Breast feeding mother try to ruin cinema !

scuby

The cinema in Mahon point, cork have screenings for mothers who can take their babies/toddlers etc to see a film, instead of being couped up at home. good for the mothers to get out and well done to mahon for doing it. i think other cinema's do it. they call it the big "scream"
However "some" of the breast feeding mothers have complained as a Formula manufacturer sponsors it :eek: by what way they sponsor it i'm not sure but the following was issued to the mailing list of people who subscribe to the "big scream".
Would they not just shut up and ignore the formula sponsorship !! do they not realise some mothers just cannot breast feed, either due to medical conditions/physical conditions etc......good god ..........rant over !

Hi everyone,

A number of patrons have contacted us with concerns regarding SMA's sponsorship of the Movies 4 Mums screenings, because they are a formula manufacturer. A small number of patrons feel this is off putting for some mums who breast feed.

We would like to re-assure everyone SMA fully support breastfeeding and formula feeding, and their sponsorship of these screenings is not just about promoting formula. The experts SMA have at these screenings will be there to provide all inclusive advice, giving advice on breastfeeding, formula feeding and any other nutritional advice you may need.

Indeed, to highlight SMA's support for breastfeeding, you will find attached an extract from a manual which was handed out free of charge to the patrons who attended the Movies 4 Mum screening this morning. You will see that breastfeeding is clearly encouraged by SMA as the first half of the manual is about breastfeeding, indeed the first section is titled 'Breast is Best'.
You will also find attached a leaflet specifically about breastfeeding which was handed out this morning aswell.

I again re-assure you all that both Omniplex and SMA are in full support of every woman's right to choose how they wish to feed their babies, and the intention of this sponsorship is to enhance the experience of those in attendance by providing support and nutritional advice to all of our patrons, whatever their choice in this regard may be.

For any of you who are still concerned that formula feeding is being prioritised with this sponsorship, I would encourage you to attend a screening and speak with the nutritionist so you can see what is involved. If you still have concerns at that stage please don't hesitate to bring them to our attention.

Thank you for your continued support and as always all comments and suggestions are very welcome.

Adhamh

One thing I hate about the modern world is that advertisers move Heaven and Earth to put their message in front of you, they collect and trade every single little detail about your personal life for huge money and customise their approach to you, their 'target market' to manipulate your every (sub)conscious desire to weasle you out of every ****!ng penny they can.

Of course, they just want to do business, and there is nothing wrong with that, don't misunderstand me, and of course if there are young mothers there will be ads for breast formula and the like but this 'Movies 4 Moms' thing sounded like some sort of 'community spirit' thing and some of them probably feel kind of 'tricked', it's all some cynical underhand thing just to shift more units, end of.

Most people are immune to advertising I think, but I still hate feeling like a fish in a barrel.

implausible

I've read your post a few times and I'm still not sure what your point is. You go to this screening, it is sponsored by SMA, some of the breastfeeding mothers object and the cinema send out a letter to the mothers with SMA's usual spiel about being supportive of breastfeeding.

Have I missed something? The screening is still taking place isn't it?

How Strange

I'm confused too?!?! Personally I think it's seriously duplicitous and even contradictory from a business perspective for a formula feeding company to say they fully support breastfeeding. That's like an alcohol drinks company saying they fully support teetotalism and distribute literature on how to stay sober.

I'd imagine the breastfeeding mothers would prefer that the screenings weren't sponsored by a formula manufacturer and they voiced their opinions. Such is democracy.

Hannibal Smith

deemark wrote: »

I've read your post a few times and I'm still not sure what your point is. You go to this screening, it is sponsored by SMA, some of the breastfeeding mothers object and the cinema send out a letter to the mothers with SMA's usual spiel about being supportive of breastfeeding.

Have I missed something? The screening is still taking place isn't it?

I think the point is that the women should stop complaining about who sponsors it and enjoy the movie?

The point of advertising is to try and convince you to buy a product. if you're happy with whatever way you're feeding your baby seeing the letters SMA shouldn't really pose a problem should it? So what's the harm in who sponsors it, it's not as if the babies are going to demand formula as soon as they see it

implausible

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

I think the point is that the women should stop complaining about who sponsors it and enjoy the movie?

