Still being subjected to the cow and gate ad.

[LookingForwardToSummer]

Grrrrr. It's so annoying! Is there nothing we can do?

She was inferring we're all blissfully unawre that all the little ailments dc have are down to ff.

My ff dc don't have constant ailments period.

And I don't like ffeeding being likened to smoking in pregnancy and feeding dc appalling diets.

She said ff babies are ill, and the mothers are to ignorant to think it could be connected to the feeding choice, lets be honest this is bs, I ff my 2 dc's, ohhhhhh naughty uneducated ignorant girl, please!! My mother was bf, so were her 3 sisters and all of them have bits dropping off!! swings and round abouts.

FF is an option as is bf, its choice and you cant stop choice, educated or not, its a mothers choice, as for the annoyance at the advert, it wont bite, its just an advert.

Does It have to be likened to anything-quote the research and leave it at that.

Sabire said "most people" swear their kids are ok but they aren't, they're ill and it's all down to ff-"most",come on!!!!!!!!!

Sorry not read the thread but just wanted to say I think its cute. I don't know what they are doing wrong and I don't care. I just giggle at the cute babies!

Hunker, I read your other thread about the novel oils in formula milk and was able to include it in my News roundup for the nutrition journal of which I am the subeditor, so thank you for the post - very useful indeed.

The C&G advert is suggesting in a way that it is almost as good as breast milk by taking some of the accusations that are levelled at ff babies and refuting them - suggestions that ff babies immune systems aren't as good as bf, for e.g.
I was ff after 3 days because my mum couldn't cope with the bleeding nips - I don't have weight problems, I have a genius IQ apparently, I don't have asthma or eczema and very few allergies (plasters and pears soap). I DID always have bowel problems however and joint problems, which are getting worse as I get older. Is this due to the formula or is it genes?

The formula in Hunker's preious thread is much more insidious in some ways because it is presenting itself as being the next best thing to breastmilk, because of these oils that have been added - but these oils are not the same as our normal food-derived oils, they are manufactured from algal and fungal products and it would appear that a significant proportion of babies cannot digest them properly. Therefore nothing like as good as breast milk, as the watery diarrhoea that results can lead to dehydration, weight loss and worse.

Sorry, rambling a bit here. Your baby's health is unlikely to be reliant solely on whether it is bf or ff - genes will always play a part as well. And the formula companies do make an attempt to produce a formula that contains similar nutrient levels as breastmilk, so that they can advertise it without lying; but their primary motivation is always going to be profit above health. They have to make a good attempt at it though because if enough babies did badly on their stuff, no one would buy it!

Formula is a necessary product.

However, it needs to be marketed ethically - not advertised direct to parents, not with spurious (and actually illegal) health claims - and sold at a consistent, fair price (who do you think bears the cost of these expensive ad campaigns?).

Parents who seek to know more about formula in order to explore their infant feeding choices on health grounds rather than on the grounds of 'cutest ad' should have access to independent, non-commercial information.

What on earth is controversial about any of that?

But parents have a choice regarding price. They can choose not to buy formula milk and use free breastmilk. I know that was an added bonus for me. Nobody is forcing parents to buy formula milk.

I'm not sure of the composition of breastmilk. I just assume that as it's human milk it's probably best for human babies in most circumstances.

I'm not sure of the composition of formula milk. But most babies I know who are or have been formula fed seem quite healthy on it.

If people wanted to know more than this then couldn't health professionals point them in the direction of finding out.

I must admit I find it odd that the ingredients of formula milk are not listed on the box (are they?). I thought all foodstuffs had to have the ingredients listed.

Glad it was useful, TW.

"Therefore nothing like as good as breast milk, as the watery diarrhoea that results can lead to dehydration, weight loss and worse."

This bit though - women often say things like "Aptamil made my baby have runny poo, so it was a lot more like a breastfed baby's would be" with the implication being that they really believe that it's the closest thing to feeding their baby breastmilk.

Just because the effect is softer poo, doesn't mean the cause is the same (it isn't), nor that it's actually a good thing for a ff baby to produce.

Marketing, damned marketing and Milupa Aptamil, I reckon.

Juuule, you really believe that every woman using formula has chosen to use it?

