Help Restrict the Promotion of Formula milk - Send Email to FSA before May 5th

[Pidge]

This is from the Breastfeeding Manifesto Coalition ....

How a baby is fed has profound health implications for both mother and child. It is very important that all parents, those who use formula and who breastfeed, have access to reliable information based on evidence that is free from commercial pressure. Only when this happens will parents be able to make a fully informed decision about how they want to feed their child.

In the UK however, weak laws mean that formula advertising and promotion far outweighs good quality information on feeding. The result of this is that formula feeding mothers find it hard to access reliable information to understand the facts about the various products, including safe preparation and storage of formula milk.,

To improve protection for parents and babies the Breastfeeding Manifesto Coalition is calling for the WHO Code of Marketing of Breastmilk substitutes and subsequent resolutions to become the Law in the UK (Objective 7 of the Manifesto). This is something we are committed to, but it can't happen overnight.

However, we do have an opportunity NOW to help move UK legislation in the right direction and strengthen the legislation governing baby milk promotion in the UK. The Food Standards Agency is consulting until February 5th on the new Guidance which the formula milk advertising must follow when promoting, labeling and advertising formula milk.

Please send the email below and play your part in helping to ensure that the new Regulations are as strong and robust as possible. Public pressure makes a real difference so make your voice heard!

www.breastfeedingmanifesto.org.uk/make_your_voice_heard_2.php/

Breastfeeding is not put first - in the eyes of many health professionals it's an optional extra that they don't really have to support that much.

If you want to formula feed, absolutely no one can stop you (nor should they!). If you want to breast feed, you can be stopped in too many ways to list here - from not being given proper information to being pressured to switch at the first sign of difficulty (rather than difficulties being solved). The default solution to breastfeeding problems should not be to switch to formula - even if it's what some people do - it should be to solve the problems, which nine times out of ten can be solved. And formula marketing and promotion (which is huge and very well funded) does contribute to a culture in which people see no particular need to support breastfeeding - after all, formula is perfectly good, isn't it? Formula marketing and promotion contributes to the misery of those people you're talking about - it doesn't help them!

But Mum1369, they have been adopted in the UK! Every formula advert you see in magazines, on TV etc is for 'follow-on' milk. The fact that you believe you are seeing adverts for all kinds of formula proves that the regulations are being sidestepped by the formula companies - which is unethical, and precisely what this thread is about.

the regulations have been adopted in the UK mum1369. all adverts that you see are for follow on milks. the fact that you haven't realised this surely shows just how powerful the advertising actually is

some more information on the advertising controversy here

cross posts EXF!

x-posts Daisy!

LOL

yes mum1369 I am an antenatal teacher, a bf supporter and am a volunteer in a weekly drop in for new mothers. so I have met a few midwives.
I am really not sure what your argument is, tbh. it doesn't make any logical sense to me.
in England we already have a law preventing formula being advertised.
there are loopholes, which need to be tightened to prevent the formula companies from getting round the law.
the fact that you think formula adverts do exist when in fact they don't is quite interesting isn't it?
formula advertising won't be made legal. the manifesto is asking for some pressure to be applied on companies currently evading the law.

I'm afraid I just don't believe that's true. It really does depend which side of the fence you are coming from it at.

Sorry - posted before the flurry came in (was responding to Moth)
Thanks for the insight, I guess the advertising authorities must be really stupid too - I can see they are all rushing to close the loopholes.
Regardless, does it still count that I disagree with banning formula / follow on milk ads ? Or shall I be trampled ?

mum1369 - of course you are free to disagree with the world health organisation about what is right for the protection of infant health
actually, trading standards/ASA do listen to complaints and carry out investigations and do fine companoes for breaches of the law
e.g.
here
here

but the formula companies have a lot of money behind their marketing, and TS do not
so the formula companies have a great deal of power

sorry mum1369 I should have added a there as I am being a little tongue in cheek rather than madly preachy
I think sometimes intelligent, educated women can make the ssumption that everyone has access to the information about the risks of ff. which really isn't the case. there is a huge amount of misinformation out there. and a huge number of vulnerable people. and a huge amount of pressure to ff. combined with a lack of support for bf, and a sense of guilt for "failing" to bf.
this manifesto is an attempt to restore some sanity and balance in the madness.

