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

[moondog]

From The Ecologist magazine.

Here.....

Grim reading.

complete with gregorian chants and a queue at the petrol station of people running for the hills and azerbajhan

bugger. all my Eddie stuff is on video and now we only have a DVD. Look what you started. I now sound like some monty python saddo repeating "it's an ex-parrot"

Have read the article and a few posts but not the whole thread.

Yes, title is crap, yes it did make me feel guilty and yes I did try and breastfeed, (managed a whole 3 weeks before hitting the ad's and the formula all in one day)

But I do think the article has something in it, I would have breast fed if I could have done, and next time I'll try again. Breast really is best (in an ideal world)

But your right, title and article are not at all helpful.

you're tsk!

I've just comeback to see if this was still going and surprise surprise it is .

I have to say the even though I hate the thread title etc etc as I've already posted to death, I have really really enjoyed the debate. It's made me think properly about things in way that I haven't since I was last at work. So thanks for that intellectual stimulation ladies.

I'm off to make up tomorrow's bottles now .

The article itself (remember that ) is pretty interesting, too.

No, I haven't read the article yet, too much stimulation makes you go blind don't you know .

Dh and I watched Zac Goldsmithon a 'celebrity' poker programme. Apart from the dubious nature of encouraging people to take part in such a mug's game, I do wonder where he bought his organic, fair-trade, non-polluting, carcinogenic- free tobacco he was puffing on? It couldn't have been the ordinary stuff, could it?

Soapy - so eloquent!

second that, well said soapy.

in fact - Soapy's post is so good it deserves another airing. I may quote from it in times of need .

By soapbox on Saturday, 29 July, 2006 2:47:49 PM

I've written and almost posted several times on this thread so far, but have so far stopped myself

The title is quite sentationalist but pretty much par for the course for Moondog - although that doesn't mean that every one should indulge her - indeed many have not!

I've sratched the sore over my failure to be able to bf DS, so many many times and in the past articles like this would have me in tears. But older and wiser that I am now, I realise that it does no good to keep going over and over old ground. I did what I could at the time with the resources I had available to me - I was a good enough parent to my DS!

Parenting is so full of complex decisions, roads we might have travelled, paths we might have crossed and not taken. By and large people take the route that they do, because they believe it is in the best interests of their families to go that way.

I am really, really troubled by many many threads on MN, and the way in which they present the perfect parents choices as the only valid ones. Often wading in with more and more 'facts' to reinforce their views. But there are two issues - firstly perfect parents in all aspects of parenting are probably as rare as yetis and secondly, children really don't need perfect parents, they need good enough ones!

I wonder about those who position themselves as making the optimum choices all of the time, why do they need to do that! It is as if, making the choices they do isn't 'perfect' enough until they have validated them by trouncing those who have made 'lesser' choices than they have. It smacks of the deeply insecure, and of being a social clumsy bod.

Of course we can all come on these boards and fire off our views and take little heed of the effect they have on others. And yes, they are public boards and we can post what we like - witter, witter, witter. By all means carry on like that if you wish, but it seriously devalues what MN is about. By loosing the likes of Blu you risk turning this into a much less rich and wise place. If you want to turn MN over to the 'I'll say what I like brigade' then do, but I think you will rue the day that you did so!

Thank you Joolstoo & also Soapbox. I missed this explosive thread.
I also struggle with the "do as I do - or at least as I approve - or be damned" kind of attitude and find it a hard one to swallow. I also think it flies in the face of the Mumsnet philosophy.
I thank my lucky stars that I am no longer struggling to breast feed my babies. They both got my breast milk for the first 3 months of their lives but it was a real uphill struggle for me.
I completely support breastfeeding and think that we do need to be educated about the importance of breastmilk. However, scarring the pants of bottlefeeders by calling formula "junk food" is not necessarily educational or supportive. As for terrifying the life out of new mums by telling them that bottle feeding their baby leads to an increased incidence of SIDS, I happen to think that this is irresponsible journalism.

I tend to ignore the "you're a sh!t mum because you didn't breastfeed". I did for the first 8 weeks, but then had huge problems. HV advised me to switch to half bf, half formula and then onto formula. DS is now a strapping, healthy, happy 9 months and HV is more than happy with his progress.

But it does lead to increased risk of SIDS. Should that not be mentioned in case it upsets someone?

Of course not HM, but perhaps a little context might have been helpful. The way the article is written it could easily be interpreted that formula feeding is a major causal factor in SIDS.

Hunker - unless I have misread the studies, there appears to be a correlation between ff and increased risk of SIDS.

As you know that does not necessarily indicate causation.

I think what the evidence shows, is that breast feed babies have a lower risk of SIDS & not that ff actually increases risk.

Was the study standardised to make sure that all other factors of bf vs ff babies were eliminated? Smoking in the home, diet, bedding etc?

I'm still looking for all the data that says babies are at risk from xy and z as a direct result of ff.

I'd love to see when the research was done, how many babies were involved, how many ff against bf babies developed certain conditions, if genetics/lifestyle were included in the research etc, etc.

I know it's out there somewhere but where?!!!

Agree with you Jools - Soapy's post is excellent. And I usually hate those reactions to posts which say 'oh bravo - what a great post', but really, in this case she's spot on.

Well said and high time it was said too.

Does it say how big an increased risk there is? What is the risk of SIDS in the general baby population? What is it reduced to in bf babies?

JT you and I disagree on lots of things but I think those questions you ask are very valid.

I would in no way want to 'harm' the 'cause' of increasing b/f rates but tbh I have never found any scientific data that is good enough to back up the soundbites produced by b/f information sources to the degree that they would like.

This is not the same thing as saying that women should not bother breastfeeding, which I am not saying. It's just that while there are so many positives, and the focus on the health of the baby is a good one, it is blown way out of proportion.

For a start, the way data is collected is deeply flawed, and many many sample sizes in studies are too small to really say anything. There is very little proper science done on the benefits of b/f - understandably, because you simply cannot do a double-blind randomised trial for both practical and ethical reasons. I can certainly quote you one paper published about 2 yrs ago in the Lancet which was good but was incredibly badly reported ("Bottle-fed babies face higher risk of heart death" etc): the babies weren't breastfed and were only fed banked breastmilk for a month. And the authors specifically said their paper had nothing to say about the benefits of breastfeeding. (Don't forget that journalists don't seem to read the literature at source so you're unlikely to get any real information in the papers.)

All else being equal, I would err on the side of caution myself in future (and would have if I could have in the past). In any case, the arguments against formula are more social/economic/political.

Of course I have to put the usual disclaimer about formula feeding in this country being different from formula feeding in countries with little access to clean water etc etc

BTW Hunker, I don't think anyone has said Don't mention the connection with SIDS, you'll make the formula-feeders cry. But DO mention it in the context of a group of factors that may or may not play a part. I love you dearly but I don't buy the "They're telling us not to mention it but we need to dammit!" line - I have only rarely seen that on MN and look people are maybe objecting to the wrong thing being pointed out, out of context.

If there is a higher incidence of SIDS in ff fed babies, there are so many other factors to take into account surely? Generalising hugely, but suspect those at the lower end of the socio-economic scale are more likely to ff, more likely to smoke, more likely to live in lower quality housing (damp etc), more likely to be less aware of SIDS risks etc. Too simplistic to make that link with ff and SIDS, surely?

wow fiofio your post was the 500th!!!