The point of advertising is to try and convince you to buy a product. if you're happy with whatever way you're feeding your baby seeing the letters SMA shouldn't really pose a problem should it? So what's the harm in who sponsors it, it's not as if the babies are going to demand formula as soon as they see it

In fairness, with the cinema, they have a captive audience who have already decided how to feed their babies, so I'd imagine the complaints related to the all-pervasive normalisation of formula feeding and the strengthening of the association of that company with motherhood. We all know advertising works on all types of levels. If it didn't, they wouldn't bother doing it.

This thread was started by someone complaining about someone complaining and she started the same thread in another forum too. You're right, she should just enjoy the movie. It hasn't been affected.

Hannibal Smith

deemark wrote: »

In fairness, with the cinema, they have a captive audience who have already decided how to feed their babies, so I'd imagine the complaints related to the all-pervasive normalisation of formula feeding and the strengthening of the association of that company with motherhood. We all know advertising works on all types of levels. If it didn't, they wouldn't bother doing it.

This thread was started by someone complaining about someone complaining and she started the same thread in another forum too. You're right, she should just enjoy the movie. It hasn't been affected.

I don't know what form the complaints took, I didn't see any of them

scuby

deemark wrote: »

In fairness, with the cinema, they have a captive audience who have already decided how to feed their babies, so I'd imagine the complaints related to the all-pervasive normalisation of formula feeding and the strengthening of the association of that company with motherhood. We all know advertising works on all types of levels. If it didn't, they wouldn't bother doing it.

This thread was started by someone complaining about someone complaining and she started the same thread in another forum too. You're right, she should just enjoy the movie. It hasn't been affected.

totaly agree with your first point.. people have already decided about how they will feed their child before the even go to cinema with a new born.
the thread starter is a Male !, and i was complaining about the fact that someone was giving out about a formula maker sonsoring the cinema. IF they are so worried about the negative impact of SMA and the likes, get your nipple cream makers to sponsor the cinema. it was a petty moan, more like something from Joe duffy.
And so what if it was started on another forum? it applies to the cork city forum, and this toddler one !!!

implausible

scuby wrote: »

totaly agree with your first point.. people have already decided about how they will feed their child before the even go to cinema with a new born.
the thread starter is a Male !, and i was complaining about the fact that someone was giving out about a formula maker sonsoring the cinema. IF they are so worried about the negative impact of SMA and the likes, get your nipple cream makers to sponsor the cinema. it was a petty moan, more like something from Joe duffy.
And so what if it was started on another forum? it applies to the cork city forum, and this toddler one !!!

Apologies for getting the gender wrong:o

SMA cannot directly advertise formula, so sponsoring an event like this is a way of getting around it. I'd imagine that breastfeeding mothers are annoyed at the association of formula with motherhood. As for nipple cream manufacturers sponsoring the showing, sure it wouldn't be worth their while - it's a product only used by some breastfeeding mothers and one can't be persuaded to switch to it!

None of those breastfeeding mothers are on here complaining about the sponsorship - instead, you are complaining (twice) about others complaining - Joe Duffy would love this!

I mention the other forum as I thought there was a rule about posting the same topic in two forums.

scuby

not really complaining, just thought it was quite "childish" by the few people that complained about the sponsorship. They should just get over it :rolleyes:

Orion

scuby wrote: »

And so what if it was started on another forum? it applies to the cork city forum, and this toddler one !!!

To be honest I'm not entirely sure it belongs here at all. But it's here now so I'll leave it open as long as it stays civil.

However I will also report your thread on Cork City and arrange to have the threads merged or one locked. Pick one forum next time.

deemark wrote: »

I mention the other forum as I thought there was a rule about posting the same topic in two forums.

There's also a rule about reporting posts that you feel should be reported. Try that instead next time.

With my mod hat off I completely agree with the rest of your post deemark.

wolfpawnat

IMO it sounds like some people complaining for the sake of it! It is really childish to be moaning about it TBH

Everything is sponsored these days, SMA is a infant/baby company. Shouldn't people feel grateful for something to do rather than sitting at home facing the four walls. It is nice of them to do it, since that is money they could keep as profits!

I did not use SMA for my child and I am not easily led by adverts so it wouldn't bother me.

I am a non drinker, but it does not mean I would boycott Qxegen even if it is sponsored by Bacardi and Heineken.

implausible

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Everything is sponsored these days, SMA is a infant/baby company. Shouldn't people feel grateful for something to do rather than sitting at home facing the four walls. It is nice of them to do it, since that is money they could keep as profits!

