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/

Well what problems exactly and could u please inform me so I can go check my perfectly healthy DS for some hidden horrifying illness?

I have saw an advert for follow on formula (althouh you wouldn't know except for the small print at the bottom of the screen, and it was all just random happy smiley parents and happy smiley babies and in the end it paid lip service to BFing but basically promoted formula.

I saw another one but it was basically the bloody same just a different slogan

what's the difference here youngbutnotdumb?

surely ads showing BFing is a GOOD THING. why are you so dismissive of it? OK, so you couldn't or chose not to BF....does that mean that no-one else should have a right to see the adverts promoting BFing or get proper impartial information about formula feeding? The main point is that the formula companies are BENDING THE LAW and should be made to toe the line. Can't you see that???????

(and obviously Scotland has a more proactive approach than the rest of the UK; good for them!)

youngbutdumb - there are links aplenty on this thread and others, but obviously, you cannot check for a lot of the conditions more likely with ff....or do you only believe things you can see in your own kids or others.

Many of the conditions are not really curable, as well as being invisible, anyway, so looking for them will not help.

Did you not understand my concept of risk? I don't think I can explain it any more simply, but I'll try if it really is still above your head.

Good grief.

sorry, not youngbutdumb, but youngbutnotdumb.

Got your name wrong there - silly of me

FFS THATS NOT MY POINT!!!!

FOR EXAMPLE IN AUGUST WHEN JORDAN HAD HER LITTLE GIRL SHE WAS PICTURED IN A MAG BOTTLEFEEDING NOT ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE FORMULA JUST FOR AN INTERVIEW AND THERE WERE THOUSANDS OF LETTERS SENT IN FROM BF MAFIA TYPES! MOANING THAT SHE WAS PROMOTING FF! BUT THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF PICS OF CELEBS BF EG MELINDA MESSENGER BUT IS FINE!!!!

THATS WHY I THINK IT IS FARKING HYPOCRITICAL!

freudian slip

Many of the risks are not noticeable until adulthood anyway, but things as small as more allergies/eczema/tummy bugs etc in formula fed babies than breastfed babies spring to mind.

information here. these have been shown by medical studies; it's not just made up so that it can be used a cosh to make women feel guilty into increasing the BFing rates in this country as has been bandied around before.

And I wish I'd had access to this information when I switched to FF with my son. I would rather have all information available to me and not put my head in the sand singing "la la la I'm not listening".

and yes, they are increased risks, not definate givens, but don't you think that the formula companies should be made to be held accountable for not giving this information alongside their product? in much the same way that tobacco companies have to put health warnings on their product?

LOL here we go with the eczema crap!
My son has SEVERE ATOPIC ECZEMA which he was born covered with so unless I FF him in the womb then I can safely assume it wasnt that!
or maybe it was because of all the contact I had with Formula whilst I was pregnant and making bottles up for my sisters!

Is something wrong with your caps lock?

Th reason the Jordan thing was so bad was because promoting formula is ilegal, and she was not just feeding Tiiami, but it was opposite an ad for 'follow-on milk' rule bending again. She also taled about SMA IIRC which is tantamount to advertising, therefore breaking the law.

I didnt have much bloody choice about FF or would I have been better off just leaving him to starve?

COW AND GATE OMNEO COMFORT IS FAB!!!
SHIT DRAG ME OFF TO JAIL!!! SILLY ME BREAKING THE LAW!

oh for crying out lout yongbutnotdumb, as I've said before, it's not about letting babies starve; it's about formula companies breaking the bloody law and women not having access to all the information.

Why do you think this is about you and your feeding regime; there is a much bigger picture here. I think you need to remove your personal issues from this and look at it more objectively; that's what I have done.

YBND, I FF, as did Daisy, we aren't saying feeding your child formula was wrong, but that the people making it for profit are wrong in the way they bend rules, and I'm sorry but the risks are proven, I'm not saying it purely to get at you.

Youngbutnotdumb - I think you are wilfully missing the point that many people are trying to make.

The controversy over Jordan was due to the fact that the pictures constituted 'Product Placement' as the SMA logo was clearly visible in the photo, the name SMA was mentioned in the article, and the page was followed by an SMA advert iirc.
See here for more on the article.

Positive images of BF in the media are very rare - partly because BF does not make anyone any money. BF is not a product manufactured by a company with the intent of creating a profit. But it is without doubt the most appropriate food for a baby and therefore there is nothing 'hypocritical' whatsoever about being happy with positive images of BF, whilst being unhappy with formula companies using whatever tactics they can to worm around a ban that is in place to protect FF babies.

It has absolutely nothing to do with me I just like arguing about it! .

At the end of the day they have to bend the rules to get their point across because bloody pro BF would complain even if they just told the truth! And did put research out they wouldnt be able to without thousands of (polite version of what am thinkin) BF maniacs head hunting them for corruption!

lol at tiktoks 'freudian slip'

YBND What is a bfing maniac? Are you a ffing maniac?

Er, I wouldn't complain if they told the truth.

