Why do some people feel that they must breastfeed at any cost?

[Moomin8]

I’ve got plenty of experience of both types of feeding - I breastfed two of my children until 2 years. They were great feeders - I had no problems.

My other two children for various reasons ended up having formula. One was 3 weeks early, severely jaundiced and my milk was slower to come in than it should. I didn’t want her going into hospital for uv therapy. The other couldn’t feed well and was eventually diagnosed with dyspraxia, later. She would get tired and not take enough bm.

Now, I see this lady on Instagram who has a 6 week old baby who weighs only 7 pounds and he was born at term weighing 6 pounds. He clearly is not thriving. Every time I see a picture of him I cringe. And his mother is about my age (40) and this is baby #6 for her.

I would be the first to say that breast IS best. But only if the child is thriving surely?

How can a baby make the necessary brain development in those early weeks if they aren’t picking up weight?

I know that society makes women feel like formula is evil. But sometimes I think it’s better than breastfeeding when the baby isn’t thriving.

@Peapod29 also says

'when the researchers considered other factors which might influence the results, such as parental health and education'

Moomin I expect that is a portion of it. I do believe a lot of people don’t make up bottles properly because to do so is actually a massive faff (and technically perfect prep machines aren’t recommended but I know they’re a godsend to many). Some countries also give different advice. I think in France it’s quite normal (or was at one time) to make them up with cold water . I’m not sure the risk IS that small tbh. Formula is the perfect breeding ground for bacteria, and there have been quite a few recalls where it’s been found to contain pathogens straight out the factory. If you’re making bottles up without heating it to the 70 degrees your playing Russian roulette on getting a bug if you ask me. This is the sort of thing the nhs should be educating on.

I can’t remember how I made up bottles (DT’s are almost 21). I can’t remember if the hospital showed us or we just followed the instructions. I do remember that the method then was different from how DM had made bottles up when I was born in Belgium. It was also different from the method DMil had used in Canada. We have all survived. It’s not complicated and new Mums now have it much easier thanks to Perfect Prep machines.

DT’s were seven weeks early and went onto formula from the start - can’t remember the brand. Don’t think they had stomach problems. A ff baby is no different to a bf.

@twinkleprincess can you post a link to that? The only page I can find doesn’t have any links re the infections risk.

www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/benefits-breastfeeding/

Out of interest, why do you think the NHS promotes bf?

(Personally I have no investment in the health benefits stuff - I did bf my child, but because I liked the convenience of being able to feed him anywhere anytime)

@HarrietM87

www.nhs.uk/news/pregnancy-and-child/breastfeeding-fights-infection/

As I said earlier on I was pushed and pushed to BF my DS. Every piece of info I was given only even mentioned BF and when I asked about FF I was told they couldn't help me as they promoted BF.

You only have to look in a waiting room on a mat ward to see what they promote...

@twinkleprincess sorry I wasn’t clear, I know they promote it loads. I meant what do you think the reason is that they promote it if there are no health benefits at a population level (if that is what you think)?

@HarrietM87 the WHO promotes breastfeeding and the UK signed up to the unicef baby friendly initiative. Some of the guidelines seem a bit much in my opinion. If you have a google. Because of this they are only "allowed" to promote breastfeeding. That means some people interpret that as only allowed to talk about breastfeeding.

Also, if you read that link carefully, the criticisms you’ve quoted relate to that particular study. The link is to a comment by the NHS on a BBC news report about one bf study, it’s not their analysis of all studies done on bf or of infection rates relating to bf or anything else. It doesn’t explain their bf policy at all, it’s just trying to help people understand the background to a news report.

As I said, I can’t find the evidence that the NHS relies on for saying that bf lowers infection risk as they don’t cite any, they just state it as fact on the link I posted.

@HarrietM87 as has been said below I think cost is a major factor. If they promoted FF they would realistically be expected to provide it for babies as was the case in the 'olden days'. It is therefore cheaper to promote BF as they don't need to provide formula. (I understand they do for very limited reasons). However if I went in thinking I would BF had my baby and went actually no I do not want to try it they wouldn't provide it you'd have to go and get some or be told you must BF until someone brings some in.

