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.

Get a life, lets ban anything that shows a child eating chips, chocolate, crisps etc. Actually while we are at it, lets ban all children being breastfeed cos who knows how healthy that mother is.

Really enough already

I am not saying that people get the info they need about ff - quite clearly they don't, and midwives are indeed (sometimes) really very silly about it - 'can't talk about it', FFS. BULLSHIT. They have a professional duty of care to talk about it in as much detail as the parent wants, and to ensure safe preparation and good knowledge about what to look for in shops.

Yes, this stupid refusal to talk about it may make it feel like 'taboo'.

But advertising it is not the same issue, and it is wrong to conflate it. The advertising ban does not make it seem like 'taboo' - it's poor professional care.

Advertising does not give you information, that helps you choose. Formula packaging deliberately makes it hard to see differences between types - there is (for example) far more difference between Brand X Follow on and Brand Y Follow on, than between Brand X infant and Brand X follow on.

That's why people (and people's DH's, and MILs) come back from the supermarket with a confused look on their faces and the wrong bloody product.

How can you choose between 'gentle on tiny tummies' and 'supports your baby's immune system'? How is that information?

Don't conflate rubbish care with ethical marketing.

Thank you, Whitethorn.

As imformed as ever, I see.

How odd never to take on a new idea but to stick to the old ones, no matter what.

I need a 'like' button for your response to Whitethorn, TT.

Am a former breast feeder (with difficulty) and am extepting again and again tend to give it a good shot but I just hated being made feel like a criminal cos I weaned on to Aptamil. tiktok don't really care about your personal and pointed attacks.

Typo - meant expecting again!

Whitethorn - no one can 'make' you feel like a 'criminal'. If you are not a 'criminal' you won't feel like one. You might suspect people of trying, but people who try to make someone feel 'criminal', or 'guilty' or a 'bad mother' for using formula are either unpleasantly ignorant or cruel...why care what they think?

You don't care about my 'personal attacks' (Jeez...). Here's a tip: take the same attitude to morons who judge mothers for using formula.

I've just read this thread for the first time and it's very interesting and has made me think about what should and shouldn't be banned where it comes to advertising.

Tobacco is banned because it has numerous health risks and serves no practical purpose apart from being a drug of addiction.

Alcohol is not banned although a massive proportion of NHS hospital beds and A&E time is taken up by alcohol related issues. It is also responsible for a huge number of road traffic accidents.

First formula is banned because it is the only source of nutrient for many new babies. Is it a health risk? - no. Is it addictive? - no. Is it responsible for anti-social behaviour? - no. And the fact that all formulas are basically the same, means it makes no difference what formula mums buy - their babies will all receive the same formulations anyway.

I must say, I tend to agree with ryoko on this one ( except the stuff about midwives - not fair to tarnish a group of professionals on the basis of a few bad apples) And I am a mum who has exclusively bf all 3 kids for 5 mths and mixed fed for over a year.

????

It's not the 'only source of nutrients' for young babies....that's the point. It's the only diet for babies who are not bf, and its sales depend solely on mothers not breastfeeding. Promoting and marketing it is not a good public health move.

Babies have no choice in the matter.

Restrictions on marketing don't prevent the free availability and sale of it.

Sorry, I meant to say the only source of nutrient for many young babies who are not breast fed.

There are lots and lots of things that are promoted and marketed which are not good for you. That is precisely my point when I raise the issue of alcohol marketing.

Other things could include advertising of unhealthy food, sweets, DS games ( too much time on TV and not enough exercise)or some people may even go as far as disposable nappies ( not good for environment) etc etc.

I am aware that advertising is a powerful tool and MAY give new mums subliminal messages to use formula and not breast feed and this is not a good thing as I am very pro breast feeding. However, my point is there are so many other things that could also be banned so it's a question of where the line is drawn?

You are missing the point, amijee.

I'll try again.

It's not because formula is 'not good for you', FGS.

Formula is essential if you are not breastfed!

But marketing it means less breastfeeding, and this impacts on health and by extension the public purse.

And of course babies have no choice.

I don't understand your argument - is it a libertarian one, meaning there should be a free-for-all and any restrictions on marketing are wrong because they interfere with the freedom to do business?

Or is it a 'consistency' arguement - because we don't forbid alcohol advertising or junk food (though alcohol at least is subject to restrictions), we should be consistent and not forbid formula advertising?

There is no 'law' saying 'if X happens, then X should happen all the time'. There is a case for further restrictions on alcohol advertising, I would think. The environmental case against disposable nappies would have to be a lot stronger, IMO.

Not everything is the same.

Hi tik tok

I think it is a consistency one.

I am fully aware of the health implications of bf vs ff.

However, there are far greater things that inpact on health and the public purse. Alcohol is a perfect example of this.

We are living in a country where alcohol is made very sexy through advertising, it is freely available from a number of retail outlets at cut price, it is sometimes cheaper than a soft drink in a pub and there is no restriction on the sale of very high percentage lager and cider which can be bought in 2L bottles for a fiver ( which quite frankly is totally marketed for alcoholics)

And yet advertising of formula has been legislated against. It doesn't seem to make any sense.

Formula is freely available, in every supermarket and corner store; there is no restriction on availability. This is a good thing - no one who needs it for their baby should have any difficulty in getting it.

However, is promotion is restricted for excellent reasons - to avoid undermining breastfeeding and to help ensure mothers are not induced to buy formula for spurious reasons.