Thats what everyone on this thread wants, in fact - both BF and FF ers.

The truth about the ingredients of the product, the risks associated with it, the correct methods of preparation and storage...

Rather than spurious, dubious, and frankly worthless claims about X formula being better/closer to breastmilk/good for immune system.

I don't like trading insults on mn, but you are practically unhinged, you really are, youngbutnotdumb

Take your personal hang-ups out of the argument, avoid using CAPS lock, and think about what you are saying.

Bf mafia, Bf maniacs, hounding....these words do not reflect anything but your own imagination.

Formula is Big Business. They are making money - and there is nothing wrong with that per se, but it comes with responsibilties, to market in an ethical way, so all parents have access to information that is not commercially-led, so they can all have the information they need to make the choices that suit them. Some babies have to be formula fed, for whatever reason - and their parents, too, need the right information to make the best nutritional choice on their behalf.

This is why there are laws controlling the marketing of formula milk - it's nothing to do with criticising Jordan, or you, or anyone who uses formula. It's to ensure, Jorda, or you, or anyone else, knows what is in the food they are giving their baby and knows the possible health impact of it, and if they use formula, then they need to know brand and formulation differences (if they want to know. If they want to trust that all is ok and lovely and the brand with the fluffiest bunnies on the label is the best, then that too is their choice).

LOL possibly so! Like I said it was the polite version of what I was thinking! I have came across 'BF maniacs' in the past at my parent and toddler group and at work, they are the people who sit there moaning about how tough BF is and how it must be a life of luxury FF what alot of shit, and those who sit and ask me if my DS is covered in eczema due to an allergy and then say oh I've heard thats more common in FF babies! Trust me ud be surprised the people Ive come up against inc a HV.

I agree with u tiktok I may be slightly unhinged it's well known!

BTW hardly an insult

I like using CAPS lock actually I shout when I argue therefore I am LOUDER!!! Hence the caps!

At no point did I mention the word 'hounding'

And my argument is yes I agree with all that crap about research etc.

But again my point is either way even if they flashed a sign once a year with just a pic of formula and a whole load of stats ingredients etc there would still be complaints about it so whats the point in it at all?

Hmm, the truth.
I'd love to see it tbh.

If the 'adverts' actually said.

"Hi, we're and we make formula milk for babies. It is a subsitute, albeit a poor second, to breastmilk for feeding infants from birth until approximately the age of one year old.

Our milk contains *Water, but not enough so your baby will need extra boiled water.
*Protein, but in too high a concentration so it has to be diluted which lowers the calorie content and then has to be supplemented with lactose.
*Fat, which is less easily absorbed then breastmilk fat.
*Carbohydrate, but in insufficient quantity so lactose has to be added.
*Vitamins and minerals, but not enough so many formulas are enriched with extra vitamins and extra iron.

and sometimes other things we have created in our labs which we have labelled as anitbodies and used to claim this milk is closest to rbeastmilk, when in fact it is closest to cows milk.

Our milk is packaged and marketed to be bought by the most customers so is pretty darn expensive and althoguh people may tell you otherwise, it wil not harm your baby to change it's milk, so you can swap and choose as you liek to see which one suits your childs make-up best.

Ideally your child should be fed breastmilk, as it is what is provided by nature for them, but as not everyone wants or is able to breastfeed we have made this milk to make an awful lot of money in this gap in the market, but if you do choose to use our formula instead of breastmilk, you will be putting your child at risk of more gastro problems, allergies, higher risk of heart diease later in life, doubling the risk of chest infections between birth and seven, doubling the risk of ear infections, making it five times mroe likely to suffer from urinary tract infections, and also will make the motehr more at risk of osteoporosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer."

So, how many companies do you think are liekly to start telling the truth on their adverts YBND?

Oops, ybnd, you didn't say 'hounding' you said 'head hunting for corruption'.

Big difference, yes, I do see, silly me again, sorry.

(For someone who likes arguing, you are pretty hopeless at it).

You are saying that any advertising would be complained about, even if it was just an annual pic with some stats.

Too right - you're getting it at last! Any advertising of infant formula is unethical, and is, indeed, against the law in the UK.

However, a non-commercial pic of infant formula, paid for not by the manufacturers (who would then have control over what was said and the pictures), with stats about the risks and a list of ingredients and possible side effects and other info including the risks of hospitalisation in the first year, and the other impacts on health, would be allowable under the law, because it would be information.

Would you like that? Or would you think it was somehow a criticism of you as a ff?

Yes they should but I must say I dont believe half of it TBH thats my opinion!
But again even if they did theyd still moan about advertisig wouldnt they? If its so bad why are then we allowed to feed our children it? As far as I knew it didnt harm your child switching milk anyway I already knew that, about allergies etc I got all that info whilst I was pregnant if people would use sense and ask a MW they will tell these things! Or r they getting money and lying to us aswell?

Squalor, even the formula makers don't claim they have antibodies in the product....think you mean LCPs or prebiotics.

It's just I don't want people to think, 'ahah! so they do have antibodies in it!'

'Cos they don't and they can't