Did anyone catch David Miliband on the News at 10 advertising Aptamil?

[foxytoxin]

I guess he like the current PM doesn't understand about the WHO Code and UK Law restricting the promotion of formula but Jeez, I expect the news editors at the Beeb to have some awareness.

In case you want to view it and complain about it, here is the link. Fast forward to 9.30 mins.

Oh let's not kid ourselves that this isn't about bf vs ff - of course it is.

Do those who are complaining now do so every time there is a product placement in a news bulletin/tv programme etc?

The only other time I can imagine people getting so up in arms about this is if Miliband were eating a kitkat/drinking a cup of nescafe/indulging in .

Seriously some people need to get out more.

wannabe - it is not about 'bf v ff'. It might be for you, it isn't for me.

I would not get annoyed if I saw EM drinking Nescafe - though I don't myself.

The difference is that he should be aware of the UK law on formula promotion as well as the WHO code, and so should the BBC.

Don't you care that products aimed at mothers for their babies are marketed ethically?

No, it isn't about breast v formula. It is about wanting all mothers having support and evidence based information however they feed their babies. That is why the WHO Code exists. It is not about restricting information or access to formula. It is about protecting breastfeeding and formula feeding.

As TT said, this is just a drop in the ocean of marketing and it isn't going to change anyone's mind on how they feed their babies. It is still breaking the WHO code, UK Legislation and the BBC's own guidelines on product placement. And drop by drop the bucket is filled.

The Labour Party and the Beeb need to be reminded on it.

It isn't even about breastfeeding or formula, a politician of his prominence should never find himself caught tacitly endorsing any product. He ought to give himself a kicking for that.

wannaBe - couldn't agree more. A time-consuming, life-enriching hobby probably wouldn't go amiss.

tiktok - it is 100% bf vs. ff and you are lying to us (and yourself) to pretend it's not.

so how many of you would be complaining if he had pointed to a branded breast pump? Or a pack of breast pads? In fact I can imagine the opposite thread "isn't it lovely to see that ed miliband's dw is bf?"

or more generally how many would complain if he was pointing to a free-range chicken? Or any other daily product that many of us buy in the supermarket on a regular basis.

It may not be consciously intended to be bf vs ff, but let's be honest - the reason why the majority who want to complain are doing so is because of the actual product that was being pointed to, not the fact that a product was being pointed to in the first place.

and comments like "I just thought Oh no, another high profile person NOT bfing - no wonder there is such a poor bf rate among young mums" is nothing more than judgemental.

wannaBe There are strict laws in place that forbid advertising of formula for under 6 months. Not sure this is so much about what Ed Miliband feeds his child, and personally I don't care, but the fact that the BBC didn't edit this part of the filming (at Tesco, btw )

It would be the same thing if someone was filmed with a product that could not be advertised saying, 'yes, we use this.' Worse that it was on the BBC who aren't supposed to advertise at all.

I have found out more on this thread about formula milk then I knew before and sorry but there are different formulas. Amazingly when having a check on my sons tongue tie the dietry consultant was wondering wether he should go on one of these other formulas which can be bought in shops.

But yet again we get the pompous I have EBF person looking down on us mere mortals who are doing the right thing in feeding are baby within our situation. Oh and to bring class into it, last time I looked at the British Demographic it lookd like class had gone out of the window.

"Emma - it's correct to say the formulations are virtually identical, because they have to abide by internationally-agreed and (in the UK's case) statutory parameters for each ingredient. The contents on each brand have to be listed on the package, and it is clear for standard formulas that there is very little difference "

Right, that's what I thought, as I said in my first post. So that being the case, why does it matter which formula someone decides to buy? The standard formulations across brands are all the same, and all provide infant nutrition to a legally required standard, so I don't understand why it matters whether someone chooses Aptamil over SMA based on branding or middle-class associations or whatever.

for clarity I should have said "which formula brand someone decides to buy", I know that there is a difference between first infant/hungry formulas/follow-on formulas.

Cow & gate and aptamil are made by same manufacturer

Don't appreciate being accused of lying or self-deception. Please don't do this. It doesn't help the discussion.

I cant speak for anyone else, but I can assure you I don't see infant feeding as 'bf v ff'.

It is pointless and ignorant to frame it in this way - most people in the UK do both, either successively or at the same time.

I do think any product whose sales depend on mothers not breastfeeding should be marketed in an ethical way - there should be plenty of information about it, mothers who use it should be supported to prepare it safely and should know about feeding in a way that ensures the baby is given what he needs (so they don't feel the baby has to have a certain amount ie the same volume as on the packet) ...all that sort of stuff. But there should be no overt marketing of it.

