Patronising messages about formula feeding on formula websites!

[Gemmy96]

This is a bit of a rant so let me know if it would be more appropriate elsewhere.

I exclusively formula feed my child for good reasons. Unavoidable, not-a-choice reasons. When I was researching different options, I came across something that has really pissed me off. On every website I go on once you click "infant formula" there's an incredibly patronising message displayed that requires you to agree that "breastfeeding is best" before you're allowed to see the page! I'm assuming this is due to some kind of regulation. Screenshots attached below.

Am I wrong to think that men would never be expected to click "accept" or "I agree" to this kind of infantilising, shaming nonsense?! Why do we accept this rubbish? I DON'T agree that breastfeeding is always best, fed is!

People have all kinds of reasons for not being able or not wanting to breastfeed and it's often difficult enough without constant reminders that you're apparently not doing quite enough for your child. Sigh.

If it's a website about formula feeding, why do you say it's just a website for women not for men? Men feed kids with bottles too.
Imagine it's a separated dad wanting a newborn for overnights so learning how to do formula feeding prep - probably quite good if he gets a reminder that breast milk is better!

I think it's just a regulation that they are not allowed to advertise formula milk so they're making it very clear that it's not an advert

Just ignore the message OP. I have two kids, both FF purely my choice, no medical reason not to BF. I didn’t want to, DH and GP all wanted to be involved in feeding (great), and I won’t justify this choice to anyone. Both healthy, happy, developing well and no allergies. Win-win.

Great points. And it's also important to note that the "mechanics" of breastfeeding from a baby's perspective also promotes proper jaw development (and subsequent tooth alignment) and encourages proper swallowing technique that promotes lifelong good tongue posture and general posture (which are related).

@KidsDr i just dont get how that even makes sense. Marketing is my profession and I just cant see how that makes an effective or compelling marketing strategy.

I’m not defending them by the way. I’m totally against this messaging but we’ve got to stick to the facts and the reality is the government has legislated for this because it’s easier for them to do that than to address the only real thing that WILL actually help women and improve breastfeeding rates which is:

• Proper informative education that helps women.. ie not the same old breast is best bollocks that we already know but actual proper information about HOW to breastfeed and what the challenges can be and how to address

• Practical hands on support at the time you need it. To have someone there to help and advise and be there when you are struggling with specific issues

Thats what we should be focusing on and demanding, not getting caught up in other agendas that take away from the real issue or arguing with each other about how we choose to feed our kids for gods sake

Help and support mums!!

And everyone on this thread going on about breastfeeding is better
WE KNOW!!!

no need to prove how clever you are spouting the research
WE KNOW WE KNOW WE KNOW

but its at population level. If you are a new mum that cant breastfeed or are struggling physically or me mentally or you baby isnt thriving then you need to do whats best and feed them!!

HOW is research helpful then??

Stop arguing against mums who are just trying to do whats best for them.

Research about how breastfeeding is better doesnt help!!

Education and support does!!

A few months ago Nestle were caught out again providing substandard baby food to poorer countries.

Nestlé’s baby food products sold in low and middle-income countries contain unhealthy levels of sugar, found an investigation by Swiss NGO Public Eye and the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN).What’s more, while the food giant abides by marketing restrictions in Europe, it also “takes advantage of the weakness of existing regulations” in lower and mid-income countries, the probe found.
Researchers examined about 150 products and found in many cases that the same baby formula with no added sugar in Switzerland, Germany, France, and the UK, contained unhealthy levels of it in countries such as the Philippines, South Africa, and Thailand.https://www.euronews.com/health/2024/04/19/what-is-the-sugar-scandal-hitting-nestle-and-what-happens-now

But it is a problem at a population level as rates of breastfeeding are so poor in this country.

Hence why formula companies are heavily legislated. This is a good thing despite the OP finding the message upsetting. It's not intended to shame, it's a legal requirement to keep formula companies in check and encourage breastfeeding. Which is what we want for our population.

@Yourethebeerthief so you really think a website pop up is going to help increase breastfeeding rates?

At population level (which means it needs to be goverment led) women need more education and practical support.

That is the only thing that is going to help increase breastfeeding rates overall. Not a gratuitous website pop ups that are there just to tick a legal tick box.

I literally cant understand why you are trying to counter an argument against this.

Yes, government led initiative and support for women needs to be better first and foremost. But yes, formula websites need to have disclaimers like this too.

@Yourethebeerthief Ok that i can get on board with, but the help and support absolutely needs to come first as without it this messaging is doing more harm to mothers than actually helping them.

The messaging is not helpful OR effective, literally no one is going to change their mind based on this crap messaging. All it does is create upset and guilt when where more often than not, there is no choice.

To be fair to the website, they have no idea if you’re a man or woman accessing the site so they are asking any man visiting to accept the same.

