Advertising, marketing, the whole world in trouble etc...(deep!)

[Lizzer]

Hello all, going to break this big message up as I've been having problems posting, so bare with me...

This started on the celebrity b/feeding thread and it was just a comment from me after I was asked to expand on my opinion that formula milk should've only ever been used in circumstances where it was required to help a child survive and not stocked on the shelves at the supermarket. This has spiralled me into depths of the big old money-making and general-public-screwing machine known as advertising and how it has caused a lot of damage to our health, lifestyles and outlooks. I want to have a full on discussion about this and no holds barred. HOWEVER THIS IS NOT A SLAGGING OFF BOTTLE FEEDERS THREAD or BREAST FEEDING IS BEST THREAD and I don't want it to turn into one. Would be interested to hear if anyone agrees/disagrees with me though...

I agree that breast is best and moved heaven & earth to b/feed. But formula saved my baby (DS1) from slipping into severe dehydration when he wouldn't feed and nothing came out when I expressed. Hows that for sitting on the fence!
There's a really interesting letter from a GP in the BMJ to whom this happened, and her poor baby did end up back in hospital. I'm going to try to do the link \link{http://bmj_comBennison315(7110)754a.htm\here
It must be said that someone elses breast milk would have been the best solution in both our cases. I moved back to breast when DS1 had learned how to suck (about 3 weeks).

That worked well, didn't it?
I don't know what I did wrong.
The letter is at bmj.com. At their homepage, click on SEARCH/ARCHIVE, then type in Breast feeding doen't always work. The letter is by Bennison.
Sorry about that.
B**gger.

I agree demented, with other children to look after, the easiest method is breast feeding, quicker than boiling kettles, etc.. Apart from those early weeks, perhaps. I only have one other child though, so what do I know?
(You can tell I'm supposed to be working today, can't you.)

Droile, what swear word is that?

Thanks Demented,I found it on search-it's a bit late for me now as mine are older but if anyone is interested it's www.internetbabies.com/mobi/.

Right, have found the IoS link - Independent story

Star ? I said that there were links to these diseases, not that they were directly related. Once a child is weaned and on solid food s(he) is consuming a huge range of foods which play a role and other factors play a part ? genetics, lifestyle, exposure to infections and so on.

There would have to be a direct link to show any danger and hence for a food to be banned (Having said that look at the tenuous link between beef on the bone and CJD) Govts don?t always act in a balanced way. There have been libel cases in the past with contaminated batches of formula but this was a long time ago (sorry I don?t have info on this to hand at the moment) But as I say to sue you?d have to show a direct link between your child getting diabetes for example and the fact that you bottlefed.

Apologies for scaremongering and to get things into perspective - if you give your child a healthy diet, exercise and live in a clean and warm house and they are psychologically happy then there is little for you to worry about. My comments on F/fed babies are sicker relates to conditions such as stomach upsets, glue ear, chest infections and so on ? not life threatening... and giving formula doesn't mean your baby WILL get these things just that they are more likely too.

However I think that more should be known about possible risks and I am sorry if it induces guilt (as Suedonim said she just worked with the info she had at time ? and a lot of current research has only recently been published) and as for being ?unhelpful? sorry but I don?t think deliberating disclosing information will help future mothers. A softly, softly approach doesn?t seem to be working much so far. In any case much of the info I have quoted was in the press and therefore freely available. I don?t have time or space here to give a lot of examples but here are two (certainly the Dundee study was well publicised at the time).

Only extracts below ? I?ll post the direct links later when I can go online properly ...in a bit of a rush..sorry to take up so much space

BMJ 1998;316:21-25 (3 January)
Relation of infant diet to childhood health: seven year follow up of cohort of children in Dundee infant feeding study
Objective: To investigate the relation of infant feeding practice to childhood respiratory illness, growth, body composition, and blood pressure.
Design: Follow up study of a cohort of children (mean age 7.3 years) who had detailed infant feeding and demographic data collected prospectively during the first two years of life.
Setting: Dundee.
Subjects: 674 infants, of whom 545 (81%) were available for study. Data on respiratory illness were available for 545 children (mean age 7.3 (range 6.1- 9.9) years); height for 410 children; weight and body mass index for 412 children; body composition for 405 children; blood pressure for 301 children (mean age 7.2 (range 6.9-10.0) years).
Main outcome measures: Respiratory illness, weight, height, body mass index, percentage body fat, and blood pressure in relation to duration of breast feeding and timing of introduction of solids.
Results: After adjustment for the significant confounding variables the estimated probability of ever having respiratory illness in children who received breast milk exclusively for at least 15 weeks was consistently lower
Conclusions: The probability of respiratory illness occurring at any time during childhood is significantly reduced if the child is fed exclusively breast milk for 15 weeks and no solid foods are introduced during this time. Breast feeding and the late introduction of solids may have a beneficial effect on childhood health and subsequent adult disease.

