Can anyone recommend a good organic formula milk for newborns?

[megglewell]

Have read a bit about HIPP but no others..

aitch - the 98% figure comes from societies where bf is the norm and bf is supported by families, the medics/HCPs and the underlying culture, i.e. where women have grown up in a knowledge and understanding of how bf works and have an expectation of bf and have the best possible chance of bf.
e.g. the Scandinavian countries

from this site

"Breastfeeding rates: in Europe
In countries where there is little or no advertising and where the hospital practices support mothers who want to breastfeed, breastfeeding rates at birth are very high. The following figures are taken from country reports compiled by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) and national statistics where available: Norway 98%; Sweden 97%; Denmark 98%; Rumania 91%; Czech Republic 92%.

In contrast, in countries where most of health information is provided by the baby feeding industry, breastfeeding rates are low: Ireland 31%; France 50%; Scotland; 50% (parts of Glasgow less than 7%)"

so 98% bf in the scandi countries? or are doing it after a certain time? how does the figure actually work?

UK Breastfeeding rates:

1985 1990 1995 2000
Birth 64% 63% 66% 69%
1 week 55% 53% 57% 55%
2 weeks 51% 50% 53% 52%
4 months 26% 25% 28% 28%
6 months 21% 21% 21% 21%

for comparison, these are the UK rates
table doesn't come out very well but I think you can probably work it out

the rates (according to the quote below, if you read it again) are for bf at birth
bf rates in Scandinavian countries continue to be high
let me see if I can find some numbers
obv each country will compile their statistics differently making direct comparisons difficult

righto, have read the norway section. am more interested in the 90% doing it after 3 months tbh. i left hospital bfing, so i'd be included in the 98%. it's just that a couple of weeks later dd's weight was crashing and she was in danger of kidney damage...

yes, greater knowledge among healthcare professionals and among families/supporters make it more likely that bf will be successful and continue

stating the bleeding obvious

of course, I am not making any comment on your personal circumstances and reasons for stopping and I hope you don't think I am H

OP I haven't time to wade through the 8 pages to see if anyone else mentioned it, but I get a brand of organic formula called Holle. It seems to me very similar to Hipp, but easier to get for me because our local organic delivery people stock it (in Eire)

Aitch, here are figures from Norway, (also from BMA site)

"98% of women leave maternity wards breastfeeding. 90% are breastfeeding at 3-4 months. 75% of women are still breastfeeding at 6 months."

That suggests that (biologically speaking) at least 98% make some milk and at least 90% are able to get bf established.

I think that's quite encouraging for anyone who'd like to bf, especially as some of the 2% and 10% will be people who have the physical capability but stop for some other reason.

god no, don't worry.

personally i think that the 98% figure is easily disputable and therefore not hugely valuable, there are so many people like me will have left hospital thinking they'd cracked it.

of course, poor advice and support etc will have an impact but for me, if i was wanting to support wobbly bfers i'd be more inclined to quote the second figure.

it's more indicative of a long-term likelihood, for one, and it's also a more striking contrast with the three months figs for this country, so more clearly lays the blame at HCPs.

as a woman who didn't manage to bf exclusively for any useful length of time, i'd find 90% comforting, but the 98% just rankles tbh. every time i read it on here i think, well, the subtext there is that i'm not really one of the 2%, which is hard to bear, especially in those early months.

too slow, crossposted!

I agree that the 3 month figure is the important one. Things went badly pear shaped with dd1 in that time, whereas starting off was relatively easy.

I suspect that the "initiating" figure mostly reflects people's choices - whereas the 3 months figure represents the actual reality of whether bf is working.

After about 3-4 months I think you're pretty much home free from the physical point of view and whether you carry on will then depend on your circumstances and preferences.

You're not far off being in the 90% either, aitch. The 90% includes mix feeders.

