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.

Luna formula companies don’t just manipulate facts they completely make them up. The link that littlepea shared shows how a formula for babies with cows milk intolerance was marketed to health professionals with zero evidence to support their claims that it improved symptoms. And the FSA doesn’t investigate new formula products in the U.K. I never knew this and I’m really shocked by it.

@Rumpledfaceskin but it isn't the same information - that's exactly my point. Breastfeeding reduces the risk. Formula feeding doesn't increase it. The risk remains the same.

The link that littlepea shared shows how a formula for babies with cows milk intolerance was marketed to health professionals with zero evidence to support their claims that it improved symptoms.

I absolutely agree that this is terrible. However the SIDS comparison is the same - there is zero evidence that formula feeding increases the risk of SIDS. Even the Lullaby Trust doesn't say that formula feeding increases the risk, only that breastfeeding reduces it.

www.lullabytrust.org.uk/safer-sleep-advice/breastfeeding/

They don't even mention formula, using bottle feeding as a descriptive term instead - I assume because although there is evidence that breastfeeding reduces the risk of SIDS, in that more babies in the sample who died of SIDS were formula fed, there is no way of determining with any certainty that it was the breastmilk itself rather than any other factor (e.g. closer proximity to mother, more likelihood to safely co-sleep and be more aware of baby throughout the night, clear cot, laying on back) that reduced the risk.

Look - being completely honest about my motivations here, I lost a sibling to SIDS so it is a topic that I have done a lot of reading on and that I am really clued up on for my own kids. I FF one as I couldn't breastfeed and have managed to breastfeed the other - we're up to 6 months now. I remember the cold feeling of dread I felt when someone told me that FF increased the risk of SIDS. It's only because I was able to check the facts and understood the analysis of risk that my already elevated anxiety about not being able to BF and SIDS risks in general wasn't through the roof.

Frightening new mothers into breastfeeding, or frightening them about something they have no control over if unable to breastfeed, is just not on. It's dishonest and cruel. Even if it was true, which it isn't.

Luna I’m sorry for your loss, that’s terrible. I think talking about breastfeeding as an ‘extraordinary’ thing doesn’t help either because that also loads the argument with guilt for those that can’t do it and leads some to think their baby is at no risk of xyz because they’re breastfed.

Thinking on a more global scale I don’t think we should be referring to it reducing risks of x,y,z. It should be the baseline and the norm because in some countries unnecessary marketing and use of formula causes infant death. Ff may be the norm in the U.K. but we shouldn’t let aggressive marketing try to make it the norm world wide.

Some of us could not feed our babies. How dare you call me lazy. You have no idea what I went through

Bluedog you haven’t read my comment properly. Marketing formula with cereal in for the purpose that it makes babies less likely to wake at night exploits some parents laziness. It’s not recommended and could actually harm their health. We ALL know that they’re not meant to have solid until 6 months. I have never said that ff is lazy. I know how shit sleep deprivation is but it’s no justification for pumping a tiny babies stomach full of cereal. This thread is not about debating breastfeeding in the U.K. It’s about the way formula companies market formula unethically and unscientifically. Who do you think that affects in a negative way? Women and babies who ff and women in counties with poor education and healthcare.

My baby had to have formula.

For the record it wasn’t even a formula I bought. It was high calorie specific formula. As decidedby a paed.

It’s people like you that reduced me to suicide attempts by your nasty judgemental attitudes towards formula.

Marketing formula with cereal in for the purpose that it makes babies less likely to wake at night exploits some parents laziness.

OP, please check your facts. Hungry baby formula does not have anything to do with cereal. It contains casein protein which takes time to digest.

We ALL know that they’re not meant to have solid until 6 months.

Do we? The most recent research actually indicates that "early" weaning (introduction of solids between 17 and 26 weeks) might reduce risk of allergies later in life. Evidence is not conclusive but AAAAI (The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology) has recently changed its recommendation to introduce solids from "6 months" to "4 to 6 months". The jury is basically out.

Bluedog you can’t shut down discussion about marketing of Formula because you had some prescribed formula. In the most part it’s a consumer product. I’ve bloody brought some of them. I’m not judging or putting emotion on to it. I’ve been finding out facts about their unscrupulous behaviour and I’ve found out a lot more thanks to this thread.

Try being a bit less judgemental. Please.

Some of us have no choice and those formula companies that you miscall save our babies lives.

winter good night formula, sleepy formula (whatever it’s called) has cereal in it.