That's the crux of this - it's not a choice for so many, therefore breastfeeding support ought to be better, so that fewer women are forced to use formula - and for those who are, or those who do choose to use it, formula needs to be the best product it can be - which it isn't, currently, and that's in no small part because the companies are striving to discover things they can whang into it that will bamboozle people into believing that formula is just like breastmilk.

"and it's all down to ff"

This is what I actually said:

"Most people I know swear their kids are fantastically healthy, but then you find out in passing at the school gates about their long term problems with constipation, their ear infections, their chest infections....... But their mums think it's all completely normal"

I stand by this. I do not know one single parent who'd describe their child as anything less than 'healthy'. But it's also true that most people's children that I know suffer from a range of common childhood illnesses. One of the children in my dd's class has an anal fissure caused by constipation going back into infancy. Another has repeated ear infections (as does his bottlefed baby brother), my dd's best friend (ff from birth) has asthma. Another mum has a 12 month old who has had loads of gastric upsets. I could go on. The point I was making is that the food you put into a child in infancy and in childhood will impact on its health in one way or another. We have proof that ff is linked to higher rates of ear infections and respitory illness requiring hospitalisation. When children and babies suffer from these things I doubt parents ever suspect any connection between what how they are/were fed and their illness.

And other things like vomiting and constipation, which are unarguably more common in artificially fed babies, are just seen as 'normal' for babies.

As far as I can see, constipation in childhood and adulthood is usually seen as a symptom of bowel disease, congenital bowel problems, dehydration or a poor or inappropriate diet. To me it's PROFOUNDLY unnatural that it's a common occurance among babies.

So basically the point I was trying to make (badly) was that our understanding of 'normal' health and development comes from what we see of a population where the absolute overwhelming majority of babies are ff or mixed fed. We look at the levels of ill health among babies and children in this population and adjust our ideas of what's 'normal' according to it.

If you asked me if my children were healthy I'd say 'yes' because they're intrinsically well. They don't ever need to take time off school or nursery because they're unwell, they don't take any regular medications, they eat well and they are happy and growing well. Does that mean their health and their development haven't been affected in any way by what I've fed them in childhoood and in infancy? Or is that these things are subtle and hard for the individual to quantify.

By the way - I meant 'malocclusion'

But these things occur in exclusively bf babies, too. My dd for example.

No, some parents don't have a choice. Are they able to obtain formula on prescription? Genuine question. I would think that would be reasonable if it was the only option for feeding their baby.

DS1 gets tonsillitis fairly frequently (every couple of months) and has sky-high temperatures to accompany it (40+, 41+ on one worrying occasion). He was bfed for 17m. He could be a poster boy for any number of health campaigns when he's not got tonsillitis.

DS2 has been ill once in 2.6 years - he had a stomach bug that lasted a day. He's still bfed.

Do I think that DS1 would have had fewer incidences of tonsillitis if he had been ff? No.

Think about it - why would feeding a child formula ever be better for them if they are prone to such things as throat or ear infections?

Advertising formula milk is illegal in the UK, follow on milk was actually developed to counter the change in law that banned formula milk (for babies less that 6 months old) advertising and this was IMO a cynical development by the companies to expressly maximise profit.

It's not about choice, advertising is about coercion. Why would they spend millions advertising products if it didn't work?

Whether or not FF or BF is your option, people deserve to have the true and unbiased facts presented to them in order to make a choice. Commercial advertising DOES NOT DO THIS. Commercial advertising is solely developed to make people want to purchase a particular product, not to present all the facts about the pros and cons of FF vrs BF.

This is why the international community are working to ban formula companies from advertising their products, it is unfair. To get parity, BF would need to be advertised with an equal amount of vigour and financing. This does not happen.

It's fine to make a choice about how to feed your child, I don't know many BF campaigners or BF mothers who don't agree with this concept. BUT most people I know would want the full facts about BF and FF.

Insidious adverts IMO - I have contacted the ASA and put in a complaint.

See here

Also see here, here, here, here and here about the fuller ethical story of how formula companies want to 'help' mothers to make a balanced choice, by obeying UK and International law. They are in it for profit.