This is why I feel very uncomfortable with drawing sharp borders between bf-ers and ff-ers - it seems to me the reality is much more fluid (as it were) and often it depends how people think of themselves rather than the actual number of ounces of bm or formula that their baby had.

the fact that 90% are bfing after 3 months is rather wonderful, imo. it's a good news story, whereas the 98% is all too often used as a stick to beat people with. (i know, i know, it isn't etc, but that's how it feels...)

true. if it includes mix feeders then i was in that group until four and a half months.

my wee sis has just had a baby... latched on perfectly and has been great so far. fingers crossed for her.

although if it does include mix feeders then i want to see the exclusive figs, tbh. because that's certainly how the 98% fig is used on here.

just as i suspected, MH. in fact i think that the aptamil fish oils (i kept her on first milk) meant her stools didn't firm up until she went onto cow's milk.

Sorry, meant to add - I see why you don't like the idea of being in the 98% aitch, and prob don't like the idea of nearly being in the 90% either. But there's a "good" side to that too, depending on whether you're thinking back or thinking forward.

I doubt anyone knows the difference between organic and non-organic - the formula companies are very secretive about their ingredients.

I'd go with the brand most locally available which appears to be HiPP around our way.

Tiktok - you are utterly fabulous, you know that, right?

I'm having a look for exclusive bf figures in Norway because I think it'd be very interesting to compare. SO if I go suddenly quiet, that's why.

Yes, I read the same about fish oils. There's no objective evidence that they're good for babies' health, but the companies quite openly admit in their marketing strategy that they're used because they're helpful for advertising the milk.

true story, i'm perfectly committed to trying again should the occasion arise.

it's just that most of the time on here, the 2% is pronounced as 'only 2% can't do it' with the inference being that if you say you can't do it you are mistaken.

tbh i find it very insenstitive for the most part... as it really only indicates a willingness to bf in the first instance rather than a medical likelihood. and even the 90% is less interesting if it's not exclusive, imo. i wonder how many are exc bfing in Norway, i bet the figure is impressively high, i just wish it had been published.

ilovemydog - you wondered why I didn't say 'thanks - sorry.....thanks!

Aha, interesting - the exclusive bf rates in Norway aren't all that high, although they start off that way.

"Results: Only 1% of the infants had never been breastfed. The proportion of breastfed infants was 96% at 1 mo, 85% at 4 mo and 80% at 6 mo. The proportion of exclusively breastfed infants was 90% at 1 mo, 44% at 4 mo and 7% at 6 mo."

From a 2006 survey of infant feeding in Norway.

Big drop between 1 and 4 months - I wonder why? Will see if I can find any rellies to ask.

Aitch, you are asking the impossible - it's very likely (given what we observe in situations where there is literally 100 per cent exclusive, more or less, bf, and I don't mean Scandinavia, I mean places like the poorer parts of the developing world) that virtually all women will be able to breastfeed sufficiently well to assure the survival of their infants for at least the first few months (as long as the baby is born without problems of prematurity or serious disability effecting feeding and digestion). There is a spectrum, though, and some women will find it harder to do this, and some babies will grow less well. In extreme cases where the mother is unable to feed because of her own serious illness, other mothers step in or the baby is given animal milks or very early solids.

In the West we have the alternative of formula, and its ease of use and availabilty means it will be given in circumstances when its very use will undermine breastfeeding...to the extent it has to be used because breastfeeding is no longer an option. On top of this, our own maternity ward practices and our cultural expectations and habits work against breastfeeding.

I think it is, in fact, meaningless to say 'only x per cent of women are physically unable to breastfeed' because we are never just physical beings - our culture, our expectations, our emotions, our healthcare workers have just as profound an influence on whether or not we breastfeed for a day, a week, a month or whatever.

wellie - it's not a big drop between 1 month and 4 mths. It's a big drop at 4 mths, because until fairly recently, as here, 4 mths was the usual time to start solids in Norway. The babies at four months are usually having solids, not formula.