not looking for a row, but has anyone seen the new SMA logo? the one that looks like the mum is bf?

[harpsichordcarrier]

here's the logo

you tube clip here

sma site

way to get round the new advertising rules, which forbid them from saying "close to breastmilk" &c
anyone like to complain? I would like them, very much, to have to change their logo and slogan again. especially as they have clearly spent quite a bit of wonga on it.

Message withdrawn

Frascati, avoid me on here in future, please. I can't have reasoned debate with people who misrepresent me so unpleasantly.

But Frascati, you accused Hunker of saying something she categorically didn't say and, in fact, went to pains to point out that she wasn't saying it.

I still maintain that the logo will simply promote one brand above another. It won't make someone switch. What needs to be tackled is the way the product is actually marketed not hos it looks. The claims, the clever wording, the way it's pushed to health care professionals. Those are the things that make the difference and those are the things that should be concentrated on.

And there I shall have to parp myself Not least because my bf 14 month old has woken crying. Do you think a bottle of formula will make her sleep through? [innocent]

I will bow out of this now. My point being and the way I interpreted what hunker had said was if formula companies are evil then surely they are evil because they make formula.
I am sorry if I misinterpreted that wrongly but it was how I saw it.
I am entitled to my opinion, end of.
As for avoiding you I would never actively look for you/talk to you anyway, not sure your point there is?

Formula companies like Nestle push their formula in developing countries, and the mothers have to use dirty water to make it (thinking this must be good, it is what westerners use), and babies DIE. It is because of these sort of practices that many many people, including me, think that formula companies are evil. Nestle is the most boycotted company of all time.

make no mistake, the bunch of men who run these companies are not unaware that tiny babies in developing countries die because of them. they must have sat in meetings and quietly and shamefully discussed it. and that, in my opinion, is evil personified.

i gave dd formula from a week old, btw.

I will say this v....e....r....y slowly: formula is a necessary product. It needs to be freely available for those who need it. It also needs to be marketed ethically and honestly. Where that happens, there is no problem with it. If you want to know what ethical and honest is, read the WHO code and its attendant WHA (World Health Assembly) addenda which gives the minimum standards - these are made to protect all mothers and babies from commercial practices which undermine good nutrition and informed choice.

This has nothing to do with formula per se, or formula feeding mothers and babies.

It's to do with marketing - and logos are an integral part of that, because a logo and a slogan are important short-hand, instant visual and verbal messages to the consumer.

I really don't know where this idea that formula marketing is intended to persuade already-formula feeding mothers to change brands comes from - that was the tobacco manufacturers argument about their ads, and no one believed that, either.

In order to maintain a market share, they have to be part of a persuasive campaign to get already-breastfeeding mothers to supplement and hopefully (to them) switch.

Zippi asked 'if all formulas are fundamentally the same, then what info would be needed?' My answer to this is that there are indeed differences, not fundamental ones, but the differences exist. Mothers do not even know the most basic differences - for example, why is 'second stage' milk marketed for 'hungrier babies' and is there any research to show this 'works' at keeping babies 'more satisfied'?

If a manufacturer is promoting some new ingredient as making a new formulation better, then I would like all ff babies to have it...by law, it should be researched and tested independently, the health claims checked out, and added to all existing formula.

Is that ever going to happen?

No.

Because research and development is commercially driven, and not driven by health imperatives.

And that is a Bad Thing when it comes to healthcare, especially the health and nutrition of babies who have no choice in the matter at all .

Frascati, you misinterpreted what I said, wildly.

I think formula companies are evil because they want women to ditch breastfeeding in favour of their product and they try every underhand sly slick marketing trick known to man to ensure this happens, including massively misleading advertising and myth-promotion - they might not be allowed to advertise infant formula to parents, but you can be very sure they make misleading claims to healthcare professionals about it in professional journals (which ought to be illegal, IMO).

Did you look at the links to what C&G were saying about breastfeeding/giving follow-on? What Hipp and Heinz said about weaning? They often flout the formula advertising laws because they have the budget to do so.

I don't have a problem with formula - the actual stuff that you make up and feed babies with. I DO have a problem with formula companies undermining women. I think we ALL should have a problem with that.

hunk, you asked if I had seen the C&G clip.

I did.

The script stinks.

And Denise Lewis should be bloody ashamed of herself.

And yes, agree with Aitch - they KNOW their marketing kills babies in Third World countries and they do their damndest to pretend it doesn't with yet more glossy ad campaigns.

Oh, shouldn't she, Tiktok, shouldn't she?! I wondered if I could get in touch with her somehow, actually. Wonder if she has a website?

And if anyone doubts whether mothers need more than pretty logos and slogans about formula, check out any of the threads on 'which formula is best?' that come up on mumsnet, including the current one.

Rumour, gossip, overheards, misunderstandings - no one has any real information, because there is no way of getting it!

Yep, am a big fan of informed choice, Custy. Definitely.

That means proper research done by impartial bodies into formula.

Not claims into things that are meant to blind us with science on company websites.

I mean, I don't believe L'Oreal when they tell me my hair will be 57% shinier if I use their conditioner - why would I believe SMA if they tell me their formula is the best one for my baby? They're ALL saying it - they can't all be right!

the logic of the argument seems to be that there should be no commercial interests in formula

this just doesn't work

the same could be said of medicine without commercial interests the product would not be developed further

I think people are saying that formula companies should abide by the WHO code

Message withdrawn

I know, Danae

Changed my name for this.......because Hunker will friggin kill me.

I have just remembered by cousin is Managing Director of Cow and Gate.

All these years of FF V BF threads and I could have lobbed that grenade in and legged it years ago.

Tiktok - people have been saying that the way formula is marketed makes many women believe there is no difference between formula and breastmilk. I never ever drew that conclusion from words like "closer to breastmilk", and the literature makes it abundantly clear that they are not equivalent, hence my belief that such women are probably daft.

That is entirely different from believing that formula isn't as categorically harmful as is sometimes made out (it can be a lifesaver after all).

yes, ideally I would like all commercial interests to be removed from formula. I would also like to see a great deal more openness abot what is actually in formula, because there is no need to declare that, which I think is unjustifiable. I think that the cost should be vastly reduced, and that it should be available on prescription.
the pharmaceutical analogy isn't very sound, because the need for new drugs and therefore the investment involved in obviously substantial.
I also think all formula advertising to the public should be banned, just like prescription medicine, because the formula companies cannot be trusted to advertise in anything like an ethical way.

my cousin even..............

and anyone who doesn't think that formula companies companies companies are evil is shockingly underinformed.
and they can feel free to sue me too