Key messages
? Current guidelines in the United Kingdom recommend that babies are exclusively breast fed for the first 4 months of life, with solids being introduced thereafter
? This study found that exclusive breast feeding is associated with a significant reduction in childhood respiratory illness
? The early introduction of solids is associated with increased body fat and weight in childhood
? Exclusive bottle feeding is associated with higher systolic blood pressure in childhood
? Breast feeding and delaying the introduction of solids until after 15 weeks may have a beneficial effect on childhood health and subsequent adult disease

BMJ 1999;319:147-150 ( 17 July )
Papers
Breast feeding and obesity: cross sectional study
Methods: Routine data were collected on the height and weight of 134 577 children participating in the obligatory health examination at the time of school entry in Bavaria. In a subsample of 13 345 children, early feeding, diet, and lifestyle factors were assessed using responses to a questionnaire completed by parents.
Subjects: 9357 children aged 5 and 6 who had German nationality.
Main outcome measures: Being overweight was defined as having a body mass index above the 90th centile and obesity was defined as body mass index above the 97th centile of all enrolled German children. Exclusive breast feeding was defined as the child being fed no food other than breast milk.
Results: The prevalence of obesity in children who had never been breast fed was 4.5% as compared with 2.8% in breastfed children.
Conclusions: In industrialised countries promoting prolonged breast feeding may help decrease the prevalence of obesity in childhood. Since obese children have a high risk of becoming obese adults, such preventive measures may eventually result in a reduction in the prevalence of cardiovascular diseases and other diseases related to obesity.

Key messages
? Obesity is the most frequent nutritional disorder in children, and is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease in adulthood
? Preventing obesity in children should be a useful strategy in preventing later heart disease because weight loss interventions in obese children are costly and rarely successful
? Data from a cross sectional study in Bavaria suggest that the risk of obesity in children at the time of school entry can be reduced by breast feeding: a 35% reduction occurs if children are breastfed for 3 to 5 months
? Preventing obesity and its consequences may be an important argument in the drive to encourage breast feeding in industrialised countries

Tinker - re contaiminants....

BBC ONline...
A spokesman for the National Childbirth Trust said there was strong evidence that breast-feeding protected children's health long after weaning.
She said: "This study reinforces the plentiful evidence demonstrating that breast-feeding is the ideal way of feeding a baby."
The government is still urging mothers to breast-feed, despite launching a probe into the level of contamination affecting British breast milk.
A World Wide Fund for Nature report suggested up to 350 contaminants had been found in various samples, including 42 times the safe level of toxic dioxins - the chemical at the heart of the recent Belgian meat scare.
Other chemicals identified came from suntan lotion and pesticides.
WWF point out that cow's milk, the only alternative, is likely to be equally contaminated.

Demented, I'm so brill I can even make spelling mistakes in swearwords!
I didn't think anyone would notice

I didn't mean I was actually going to sue anyone lol.It was just a bit of dark humour.

Tinker - I couldn't get your link to work.

star - I read the article you linked to. It was very moving. I have a friend who bottlefed her first and she made a point of always cuddling him after a feed and he is a happy boy.

By the way I thought that a baby could be operated upon for cleft palate?

Bluestar - I for one don?t find it difficult to understand why some f/feed ? I understand only too well, hence the many comments from me (and others) about lack of support. If I may say so it isn?t fair to say that some women?s b/milk is better than others (this puts b/milk into the realm of some kind of magic potion). Perhaps those sicker babies had other things to contend with. I only speak from a research (not individual) viewpoint that b/fed babies are healthier, if they weren't there wouldn't be much incentive to do it!

I am sorry again if I have alienated anyone - many f/fed babies thrive with very few problems. I do think however that women should be given all the information and risks associated however small.

Also some babies can't tolerate cows milk and become very ill on it and so may have soya formula but there are problems associated with that... but that's another story.

Eulalia, yep I know of people who have put in extra formula and also baby rice to get a baby to sleep longer, most of the time this involves cutting the teat. A friend put rice in her babys bottle at three weeks as she was hungry. My midwife has said that more often than not if she was a sicky baby then they are on * (not sure if I should name make).

Yes, I know someone who thickened the formula with rice, then propped the bottle so she could get on with other things!
Also know plenty who think nothing of thickening with extra formula. The degree of ignorance out there is astounding.

