Company which harvests soil bacteria for baby formula sponsoring Royal College of Midwives conference! Outrageous!

[theAfkaUrbanDryad]

Morgan puts it much better than me, as usual. Here

Pixie, while i understand your pain and dilemma, i think it is unfair for companies to say to anyone that one formula is better than another when they really are closer to each other than they will ever be to human milk.

If one formula really is the best, shouldn't all babies who have been ff not have equal opportunity to benefit from the best ingredients on the market rather than giving mothers the false impression that one is superior to the others.

Some mothers must surely end up feeling upset and guilty because they can only afford farley's at 5 quid a tub when they may think aptamil must be 'the best' because it is 8 quid a tub?

This thread is not about formula feeding, it is about the insidiousness of formula promotion.

@ Pixiefish

I'm not having a go at people who ff for whatever reason. I know that there's a multitude of reasons for people to ff, and at the end of the day it's not my business - or intention - to sit in judgement of them.

But I'm afraid I will sit in judgement of the infant formula companies, who put their own profit above the safety of their products, and who care more about their share holders than the infants who consume the formula. For mothers who have to, or who want to ff, why the hell shouldn't they have the safest, best milk out there? Putting soil bacteria into infant formula does not make it "closer to breastmilk", in fact it has been shown in some cases to make babies ill. Yet the RCM seem to be endorsing them, which adds a false credence to their claims. Unacceptable, in my opinion, and i will judge, and i will protest, because I care about the health of infants. I don't think that is judgemental.

theAfkaUrbanDryad - I wasn't aware who was sponsering the conference TBH. I have been to previous RCM conferences and been up on the stage demanding that formula milk companies do not carry ads in the RCM journals and that there shouldn't be any stands.

The bottom line is that money is needed to finance conferences and journals.

I just go round the stands and heckle the reps

I agree that formula should be made to the highest standard and safely - it should not be down to companies outdoing each other with products which are marketed as 'being closer to breastmilk'

mears - you totally rock! have you had the same experience, ie the apathy which i mentioned below? I'm not a mw (obviously) so i'm interested in hearing things from the inside, as it were!

Senora - as someone said below, if sponsoring a conference didn't work, the company wouldn't spend large sums of cash doing it. i agree, mw's are not likely to be swayed by posters. but seemingly innocuous things like pens, and notepads are given out at these events, which mw's and hv's then use in front of new mums who then go on to use the formula the mw or hv (possibly unthinkingly or unknowingly) endorses. i mean, it's just a pen, right??

i know it's a stupid example, but it's an example of how insidious formula marketing is.

"someone"? Hurumph!

sorry Bumper - couldn't remember and couldn't be arsed to look who it was!

I was just being attention seeking

Unfortunately, conferences have to be funded otherwise they cannot be held. I'm a midwife and am pro-choice for women as long as they have had all the correct facts. I'm also love BF'ing and in my ideal world all women would have brilliant breastfeeding support and BF exlusively for 6 months and then as long as mum and baby want to do so....

All my fellow midwives (myself included) would happily go to a conference that was paid for the by ff companies, but then we would listen to what was being said at the conference and refuse the formula feeding garbage that seems to hang about at all the stalls where we have our breaks (we of course happily eat their free food )

We are not allowed to have any ff advertisements at work including pens etc. If a 'rogue' pen is found at work - we just pop a plain stickie over any advertisements.

I firmly belive that those eyecatching logos are nasty advertisement ploys and midwives shouldn't be seen having any of them.

A conference has to have a number of sponsors so it can go ahead. In this competietive industry it is very hard to find sposnsors nowadays for conferences and exhibitions, partic one like RCM where year on year attendance is falling and it is harder to encourage people to exhibit due to a decline in footfall.

The RCM conference is jam packed with educational sessions, full of up to date info on midwifery and lots of topics are debated in great detail. I am sure that for this event they have not been able to pick and choose their sponsors, but beter it goes ahead then not at all.

The RCM conference is not a profit making event, it is held purely to educate and inform midwives who unfortunatly are too busy to be allowed time off work to attend. So it's not asif they are profiteering from this sponsor at all.

anyone who started out as part of the aerospace and defense industry must have had a shitload of money to start with.

reesie, that public health professionals are dependent on the same companies which undermine their actions undermine professional goals and responsibilities is another piss poor commentary on how little the gov't actually values babies. Is it because they cannot vote? However, we continue to pay lipservice to that tired old clique of breast being best.

DrN - AFAIK there are 7 sponsors of the RCM conference. Martek is not the biggest sponsor - they have not brought the biggest slice of pie to the RCM table! Also, the RCM sponsors used to be non-code breakers, so why would it be so hard for them to find a code-friendly sponsor rather than Martek??

I believe the biggest sponsor of this year's conference is Johnson & Johnson, who let's face it aren't whiter than white either, but at least they're not putting algae in baby baths eh?

I understand the need for sponsors - I just don't understand the need for Martek as a sponsor!!

Also - is anyone else having trouble spelling sponsor tonight? i keep wanting to spell it with an e!!

but sponser just doesn't look right!

Through years of MN, I have changed my stance on formula in both directions:

1. All mums should have it drummed into them every time they feed on the maternity unit, and by HVs, that formula feeding, like all medicines, is safe but carries health risks for their babies.

1. As Mears points out, some mums just don't have the inclination or stamina for BF. Some babies struggle to BF. Mums should be supported to express, or mix feed for as long as poss.

