Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Infant feeding

Get advice and support with infant feeding from other users here.

SMA GOLD ON EASTENDERS?

488 replies

Dalrymps · 03/01/2008 20:43

I probably don't know what i'm on about but i just flicked on to eastenders and during one scene there was a carton of SMA Gold on the surface in the background, it was the house of the one who has just had the baby with the ginger husband i think (not too sure cause i don't really watch it), anyway i think her baby in it is quite young...
Anyway, i was just wondering if this is allowed, i mean, isn't it like an indirect form of advertising formula for newborns? I'm not totally against formula or anything, I mix feed myself, I just think it seems like their advertising it when they shouldn't? Any thoughts on this?

OP posts:
SantaBabyBeenAnAwfulGoodGirl · 04/01/2008 23:16

oh hands up from me i thionk it would be intersting if they werew accepting rewards for any product

VictorianSqualor · 04/01/2008 23:21

FGS, THIS IS NOT ABOUT BREAST OR BOTTLE FEEDING IT IS ABOUT A POPULAR SOAP PLACING OBJECTS THAT ARE NOT LEGALLY ALLOWED TO BE ADVERTISED IN A SCENE.
THEREFORE, ALTHOUGH, POSSIBLY NOT BREAKING ANY LAW, BEING BLOODY UNETHICAL!

And whilst I'm at it, no advertising formula does not mean people will say 'oh, I must feed my baby formula' but it does mean that people are likely to base their choices on an advert for a formula manufacturer to make money rather than on the true facts, and if that means they do not understand the difference between breastmilk and formula or even the differences between different formulas then we, as a nation ahve let down all of the mothers who have made that choice!

It is for formula feeders that these rules are in place, do you really think I give a stuff for me personally about what is going into formula as I breastfeed my baby?? NO! I care for those who do formula feed their babies, and think they deserve not only the best possible product, but the best possible information.

VictorianSqualor · 04/01/2008 23:22

btw I seem to have crossed posts with a few of you, so apologies if what I said has already been mentioned.

IorekByrnison · 04/01/2008 23:23

Hunker I'm sure you're right that the brand was (or at least should have been) listed on the programme information sheets and checked, but I'd still put money on it being nothing more sinister than a mild fuck-up by someone quite junior who didn't understand the implications.

No harm in complaining though. Good opportunity to press the point about bf to the BBC.

stripeymama · 04/01/2008 23:23
SantaBabyBeenAnAwfulGoodGirl · 04/01/2008 23:23

hey don't shout babe

hunkermunker · 04/01/2008 23:23

Ban advertising of formula at all.

Have a properly researched formula (more than one, prob to account for prem babies, refluxy babies, etc) that contains the best researched ingredients known at that time and make it unbranded and available easily.

Make it illegal to stop women breastfeeding in England and Wales as well as Scotland.

Massive public information campaign (starting with nursery school education and continuing through the PSHE strand at school) and excellent breastfeeding support from all those a pg woman comes into contact with in a professional capacity - so if she goes to see her GP with mastitis, he'll know how to treat her, etc.

Better maternity leave (a year on full pay, actually, make it three years if I'm allowed anything I want) with strong legal protection for bfing mums at work - time to express, own fridge for milk, etc - or baby at work with you if at all feasible.

I realise you just asked me how women get better information - imo it starts with education at school and making sure that health professionals know their stuff. The rest is just nice to have.

I'm sure there's more - I am tired and was going to bed several posts ago. Luckily I type fast

VictorianSqualor · 04/01/2008 23:27

Hunker for PM!!!
Thanks for the G&T, but I can't drink it

stripeymama · 04/01/2008 23:29

Yes Hunker that is fab. Exactly what I'd say if my brain would string it all together coherently.

carmenelectra · 04/01/2008 23:31

Hunker,

Absolutely agree it starts at school. When i bf ds2 ds1(aged 8) asked me why i was bf. He had only seen people ff(though i wasnt aware of this)and he seemed uncomfortable. I explained what boobs for etc and after a wk or two he didnt mention it again except to say "are you bf?"and stuff like that. I was shocked he didnt know what breasts are for. When he saw a box of C&G he asked why it said 'as a complement to bf' when i was bf and i explained what complement meant. He was so cool about it all.Suspect most kids these days arent.

Agree with most of what you said, except maybe one type of unbranded formula like its some last resort or something.

carmenelectra · 04/01/2008 23:32

oh and not sure about total ban on formula like its some little secret.

VictorianSqualor · 04/01/2008 23:38

I think if formula was as hunker says, and made with the best intentions (rather than by money hungry manufacturers) then advertising wouldn't be needed anyway.
We woudl know that if you didn't breastfeed there was formula available, that ahd been scientifically manufactured to give your child the best possible substitute dependant on circumstances and it would be readily available.

Formula companies only want to advertise to make money, not increase awareness.

MerryLittleCarrotmas · 05/01/2008 00:23

CE, from what you say, you don't believe product placement ever works. You also don't believe advertising works either. You consider yourself to be immune to both, and extrapolate that both are thus entirely ineffective on everyone, and sales of products are unrelated to advertising spend.

You are wrong.

