Advert with 'I will do my share of the night feeding'

[becstarlitsea]

Okay, I'm still smarting from complaining about the last set of formula ads on TV and all the flippin letters from the ASA to patronise me explain why my complaint wasn't valid.

But has anyone else picked up on this TV ad with the Dad standing in the kitchen heating up a bottle saying 'I will do my share of the night feeding' (or somesuch words - they probably worded it more carefully than that...)

My gripe is - although they show follow-on formula at the end and have the teeny tiny writing at the bottom as required by law... Aren't most babies over 12 months sleeping through the night without needing a night feed? I know some babies over 12 months have a night feed, but surely they are implying a younger baby here?

What do you think?

I don't think that anyone wants FF banned.

I FF DS1 (although I had wanted to BF him but that is another story), but it is ridiculous to pretend that it is as good as BF. It just isn't and, yes, I know that is upsetting to hear when you are FF but it doesn't make it any less true.

"Do you think all women should be forced to breast feed and all references to bottle feeding sensored from the media and literature?"

Adverts for formula milk are banned for under 6 months old. That is never going to change. But the formula companies are always trying to circumvent this.

WHO has already stated that follow on milk is a pointless product. Normal formula does the saem job.

rustybear - probably just as well you didn't try to make porridge with expressed milk as it doesn't work very well (I have tried it!) - the enzymes in the milk do something to the porridge and it doesn't gel properly.

newpup - misleading advertising by formula manufacturers bothers me because it's immoral and exploitative.

I'm not breast feeding (DS is currently shovelling a pile of spag bol into his mouth while watching Ben 10 - those days have gone!) but I did breast feed him. It's not a problem for me if mothers choose not to breast feed if they're well informed and happy to do that, but it is a problem for me if they do it having been misinformed so that someone can make money out of them & their baby's health.

"I would bet my house and everything in it that a woman who has chose to BF won't see an advert for SMA and say "oh fuck it I'll just use that instead"."

The point is that a mother who is having difficulties or who is under pressure from family/peers to stop will be bombarded with advertising which effectively implies formula is as good as breast milk. Which is isn't.

There is a world of difference between a mother who has chosen to ff and one who has been mislead into thinking it's as good as breastfeeding.

SouthMum - actually, we are desperate for a home of our own, and I'm sure I can scare up some people who chose to breastfeed but succumbed to pressure and changed to formula feeding having been misinformed by a combination of their MIL/Mum/health visitor/tv ads - can I take you up on that bet actually?

Becstar - my bet stands as far as TV ads go, however I am aware how pushy HV's/old hagsMILs and mums can be so I'll pass on that criteria if you don't mind.

But yes show me a mum who changed her mind about BF based solely on what Mr Aptamil said in a 20 second TV ad inbetween Emmerdale and Coronation Street and not only can you have our house but you can have my bloody ILs aswell (how can you refuse?)

Ooooh no, I'm not swapping ILs - mine are lovely and from reading MN I know how lucky I am

So where is your house, roughly speaking? Easy commute to central London, by any chance?

Yes, becstarlitsea, but that's making a needless distinction between 'formula' and 'follow on formula' when they're both powdered milk. These 6mo+ milks are still a powdered milk, therefore clearly formula is still being advertised. There cannot be a law against advertising all powdered milks in effect, because otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it now. All I was doing was pointing out that JulesJules' claim that 'companies are not allowed to advertise formula' is demonstrably not true.

I seem to have said the same thing about five times there.

Damn, its about 4 hours away. Commutable if you have a helicopter I guess.... anyway if you won't take the wrinkly nosey old biddies-- lovely ILs then bets off I'm afraid

Anyway sorry for the lightheared banter everyone..... carry on...

Do you have a link for the one where the dad says, 'I will do my share...?' as I think they may show a young baby -- i.e. less than 6 months old which at least would fall foul of the spirit of the code.

But may have this confused with another formula ad?

here

Weirdly enough in that 20 sec clip, they don't show the baby all that clearly, I wonder if that's because of the above argument?

I have no idea how old the baby is in that ad, but the fact is, as someone else pointed out on another thread, the dad's not going to make that promise a week before the baby's 6 months is he? That kind of conversation is the sort you have before the baby's born.

Not the ad I was thinking of...

Can't quite put my finger on why I hate it so much The smugness of the people?

i just think the pro-breastfeeding not allowed to mention bottle feeding thing has gone too far in some cases now. my son nearly ended up on a drip and we were stuck in hospital for days after he was born because his blood sugar levels were so low and he wasn't feeding properly after being born several weeks early. everyone was seeming to be admonishing with me that he wasn't getting food in (i was putting him to the breast regularly and doing all i could) yet not giving any advice as to what the hell else i could do. eventually it got to the critical stage where he was about to go to intensive care and it was me who finally found the gumption reluctantly to say well couldn't i give him some formula just this once now to get his blood sugar and strength up and express when he drops off to help my milk get going better and avoid all of that? oh yes everyone said and immediately went to get the formula.

turned out they were not allowed to suggest it, but had all just been waiting for me to ask and probably thinking me a bad mum to let him starve (whereas i was just trying desperately to breastfeed and not knowing what was going on or why no one would advise me and assuming i was just meant to perservere). they would have let him go into into an incubator and onto a drip and be stuck longer in hospital rather than suggest a bottle.

that to me is madness and putting a principle over the wellbeing of mother and child. and i saw a lot of that kind of thing going on for the sake of promoting bf.

know this is totally different - sorry! lol

at them not being "allowed" to suggest giving him formula - that can't be right!(Not doubting you btw, but them)

Doesn't get on my tits as much as the one where they say about the iron and say that the baby would need 864 gallons of cows milk to get enough iron this one

Yes but only if you're not giving them any food FFS...