When I lived in Canada with DS1 (), mixed feeding after 3 months was de rigeour. Most mums wanted to keep BFing until 1 year, but hated the constant feeding. Many of my friends felt mixed feeding was a comfortable compromise (and for many, this just meant a bottle with dad before bedtime).

But I think there should be a moratorium on any formula being advertised as 'close to breastmilk'. There should be no public advertising of formula. It carries health risks.

That's why I buy Practicing Midwife instead of The British Journal of Midwifery - no formula ads.

Plus I start to get a migraine every time I open a copy of the BJM - it's so dry!

Personally I feel very uncomfortable about formula manufacturers promoting their products to midwives in this way.

For every midwife who's well trained in breastfeeding support and who's truly mindful of the complexity of the social and emotional barriers to breastfeeding that exist in the UK there are just as many others who have a very superficial understanding of the issues and lack skill in supporting mothers.

Exposing these midwives to the sophisticated marketing tactics of the formula companies is bound to shape their views on infant feeding in a whole host of ways that are unhelpful to breastfeeding.

Bloody Johnson and Johnson. Responsible for more itchy babies and children than all the midges in Scotland........

and yet Johnson and Johnson also manufacture Aveeno cream which is regularly prescribed for excema

IMO the problem is not whether someone BF or FF, its people making a choice without knowing the truth, or without having the support to follow the course that they would like to.

If something undermines the ability for parents to get the right information, then there is, in my opinion, an enormous problem.

Hello there, a longtime lurker finally posts.

Just wanted to add my two penneth worth...

I don't know why but I have changed my mind a little after many years of agreeing totally with people like mears and drN- I always thought it was better to have a conference than none at all and it is hard to get sponsorship and beggars can't be choosers etc.
But something has changed in me and I can't keep watching the RCM do things like this. It's just too easy and too convenient an excuse to say it comes down to having to take money from formula milk companies and those affiliated to them to make a conference/journal go ahead.

The ICM and the RCM should be at the blooming forefront lobbying the government to put some PROPER investment into breastfeeding and it's promotion. Instead they have shown that they are part of the problem.

Like other posters have said this issue is not to do with FF vs BF it's about very clever and insidious and persistent marketing to midwives, health visitors GP's. No wonder many of them have really poor knowledge of BF and the avoidable factors which stop women doing it for as long as they wish. As a midwife and LC I hear and see poor advice being given to women all the time and it's getting me down to be honest. Hence why I've just gone on and on!

I would compare it to a conference on healthy eating in schools being sponsored by cadburys. Or is that just me being dramatic?!

I don't know why but something has snapped in me with this issue so i've just emailed the RCM in a public forum on this and will await their reply.

@ Loobee:

"I would compare it to a conference on healthy eating in schools being sponsored by cadburys. Or is that just me being dramatic?!"

I'd say that's a very good analogy indeed!

I really don't give a toss who sponsors Midwife forums. IME, midwives have their own agendas anyway....I had a lentil weaver midwife who was totally anti formula and actually reduced me to tears with it all and another more chilled out midwife who was of the mentality of do your very best but if you do have to break open the formula, its not the end of the world!

Surely rather than complaining about FF companies it would be far better to campaign to get the govt/NHS to fund better training programs for midwives and HV's.

I had a lactation consultant who is out of this world. She is a HV who has trained furter to do the lactation consultant course. Our trust employs her to help mothers but also to TRAIN MW's and HV's to help mothers. In her original area where she is actually based she has an extremely high percentage of bfeeding mothers- something like 75% for the first 3 months. I can't remember the figures but it is high.

More people like her employed by HNS trusts would even the balance

Pixiefish- I would love to be given hours to help train midwives and HV's on BF support and safe use of formula milk. I currently only get a small amount of hours to train maternity care assistants. There is no BF training for midwives where i work. There is no money to employ me in a lactation consultant capacity. To be fair the midwives all want it but the guys (accountants) at trust board level don't. Says it all eh...

I totally agree with you -the key is more people like your HV being employed by trusts.

Slightly off topic but as a said in my prev post, I feel our Royal College of Midwives should be at the forefront of campaigning for the govt and NHS to fund BF training like the UNICEF Baby Friendly Initiative in all units. NICE has recommended that it is implemented in all units as a minimum standard but there are huge gaps regionally and nationally. I feel it is sometimes a matter of luck as to where someone gives birth and who looks after them as to the accuracy and sensitivity of information that is given to them.

I wasn't complaining about FF companies (don't get me started) but instead about the RCM using the company's profits to fund the conference, that's all.

"and yet Johnson and Johnson also manufacture Aveeno cream which is regularly prescribed for excema"

Brilliant isn't it? Sell a product which can trigger excema, then put out another product which is used to treat the condition.

No wonder Johnson and Johnson are doing so well!

"another more chilled out midwife who was of the mentality of do your very best but if you do have to break open the formula, its not the end of the world!"

But then if you don't have the skills to help a mum get through a sticky patch with breastfeeding it makes sense to downplay the disadvantages of using formula in situations like this. Which is why midwives so often do it. (almost) Everyone's a winner - the midwife is popular because she comes over as sympathetic and moderate (and not - god forbid, one of those 'lentil weavers' - nobody wants THAT label) and the mum gets some short term relief from her breastfeeding problems. The fact that a really sizable proportion of mums who do supplement go on to have further problems with breastfeeding linked to their use of formula, and who then give up breastfeeding before they intended to is something the midwife doesn't have to think about as she's long gone by then - having handed the mum over to the health visitor.......