surely then we shouldn't be worried about what will be happening to babies that have been bottlefed on better formula milk since then if those fed on that dreadful stuff are living to 80,90 and even 100!

Ingredients are on carton, albeit very small. I gave my baby formula (once I stopped bf) in the full knowledge that I was feeding her something containing 'uric acid' and something called 'guanosine' (which I assume is somehow related to seagull poo).
Am not really really really worried about it though
Agree about info drought on both sides of the breast/bottle divide.

I also had a problem with the 'really really really worry' quote, which just seemed a bit excessive. For me 'really really really worry' would evoke fears like the one a few years ago that everyone who ate cheap beef was going to die horribly of mad cow disease, not to the probability that those who drank formula may be a little bit more prone to obesity and allergies.
But maybe some people worry more

Norms - I think opposite to you - I think if information on the ingredients of formula milk were published (and I'm not just talking about the E numbers on the side of the can - I the truth) then it would go some way to promoting breastfeeding in that mothers might look at it and say "oh, I might just give breastfeeding a go" or "I might just continue breastfeeding for a little longer". Of course, if you don't want to breastfeed or if you fail at breastfeeding, or go back to work or whatever, you can look at the information and decide "oh, no fish eyes for me, I'll take the one without all the marketing crap in it thanks!"

I could, of course, be wide of the mark!

I the truth? Sounds like some evangelist!

Obviously I meant I mean the truth!

Squarer , I really though I had made it clear in my post that I am only talking about mums who have, for whatever reason, absolutely made up their mind that they will not be breastfeeding and therefore want to know the differences between the various formula milks available.

The decision over whether to breastfeed or formula feed has already happened for them, they are onto the next stage of decision making.

Ah, sorry Norms - I always do this - forget to refer to the bit I mean [doh emoticon]
I meant when you said "I always assumed that we are currently denied the access to information on formula milk so that there is less chance we will try using formula milk instead of breastfeeding" I think there would be more chance of people trying breastfeeding if formula information was published.
I did realise the intention of the rest of your post and I do agree!

List of ingredients on formula packets are in teeny weeny writing, but they don't say where they source their ingredients - for example, starch can be corn starch, rice starch, potato starch....vegetable oils don't say which vegetables...not all will list which type of sugar and none will say where they get their pre-biotics from.

Point of info: 'hungrier baby milk' is not the same as 'follow on'. 'Hungrier milk' has had the protein content less modified, so the protein content is more like cows milk. This is harder for the baby to digest so it stays in the stomach for longer, and keeps the baby less hungry for longer (goes the theory - there is no independent research on this, it is all in the marketing). Follow on has extrta iron in it, and is marketed for babies over 6 mths. It can therefore be advertised. Hungrier baby milk is allowed to be marketed as for babies from birth, and cannot be advertised.

None of this is state secrets, and HPs are perfectly at liberty to explain it all, and I think they bloody well should.

But Norms, the detailed information about the differences between brands is just not available to anyone - it's not the NHS hiding it from mothers. There is info for HPs from the manufacturers, and if you saw some of the inadequate stuff I have seen, you'd be shocked. There is no independent, non-commercial information about brand differences for anyone.

I agree with you about showing the mother the pack of Aptimil or writing the name down at least. It seems to be deplorable professional practice not to do so....if a HP recommends something, it is their responsibility to make sure the parent understands. I don't think this has anything to do with them being worried about promoting formula over breastfeeding. If a mother is going to use formula, she needs whatever information she can get, to make sure it is an informed choice.

She won't get it, though....but that's because so many of our health professionals are under-trained in this whole area, and because there is no non-commercial detailed info avaiable.

But who cares? It's only babies' health we're talking about, here, after all.....

QUOTE - bornberry - with people with views like yours around it's not suprising so many woman get depressed over the fact that they can't/don't want to breastfeed. They're made to feel they're 'substandard' mothers by giving their children 'substandard' milk - END QUOTE

I don't understand why my personal views would throw a woman into despair. The fact is if breastmilk is normal formula IS substandard by definition because its not as good as the original model. This isn't me trying to offend or upset anyone but surely a fact beyond my control. If there is an issue with formula being substandard then isn't it the milk companies who are selling it who are responsible? me stating the fact can hardly be blamed for making anyone feel anything?

Women who wanted to breastfed and for whatever reason couldnt I can totally empathise with as BTDT, those that make the choice to ff without trying breastfeeding do so either because they are not aware of the longterm facts OR are in posession of those facts and comfortable with their choice regardless. The first I can understand hostility at my statement, the second I can't as I certainly never judge parents so the guilt IMO can only come from within.

Well yes people are living longer but that is mainly due to better hygiene, control of infectious diseases and to some extent better diet (ie less people are actually starving now than 100 years ago) BUT there is also a hell of a lot of unhealthy people too and bowel/gut cancers are very common. Its very hard to determine exactly what causes these kinds of illnesses as there are so many factors and obviously as a person gets older then there are all the things that person does that have to be taken into account (ie what they eat/drink/exercise smoking etc) so what milk they have from birth and the effects of just that are very difficult to pull out of all this data. Having said that the ongoing Dundee study is looking into this and it does show less body fat and lower blood pressure in children who were breastfed. High blood pressure is a major killer and anything that can prevent this will obviously help.

This is a wee snippet...