If you consider the multi-billion pound advertising industry, I'm sure you would accept that businesses measure sales uplift against every pound spent on all types of product promotion. They spend money to make money. Sometimes it is directly measurable, like "call this number now" TV adverts; other times it is about "increasing presence", or "building a brand". But I assure you, it works. It makes "my brand" more recognisable/desirable/friendlier/sexier/whatever than "your brand".

You personally may be immune. Naturally, I like to think I am not at all gullible either! Fortunately for advertisers, populations in general are susceptible to what they see on TV and other mediums. That's why we spend the money on it.

Formula companies are prevented by law from brand building. The reasons as to why this is so are sound. And the rationale is that preventing them from doing so does protect babies. But as you said, you are perfectly capable of researching why one results in the other.

That's why we are bovvered. Because on a large scale, brand building is bad for babies. Not for breastfed babies, makes no difference to them - for formula fed babies.

mum2sons · 05/01/2008 04:42

Looking at Hunkermunker's link, you can see that Norway has a 98% BF rate vs our 52% one. Advertising of formula there is banned and there are only 2 products of formula available. Thanks for the link, v interesting.

It is not about breast vs bottle on this thread. I don't get why people think that everytime anything is mentioned about FF, they feel gotten at, even when it is not about FF but about a massive multi million company getting free or other wise brand promotion (and EE either taking illegal backhanders or being naive)!

Should be asleep but can't as v pregnant, uncomfortable and with another cold

ReverseThePolarity · 05/01/2008 07:43

God Hunker that link makes depressing reading.

berolina · 05/01/2008 07:59

(hunker have emailed you)

Chardonnay1966 · 05/01/2008 08:34

I think everyone is missing the point about EastEnders here. The important debate should not be about whether Tanya bottle feeds (it was obvious she did from 1st episode baby appeared in as Max was seen having been up all night feeding him) but why she takes baby round in a car seat when she doesn't actually seem to have a car. Call the PM someone.

Sabire · 05/01/2008 11:20

Hunker - you've got my vote.

Chardonnay - I noticed this too. I thought (with attachment/parenting baby/wearing hat on) 'what the feck is wrong with that woman? Just hold the baby in your arms you silly moo or get a sling'.

Though maybe she's trying to tone her arms by carrying all that weight around - get rid of her bat wings. Poor woman's having terrible post-baby body gremlins.

Back to the original issue - formula advertising and the sneaky ways Wyeth (who makes SMA) tries to circumvent the code (think Jordan in Hello! a few months back)..... the 'nay sayers' on banning formula advertising always take a peculiarly literal stance on this issue, along the lines of 'well seeing a formula advert isn't going to make you want to bottlefeed if you were already thinking of breastfeeding.'

I've always used this analogy to explain the issue: imagine if c-sections were being offered by private medical companies at prices ordinary women could afford.

Imagine that every time you opened a pregnancy magazine or turned on the telly there was an advert for c-section which idealised it - that didn't say anything about the pain or the risks - to you or your baby. Instead the ads would show lovely, smiling, relaxed mummies holding beautiful babies. The ad slogan would say something like: 'love the birth you have'.

Women would be able to go into Mothercare and there'd be a whole section of the store devoted to products useful for women having operative births - special pants that wouldn't catch on your scar and a huge selection of different types of non-prescription pain relief for afterwards.

'Congratulations on your new baby' cards would show handsome doctors wearing scrubs, holding up beautiful newborns to be admired.

Mummy dolls with little abdominal scars would be sold in Toys R Us. References to birth in children's stories would invariably involve doctors and operations.

And imagine that this was taking place in a society where midwives had lost their understanding of physiological birth and their skills at supporting women through it, so that so that those women who opted for vaginal birth often ended up having emergency c-sections or horrible experiences of labour (errr.... not too hard to imagine this is it?).

Imagine that the c-section companies were making huge profits, some of which they'd plough into setting up internet sites where women would be offered alongside advice on operative birth, subtly undermining information on coping with labour.

Imagine that the vast majority of women were choosing to have elective sections and that many of those who held out for a vaginal birth would go into it with trepidation, in ignorance of what happened in labour or how to help themselves cope. Many of these women would end up having emergency c-sections anyway, partly because of the poor care they'd get from midwives who were only experienced in supporting women having operative births, partly because their own fear of failure would become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Women would share their terrible labour stories with each other and say 'don't feel guilty' for opting for an operative birth instead next time.

Women who'd had normal births would keep quiet for fear of making other people feel bad, or would say 'I was very lucky' so that the message trickled down to the next generation that uncomplicated vaginal birth was rare and not possible for the vast majority of women.

And anyone who stood up and said -

"no this is wrong, vaginal birth is better for most women and babies, that there are risks to c-section that women need to understand, that it's wrong for big companies should be making huge profits out of this, that women are being denied the chance to let their bodies do what they are designed to do, that it's leading to sickness, injury and expense to the NHS"

was labelled a 'natural birth fascist' and chastised for making women who really can't have vaginal births feel like failures, and for trying to deny women the freedom to choose how they birth their babies.

Well - that's the way I see it. I think this analogy is very useful.