And ditto pinktulips "that one and the fecking giggling babies one that pretty much says 'all the research into breast is best is utter bollocks because look we got these babies to laugh on camera'". That ad really gets on my tits (as it were!).

ellagrace that is absoultely appalling.

I found a fab quote online which is nicely applicable to that cr*p gigantic beaker of milk advert.

"It's like saying; Hey you'd have to eat a full cow to get your daily vitamin c intake, but you can get it all in our handy chemically fortified little burger!"

Or, of course, you could drink a glass of OJ.

The formula ads do seem to be about targeting a certain market. The SMA ad is clearly about a newborn, the promises aren't just about night feeds (which could happen at any age) but holding the baby wrong (it's very hard to hold a baby wrong once they've got control of their head - by 6 months DS quite enjoyed being dangled upside down by the ankles). Most people I know who FF from birth started on SMA.

Aptamil do all the 'breast is best, but when you're ready to move on...' and almost all the people I know who moved on to FF after 6 months used aptamil.

I know the baby groups I've been to aren't a representative sample for marketing purposes but I do think the formula companies know exactly what they're doing and who the kind of advertising they use will attract.

Purely out of curiosity, as i've no intention of using or buying either, is there actually any difference between follow-on milk and formula? I mean, what does the former have that the latter doesn't, or is it purely packaging (and a way of getting round the ad ban of course)

Y to the A - N - F*cking- BU!

pardon me but the adverts get me very angry indeed.

i also complained about the sma ad, and wrote to my MP (who despite campainging against choccie ads on kids tv, thought 'information' should be available, tw*t)

it is insidious.

By the way, the reason they spend millions on these adverts is because they work It does have an affect on public perception, and it will get some women out there - admittedly not the ones who would have been the most convinced BFeeders anyway - to put their little Newbie on formula.

i wrote the following in my letter -

I wish to complain about the current series of SMA adverts running on various televsion channels. These adverts clearly break the guidelines laid down the WHO for the promotion of breastmilk substitutes i.e. that 'Breast-milk substitutes should be available when needed, but not be promoted.' or more forcefully The Code explicitly states that "there should be no advertising or other form of promotion
to the general public"(see online article at www.who.int/child-adolescent-health/New_Publications/NUTRITION/ISBN_92_4_159429_2.pdf. This advert plainly promotes a brand of substitute baby milk, and further contrary to the World Health Organisations guidelines it shows pictures idealising bottle feedng (the father standing late night beside the kettle, bottle and teat, the mother cuddling the baby) which although they do no actually show baby being bottle fed clearly break if not the letter than certainly the spirit of the ruling that -
'No pictures of infants or other pictures idealizing the use of breast-milk substitutes'' should appear to sell breastmilk substitues.
Although the ad runs a small print disclaimer that SMA is not intended to replace breastfeeding but is a follow on milk the situations in the ad e.g. night feeding are clearly those of a baby under one year of age i.e. under the age the government itself recommends that the baby should be breastfed.
The language used in the Ad in the taglines 'understanding parents, understanding babies' and 'We know' and the phrase 'nutritionally complete' to describe the milk clearly imply that the substance is a healthy and appropriate product to give to babies - the governments' own advice is that it is not an adequate replacement for breastmilk.
The brand SMA is clearly recognizeable by most people as a baby milk not just a follow on milk - television advertising of the brand is an advert for ALL it's products.
One can imagine if Marlboro wanted to advertise e.g. Marlboro branded clothing on television there would be an outcry - why are baby milk producers allowed to get away with using that loophole?
It is worth also noting that if you go to SMA's own website to view information about the product they ask you to$ agree that "If you choose to view this information, you are accepting that SMA Nutrition is supplying this information at your individual request for informational purposes." Their code of conduct requires them to make people click on a disclaimer before viewing information about the brand. How then can they be allowed to advertise their product directly into peoples homes without asking their permission first?
Please have this advert removed from our screens as it is contrary to everything the government itself is trying to achieve in terms of getting more women to breastfeed and more importantly it will damage the nations health by encouraging parents not to breastfeed

IIRC, follow on milk is sold on the fact that it has extra iron. Extra iron that is, in fact, poorly absorbed by the body and mainly excreted by the baby.

BTW, it isn't a shoddy marketing tactic, it's very clever because they've skirted round the very edges of the ban. It's immoral/deliberately misleading but it is very clever of them.

article stating there are no benefits to follow on compared with standard formula and iron levels in babies 6 months old