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.

yes, but it all adds up to the same result.

Two celebrities feeding their children in different ways - both have financially gained.

Just thought it was worth making the point.

Do you not think they would have paid her if she'd been formula feeding?

Yes, they probably would.

So she isn't being paid to promote breastfeeding...

Well surely it doesn't matter anyway, because advertising / celeb endorsement doesn't work?

In that instance she was, yes.

etc etc

i had no idea OK had such ethical concerns. They've come a long way since shoving a chocolate bar in Anthea Turner's newlywed gob.

I have done a little search on Nell McAndrew and breastfeeding, and she was involved in Bf awareness week on behalf of the NHS. I don't know if she will have been paid for her time doing that - she may well have been, and I would have no objection to that. I didn't see the pieces in OK about her and breastfeeding. If they were primarily to promote breastfeeding, then goodness knows what the deal was...if it was 'advertorial' then the NHS would have paid OK.

It seems to me perfectly ethical for breastfeeding to be promoted in this way. Increasing the number of mothers who breastfeed and increasing the length of time they breastfeed reduces the amount of public money spent on treating illness in infants in the community and in hospital, reduces the instance of breast cancer, and it all adds up to a significant saving to the public purse.

Nancy, I don't understand why there is 'no point' in you answering my questions because I am patronising...I'm not, but even if I was, why would that stop you answering me? All I want to know is

• why you persist in equating a stance against unethical marketing with making ff mothers into lepers

• why you do not support ff mothers having full access to non-commercial information about formula

Why are those questions patronising? Oops, that's a third question....never mind!

I don't agree with the premise that formula advertising is unethical. It's no more unethical than the advertising of any product.

Campaigning groups have successfully banned the advertising of formula to newborns - despite it being a choice for millions of women. Now they want to ban the advertising of formula for older children - despite it being a feeding choice of millions more women.

You don't think this would make a mother who has chose to FF feel bad? You don't think it's patronising?

I just wish people would stop treating FF mothers as

1. criminals

2. stupid

The way that formula is advertised is often unethical. Even in the UK formula companies frequently try to stretch the boundaries in adverts, by using young looking babies (ie looking younger than 6 months), by advertising the brand name and not the specific product etc

"It's no more unethical than the advertising of any product"

Except that formula isn't like any other product is it? Because your choice of how you feed your baby has implications in the short and long term for their health and development.

Which is why mothers need accurate information about formula, rather than advertising, which is about manipulation and persuasion.

But I can see where you're coming from. You clearly think that ff and bf are roughly the same as far as babies are concerned, and it makes no difference to babies how they are fed.

If this were the case then you'd be justified in taking the stance you do. Unfortunately it's NOT the case, which puts you firmly in the wrong on this issue.

The (black and white) word according to Sabire...!

Nancy, I am still waiting for an answer to my questions.

Here they are again:

• why do you persist in equating a stance against unethical marketing with making ff mothers into lepers (I note you are now saying marketing it in an ethical way would make ff mothers feel 'stupid' and 'criminal')

• why do you do not support ff mothers having full access to non-commercial information about formula

Saying 'I don't think it's unethical' is not an answer to either of these questions.

Many ff mothers - and they have expressed the view here - want formula to be marketed ethically.

There are many products that are not advertised for one reason or another, and no one feel criminal, stupid, or like a leper for using the products. We would soon get used to not seeing the ads! Would you feel criminal for using formula if you ceased to see ads for it? Really?

I have used the example of safety pins before. Not advertised. No one misses them not being advertised. We don't even think about it! We could add other things to the list - prescription meds are not advertised but no one feels criminalised, stupid or like a leper for using them, just because they are marketed in a controlled way.

Do please try to answer my questions. You feel so strongly about this issue, you must be able to...surely.

No Nancy66 - the word according to the NHS, the Royal College of Paediatrics, The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, The Royal College of Midwives, the American Academy of Paediatrics, the World Health Organisation and Unicef (among others).

Babies who are artificially fed are deprived on the protective benefits of breastfeeding and are therefore more vulnerable to disease and infection than they would have been had they been breastfed.

I know you don't like to hear things like this but it's a statement of fact.

Tiktok, I consider that I have answered your questions (several times!) if you choose not to see it then not much I can do about that.

I'm sure you'll interpret that as some sort of triumph - it really isn't. Just exasperation at having said one thing and then having it twisted and thrown back at you to mean something entirely different.

Oh Sabire do get off your high horse - nowhere have I said that i think FF is superior or even equal to BF.

You really are a tiresome, preachy pain in the arse.

Another question then - where I have twisted something you have said and thrown it back at you?

And FGS, answer my questions!!

Including the new one - 'would you feel like a criminal if ff ceased to be marketed in an unethical way?'

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

Nancy - you said formula should be treated like any other product. You must assume that how you feed a baby has no health implications, otherwise surely, you'd be against pregnant women being exposed to manipulative, persuasive advertising to buy formula.

And some people need to be reminded that choosing how they feed their baby isn't a decision on par with choosing which wallpaper they buy for the nursery.

You, namely.

Pruners, would you feel like a leper, a criminal or stupid (or all three) if SMA were not permitted to issue a DVD advertising their formula?

Or do you think Nancy has got this one wrong?

I couldn't care less.
If she was pushing crack cocaine I might be interested.
Each to their own.

SilentTerror - so you wouldn't feel like a criminal, a leper or stupid if this DVD was not allowed?

I don't want anyone to feel like this, and I hope we can reassure Nancy that she doesn't have to worry about it...if discover that actually, women would not feel anything of the sort, then she can feel reassured that it would be a good thing if formula was not promoted in this way.

At the moment, she thinks it's important that we have this sort of promotion, in order to protect pregnant and new mothers from these feelings.

All sounds a bit patronising to me...