I wish I lived in your world, where multi-national multi-million corporations do things to be nice!

wolfpawnat

deemark wrote: »

I wish I lived in your world, where multi-national multi-million corporations do things to be nice!

They try to promote their product yes, but they could pay money to RTE for adverts, or give vouchers for €1 off their product, but instead they have provided a service that get mothers out and provides children and mothers with company.

You don't see Danone/Renault/Arnotts doing it for us!

implausible

wolfpawnat wrote: »

They try to promote their product yes, but they could pay money to RTE for adverts, or give vouchers for €1 off their product, but instead they have provided a service that get mothers out and provides children and mothers with company.

They can't advertise or discount the price of it! The advertising of formula for under 6 month old babies is banned. That's why they've come up with follow-on milks etc. Sponsorship is a way around this and I'm not even sure if that's allowed, which is probably why the breastfeeding mums complained in the first place.

quozl

scuby wrote: »

Would they not just shut up and ignore the formula sponsorship !! do they not realise some mothers just cannot breast feed, either due to medical conditions/physical conditions etc......good god ..........rant over !

That doesn't make any sense - unless you're suggesting that mothers who are unable to breastfeed for a medical reason wouldn't know of the existence of formula milk and thus them seeing an ad for it in cinema is of benefit.

Assuming that the minority of mothers who are in that situation have heard of formula milk - I think that's a pretty safe assumption - then what medical benefit is advertising it?

The point of those adverts is not to appeal to people who are forced to formula feed - you don't need to advertise to them, they're already forced to do it - but to get people who may choose to formula feed.

Orion

wolfpawnat wrote: »

They try to promote their product yes, but they could pay money to RTE for adverts, or give vouchers for €1 off their product, but instead they have provided a service that get mothers out and provides children and mothers with company.

You don't see Danone/Renault/Arnotts doing it for us!

You think they don't pay the cinema for the sponsorship? They are most certainly not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.

wolfpawnat

Orion wrote: »

You think they don't pay the cinema for the sponsorship? They are most certainly not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.

No one is stupid enough to think they are doing it for the sake of it, they get tax breaks and it is advertising for them. But you don't see other companies offering to do it. It is advertising that gives something to the consumer also!

Dades

You'd swear this event had been sponsored by Philip Morris.

Ach, what of it? The poorer women are the only ones who'll buy the SMA, while the women of status will carry on breastfeeding.

At least that's what all the reliable research tells us. :cool:

Karmella

Can I just say that having been to a few of these screenings that I had no idea that it was sponsored by anyone. Its not like the ads they show before the film starts are only SMA or other baby products - its the same ads and trailers they show before any other screening. So as far as I can see the only place the sponsorship is mentioned must be on the e-mail which I haven't even subscribed to.

Storm in a teacup if you ask me. I'd imagine that if the cinema were going to stop showing the films it would be because only a handful of people actually go, and not because an anti-SMA person campaigned to stop it. I went 3-4 times while on mat leave and there was never more than 20 at the film.

neeb

Adhamh wrote: »

Most people are immune to advertising I think, but I still hate feeling like a fish in a barrel.

Thats why billions of euros are spent on advertising the world over. They advertise and promote these things because advertising and promotion work.

Tayla

That's ridiculous, I don't understand why people who breast feed have such anger towards formula, not all of them obviously but I personally know one woman who breastfed who would literally nearly fly into a rage if she saw on ad for formula companies.

How Strange

I think its 'ridiculous' that people assume a formula company would sponsor a cinema event out of altuism.

I breastfeed my baby, I don't care how other women feed their babies but I do feel uncomfortable when I see formula companies sponsoring family and baby events. A well known brand of formula sponsored the first mother and baby event in RDS in 2010 which meant that there was virtually no promotion of breastfeeding in the hall. You could get loads of formula samples though.

NextSteps

The more formula companies are associated with baby events, the more 'normal' formula feeding seems, and the more of an exception (aberration?) breastfeeding appears. Isn't that the point?

Das Kitty

NextSteps wrote: »

The more formula companies are associated with baby events, the more 'normal' formula feeding seems, and the more of an exception (aberration?) breastfeeding appears. Isn't that the point?

Yup that's the point.

