What do we think of Kirstie Allsopp's link with SMA?

[hunkermunker]

I am slightly less than utterly unimpressed You?

And yes, of course, it's her decision, yada-yada, but what a shit decision it was.

Kirstie, I knock walls down in your general direction.

in the northeast of england. why do you care? loving my attention or something?

Where in the North East? We could meet up for coffee.

LaVie - are you deliberately misunderstanding me? Or is it accidental?

I am not saying mothers 'fall for' celeb endorsement when choosing formula. I am saying the manufacturers insult them by making them choose between different celebrities and different fluffy logos - that's all there is to go on, by way of 'informed choice'.

When it comes to 'looking beyond' the logos, and attempting to see through them to the 'real' information that allows you to compare and choose on health grounds, you have Big Black Hole of Nothing At All.

What's the difference with a celebrity like Nell McAndrew promoting BF and one like Kirstie Allsop promoting FF?

I would imagine they were both paid for their endorsement.

The only difference is that one chooses to feed in a way that some women find unacceptable.

tut tut Kirstie - I am shaking my head!

Message withdrawn

Sorry Kirstie

pruners: NHS possibly or breastfeeding charities?

Message withdrawn

good point pruners !

is this the sort of breastfeeding promotion you are referring to Nancy66?

I highly doubt that Nell McAndrew got anything to do this promotion. It is more likely that she did it because she is an enthuiastic breastfeeder and has a good personal and possibly professional relationship with at least one of the organisers. But I know nothing really so will be happy to be better informed by anyone who may know more.

You may find that for every 320 which formula manufacturers spend to market their wares, the NHS spends less than a 3 on promoting breastfeeding. I can't remember the figures so I have rounded them off to the nearest 3.

You may find that for every £20 which formula manufacturers spend to market their wares, the NHS spends less than a £ on promoting breastfeeding. I can't remember the figures so I have rounded them off to the nearest £.

"The only difference is that one chooses to feed in a way that some women find unacceptable. "

Yes, Nancy66, the breastfeeder...

Unfortunately, women who BF get a much shiter time of things than women who FF.

And on these threads, somehow those of us engaging politically with the Formula promotion issue, also get it in the neck for apparently criticising FFers. Which is just not what we're doing, however much it feels like that to some women.

Censoring a product that you don't approve of is never the answer. The answer is to ignore it because it doesn't effect you.

No one 'disapproves' of formula or of formula feeders, Nancy...a point which you are singularly bone-headed about, for some reason.

However, the way it is marketed is worthy of disapproval.

BTW, I happen to know that Nell McAndrew is not paid for her association with breastfeeding. It's done out of goodwill.

Nancy, I asked you yesterday:

"Please explain how an ethical approach to marketing of formula is the same as 'treating ff mothers like lepers'."

Still waiting for an answer.

I'm not bone headed Tiktok - i just have an opposing view to you, something you don't seem to like.

And I doubt very much that Nell McAndrew was not paid.

Ohhh I geddit. She's advertising formula. The way you lot were so up in arms I thought it was heroin.

I mixed fed all my children. My choice. I feel those who choose to formula feed for whatever reason would never dare raise their head above the parapet on MN, as it seems to be the WORST thing you could ever do for your child.

Now I expect a load of you to jump on me and say IT IS THE WORST THING!! But in my view its not. And yes its all about big business, just the same way nappies, buggies etc all the other paraphenalia that comes with a baby is.

I'm suprised at the strength of feeling, 'tis all....

i wouldn't be surprisd if Nell Mcandrew got travelling expenses only for her endorsement of the bf group

nappies buggies etc not the same

and those who would benefit the most from bf becoming the "norm" are those who need it most - in terms of health and finance

Nancy - she was not paid. I have direct knowledge of that promotion. Who would pay her??

Please answer my question.

Maidamess - no one suggests that ff is the worst thing to do for one's children! It's about ethical marketing. As you say, it's all about big business, but the unique feature of formula and big business is that unethical marketing has a public health impact as well as an impact on individual mothers and babies.

You don't really think people are going to jump on you here and criticise you, do you?Many people who feel strongly about this issue have used formula themselves!

iBundle, AFAIK, she did not ask for, or get, expenses.

You're surprised at the strength of feeling? Perhaps you would understand why people feel so strongly about the marketing of formula by reading this thread through, and the ones about the Cow and Gate ad.

If I start explaing all over again, doubtless I'll be criticised for making FFers feel bad (I'm speaking as someone who has mix-fed BTW, but not with every child).

But the reasons people feel strongly have NOTHING TO DO with any criticism of women who formula feed. We have to say this again and again and again because it just doesn't seem to compute.

Nor is it adequate for others to keep saying 'FFS just ignore them'. We don't ignore them because debating these issues is part of the challenge to get people to think about what manufacturers are up to.

Why won't manufacturers put proper making-up instructions on the packets? Why won't they publish the full details of the 'research' they do to make their claims? Why do they create adverts that are direct challenges to the much better research on BF? (By much better I mean 'more scientifically credible and in the public arena'...)

"And yes its all about big business, just the same way nappies, buggies etc all the other paraphenalia that comes with a baby is."

Isn't that just the point. Not so much bf vs ff as the way companies exploit a basic need for profit. After all the list you mention are nice to haves whereas milk for a baby isn't. Celebs lending their names are simply being used, ok they undoubtedly get paid pretty well but it is primarily to capture the imagination and trust of new mums so they choose that formula/brand over another or bfeeding. Had creditted KA with more intelligence than to enter the fray so to speak, especially since she hasn't had the second baby yet so may find things very different this time.

Nancy, you are bone-headed You refuse to think of this debate in terms of anything but a criticism of formula feeders. It's about marketing. Marketing. Marketing. And did I mention 'marketing'?