Advertising doesn't work by a simple 'cause and effect' mechanism - it works through its impact on social mores. Formula marketing normalises and idealises artificial feeding and undermines breastfeeding in the most subtle and destructive ways. It needs to be banned - completely. I'm sick of all the talk about 'choice' - where powerful formula advertising and marketing exists and where formula feeding is a socially entrenched practice, even those women who wish to breastfeed will fail.

Right. Steps down off soap box feeling purged.

That's my ranting over for the weekend!

Staceym21AtLast · 05/01/2008 11:33

i agree about advertising it should be banned.

midwives and possibly even HV shoudl be trained in bf techniques, facts figures etc. rather than the woman having to be steadfasty enough to seek out a trained bfing professional.

the choice of formula should obviously be there, but there should be more option and info given on breastfeeding esp. as the ideal for your child!

and this comes from a woman who ff both her children.

dd there was no choice, she would happily have starved to death (she didnt open her mouth to latch, not even onto a bottle)

ds wasn't feeding and the 'proffessionals' wouldn't believe me until i 'showed' them how little he was taking (of formula it was 1oz per 5 hrs ) by the time they believed me and gave me advice he wouldnt go back to bf

so obviously i say formula should still be available, but if professionals trust the instinct of the mother (my case with ds) then they could deal with it (even on formula all i had to do was wake every hour to feed, i could still have done that when bf) but i had to 'prove' how much he was taking and couldn't express (or possibly wasn't given any good help with expressing ) so the easiest option for them (possibly with quite limited knowledge of bf and expressing) was to shove him on formula!

wish i had more support and that it was there for other women too!

sorry went slightly off on a tangent

carmenelectra · 05/01/2008 11:42

Absolute rubbish with th csection stuff im afraid!

If you have ever watched any maternity programmes from the USA then you would see all that 'CS IS FINE' stuff going on all the time. And even worse programmes that show the PORTLAND, loads opt for epidurals the min they walk through the door and CS is also the norm. Makes me laugh they think cos there is a DR delivering the baby they are getting the best care!

The only people who would go for this even if it were advertised everywhere is women with too much money who wanted a CS to fit in with their lifestyle.These people try and do that anyway.

Do you think people who watched the prog where Jordan had her last baby by CS(cos DR said it was safer!even though she has had a vaginal birth)all went out and requested a Cs cos she looks great after? No way.

JeremyVile · 05/01/2008 11:57

SMA was not being advertised, it was a prop - just as the Martini was a prop.

It is perfectly legal to be seen on screen in this context whether you like it or not.

Hunker - you keep mentioning that there is no way the SMA was there by accident and directing people to your posts re the prop sheets - but, of course it's not there by accident. It has been chosen as a legitimate prop within context of the character and it is ALLOWED to be there.

So no laws, codes or regulations have been broken.

I keep reading that that this is illegal or against the advertising code, but advertising has NOTHING to do with it and despite being told to read the links (the inference being that I am ignorant of all the facts) I have still seen nothing that backs up these claims. Probably because these claims are wrong, they just are.

So, as I said before, in the absence of any reason to believe the BBC took a backhander from SMA then I really fail yo see why you are all complaining.

carmenelectra · 05/01/2008 12:01

At last JV. Some one talking some bloody sense!

Im moving away from this now.I admit you lot have won, all those who agree with each other. I dont stand a bloomin' chance!

Sabire · 05/01/2008 12:19

carmenelectra - middleclass women in Brazil (basically those who can afford a c-section) have an 80% c-section rate.

If you could buy an elective section in this country for £100 I can assure you we wouldn't have a c-section rate of 25%.

Women would go for it in droves - particularly if it was advertised in every pregnancy and birth magazine going: full page spreads every 10 or 20 pages, just like formula ads.

"Hunker - you keep mentioning that there is no way the SMA was there by accident and directing people to your posts re the prop sheets - but, of course it's not there by accident. It has been chosen as a legitimate prop within context of the character."

The person in charge of the props would be aware of the ethical issues surrounding product placement on BBC programmes. A baby bottle of a generic kind could have been used for the same effect, instead of raising the profile of the SMA brand by featuring one of their very recognisable products during a lengthy scene.

JeremyVile · 05/01/2008 12:23

Sabire - you may think it is an ethical issue, I disagree. But then I'm not here to get into a debate on ethics, I am just pointing out that those claiming laws or regulations have been broken are mistaken.

Sabire · 05/01/2008 12:58

Product placement is a form of advertising.

If product placement was going on on East Enders in relation to the carton of SMA then it was both illegal - because advertising of infant formula is illegal - and unethical.

The person in charge of the props had a choice - they could put a very recognisable commercial product in the scene to suggest bottlefeeding, or they could have used a generic feeding bottle, which would have given the same message. They chose to use a very visible and highly recognisable brand in this scene to suggest bottlefeeding. A brand which has been involved in quite a bit of controversy already over the last 12 months because of its unethical use of product placement as a means of advertising infant formula. I think you do have to ask yourself what was going through the minds (and the pockets) of the person responsible for choosing the props on East Enders.

Swipe left for the next trending thread