Why are formula co’s allowed to get away with this? Do we have to have another boycott?

[Rumpledfaceskin]

Am I the only person who is increasingly angry about the way in which formula companies and those that sell formula conduct themselves? Yesterday I discovered a great charity called baby milk action and was horrified to read about how formula advertising in the U.K. is constantly breaking laws, then this

www.theguardian.com/business/2018/feb/01/nestle-under-fire-for-marketing-claims-on-baby-milk-formulas

Obviously I have a pro breastfeeding stance but however you chose to feed, most people surely agree that formula shouldn’t be advertised like this? Or as comparable to breastmilk, for hungry babies, and all the other shit they pull.

I’m not too worried that people in the U.K. are clueless on how to make up formula. I was given a leaflet about it, and the midwives we had totally accepted my friends who chose to ff view and left it at that. The unsafe advice given on the phone by formula co’s is simply another example of how they can’t be trusted to put a babies safety first.

What is totally unethical is pushing formula through shiny ads on to mothers in countries where their babies could die from being fed that way, rather than bf.

batfestival would you give your baby formula with added sugar? What’s that going to do over time, especially in a country with no nhs and poor healthcare provision? If it’s not good enough for western babies why do mothers in Africa get marketed it? How many kids in this country alone are ending up with life long problems because of too much sugar in their diets without having it shovelled in for day one? Sugar addiction is a real thing and it costs lives eventually.

This is more nutso stuff. I don’t really care if a company markets their formula as being inspired by breastmilk, etc. I am not a moron, I know it’s not breastmilk.

The pro breastfeeding anti science craziness is really harmful to women and their babies. The anti formula crusade too.

Formula in this country is safe and healthy for babies. There is nothing inherently evil about the companies who sell it. Get over yourself

And anyone who was even able to formula feed without criticism and misinformation in a maternity ward in the uk is lucky. The idea that there is pressure to formula fee in the uk is bonkers. It’s the complete opposite.

The 80s called. They want their issue back.

And rumpled, I don’t believe any formula in the uk has added sugar. The only sugars are milk sugars.

You also seem to have missed the point that formula milk is an essential food for babies who don’t or can’t be breastfed. Even in the developing world with issues over water quality, formula is still preferable to starvation.

that in the most part there is no need for

No need for? Should we let babies who are not breast fed for whatever reason starve to death?

Enid, I think that that me who said that and I was referring to the different products that are marketed to women such as hungry baby, night time milk etc. There is no need for these and they have added ingredients that are not recommended, such a cereal. I have never said there was no need for formula in the U.K. and other counties with clean water, where sterilising is not an obstacle.

Zsas. No fourmula in the U.K. doesn’t have added sugar that’s the whole point of the thread! Formula companies market different products to different global markets that are detrimental to babies because they can get away with and clearly they think the health of babies in Africa matters less than in the U.K. I thought it was a problem left in the 70s and 80s until I discovered baby milk action, that’s why I started the thread. I’m horrified that companies are still acting like this in 2018.

Bf/ff debate will always be around.

The lack of knowledge about bfing in hc professionals in this country is shocking never mind other countries. I was told I should bf ds only until he was 6 months at his 4 to 6 months check with the HV. This was because there was a poster on the wall saying "bf your baby only until he is 6 months' in the context of don't give solids before then. Not stop bfing at 6 months.

I pointed out the context to the youngish and presumably new qualified HV and got a lecture on weaning for my trouble and how it was important to follow guidelines from the NHS and the NHS said bf only until 6 months. As per the poster behind my head.

I left and made a complaint but I dread to think the influence she could have never mind the influence of sales reps on new mothers in developing countries.

Bfing is better for the baby and for the mother. It is the biological norm. Cot deaths aren't reduced by bfing. Cot deaths are increased by ff. Language is important. It is important to acknowledge that some mothers chose to ff and it is a perfectly good alternative. But it is an alternative to the biological norm which is bfing.

There would be some babies who would die without the safe alternative that is ff. But there are probably more babies who die in developing countries by using ff. And it's important that companies who promote ff in any country (because it's actually safer here too to bf in most cases) are held accountable for pushing something that is less safe on newborns and new mothers.

If babies were dying because of an unsafe moses basket or cot or pram that company would soon be held accountable. Yet there is a link between ff and sudden infant death syndrome that gets ignored. And you never hear a health professional say the risk of SIDS is higher if you ff.