"At the age of 7 years the children were seen again and information was obtained on respiratory illnesses, growth, weight and blood pressure. Children who had been exclusively breast fed during the first 4 months of life were reported to have had significantly fewer respiratory illnesses during childhood compared to bottle fed infants. The breast fed children were also found to have less body fat and lower blood pressures than children who had been bottle fed.

This most recent information is of particular relevance to the health of the Scottish population as there is a very high incidence of heart disease, stroke and diabetes in Scotland and obesity and high blood pressure are recognised risk factors for these conditions. The children taking part in the Dundee study are currently being seen again at the age of 15 years to see if there are early signs of these diseases and to relate the findings to their diet during infancy.

There is now considerable international interest in the results of the Dundee Infant Feeding Study, as it has clearly demonstrated that the health benefits of breast feeding extend beyond the period of infancy and into later childhood. Current and future studies will be exploring the possibility of breast feeding influencing health during adult life.

Wilson AC, Forsyth JS, Greene SA, Irvine L, Hau C, Howie PW. Relation of infant diet to childhood health: seven year follow up of cohort of children in Dundee infant feeding study. BMJ 1998; 316: 21-5.

quote - For me 'really really really worry' would evoke fears like the one a few years ago that everyone who ate cheap beef was going to die horribly of mad cow disease, not to the probability that those who drank formula may be a little bit more prone to obesity and allergies. - end quote

But this isnt what the research demonstrates?!?! A little bit more prone to obesity and allergies ?! what about chldhood cancers, diabetes, arthritis, asthma, cotdeath etc etc etc

Just a little bit more and then I will shut up: how do we know that today's formulas are all that much better than National Dried Milk or the formulas that went before? If you believe that (and QoQ, I probably mean you, here!! ) then you have been suckered by all the marketing stuff. What makes NDM 'evil'???

Today's formulas have extra stuff in them. But the basic formulation is just the same as NDM, which is/was dried skimmed cows milk, with replacement vits because the A & D vits are removed with the fat. NDM was 'unmodified' which means the protein was left alone. Today's formulas change the protein to (in theory) make it partially digested.

To be honest, if I had to give formula, I would probably prefer NDM, because it was a less processed product. I am sceptical of extra added stuff, because I don't think there can ever be enough testing of these newer, synthetic ingredients, and I would not touch synthetic prebiotics with a barge pole, or any of the rinky-dink, fancy-dan 'speciality' formulas with all their bells and whistles and knobs on.

That is just my opinion - it can't be based on much science or evidence, though, because (as I say) the independent non-commercial research has not been done.

Thanks Squarer.

I don't understand why the government can't force formula milk manufacturers to honestly disclose the facts if they are to be allowed to retail a product in this country. We have food regulations don't we ?

The pro breast feeding folks would be happy as it might put mums off using formula milk and the formula milk users would be able to make an informed choice between brands.

Yup - everyone would be happy all round.. (well, with a few exceptions no doubt )

I'd be even happier if we had a National Dried Milk again! Something without all the crap that is just trying to snag mothers into buying their formula over the next. Just one maximum-quality non-commercial formula and the rest should be banned.

Ahem I've been posting on Olives other thread

Tiktok - can you clarify something? Seems that a lot of people switch formula because of feeding problems, ie the milk makes them sick/constipated/loose stools/rashes whatever... is this just related to formula milk and is it actually possible to have 'feeding problems' with breastmilk? Thanks.

Eulalia, the problem with a study like this is that it may not take into account the lifestyle choices of parents and correlate those with BF/bottle-fed babies.

Are parents who BF thier babies more likely to reject jarred food (and junk food in later years) for their kids, which would have an enormous impact on the measured outcomes?

Spare a thought for those of us who have had no choice but to formula feed (my milk ran out after 4 weeks) and so had to swap to bottle feeding rather than starve my DS. I hate the fact that I couldn't continue to feed him myself and worry all the time that I am not doing the best for his health but what choice did I have ? These threads just make me feel worse. I would have appreciated more info on the different brands of formula but no health professionals want to give advice on this so I just had to pick one at random.

If you're bfing and child gets sickness/constipated/loose stools/rash, would you classify it as a 'feeding problem' or a 'non-feeding problem', given that you can't swap brands to see if it goes away?
I wonder if many 'feeding problems' in ff babies are random ailments that affect bf babies too.

I can't agree more with Peaches. Information given is very biased, sure, breastmilk is miles better than formula (and you need to live in another planet not to find out about this during pregnancy). However, if for any reason you are not able to breastfeed you are left in the dark and your baby is to pay for it:

It is not true that all formulas are the same or that all of them are nutritionally correct, as they would be so only if all the children were exactly the same and had the same exact nutritional needs. It would be good that at least the GPs had more information readily available to help families who are are experiencing problems with formula and don't really have the option to go back to breastfeeding once milk has dried up.

In all ideal world the solution wouldn't be to shut up formula companies, but to insure that every woman had access to good breastfeeding advice. IMO most women who decide to bottlefeed have tried to establish breastfeeding but lacked the information, help or support to continue once problems set in.

Perhaps the breastfeeding campaigns should be more focused on mothers who want to BF but are experiencing problems rather than saying just "breast is best" and forgetting about providing breastfeeding support?

the irony is (she says, guessing ), I'm sure there would be a percentage of mums who would decide not to bottle feed if they knew exactly what was in some brands of formula. If more info was available, would it force the formula companies to clean up their act, as regards ingredients?