Save the Children's new report on marketing practices of formula-milk companies: what do you think?

[RowanMumsnet]

As some of you may have seen from press coverage over the weekend and this morning, Save the Children is today launching a report into the marketing practices of formula milk manufacturers.

The report focuses specifically on marketing in developing countries - where a lack of good sanitation and public health awareness can make formula-feeding precarious - and on the importance of colostrum to a baby's long-term health. You can read more about the campaign and see the petition here.

We've been asked to get behind this campaign - and as ever, in these situations, we need to know what you think!

Is this something MNers would like us to support? As many of you will know, we have long refused advertising from Nestle and its majority-owned subsidiaries. Save the Children's report is also critical of Danone, the second-largest formula manufacturer.

We'd be really interested to hear your views.

That sounds extremely confusing for mothers with HIV madthings - like you really wouldn't know what to do for the best ? But I don't know much about it.
So it's OK to breast-feed but only if you do so exclusively, is that right ?

I don't know much about it, it was mentioned earlier, but yes I think if you exclusively breed then the risk is low but once you start giving formulas or food the risk goes up.

If they can't have formula that is safe then bmilk is the safest alternative even with the risk of HIV, but I think they are told to exclusively bfeed for 6mths then stop once mix feeding or giving solids.

shag you see it on mnet that people don't know the guidelines re making up formula, it needs to be stated more clearly on the boxes, most stay used boiled water that has been cooled for 30mins, no mention of temp at all.

Mumsnet, please support this campaign.

It is not about the rights or wrongs of ff/bf amongst the world's most privileged people. It's about multinational corporations exploiting the most disadvantaged women and babies in the world in the search for profit.

(Btw, having looked through the report, packaging changes are only part of the recommendations. Part of the allegations against Nestle and Danone are that they are recruiting health care workers to promote ff and particular brands. I think an element of the idea is that health warnings on the packaging may make the presumably literate healthcare workers more cautious about recommendations. The report also recommends better training for health care workers, better maternity leave provisions, more financial support for women and better education and support for communities.)

"but lack of support,circumstances and a very safe alternative in the Western world"

Compared to mothers in developing countries, UK mothers have smaller families, more paid maternity leave and are generally well nourished. The vast majority are not working outside the home when they have a baby under six months. How are their circumstances more difficult than women in other countries, the vast majority of whom breastfeed for much longer than UK mums? Yes - support is not always great, and public ignorance about breastfeeding as dire. These things don't help. But primarily it's a cultural issue - we formula feed in huge numbers in the UK because we think there aren't really any meaningfuldisadvantages for children in us doing so. The double think of 'breast is best' blah blah but actually formula is really just as good for babies'. Or even better, if mum doesn't like breastfeeding.

As to formula being 'very safe' - well you are right, that using it is not likely to land your baby in hospital with severe gastric illness. But given that it's use has been linked to higher rates of respitory disease, hypertension in adulthood, arterial stiffness in adolescence,obesity in early childhood, childhood leukaemia, breast cancer in mothers, diabetes, type 2 diabetes in mothers, ear infections, lowered IQ .... literally dozens of other health issues which I won't list here - well I think it's not reasonable to say categorically that it's safe, or to rubbish the mass or research raising concerns about its use.

Just off to watch the Wright show .... report back later ....

I mix fed to 6 weeks and then FF. I support the campaign as the behaviour of the formula companies in the developing world is appalling. I know that BM would be better for my DD but it didn't work out that way. I have made my peace with that and I don't need my feelings spared.

However the risk differential between BM and properly prepared formula in the UK with access to sterilisers etc is less than the risk differential between BM and formula in the developing world where there is poorer sanitation, water quality etc and consequently the risks of formula are significantly higher.

In the UK it is also unlikely that formula costs will account for half a family's income.

The behaviour of the formula companies in Indonesia for example is appalling. I have signed the petition.

you see it on mnet that people don't know the guidelines re making up formula, it needs to be stated more clearly on the boxes, most stay used boiled water that has been cooled for 30mins, no mention of temp at all.

Indeed - some products (Hipp, I'm looking at you!) state that their milk needs to be made to 40 degrees in order to protect the pre-biotics, no mention of needing to be 70 degrees to kill nasties. Why don't sets of bottles or milk companies sell easy to use thermometers for milk?

