Stop baby milk promotion

[determination]

Take action here

[inkstigmata]

ETA--DD2 and DD3 are fully FF, had BM for about 3 days. I told MW matter-of factly that this was my choice and they never bothered me about it.

[tiktok]

There is info about all this on other threads, and it's been discussed a lot, but these are the main points:

• healthcare professionals and parents should indeed be able to assess and compare different formulas, by accessing independent research and independently tested claims....at present, there is no research available for formulas in the UK which does this. Advertising and promotion does not fill this gap in any way
  
  
• formula brands and formulations may be different, and may be very different...we can't know. At the moment, all we have to go on is health claims which may or may not be true. Even if they are true, how on earth can a parent choose between something that claims to support brain growth, and something that claims to support the immune system?
  
  
• formula manufacturers have a poor track record in informing parents of safer ways to prepare formula, both here and internationally
  
  
• advertising and promotion is designed to sell product, not to inform or educate
  
  
• plenty of research shows that where unrestricted advertising and promotion is permitted, women breastfeed less

[determination]

very well written tiktok

[bubblagirl]

when my son was born i was unable to breast feed due to reasons given on other threads i had bad birth lots of meds and no hands free due to transfusion so was left to daddy to feed and also wasn't producing anything for baby as many woman in my family also have this problem

i was advised all through about what formular to use and to change to hungrier babies maybe the hv who deal with mainly bf womaen dont or are not allowed to advise but my hv advised me every step of the way

maybe it was because i really was unable to bf who knows thank god for sights like this to help us

[tiktok]

Ta, determination

Juuuuul: the wording you note ""I believe that protecting breastfeeding and making formula feeding less unsafe is essential to protecting the health of the nation as a whole,' should have a comma between 'breastfeeding' and 'making formula feeding less safe' as it makes no sense without one!

'Protecting breastfeeding' is one point, and 'making formula feeding less unsafe' is a separate one. The argument is that advertising and promotion should be restricted, and in its place, parents should have decent, research-based information to help them decide on brands/formulations, if they use formula. At present, this is missing, and the lack of information is detrimental to infant health.

[choufleur]

I haven't read the link from the first post on this thread but i don't get this thread. Manufacturers aren't able to promote forumla for new borns anyway. The ones that are promoted are the follow on formulas, so that shouldn't be influencing anyone's decision to FF, or not.

I started mixed feeding at 5 weeks cos i didnt feel able to breastfeed competently and my ds was massive (still is). We used the forumla my dh bought from the supermarket and stuck with it.

[MyMILisDoloresUmbridge]

choufleur, "Follow-on formulas ( formulae?grin]} were only invented because it became illegal to market formula for babies under 6 months. They didn't exist before that, they are a way of getting the name of the formula out there; when a full page ad proclaims the benefits of SMA follow-on milk, this is the manufacturers underhand way of also promoting the first milk, or the second milk. And given that the WHO recommends that babies should be bf for at least two years why should follow-on milk be promoted at all?

[fick]

QOQ - what are you suggesting should happen?

Formula advertising would tell you what, exactly? Whether your baby would prefer C&G to Aptimil? That Farley's wont make your baby sick up as much as SMA?

Really - what does formula advertising tell you?

What information - which formula companies are freely allowed to include on their tins - do formula companies actually give?

All these studies and tests that are done to show that a companies brand is better compared to another - where are they? I've not seen them published anywhere.

So, how is advertising helpful to a parent in fact?

It's all about brand awareness. This is a HUGE marketing ploy. In marketing there are three key points;

Advertising - this is all about brand awareness.
Promotion - this is all about encouraging people to buy their product.
Public Relations - giving a good image

So, based on the above factors - which particular point is salient to a parent when choosing which formula to give their baby?

Hmmm. Well, advertising certainly tells you which brands are available. But, you'd know which were available to you by visiting your local supermarket where you would regularly buy your formula.

Promotion - well, SMA might well sponsor a funrun, but, how in heavens name is that advising you?@

Public Relations - well, they do have a b/feeding helpline. How wonderful of them. How does that help you choose? hmmmm let me see......

[SpeccieSeccie]

I think it is a little insulting to put restrictions on formula milk that currently apply to tobacco but don't even apply to alcohol. Quite obviously formula milk in itself isn't a 'danger' to society.

I realise (from experience) that breastfeeding needs loads of support but a ban on advertising formula does seem to ride against most of the principles of business freedom and life-decision responsibility in this country. The availability of playstations probably deters some children from outdoor exercise, the availability of 4x4s probably deters people from buying more fuel-economic cars, the availability of media studies qualifications possibly sways people away from the sciences. So, in the name of health/the environment/education should we ban the game consoles/certain cars/courses from advertising ? No, of course not. If we deem them fit to exist legally then I don't see why they shouldn't advertise. If we don't think the product is fit for advertising, then why are companies allowed to provide it in the first place?

(FWIW I think the tobacco ban is a fudge.)

[fick]

speccie - formula milk is an absolute requirement - its not such a clear cut choice.

Its more a case of parents being exploited by fancy slogans, and misleading statements.

I think to compare advertising of formula to alcohol and tobacco advertising is over simplifying the issue, if only because formula can be key to infant nutrition in many babies.

Tobacco and alcohol are lifestyle choices. Not the same thing at all.

[ScottishMummy]

determination - clearly as much as formula feeding and its manufacturers clearly bother you the facts remain some parents chose formula and as implicit in that choice is the recognition they need accurate information, not tub thumping activists. so let other mums make a choice without espousing monomaniac beliefs

[fick]

Yes, scottish mummy. But wouldnt it be so much better if it was informed choice, and not based on a load of cheesy, unbalanced, without-foundation slogans?