Women should be free to make informed choices about how they fees their baby. All the NHS should be doing is making clear the risk and benefits of both. Breast is best doesn't go far enough. And because so many have chosen ff because of the extent of marketing by the likes of nestle bfing skills have been lost.

My mam still quotes every 4 hours for a feed, you won't know how much they are getting, that baby is hungry because you dont have enough milk, he won't sleep if you feed to sleep etc etc etc. She ff all 6 of us. Her choice absolutely. But I remember her spending milk tokens in the corner shop on nappies, bread, milk etc because we were skint. Constantly skint. She would have been a lot better off financially bfing. But even the government seemed to encourage ff by giving milk tokens to poorer families.

My problem with formula is that it’s made by large corporations who can essentially put whatever the hell they fancy into it.

I fail to understand if you can’t breastfeed (for whatever reason) and it’s obviously a necessity to feed baby - why formula isn’t completely free? Breast milk is free, so why isn’t formula? Because nobody would be making any money off it. Bottom line.

WHO do recommend using donated milk instead of formula first which I understand doesn’t happen everywhere because of course, there isn’t enough financial backing for milk banks etc as you can ‘just give a baby formula’.

I breastfed but I live in a country where formula is expensive (as it is everywhere I suppose) so I felt Bf was more of an economic choice. Breastfeeding is a culture norm as well where I live and at toddler groups etc it’s rare to see a baby under 6 months with a bottle.

I’m lucky I could feed my baby but everyone makes their own choice and I haven’t ever said anything IRL to anyone about FF/BF as it’s not my place.

I think a lot of people would argue that there's no need for hungry baby milk. It's useful and not harmful. It's a means to and end sometimes so that babies are not in constant distress.

You seem to think that one thing suits everyone - it doesnt.

And cot death is not increased by formula feeding. You reduce your chances by breast feeding.

Enidthecat breastfeeding is the biological norm. So cot death rates for breastfed babies should be the baseline numbers. Formula fed babies have a higher rate. So yes, formula feeding increases cot death.

And cot death is not increased by formula feeding. You reduce your chances by breast feeding.

No. Breastfeeding is the standard. You don’t reduce your risk by breastfeeding as that is the ”biological norm”. You increase your risk by choosing to do something different, in this case formula feeding.

X post.

The sooner the stats are changed to accept breastfeeding as the baseline the better.

Formula is a great alternative for this who either can’t or don’t want to breastfeed - it’s wonderful that there is a choice of how to feed your baby and meet their needs. I was formula fed as a baby and I seem to have turned out OK. However, the fact is that babies are meant to be breastfed and so that should be the baseline for any statistics.

You are right. I actually think there should be no advertising of formula milk. Breastfeeding rates are low enough in U.K. without promotion of a lesser option.

Enid bfing statistically suits babies better. It's just we don't get given the statistics freely. Ffing saves some babies lives if the mother can't bf.

I read somewhere that 99% of mothers can bf. If properly supported. Their milk will come in. They will be able to bf. But lots of people I have spoke to say they couldn't physically bf. A very small % won't be able to.

If a mother chooses to ff it is entirely her decision. But when it is the 3rd day, her milk hasn't come in yet and she is wanting to leave hospital to get home it is much easier to switch to ff. What she really needs is time. New mothers used to be bed bound for a fortnight after birth. If more mothers were supported to do nothing after the birth of a baby other than stay in bed and establish bfing then bf rates would increase I think.

Instead we are expected to be home within hours of the birth and up and about. We may have other dcs at home. We may have no partner or family around. We may need to be up. The gaps between dcs used to be longer too.

There are lots of compelling reasons to ff. For the mother and the rest of the family. But bfing IS better for babies. Except in the rare cases where the baby is unable to bf.

But you say that and mothers get anxious and upset and angry and defensive. Which is sad. So now we say breast is best. But also happy mummy, happy baby. Your body, your choice. Ff is safe. Ff is nearly the same.

It is nearly the same. But the fact is that bf is safer and healthier for the baby. Which means ff is less healthy and less safe as bf is the biological norm. It's not normal to give newborn babies anything other than the milk of it's own mother. We wouldn't give puppies a cats milk. Or a horse the milk of a cow. We have normalised giving baby humans the milk of a cow. It's been manufactured to make it a good alternative to the bm of a human but it remains a processed cows milk. And is more risky than the milk from a human.