Joe1 - you don't know if you should name the make yet there are only 3 letters in the word, hmmmmm lets all have a BIG think what it could be - hehehe!

Its funny how there are so many different brands of formula too. Isn't there a really expensive make and some are cheaper? I'd be scared to buy the cheapest I guess... Bizarre way of doing it, I thought they would all have to be the same price. Perhaps its like this... Advertisers know there are only two ways of looking at it. High price ensures the exclusivity of a brand but they are also know that the stats for f-fed babies show that there are more in the the low income bracket. Therefore everything is geared towards that kind of market. They pick their ideal mother/customer, think what she would be like. Design a tin that appeals to her - I mean look at the them, they are hardly works of art on the packaging front (give me a tin of Illy coffee any day!) But they serve a purpose, non threatening logo's in pastels, cartoon imagery of animals - representing their 'ideal customer's' nursery, sending the message, 'This is part of your babies world, this matches their changing mat, this is safe, in balance with your child.'

I am saying this because although I avoided formula through most of dd's life (she had the occasional bottle v early on) even I fell for the branding around at the moment. I WANTED the matching everything, the best looking everything. I know not everyone's like that but I AM the formula makers' most promising customer (I'm trying not to be like this anymore, in case you were wondering how I could be such a mass of contradictions!) I am young, busy and like everything to look nice. I am aware that it doesn't matter but it doesn't stop me wanting everything. It has been mentioned somewhere that the bounty packs were disgraceful advertising. To be honest, though I realise that NOW, it didn't seem like that to me at the time. I don't consider myself to be that thick but I AM a sucker for new products. When I was first pregnant / a new mother then EVERY baby product was new and appealing.

So, would enforcing the formula producer make unappealing tins of formula, for example similar to generic-brand paracetamol, change anything? Its just so interesting that Norway (thanks for the link Suew) doesn't sell it on supermarket shelves and only in chemists. What do you think Britain would make of that? Would they need to get more people b/feeding before reducing its availability?

While on the subject of the manufacturers. Does anyone think that the subsequent loss of revenue if the use of formula fell, would mean jobs be lost as a result? Or would the advertisers just send back up in the form of heavy promotion of follow-on milk etc? After all even in Norway the figures, however great initially, drop off between the 6 to 9 month mark. (Though still amazing - 60% of all mothers still b/feeding at 6 months, how nice a sight would that be. I want to go just to see how 'normal' it can look!)

Does anyone know if Nestle actually make any of the brands on sale here in the UK? Or have they pulled out of marketing formula in the west because of being so loathed? Just occurred to me that they might be the owners of a subsidiary company who markets the milk for them.

Sorry, again I have trouble with messages -so this is broken down into 3.
Eulalia - yes I agree with your sentiments regarding human development on a broader level.My allusions to a lifestyle where we could control nature was full of holes as i don't believe in it myself, and don't see it as a way forward.

However, the question 'why would we want to control nature rather than live with it?' may be answered simply, 'because we can' (or we can try.) Phillipat said in her post that as humans we are programmed to go for the easy option. I think this is true and I think that for most humans it is an ongoing battle. We KNOW we should eat good fresh food avoiding additives etc - but, for example, making veg soup takes an hour it requires time to buy it and prepare it. And then there was Heinz. See what I'm saying?

If it is our duty on this planet to inhibit our inbuilt urges to want things easy, then only a handful of people on this planet will achieve this in their lifetime. Its a shame, but trying to convince Joe Bloggs to change their way of life for the the greater good of the planet is such a hard task. I don't think I'll achieve it in my lifetime with even myself, and that's with me aware of the problem. But small steps can be taken and change can be made. I used disposable nappies with dd, I wasn't truly aware of the implications on the planet and now wouldn't repeat it with a subsequent child (I must say that is down to the info I received on mumsnet - what a great website!) If we can empower people to take a look at their lives and make them feel in control and help them realise that they can make a difference, and that difference feels good, then we might be on to a winner. But where the hell do they squeeze that into the national curriculum? Between cramming for better results to make it look like all British children can spell really well (big government pat on the back - god bless you- we might not have anyone aware of how their meek existance can affect the world, but at least they can SPELL 'responsibility.'

That's why i have such a problem with advertising it has such a negative effect on the population as a whole. People striving to get lifestyles they are being sold - none of it's real. In my mind one of the most potentially dangerous forms of this that you can buy in to is one which involves your child because it takes some of your power away as a parent. We are sold chemically soden paper to wrap round our children's skin in the form of disposable nappies, we've got added vitamins in food - not actually knowing if this can be absorbed by our human make-up and are eating and giving our children food not meant for us (as in cow's milk - we hardly absorb ANY of the calcium in it as it is meant for baby cows' stomachs, not ours.) I've fallen for it that's why I'm scared.