Anyone who thinks they, or the society they live in, makes consumer choices unaffected by marketing needs to come back down from whatever planet they're on, by the way.

Emma - it does not usually matter to the baby which formula his parents buy, as long as it is suitable for his age/stage. The point about any marketing or promotion of any brand is that it is i) against the UK law and ii) is a de facto promotion of formula feeding and iii)undermines breastfeeding, which cannot 'compete' commercially, because no one stands to make money from its 'sale'.

But Giddy, no-one is saying that formula adverts are horrific. Women don't need 'protecting' from formula adversiting and to say so would be patronising. The point of people's objections is firstly that the BBC broke the law by featuring a specific brand without sufficient justification. Secondly, formula company marketing is not evidence based and, partially as a consequence of this, formula purchasing choices are not generally made for evidence based reasons. This second objection is a key reason for parental confusion about formula choice: advertising strategies (in general) are a lot more about impression formation and smoke and mirrors than hard facts. It is true of car marketing strategies and it is definitely true of formula marketing strategies.

As an aside, although I see myself as a (usually) rational adult woman I'm the first to admit that my product choices are affected by advertising, particularly when chocolate is involved. Few of us, if we are honest, can claim to be entirely immune to marketing and advertising.

Argh, tiktok puts it better than I do and with fewer typos.

mrsjayjay, it may be a good idea to look back a few posts and see how and by whom class was brought into this discussion.

one thing I can say about the class thing though is that despite what is said about whether classes still exist, the advertising industry study our demographics/class intensively and divide us into many precise classes which the average person will not recognize. They know that classes do exist and that is partly how they go about making money from us. Do you honestly believe that they are wasting their money in studying our classes?

Giddy - information on formula is permitted, so it is fine to have leaflets and factsheets and so on, giving info on preparation, different sorts, how to keep equiopment clean and so on.

I don't think there is any such creature as a 'bland, non-specific advertisement' for anything, is there? Unless you mean the information sources I have described above.

You're not surely thinking it should be allowable to have a non-specific ad saying 'feed your baby formula and not breastmilk', I don't suppose, are you? 'Cos that's non-specific....

ooopsy, the Telegraph has picked up on Aptamiliband here on MN.

The WHO can fuck off as far as I'm concerned, how I feed my baby is my business, this isn't the third world our babies are not going to be dying in the streets (if it was the third world I'd be question the advice, HIV/AIDs is passed on in breast milk, most kids born to infected mothers don't have it when born).

Lets here the WHO or any other busy body organisation tackle and bare some teeth about a serious issue like countries where abortion is illegal, read on the BBC today about the 2,000 illegally aborted fetuses found in a temple in Thailand.

So why we sit here like fools moaning about milk because the WHO says it's bad, 100's of women are risking there lives to avoid fates bestowed on them by society while the males that knocked em up are completely absolved of responsibility and swan off.

we have the time though don't we ryoko?

and UK law on advertising is against this.

and you evidently don't know much about the issues surrounding BF and Aids in the 3rd world.

UK law on formula is bullshit, why shouldn't it be advertised the same as any other product, why shouldn't supermarkets offer discounts/BOGOFS and award loyalty points when buying it.

Why as a poor working class mother should I be happy with the elite powers that be trying to force me into breast feeding, by treating the purchase of such products as evil, even more so then booze at least thats on offers and you get points on your club card.

Has the government ever stopped to think maybe the reason why no one wants to breastfeed in this country is because it's not treated as a normal everyday none of your damn business thing, look at booze, we are the biggest booze hounds in Europe we are all so the only ones who make a big fuss over it and tell everyone it's bad, coincidence? I don't think so.

Here are the answers to your questions, Ryoko.

• "why shouldn't it be advertised the same as any other product?"

Because it is not the same as any other product. Promotion of formula undermines breastfeeding, which is socially and culturally fragile in this country. It is the sole source of nutrition for the most vulnerable, voiceless parts of our society. Of course it should be freely available - it does not need to be, and nor should it be, promoted

• no one is tying to 'force' you into breastfeeding (weird concept....how would they do that, then?). Not permitting club points and BOGOFs is not to treat formula as evil (FFS) but to prevent its promotion.

Formula should be at a permanent low price, and unmarketed. The money spent on promotion could be saved, and used to sell it without the vast mark up.

It is not true that 'no one' wants to bf. 76 per cent of women begin bf. Part of the reason why many of them stop early on is because of low levels of confidence in it, poor support and information about it, and the idea that it makes very little difference what you feed a baby. And part of all that is formula promotion.

Why is this thread not listed in the folder, or in Active convos....???

Or in 'threads I'm on'??