I always wonder if the linsk between formula and illnesses is more to do with the baby's diet during their childhood than their infnacy - surely as more lower-class mums are more likely to FF, they are also more likely to give their child a 'bad' diet, smoke, drink etc?

It seems to be assumed on this board that all women will be with their babies and so can BF on demand.

Actually many women in the developing world have to leave their babies with others to care for them. So to BF they would need to express and store breast-milk leading to the very similar problems of sanitation as FF.

Yes! Petition signed.

I always wonder if the linsk between formula and illnesses is more to do with the baby's diet during their childhood than their infnacy - surely as more lower-class mums are more likely to FF, they are also more likely to give their child a 'bad' diet, smoke, drink etc?

Most the research on breastfeeding suffers from exactly this flaw as they can't run trials insisting that only one form of feeding, so association rather than causation. In other words they presume that it is BF making the difference rather than other factors, but they can't be certain.

Is the figure Matthew Wright is saying about 10% of women unable to bf true? I haven't heard that before. How would they calculate it anyway, given that lots of us received quite duff advice when trying to breastfeed?

The figure will always be different depending on what 'counts' as a medical reason. So for example, some will count psychological reasons as medical and some won't.

Yes, please support this campaign, MN.

I was living in an under-developed South-East Asian country when DS was born, and have witnessed the effect that aggressive marketing of artificial milk can have. Local women were constantly shocked to see that I (who in their eyes was a sophisticated westerner) was breastfeeding, as that's what 'peasants' do. They truly believed 'formula' was better, an improvement on nature. They point-blank refused to believe it when I tried to tell them breastfeeding was by far healthier and safer.

Once you factor in average household income and the price of artificial milk, it's a truly awful bind. When you look at sanitation issues and infant mortality rates, you realise it's criminal.

On the Wright Stuff just now they completely failed IMO to address the issues of mothers and babies in the developing world.

Tragically ill-informed. I though Helen Skelton at least would have more of a world view on things. One idiot on the panel said women in developing countries would need to use formula milk due to famine conditions making their own milk too poor. Absolutely tragic self-centred discussion.

< Bangs head on desk. Arghhhh ! >

creamteas that's a really good point

The articles I was looking at yesterday really emphasised all the other social drivers of formula use, including women having to work and often work away

99% of our scandanavian close cousins get breast feeding going. Unless someone can come up with a convincing reason why the UK have different breasts, or even medications to scandi then I refuse to believe the number that physically cannot is anywhere close to 10%.

The difference is no advertising and more support. Not physiological.
Sounds like an awful piece.

It is cheaper to put calories into an adult and get the BM back than to buy calories suitable for a newborn.

In case of famine or poverty BF is absolutely the most economic way to feed.

Yes, please support this campaign. Babies all over the less developed world are suffering and dying because of the morally bankrupt behaviour of companies like Nestlé.

Agree Juggling! The Wright Stuff debate has made me

I was surprised that Fatima said that, completely missing the point that for a fraction of the cost of the formula milk a mother could have a diet sufficient enough to ensure her own milk was good enough.

The whole thing focused on mothers feeling guilty, absolutely nothing to do with the health of babies, which is supposed to be the whole point!

The bigger better organised trials showing the risks of FF control for all of the obvious and many not obvious confounding factors. The only loop whole left open is whether people are lying about BF or EBFing. The trials were not done in the UK necessarily and so it would be a mistake to imagine they are likely to be tainted by people trying to claim they are EBFing when they arent.

Icbineg no trial can account for the most obvious confounding factor, which is 'intention' of the mother... Not unless we refuse to give women in trials a choice.

And most of the studies which do try to account for confounding factors only find marginal benefits when conducted in developed countries.

And on the Wright Stuff I don't think they even mentioned the problems of bottle feeding in the developing world - namely lack of clean water and sanitary conditions, leading to widespread problems with diarrhoea and malnutrition for babies.

Even UNICEF says that severely malnourished women will produce less milk. Though obviously they do say that the answer is to feed the mother, not give formula.

Apparently in Somalia, rural women are often back working in the field days after giving birth and this is a big problem for EBF, it's common to supplement BF with camel milk traditionally.

I think this is quite interesting actually, that in many countries even before you had formula it was common to supplement BF with various animal milks or water. I think that speaks to the other factors that impede BF and also need to be addressed.

They didn't. Nor did they mention the effects of the way milk is marketed.