Catt - I'm sure one of the brands in the UK is Nestle backed. But then everytime you eat a Kitkat you're fuelling their fire. Crazy how much they own now and because of that they can carry on as normal and sweep under the carpet

I agree but only up to a point. A society where there is no advertising is not necessarily a better one I think. For example, I like having a choice of things to use and sometimes I think I am informed by advertising of improvements to brands etc. Also, to ban advertising seems to be an impossible breach of the freedom of speech. In the Soviet Union lack of choice led people to use horrible, harsh toiletries and unsafe products and they craved Western products. That said, I do not like marketing of anything to children and think that should be banned (which would close down the kids satellite channels and probably mean no kids programmes on ITV (a good or bad thing?). I can't see myself changing to reusables ever, as I don't want to be a slave to my washing machine and have a houseful of wet nappies. I know this isn't very green but ... And I am not convinced there is any evidence of harm to babies from disposables. I would however, switch if there was a 100% biodegradable nappy advertised! I think current disposables are about 90% biodegradable.

Whoops, meant to put 70% and that's for the Nature Boy and girl ones. The rest are about 40%, which may not be great, but probably compares favourably with most of the rest of household waste, and I have to admit, I use them too.

I have to admit to a certain loathing of advertising - and I was the orginal material girl. I think it came about through the time we spent in NZ with dying MIL and then living in Australia, DH's forced unemployment and DD's illness this summer. ALl of these things have made me re-evaluate my life hugely.

I get irriated, I mean really irritated when I hear people talking about what they 'need'. E.g. 'I need a 6 bedroom house with an acre of land because I have two boys.' 'We need to go on holiday three times a year to somewhere hot because we can't relax otherwise'. 'We need a new TV because this one isn't widescreen'. 'We need a new sofa cos this one doesn't match the colour we painted the room' (cost of paint - 40 quid; cost of suite 1500 quid, I know which I'd change!)

I'm sorry but IMO these are not needs but desires. We're completely driven to have the newest latest and best of everything. The world is filling up with consumer goods and old ones are discarded as soon as they break down with people seeming to prefer to buy a new one than spend 80 quid on a repair. Or maybe the repair will cost them about 2/3 cost of a new one so they'd rather go for the new. I can better understand the dilemma there!

When MIL was dying she was visited by someone from the Salvation Army. He was telling us of the high male suicide rate in NZ amongst young men. He spoke of one family he went to visit who were pretty poor but their house had lots of brand new things in bought on HP/credit. A large TV set sat in the corner but they soon wouldn't be able to watch it because they couldn't afford to pay for the electricity. They complained about the cost of food but they would never have dreamt of peeling potatoes for chips - they lived almost entirely off processed food.

I know a family where there are six children and they have barely any money and they live in a 3 bed semi. The four eldest boys share a room and the girl has her own room. The youngest boy shares with his parents but since mum is expecting another he will soon move out. They eat well on home produced casseroles using cheaper cuts of meat. The children are dressed well - yes they have hand me downs but their clothes are bought for value and their mum knits like a demon. They have a small TV and an aged computer and their furniture isn't brand new. But it is one of the happiest homes I have ever been into, where the children are happy and co-operative and loving and loved. Yes, there are differences of opinion and it's not always easy and fights happen but they do seem to grasp the concept of want and need.

Rant over. I think

Oh the evils of capitalism! I'm very glad that I can buy a pack of Nurofen in Boots, have clean clothes from my washing machine, flick a switch and the lights come on, tap into Mumsnet on my computer, have a hot shower, buy my food and have lycra in my tights.
Having said all that, I try never to buy anything just because I have seen it advertised. My mother always said an advertisement is just like someone knocking on your door trying to sell you something. If you don't need/want it - don't buy it.
I don't think that women today use formula as a long term result of advertising campaigns in the past. Everyone knows that formula is available, so it is always going to be an option. Current research shows that breastfeeding is best and therefore I think women should be fully supported in their decision to bf, particularly if they are encountering problems. However, I am delighted that we have a choice. I'd hate to live in Norway where people feel sorry for you and assume something is wrong with you or your baby if you bottlefeed. (Just for the record both mine had breastmilk to 3 months.)
In the western world we have the highest life expectancy and lowest rates of infant mortality than ever previously experienced in the known history of human existance. While I think we should try and use the earth's resources in a respectful way, I can't get too upset about advertising.