Enid so some babies fed on forumula are in ‘constant distress’ unless they have their tummies pumped full of cereal and extra protein? Nah, sorry I don’t buy it.

Thanks to pps reminding that breastfed babies are just normal. Lots of professional breastfeeding advocates think that we shouldn’t use the terminology breast is ‘better’, because it does make it a very emotive subject for people and puts off having proper impartial discussion about how it. Breastfed is normal, as Naillig said. So that is the baseline. So yes formula feeding does increase rates of xy and z, it’s not that b/feeding decreases that. And breastfeeding doesn’t mean your child definitely won’t get x, y and z.

rumpled good for you that you've never experienced it but it happens.

By what percentage does ff increase cot death then? More than co sleeping?

And maybe 99% of mothers can bf but not all of them want to. Shouldn't we be allowed a choice?

Shouldn't we be allowed a choice?

Of course we should. And we have one. The problem is that it is sold for profit and that profit is the sole goal of the companies producing it. Things like hungry baby milk and follow on milk are simply tools to get as much money as possible and for as long as possible.

It would be great if someone came up with a standard minimal profit formula milk that did the job without all the promotional fluff. But no one ever will.

It would i agree but who would fund it? Maybe a charity? It's a good idea but i agree unlikely.

Enid Cot death luckily is incredibly rare, it affects about 300 babies in the U.K. per year I think. The most recent meta analysis found that breastfeeding halves risk of SIDS, but as breastfeeding is the default biological position maybe it would be more truthful to just say ff doubles risk of SIDS. That would upset some people but its the same information. And obviously it’s only one factor to consider. Breastfeeding does not guarantee a baby won’t die of SIDS and ff doesn’t mean a baby is definitely more likely to. But if if formula companies are allowed to aggressively market with untruthful information, I feel that charities, HPCS and researchers who aim to protect b/f world wide should be allowed to present data accurately. They shouldn’t have to dress it up as breastfeeding being this ‘extra’ bonus for a baby with magical properties that only a few lucky ones get to experience. It should be normal, formula should be ‘other’.

Ohlittlepea thanks for posting that link. A very interesting lecture. Pretty shocking info.

43percent
I think this must depend on where you are
My son was born a few days ago with jandice and so had a difficult start to bf. But I have been in two wards now, both have bf experts on hand. All have expressing machines and supllies available

I have to jump on this thread as using a link between SIDS and FF to try to encourage women to breastfeed is just as bad as formula companies manipulating facts to sell their products.

If I go out in the sun without sunscreen there is a chance I will get sunburned. If I choose to apply sunscreen, the chances of my getting sunburned are reduced. Choosing not to apply sunscreen doesn't make me more likely to get sunburned than I was before I made the choice, the risk of sunburn remains the same.

I agree that breastfeeding is the biological norm for human babies. However, it is a fact that the norm for feeding babies in this country is formula.

The risk of SIDS in the UK is calculated based on the norm and taking into account a number of factors, one of which is 'norm' method of feeding, which is formula. Breastfeeding can reduce the risk of SIDS, along with a number of other factors. Formula feeding does not increase the risk.

Recent research has also started to indicate that any amount of breastfeeding, including combination feeding, reduces the risk of SIDS.

It should also be considered that the demographic of mothers who tend to breastfeed in the UK are also more likely to be well educated on other factors that help to prevent SIDS, such as safe sleeping, safe co-sleeping etc and are less likely to smoke themselves or allow smoking in the house.

I breastfeed my baby, think the support available for breastfeeding in the UK is shocking and wholeheartedly agree that it is absolutely awful that that there is so much pressure on women to breastfeed but not enough support to help them.

Frightening new mothers with manipulated statistics is not the right way to get more new mothers interested in breastfeeding. In my book, it makes you no better than the formula companies manipulating facts to sell formula.

It's people like you that make formula feeding mums so guilt ridden and ashamed. The sugar in the formula will be from the lactose. A majority of the ingredients are also found in breast milk.

Luna But it’s the same information which ever way you look at it, does it actually matter how it’s dressed up? People aren’t stupid and parents can calculate the risks for themselves. The risk of SIDS in the thankfully U.K. is tiny. Someone used it as an example of how we talk about breastfeeding being ‘extra’.

Shelenti, sorry that’s not the case. Nestle have been found to have added extra SUCROSE to formula that’s marketed in South Africa. I know that Breast milk contains sugar. It’s not the same.