However it’s bloody stupid in this day and age to have any kind of warning anywhere about breastfeeding being best for a baby. In my case it was best for baby but not for me (though by that stage DC wouldn’t switch to bottles, not from a lack of trying) and I had a breakdown. In your case breastfeeding is not best for baby or you, formula is and making you feel shit about the way you feed your child isn’t on at all (providing you’re not attempting to feed solids to a newborn!)

Fed is best, always, and formula is perfectly healthy for them too. I’m so sorry you’ve got to deal with that

There's problems on both sides of it, neither of which help women, however they feed their babies.

The formula companies make profits and that's their reason for existing, so can't be trusted. I boycotted Nestle for a couple of decades before I had my baby!

But it was a massive shock how much I was lied to about BFing once I was pregnant and how much it's promoted without giving context. That means I no longer trust HCPs, BFing support, lactation consultants to enable me to make an informed decision either. I'm a long term BFer (several years) but I now look back and think it wasn't worth the hassle, expense and sheer angst of doing it.

A lot of the evidence is poor quality and/or given without actual figures that give the context in a population vs individual women. A lot of the supposed pros aren't objective. All of the below is stuff I was told repeatedly antenatally.

Eg higher IQ (poor quality evidence)
Immunity benefits (actually tiny as in one baby amongst several may get one less cold in their first year).

Reduces risk of asthma/eczema (actually no difference if looking at good quality evidence and anecdotally all the children I know who have these were EBF).
Reduces risk of baby being diabetic (evidence fails to take into account diabetes affects milk supply ie baby HAD to have formula plus is often genetic).
Breast cancer risk reduction massively pushed (actually a reduction from 12.5% to 12% if you BF for at least six months and are under 35). Clearly this has a big cost implication for the NHS treating tens of thousands of women but for an individual woman it's negligible and far more to do with genetics - it's also concerning if women then don't go for mammograms as they think that they BF and will therefore be fine).

BFing is free! No it isn't, only if you ignore the cost of your calories to make it, plus overcoming potential problems (pump, lactation consultant, nipple cream, travel to support) or getting some clothes/bras for easier access. I found the basic cost of either was the same, but I know people who've spent £100s on BFing.

BFing is convenient! Depends how you interpret convenient. I found it far more convenient to have a combi-fed baby I could leave at home with my DH to feed whilst I went out.

These discussions are always a bit fraught, of course, anything that calls into question our choices as parents can be.

I can imagine why ‘breast is best’ messages hurt when you’ve not been able to or chosen not to do it. But we could also say ‘organic is best’ ‘minimal screen time is best’ and those wouldn’t sting as much - I think? We all make choices for ourselves and our children based on the info we have. ‘Fed is best’ is aimed to reduce the sting but isn’t factually correct, and some people genuinely don’t know about the benefits of breast feeding.

I understand how you feel but I think it’s important the message continues to be shared, particularly among people who’ve not really been exposed to BF in their family etc.

Fed is best quite literally is correct.

Fed is best is a bit of a meaningless statement isn't it. Like yes of course feeding a baby is better than starving it but that's quite a low bar. Breastmilk is obviously best from a nutritional perspective -- a UPF is never going to match up to it. If circumstances mean BF is difficult then of course mothers shouldn't be shamed for their choices. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't point out that breastfeeding is better nutritionally and immunologically. It's only fair to the next generation.

And I mean the next generation on a population level here. I'm not having a pop at anyone who had to FF.

@catlady7 yes, I have friends who found EBFing almost free, but I did find they weren't carefully budgeting for food etc during maternity leave so weren't having to think about that much.

That's why I think it would be better phrased antenatally something like "Feeding your baby will incur costs. You may find that EBFing is almost free, but some costs you might incur include... Formula feeding may cost ... (and then include section about it not mattering using a cheaper formula). Instead of women being told BFing is free and no further information.

We did find there was a big assumption we could afford to rush out and buy stuff to try and make EBFing work. Within the first ten days we'd had to fork out for nipple cream (£11), pump to try and force milk to come in when it didn't (£120 new, although I did get mine secondhand from a friend with very lucky timing!), bottles and brush we hadn't expected to need (£6), steriliser initially borrowed from friend, emergency readmission to hospital (£40 in taxis) so that's at least £180 for something that's meant to be 'free'.

Sure not every EBF encounters all those costs but it's the element of uncertainty - nobody can guarantee they won't have problems.

Perfect summary of the situation

EBF has been free for me. I guess I'm a bit skinnier as I eat the same calories as before probably, so for some people there would be additional food costs. I didn't bother with a pump.

This is literally what happened to us though- midwives, infant feeding lead, lactation consultant all encouraged me to keep on EBFing whilst our baby was starving because they were all so anti-formula.

She was then readmitted seriously ill with dehydration and only narrowly avoided brain damage, if not worse.

That's why fed is best is all that matters. Babies need calories in order to thrive, grow and develop.