Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Infant feeding

Get advice and support with infant feeding from other users here.

Read this shocking article about the damaging effects of formula and the immoral practices of the companies who peddle this junk.

542 replies

moondog · 28/07/2006 17:36

From The Ecologist magazine.

Here.....

Grim reading.

OP posts:
Callisto · 28/07/2006 18:06

I think moondof wanted the shock value of the thread title to get people to notice and read the article. Sadly it seems to have had the opposite effect.

Angeliz · 28/07/2006 18:06

Franny it's more the wording of the title.
There was a title in the paper the other day, @Baby dies after breastfeed' and people were up in arms about that.
(It's different as that was so obviously misleading) but why go out of your way to upset people?

Littlefish · 28/07/2006 18:06

F&Z - I think that factual information should certainly be available, but presenting it with a title like this is completely un-necessary. I am so sick of the bashing that goes on on MN about formula and breast feeding.

Callisto · 28/07/2006 18:07

Sorry moondog (not moondof or maybe it should have read mooned off)

psychomum5 · 28/07/2006 18:08

no offence taken feisty bird.

I had started writting mine before anyone else had posted...(shows how long I took typing).

It made me mad is all and I felt I had to respond like that!!!!

motherinferior · 28/07/2006 18:09

Actually I think formula feeding is such a contentious area that people should think about the context in which they present it.

batters · 28/07/2006 18:11

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

sparklemagic · 28/07/2006 18:12

Moondog I see where you're coming from and I admire your commitment to kids getting the best. However I look back on myself four years ago, having had a crash CS, nearly lost my DS during delivery, very unwell myself afterwards, barely able to hold my son because of the pain, trying and trying desperately to get my baby to latch on (he never did), feeling a complete failure as a first time mum as not one drop of fluid ever did come out of my breasts for my son! how would people terming the only thing I could give my DS in order to keep him alive, 'junk', help me or him?

Yes, it's really good that we find out about the issues, and I totally see that in the great scheme of human life, formula is an odd new invention! But we have to accept that we live now, not 40,000 years ago and mums like me aren't able to go up to our friends who bf and say "when you're done, stick mine on for a feed would you?". I wish people would concentrate on researching and publicising info on bfing to help people do it, and on constructively debating ways that we can have a modern day equivalent of the wet nurse; I'm aware there are milk banks for pre-term babies but is there anything above and beyond this for other women and babies - lets be constructive here!

CADS · 28/07/2006 18:13

Well said, Psychomum5. [round of applause]

peanutbutter · 28/07/2006 18:15

"factual information". I'd feel better if it were referenced. The paragraph which began with the sentence: "Compared to breastfed babies, bottlefed babies are twice as likely to
die from any cause in the first six weeks of life." made me feel cold, quite literally, but where is the source of this factual information? I'm not saying it's incorrect, but I resent that I am expected to accept it as "factual information" without any substantiation.

Oh - and if I missed the referencing then i'm very

tiktok · 28/07/2006 18:16

Of course factual information about infant feeding should be published. It may be appropriate in the Ecologist to use dramatic terminology. The article is well-researched and full of evidence about marketing tactics and other aspects of the whole issue, and is worth reading by anyone with an interest in the topic.

But on a parenting website, on a board which purports to offer support, in a place where we hear every day - literally - about women's deep sadness at not breastfeeding, about their pain when they cannot get help, and about how sensitive they are to the whole thing.....no, you don't use terms like 'junk', because it hurts people's feelings and makes them feel defensive and criticised.

People feeling sensitive and sad can choose whether or not to go to the link to the Ecologist, and avoid it if they know it will upset them.

But they can't avoid reading the word 'junk' in the thread header.

And moondog - you know how distressed people can be. How can you bear to make them more distressed? And how on earth do you think this progresses the debate when you have tearful people on one side of it?

You should be ashamed of yourself.

motherinferior · 28/07/2006 18:16

And what that overall likelihood is (like the fact that an epidural does substantially increase the risk of intervention...but only takes it from eight to 12 per cent).

tiktok · 28/07/2006 18:18

I have seen the original article, peanut, and it is thoroughly referenced.

There is nothing wrong with the article - it tells it like it is, in a context where the tone and content is appropriate.

But the thread header has everything wrong with it, and it has predictably provoked contributions which add nothing to the issue.

Feistybird · 28/07/2006 18:19

Tiktok, I think that's the real essence for me - that an 'experienced' mnetter, well versed in the sometimes heartbreakingly sad stories on here from new mums, could write such a thoughtless post.

goingthroughthesame · 28/07/2006 18:20

I dont think Moondog deserves this bashing
Bash the article - she has drawn our attention to it- it says formula is not good.
Thanks Moonie - enjoyed the read it made me feel better about persevering against the odds and whilst hating 90% of it

Callisto · 28/07/2006 18:21

It is just sematics. If the article is sound albeit upfront and shocking, I don't really see that much of a problem with the thread title.

Alipiggie · 28/07/2006 18:22

It's threads like this that make me really glad that I wasn't on Mumsnet when having the traumatic time with ds1 and NO breast milk coming in. I appreciate that breast is best, but there really are some of us mothers that cannot produce and whether formula is "junk" or not it saved my ds1's life.

tiktok · 28/07/2006 18:23

My post of 6:16:15 says why it's a problem, Callisto.

Feistybird · 28/07/2006 18:23

For the first time ever PARP. am off.

harpsichordcarrier · 28/07/2006 18:24

(Motherinferior - actually an epidural does increase the intervention rate considerably - shall I try and find a reference?)

tiktok · 28/07/2006 18:24

PARP here too

motherinferior · 28/07/2006 18:24

(yes, I know it does, HC. I've cited the increase below. I'm saying that you still have a 88 per cent likelihood of no intervention. And anyway the studies are based on...oh, I'm not going into it here.)

harpsichordcarrier · 28/07/2006 18:25

it's more than that, though, isn't it? sorry I know this is OT.

NotAnOtter · 28/07/2006 18:28

Well said Callisto poor Moondog she did not deserve that ..bless!

motherinferior · 28/07/2006 18:29

According to the consultant in obstetrics at University College London Hospital, whom I interviewed a while back (and is lovely bloke and quite pro home birth) if you put the studies together it goes from less than I thought, seven per cent, to 12.