YES formula is necessary and choice is everything, BUT are we getting the full picture?

Juuule, most parents don't have a choice - 80% of women want to breastfeed while pregnant but by the end of the first week, only some 30ish% of babies are exclusively bfed.

That's shit, no?

Some parents can get formula on prescription - soy formula for babies allergic to cows milk, for instance. But I'd not like to see that route for everyone.

I just want the best formula possible for women who don't want to breastfeed, with the 80% of women who do want to breastfeed supported to do so.

I bet you that if the 80% of women who want to breastfeed managed it, the 20% figure would shrinkm as bf became the usual way to feed your baby.

Have just read last part of threads, does / has a study been done to make an actual long term comparison between exclusively BF babies and FF/ MF babies, to make a population comparison?

The Aptamil one with the blue Ready Brek type glow round the breastfed baby, then the ff toddler makes me very cross. They're using bf to promote their formula - yet women defend it and say "Yeah, but it looks like a breastfeeding advert to start with, God, they can't get anything right, they are saying positive things about breastfeeding, jeez, you bf NAZI".

Which misses the point rather and plays nicely into the hands of the marketing dept at Milupa HQ.

BB99, will read those links - thank you for those.

If 80% really want to bf, then I agree with people who say that those mothers should be receiving more support in doing just that. If they received the correct support then it wouldn't really matter what advertising the formula companies put out.

"But these things occur in exclusively bf babies, too. My dd for example"

Yes they do, which is why it's so pointless when people constantly trot out anecdotal evidence by way of rebutting the health claims connected with bf: as an individual you're simply not in a position to know what impact your choices in infant feeding have had on your child's health. All you can know is that breastfeeding benefits ALL children.

"If they received the correct support then it wouldn't really matter what advertising the formula companies put out"

No - that's simply not the case. Formula advertising creates a climate of normality around bottlefeeding, which undermines women's motivation to keep going with breastfeeding. Even with good support breastfeeding can sometimes be a challenge. If you're surrounded by marketing which encourages you to see the formula companies as supremely trustworthy, sympathetic (think of how so much of the advertising stresses 'we know how hard it is to be a mum'), authoritative ('our trained staff are hear to answer your questions - join our mumsclubs and phone our helplines'), and their products as scientific, advanced - almost 'super foods' in the way they claim to promote your child's immunity, intelligence and physical development, if they constantly, constantly stress the similarities between their product and breastmilk..... Well of course it's undermining.

I've also noticed that there's real trend of formula marketing recently to try to move beyond the nutritional angle - to try and attach the emotional and bonding benefits that come with breastfeeding to artificial milk - hence 'Nurture' formula instead of 'Farley's', hence the SMA heart logo 'love the milk you give'..... god, it makes me SICK. It's so manipulative.

"But these things occur in exclusively bf babies, too. My dd for example"

What you are unable to know is how bad your DD would have been had she been breastfed.

Whilst I'm not comparing infant nutrition with smoking, there are plenty of anecdotes about the 99 yo greatgrandmother who has smoked 60 a day since she was 20 and is in perfect health. It doesn't mean smoking isn't bad for you.

While you are dismissive of anecdotal evidence that is all the evidence that most people have to go on.

Soupdragon, yes we do all know of the 90yo but most of us also know of many more friends and relatives who have had illnesses which can be directly attributable to smoking. Lots of people have had friends or family who have died as a result of smoking.
I don't know of one single baby who has been ill or died as a result of being ff.

No, I don't know whether my dd would have been worse had she been ff. I also don't know whether she would have been better.

I am not being dismissive of studies done. However, there doesn't appear to be overwhelming evidence, at the moment, that ff is as damaging as some people make out and this is where I reach a dead end in putting forward the argument that bm is best. To some people that I have spoken to it isn't hugely better and until some evidence comes through (in the same way as the smoking) I can't see how views would change.

Sabire, I was surrounded by formula milk advertising. It made no difference to how I decided to feed my baby.
I think one of the things that does undermine some women bf-ing is the fact that ff-ing mothers seem to be able to return to their pre-baby activities. It's difficult if your friends are going out and you can't because you can't leave your baby. It isn't just about advertising and formula companies.