They do yes.But they are producing food for babies, not heroin.

sorry Moth you have made some Huge and erroneous generalisations about HP's.the govt has invested a significant amount of money into training, disseminating information, employing specialist BF staff and implementing NICE and DoH, and WHO guidelines. many MDT meetings and training involve specific nominated interested parties eg NCT

it is therefore erroneous to attribute low BF rates to a specific professional group

this is a very complex issue influenced by
socio-demographics age Class Education culture financial circumstances

some links

practice in HE
NICE Best practice POstNatal guidelines

Infant Feeding RCM statement
Introduction
The past 20 years has seen limited improvements in the initiation and duration of breastfeeding rates, with only a very small proportion of infants being breastfed exclusively at 6 months of age in the UK. In 2000, only 69% of mothers in the UK initiated breastfeeding with only 28% continuing on to four months and 21% at six months. This situation is due to a number of factors such as inadequate training and knowledge of health care professionals, inconsistent advice, the exploitation of mistaken cultural and health beliefs, non-supportive environments for breastfeeding at work and in public places and aggressive marketing of breast milk substitutes. The evidence also shows that many women give up breast-feeding before they would like to because of lack of support in dealing with problems encountered.
RCM Position
The Royal College of Midwives believes that exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life is the most appropriate method of infant feeding. As with other areas of maternity care, the College?s aim is to promote informed choice and support women in their chosen method of infant feeding.
The RCM supports the WHO Global Strategy on infant and young child feeding, the International Code on the marketing of breast milk substitutes and subsequent World Health Assembly resolutions.
RCM recommendations
The RCM recommends that:
· Maternity units develop and publish best practice standards for breastfeeding with the involvement of ?mother-to-mother support? groups. This should include a commitment to ensure that all staff are skilled in supporting mothers with exclusive and continued breastfeeding and provide consistent information and advice in managing breastfeeding problems. Training should be provided by employers without the involvement, sponsorship or provision of promotional materials by manufacturers of formula milk.
· Women who have chosen to artificially feed their babies should have their decision respected, be informed of the social and financial implications of their decision, advised of the risks associated with bottle-feeding and be shown how to make up the feeds safely and correctly.

References
Hamlyn B, Brooker S, Olienkova K, Wands (2002) Infant Feeding Survey 2000. The Stationery Office London
Renfrew MJ, Ansell P, Mcleod KL (2003) Formula milk preparation: helping to reduce the risks: a systematic review. Arch Dis Child. 88(10) 855-8
Renfrew M (2002) Enabling Women to Breastfeed: A Review of Practices Which Promote or Inhibit Breastfeeding - With Evidence-based Guidance for Practice
Saadeh R (2002) Presentation at a breastfeeding conference in London
Sikorski J, Renfrew MJ, Pindoria S, Wade A. Support for breastfeeding mothers. (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2003. Oxford: Update Software
World Health Organisation (2002) Infant and young child nutrition. Global strategy on infant and young child feeding. Resolution WHA55.25. WHO Geneva [http://www.who.int/gb/EB_WHA?PDF?WHA55/ea5515.pdf]

Sorry, keep x posting.
Harpsicord - I do see your point and you are right, there is a huge amount of misinformation on both sides - I hope you are right about the manifesto bringing a balance, I just don't see it, but I do see your point.

By Mum1369 on Thu 01-May-08 21:52:19
They do yes.But they are producing food for babies, not heroin.

Mum1369 I think you have officially lost the plot now.
are you suggesting that anyone on this earth, apart from you, is comparing formula to heroin.
that is offensive, inflammatory and frankly dragging this otherwise sensible discussion to a level of mud slinging at which I mnot prepared to engage.

sorry for that overly angry bit of cross posting
I really hate this "formula is not poison/heroin" thing
I feel it is sort of guilt by association
I would really like to distance myself totally from that sort of analogy
hence getting cross
again

I don't attribute low rates solely to HP attitudes - but HP attitudes are relevant.

And I was talking about the attitudes of individuals who meet mothers, not the attitudes of the organisations behind them - there can be a significant difference between those two things.

as indeed do so many other salient factors.erroneous to attribute low BF to HP's.Yes they have an influence as do
Peers
partner
Family
Class
socio-demoographics

BF is a mandatory assessable module in MW training.hugely emphasised

many other HP in this clinical speciality eg Nurses, Medics,support staff also receive training too

daisy, harpsi and moth,

can I just applaud your sterling patience and intelligence on this thread.

scottishmummy, you're a bit deluded if you think that best practice translate into what really happens on the ground. If only HPs put all those guidelines into practice instead of the countless stories we hear of 'why don't you try a bit of formula' from the hospital bedside, to 'you haven't got enough milk love' to 'that baby needs a bottle' to 'give him a bit of solids, it doesn't matter what the books say'...

thanks for that incisive well balanced comment.did it take you long to come up with that?

I'm sorry, scottishmummy, to whom was the comment of 22.07.30 addressed? To me?

thanks wilf, but unfortunately I have to bow out and go nurse my whiplashed neck and am off for the weekend tomorrow. I look forward to catching up with this on Monday.

for as long as we demonise and are divisive about certain groups eg HP how will collaboration and good practice happen?. or is the not too subtle inference that only a select few campaigners can disseminate information correctly