I also think that BF is better in underdeveloped countries as has been also said on this thread. The chances of someone in the UK not having access to clean water, a kettle is minimal (again aware some people don't but they are the minority). If the WHO is looking at al cases of BF then of course some countries will have a greater need to promote it but not all.

Again I do not personally feel enough studies have been done to show the picture of BF vs FF in a developed country, In terms of benefits of both first year or life and later life. Many of the independent studies are shockingly small sample sizes and all define 'infections' differently. E.g. one says infection includes a common cough or cold and then says it needs to be serious enough to get antibiotics. Many contradict themselves and also rely on mothers remembering severity again what one mother may class as serious another would not.

It's a minefield and needs to be treated as such

@twinkleprincess my hospital wouldn't let you bring in formula, you had to use little bottles they provided.

@twinkleprincess it’s really hard to do a fully robust study because let’s face it, who is going to let their newborn baby be a guinea pig for something like this. It’s also worth remembering that the formula industry is worth millions and billions of pounds globally whereas the only people cashing in on bf are those private lactation consultants. The reason there are such extreme advertising restrictions on formula is because of their past behaviour which I’m sure you know all about. None of this means formula is bad but it does mean you need to check sources for studies really carefully.

The studies that do exist either show that bf has some benefits, or at very best there is no difference. No one has ever suggested to my knowledge that there are health benefits to baby or mother to ff. That, in my opinion, is why the NHS promotes bf. They give all their reasons on that link I posted.

It’s not true by the way that if you don’t bring formula in with you they don’t give it in hospitals. Maybe in some of them but I know loads of people whose babies have had formula in hospital. Two of my friends had EMCS and the midwives gave their babies formula without their consent, which really annoyed them at the time.

@HarrietM87 genuine question what did the bad behaviour/advertising of formula entail?

@HarrietM87 which is why I said in limited circumstances it is given.

I never said and don't believe FF has any benefits over BF unless circumstances dictate it. E.g mental health, baby drops weight significantly, mum can't produce milk etc. I believe they are both equal means of feeding with no real benefits for either way.

I don't think baby feeding needs to be advertised to be honest whether it's BF or FF as it's just not needed. I do however feel you should be able to spend 'points' such as nectar or boots on formula and think restrictions on this are ridiculous but don't believe there should be offers on formula.

As you say nobody wants their baby to be a guinea pig so any study done is normally not 100% as the sample sizes are so small

@amazedmummy our hospital didn't provide it unless there was limited circumstances. You had to bring it in yourself and they'd only allow you to bring in starter sets they didn't provide any sterilising facilities.

@twinkleprincess me and my mum had a laugh about that. As if anyone would say I was going to breastfeed but I'd rather have those nectar points.

@amazedmummy exactly!

@Raaaa have a look on google. Formula companies, Nestle in particular, are responsible for the deaths of thousands of babies due to promoting formula at the expense of breast milk in developing countries, knowing full well that the women there did not have access to facilities to prepare it safely. It was a massive scandal in the 1980s and led to much more rigorous control of the industry generally.

Even now though they do their best to flout/avoid the guidelines. For example, there is no need for follow-on milk - first infant formula is fine for up to one year, but the formula companies created it specifically so they can advertise it as a drink beyond 6 months and so get around the regulations. They say it has all kinds of different benefits that will help a 6 month + old and have adjusted the recipe slightly so it counts as a different product, but it’s no better.

All the different formulations on the boxes about “hungry baby”, “colic help”, “comfort” etc are all meaningless too. If you read the small print on the ones for colic it says it has no proven benefits for colic, for example. It’s not surprising - they want you to buy them, like any manufacturer with any product. It’s really really hard to find independent advice on formula.

Given that follow on milk is marginally cheaper (can be on offer, can get points for it etc) shouldn't we be advising all FF newborns to go straight in it? I mean if it's basically the same, what does it matter?

Or could it be that the nutritional needs of a newborn and one who is also recieving solids are slightly different? People make a big deal of breast milk being responsive, and yet mock/criticise the formula companies for having different milk for different stages.