I'd be quite shocked if I saw an advert from Glaxo-Smithcline suggesting that their brand of manufactured insulin was closest to human insulin. And then Pfizer saying that theirs was "closer than ever to insulin".

It's just not right.

[SpeccieSeccie]

But insulin manufacturers do advertise, it's just they advertise to doctors. Would that be a more appropriate campaign? Only advertise in the medical world? How would that work?

[ScottishMummy]

ah but monomaniac BF anyone can breast feed mantra is also presenting an over optimistic great if u can do so but bad mummy if u dont - some parents chose formula and that choice must be maintained and based on available literature

[fick]

Speccie, you appear to be wilfully missing the point, so I'm not sure I should waste any energy bothering to point out the difference. It's quite obvious that whilst drug companies do sell their products to HP's, they are quite happy to provide research to back this up.

Scottish mummy, monomaniac is a lovely phrase, but somewhat misplaced here, and you also seem to be missing the point of what people are asking for.

People are asking for informed choice and proper information. Advertising just doesnt cover that , and in some cases serves as a misinformation due to the subtleties of its tactics.

[ScottishMummy]

you are are inviting opinion and trying to generate signatures for a campaign i do not necessarilly have to agreewith the letter or its contents - bit emotive and inflamatory imo

formula feeding is not evil and naturally PLC companies who need to profits will advertise their goods - this is a natural economic imperative

some mums chose Formuls it is robustly tested, medically safe, an appropriate food for a baby if so chosen

would be parallel with addictive toxins sold to adults are hardly comparable and simply raisr the mtional stales and undermine integrity in your narrative

[SpeccieSeccie]

'It's quite obvious that whilst drug companies do sell their products to HP's, they are quite happy to provide research to back this up.' Couldn't this apply to formula? Couldn't research be provided to HP's or others to back up claims about formula?

Sorry to exhasperate you, fick, I really don't mean to. I generally avoid the bf/ff threads so I don't get drawn into the angry stuff but I answered this one from the interests of an open market and business point of view. In general, I believe that advertising keeps competition going keeps prices down, and that in relation to formula this keeps mothers (those that have taken the decision to formula feed) from being poorer than they would if there was no competition. That's why I think it is such a big step to ban the advertising of something (anything).

[SpeccieSeccie]

Sorry, that should read 'exasperate' - I think I need bed!

[fick]

I agree with your analysis of advertising speccie, but, i dont think it has a place in infant feeding, whereby, after a period of time the "choice" to formula feed is irreversible and thus formula is an absolute necessity for a baby to survive.

Scottie - who was your last paragraph aimed at? I'm confused.

[MyMILisDoloresUmbridge]

But how much are the formula companies paying for the advertising. Isn't that cost being passed on to the consumer? I'll bet they spend more on marketing/advertising than they do into research as to what might make the formula better.

[juuule]

"I'll bet they spend more on marketing/advertising than they do into research as to what might make the formula better."
While you might be right - you don't know that do you. So now you are just making it up.

[determination]

Scottish mummy,

This link is for your information.

The promotion of formula by no means educates or supplies mothers with Accurate information. Therefore banning the promotion of formula will not be taking this information from mothers who choose to FF.

[juuule]

I've just been on the c&g and milupa sites and looked up infant feeding. I haven't seen anything that promotes formula over breastmilk. In fact the first line of the milupa page says "breastfeeding is best'.
On the c&g site several milks were listed. I wasn't aware of some of them even though I do visit my local store and have looked at baby milks.
Another thought is How many parents use follow-on milk. Surely if we are all so susceptible to advertising most of us would use follow-on milks rather than cows milk. I personally don't know anyone who has used a follow-on milk. Doesn't this indicate that there is something more than advertising and promotion going on which is causing mothers to choose ff over bf (I don't include those who genuinely have no choice). I think there is something more fundamental that needs addressing rather than just advertising.

[tiktok]

juuule, unless you know the figures for the use of formula milk, then you too are 'just making it up' when you speculate that not many people use it....I guess from looking at its availability in most supermarkets that it's a pretty well-used product, and one that did not even exist until the promotion of infant formula was restricted.

If you know anything about marketing, you'll be aware that techniques that promote one item can be used to promote another. This is why follow on formula is branded and packaged in a way that promotes its counterpart infant formula.

'Breast is best' messages on packs and on websites are there because it is the law.

Thereare many parents who use infant formula either by choice or because breastfeeding has not worked for them, for whatever reason. The health of their infants should be more important than the rights of business, and Scottish Mummy's economic imperative, to promote a product which is, after all, the sole source of nutrition of our most vulnerable population. How on earth does advertising of this product help people choose?

Scottish mummy, you ask for people to be able to choose 'on the basis of available literature'....I'd agree, except the only literature is promotional. Parents need independent information, surely?

I don't see any evidence that promotion keeps prices down. I would be in favour of a non-advertised, non-branded formula sold at a permanently low price....the suggestion is that current practices keep prices down, which is amazingly naive. They keep prices up and the price of formula is what the market can bear....all brands are roughly the same price, and many brands are made by the same manufacturer, anyway.

Compare the price of normal dried milks to the price of formula - there is a massive difference which is not accounted for by the extra additives in the formula.

And a genuine question - with advertising, you are told brand Y protects the brain and brand X protects the immune system; brand A is closer to breastmilk and brand B is inspired by breastmilk; brand C has this formulation of prebiotics and brand D has that formulation of prebiotics. How on earth do you choose among that lot?

[tiktok]

Please, please don't say that advertising and promotion has no effect on choices:

www.thinkbox.tv/server/show/ConCaseStudy.730