There are very few parallels here with alcohol.

You might think restricting alcohol more - availability, sale and price, marketing - would make good sense.

You might wonder why this is not done.

But this shouldn't make you wonder why formula marketing is restricted - you'll never get perfect consistency with these issues!

I guess not, I think we'll have to agree to disagree!!

Btw, I have immense respect for all the work and support you offer on this site. Your posts helped me a lot in the early days of breast feeding.

Aw, amijee, thanks :)

Tiktok do you honestly believe that the people of this country are so damn gullible they base there entire lives around advertisements?

"Promoting and marketing it is not a good public health move" why isn't it? whats it got to do with public health? it's to do with advertising a product at someone who has all ready made up their mind, it's not going to stop someone breastfeeding it's just going to sway the brand someone formula feeding is going to use.

There are many reasons why people don't breastfeed, not being able to, not feeling comfortable with the whole idea of it, not wanting to be tied down to a baby and wanting complete freedom to return to work without bother etc. I seriously doubt anyone would cite advertisement as a reason why, ever in the history of the human race.

I mean I like chicken and an advert for KFC pop corn chicken may sway me into going in there, I don't like beef and have no desire to eat a burger no matter how much Burger King advertise, advertisement merely sway the viewer/reader into another direction to try something they are all ready interested in.

Ryoko, people don't have to 'base their entire lives' around advertisements.

But they do influence people.

About $500 billion are spent every year on advertising alone (other marketing spend is not included in that figure).

Much advertising works not at an individual level but a cultural one.

Maybe that argument is too subtle for someone who takes things as literally as you do, though, sorry.

Advertisement pushes people towards one brand and away from another brand of a similar product.

it does not make people FF over BF, it only works on people who where thinking of buying or going somewhere or doing something anyway.

I find your assumption that the entire female population of this country can, and will be brain washed by advertisements extremely insulting to the intelligence of general public.

I think you will find we are not anywhere near as stupid as you seem to think we are.

What are you talking about, ryoko???

I have never assumed, or hinted at an assumption, that women are or can be 'brain washed' by advertising.

You have terrible form in doing this - reading things wrongly and telling posters what they have said/think/believe. At least, I assume you are reading things wrongly. The other possibility is you deliberately make things up!

Advertising works on a cultural, social level as well as an individual one.

Some advertising works on a 'use this brand, not that one' - not all of it. Surely you know this and even if you don't, it's common sense. The ads that do the 'please switch brand' would include washing powder brands, as virtually all the population already uses washing powder.

Other ads have to create a need that does not exist - if you have a brand new product, you have to convince consumers they have a need or a wish for it even if they didn't even notice the gap in their lives before!

There are other types of ad (luxury products which work on giving the consumer permission to use them; specifically targeted ads that work solely on the niche of the population that would use them to tell them the product is there)....anyway, there are many ways of advertising.

Formula advertising works to increase formula feeding in total, as well as increasing brand awareness and targeting brand selection. The biggest competition to any formula is breastfeeding - so they have to work to undermine it, by using some of the 'plus' points of breastfeeding and giving the impresh formula can emulate them - hence the health claims made by all brands.

Now go and take your false 'People are being insulted!' outrage somewhere else, do a bit of reading and thinking, and calm down.

Thank you!

TikTok How would advertising infant formula undermine BFing? Genuinely curious as I'd think those mothers who can/choose to BF will do so regardless of adverts, and those who can't BF/ choose not to BF can have information on formula to aid their decision? I don't think women would be swayed by an advert into thinking that formula is as good as breastmilk.

Is it that you feel adverts for formula would promote FFing at the expense of BFing?

PhishFood: I think it will help you to read this thread and maybe the other discussions we have had on mumsnet on this issue - you could search advertising formula or UK law. You can also get info at www.babymilkaction.org or www.babyfeedinglawgroup.org.uk

Of course women who use formula should have information - advertising does not give information, and in fact is designed deliberately to avoid giving the whole picture.

Ads, as I have said, work at a cultural and social level, not just an individual level. Individuals are influenced by advertising - not every individual, and not every individual in the same way.

Marketing of formula milk should be done ethically, in order to protect breastfeeding and to ensure safe use of formula, and safe selection of formula.

The links will give you further insights.

Thank you, will have a look.

It is not just Tiktok's opinion that advertising influences people to ff instead of bf, the World Health Organisation also think so, and they are the experts.

Advertising is subtly powerful - pictures of happy babies contentedly falling asleep quietly. As a bf mother who is sleep deprived you might see this and think formula is the answer.

Formula manufacturers use phrases such as 'protects babies from the inside' to make people think that is equal to, or even better than breastmilk. It also claims things like it helps prevent colic, or helps babies sleep better. But studies have found that breastmilk if far superior in terms of health benefits to both mother and baby, so surely it is unethical for formula companies to advertise to get people to ff rather than bf.

msjayjay - I am sorry you weren't able to bf. It sounds like you really wanted it to work out.

I agree that you should be able to give your baby formula - your baby needs to eat. But wouldn't it be better if in this county we had a better system of milk banks, then you could access human milk for your baby rather than cow's milk?

Or, for those who can't bf, formula should be medically prescribed - free (as babies don't pay for their prescriptions), and your doctor/health visitor would be knowledgeable in the different types of formulas and could advise you on what was best for your baby. There would be no need for advertising at all.

Advertising sells an 'ideal'.