And yes, Nestle did some mean things 40 years ago. It's 2020. Let's move on shall we...what next, still being grumpy at Germany for WW2?

@Babyboomtastic my understanding is that it’s not suitable for newborns, but that infant milk is suitable for all babies up to a year. I haven’t done loads of research into it but you should have a look at it yourself if you’re formula feeding.

I personally think it’s absolutely disgusting to describe what some formula companies did as “mean”. It’s far far beyond that. I only mentioned the details because a pp specifically asked about it. The point I was trying to make is that formula is a commercial product, and so it’s important to be aware of that and the sources of information when you read things in this context.

@Babyboomtastic if helpful, here’s an NHS link that talks about the different kinds of formula that are available and what ages they are suitable for:

www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/types-of-infant-formula/

It says that research has shown that follow on formula has no benefits for your baby, but hey, why not just blindly follow the people out to make money from you instead.

And yes, Nestle did some mean things 40 years ago. It's 2020. Let's move on shall we...what next, still being grumpy at Germany for WW2?

Possibly the most ignorant comment I’ve ever seen on a breastfeeding thread. Please do some research. They are STILL doing absolutely atrocious things now, both in the developing world and here. UNICEF estimates 1 million babies still die from inappropriate formula feeding now. They market different ingredients in different countries depending on what they can get away with (so some formulas are full of sugar etc) same with pricing. Here it’s even more shady, but obviously a lot less dangerous as it’s not life or death for babies in The U.K.. think more false advertising, claiming scientific findings that don’t exist, advertising to nhs through ‘staff training days’ breaking guidelines. That’s for another thread. Formula companies are up there with the most unscrupulous, if not the worst consider you’re talking life and death.

Afaik Follow on formula generally contains more sugar, so not suitable for young babies (or any babies for that matter).

If you can’t be arsed to do your own research, here’s just one very reader friendly article from only a couple of years ago which highlights just how nestle still operate where they can get away with it. Luckily we have stricter rules here (though not as strict as many people imagine). But the formula you buy in U.K. shops will contain what it should. They do still add stuff to certain formulas (such as probiotics) it’s not harmful but it’s unnecessary and acts simply as an advertising draw. Anything ‘extra‘ they advertise will not be backed up by research.

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

I'm breastfeeding but thanks...

As you point out yourself, they aren't the same. The follow on formulas aren't suitable for newborns. It's hypocritical to say in one breath that they are the same, and in another that you can't feed a newborn the cheaper follow on product. It's not you so much, but the NHS, health visitors etc - they need to make up their mind, either they are the same and therefore newborns can use the cheaper ones, or they are in fact different.

Still hating nestle seems to be a fashionable thing. Many companies did unethical things in the past. I personally think the rules regarding formula 'promotion' are completely over the top, to the extent they are leaving FF parents without useful information and support.when it's got to the stage that places like NCT, and people like health visitors won't even tell someone how to make a bottle in case it's promotion, it's just bloody ridiculous, and it's grossly unfair on parents and babies who are put at risk by this.

This thread took a turn and has become a very interesting read.
Thank you @Moomin8 for starting it and everyone else for their input, definitely has solidified my plans to feed future DC how I've fed current.

I do agree and have always thought that the NHS should be educating people on formulas. I mean they take money from formula companies anyway, it would be far more honest to give impartial advice rather than let them advertise to staff through the backdoor. There was a great documentary on C4 with Kate Quilton last year that highlighted the price discrepancies between brands. Shockingly lots of people interviewed had been advised by hcps to buy Aptamil. I think there’s about £4 difference per tub between that and the cheapest brand yet it is exactly the same. I think this is a really important issue with poverty on the rise in the U.K. (and we know that it’s actually those on lower incomes that are more likely to ff). People are watering down milk and going without food themselves. There was a report into it not long ago, first steps nutrition trust is a great charity that has lots of info. I do t think criticisms of the industry should be equated to criticism of formula as a product in itself though. I’d like to see a fairer industry and certainly fairer prices.

www.firststepsnutrition.org/