By the way, I agree formula companies may not always be ethical in their marketing. I also know that very determined breastfeeding proponents equally spread out a lot of misleading (and potentially dangerous) information (for instance, a newborn stomach is much bigger than 5-7mls as claimed by La Leche League - my DD easily gulped 30mls of formula 1 hour after she was born).

I ended up formula feeding and my DD happened to prefer a Nestle product. I am very glad I had this alternative.

I’m glad you know that. I didn't think they were still so unethical nowadays because I was naive. Bluedog I’m not disputing that formula saves some babie lives but that also doesn’t change the facts that many die around the world (Unicef and who estimates 1.5 million per year) where formula feeding is an unsafe practice.

good night formula, sleepy formula (whatever it’s called) has cereal in it.

Ah, OK, good night formula does have added cereal but it is targeted to babies older than 6 months.

Hungry baby milk is supposed to be suitable from birth but it contains casein protein rather than cereal.

Rumpledfaceskin
Squeekums but it doesn’t need to be there at all. If babies in the U.K. and Korea can drink formula without sucrose so can babies in South Africa? It’s not a small issue at all.
It is if you consider south africa water quality isnt the same. So to some degree there has to be added something to overcome it
Also just basic safe access to water would come before that breakdown of every single ingredient

SoupDragon
Advertising from formula companies will not educate women on formula feeding. It will sell them the product.
You will never get unbiased information from someone who wants to sell you their product. The answer is brand-free, not for profit formula but (literally) where is the money in that?
Funny how you prefer the advertising of someone who is purely out to make money from you but label the advertising of a free product “smug” and “pushy”
Well actually all the questions i had that the hospital refused to answer were answered by the formula website, sitting on my phone in the hospital. They didnt need to sell anything, i already had the product
It is smug to say bf is the be all and end all of infant feeding, its not
Its pushy to new vulnerable mums to be constantly only ever saying breast is best. It leaves the feeling of failure with many women if they having issues as the posters suggest all bf is smiling happy relaxed mum with a perfectly feeding baby, thats not the case for many. Why not if bf works for you great, if not there safe and healthy alternatives, pics of both ff and bf mothers?

eeanne
FartnissEverbeans why does the NHS have to teach you how to FF? It’s not a medical issue. If I bring my 9 month old in I don’t get a tutorial on how to blend veg and spoon it into the child’s mouth.
Are there other areas where you’d like the NHS to violate WHO guidelines, or only this one?

So if a young new mum with no real help wanted to know if she could premake and store formula, save an unfinished bottle, make it up with boiled or unboiled water, what type of formula, who should she ask? the internet and find all varied opinions or a medical professional who can be taught on a stock standard level of formula prep, like they taught to push bf. Why not just have unbiased info on feeding a child?

I ebf but noticed my nhs ready steady baby book given to me for free by Midwife last year has section on bf and a section on Formula feeding including making up bottles. I know friends have been given advice from HVs re formula.

In hospital I heard formula being prepared and given to women and they were asked which brand. Didn’t seem to be any issue or stigma at all. The ward was mobbed and support for feeding was not there but I was told I couldn’t home until I showed them I had established feeding (on day 2 when my milk wasn’t even in!) or was willing to put baby on formula. Was made to feel like silly incapable little girl instead of trying to do what midwives has drilled into me during pregnancy, very odd and actually pretty distressing at the time. I should say baby was full term and very good, above average weight and she went on to pack weight on solely from bf. Seems very variable whether you get hammered for bf or ff. at least the constant is we’re always wrong whatever we do eh?

No one who understands the issues thinks that mothers who use formula - for whatever reason - should not have everything they need in terms of info and support to do it safely and happily. It’s part of the hcp’s job.

But it’s not ethical for it to be marketed at parents - all formula marketing involves spurious claims and no one is unaware that formula exists, so making consumers aware of it is not necessary.

There is nothing judgmental about this notion.

I was really impressed when I had ds 5 weeks ago.
At antenatal appts I saw posters about bf but also guidelines of how ff babies parents were to be supported.
On recovery I was asked very nicely how was I going to feed baby with no judgement at all. They had formula there had I needed it.
On postnatal I heard others asking for formula and they were chatted to, baby checked, helped with bf if struggling but if they really wanted to ff they were given a choice of formula. Heard a lot of people asking which was best and they were told all first formulas the same