I formula fed after 3 months, I have nothing against formula feeding (I think it's wonderful that we have a choice) but I don't like the dirty tactics the companies use to push the normalisation of formula feeding. I also hate all these "breast is best, but..." ads. As though it's their idea to put this into their ads and they're not being forced to.

I do get that the higher the sales the more that can be put into R&D to create better formulas, however I would like to see some of the money put into research to make breast feeding more comfortable, easier to pick up and keep going. It's never going to happen though!

wayfarers

Deleted User wrote: »

Ach, what of it? The poorer women are the only ones who'll buy the SMA, while the women of status will carry on breastfeeding.

At least that's what all the reliable research tells us. :cool:

Yeah gone are the days of the 'elite' farming out their babies to wet nurses, there seems to be a kudos attached to breast feeding one's own kids now. Just watch the fcuking films and ignore the SMA advertising.

How Strange

NextSteps that's exactly what it is. Normalising formula feeding. Das Kitty I'm very cynical about the mumslikeus concept and website.

How Strange

How Strange wrote: »

NextSteps that's exactly what it is. Normalising formula feeding. Das Kitty I'm very cynical about the mumslikeus concept and website.

About half of kids are breastfed, and about half are fed with formula. WADR, I'd say that makes them both normal.

Dades

^^ Yeah, I don't get the whole "normalising" concept.

There are two options - breast and formula. Despite the fact that people disagree to which might be better (or how better) - both are still normal. Someone feeding their baby chilli would be abnormal.

SMA are simply using marketing to plug their product.

implausible

Deleted User wrote: »

About half of kids are breastfed, and about half are fed with formula. WADR, I'd say that makes them both normal.

In what country?! Are you for real? I have no statistics to hand, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that it is nowhere near half! And as for your previous comment about status, I'm very confused. Surely, it should be the other way around that women who are poorer would provide their kids with free food, while those who can afford it, pay for formula. Have you a link to the research?

Dades wrote: »

^^ Yeah, I don't get the whole "normalising" concept.

It's about removing barriers to breastfeeding. Perception is a big barrier - lots of women don't do it because they think it's icky, or other people think it's weird. Bombardment with advertising for formula creates a situation where formula is equated with babies and breastfeeding becomes an alternative to the norm i.e. formula. Health promotion simply can't compete with the money made and spent by formula companies.

quozl

deemark wrote: »

In what country?! Are you for real? I have no statistics to hand, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that it is nowhere near half! And as for your previous comment about status, I'm very confused. Surely, it should be the other way around that women who are poorer would provide their kids with free food, while those who can afford it, pay for formula. Have you a link to the research?

Unfortunately he or she is likely correct about it being poorer and less well educated people being more likely to formula feed.



http://gearybehaviourcenter.blogspot.com/2010/07/socio-economic-predictors-of.html



There are also large numbers of studies for countries outside of Ireland supporting this, particularly mother's education level.

The arguments I have seen for it are that the better educated the mother the more likely she is to know of and to appreciate the arguments in favour of breast-feeding, and additionally she is likely to be older when having children, a factor which increases the likelihood of choosing to breast-feed. Also the more likely she is to be able to access information to help her deal with any breast-feeding difficulties experienced. In Ireland we've lost a fair proportion of our expertise as many people won't be able to go to their own mothers for experience and advice. That is totally different in scandanavia for example.

More articles on this
http://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/breasfeedingratesyoungmothers.pdf
http://www.crfr.ac.uk/gus/Skafida%20(2009)%20The%20relative%20importance%20of%20social%20class%20and%20maternal%20education%20for%20breast-feeding%20initiation.pdf

Evil-p

Dades wrote: »

^^ Yeah, I don't get the whole "normalising" concept.

There are two options - breast and formula. Despite the fact that people disagree to which might be better (or how better) - both are still normal. Someone feeding their baby chilli would be abnormal.

SMA are simply using marketing to plug their product.

Hmm you think feeding a human baby with powered cows milk with added vitamins and minerals is normal? It is a very poor substitute. There are hundreds of compounds in breast milk. So far formula companies have identified about 50. I think i'll stick to breastfeeding thanks.

Also someone mentioned using money to research how to successfully breastfeed? We all know how to breastfeed. Have you ever seen any other mammal not feed its baby is the normal way. We are programmed to do it as are our babies. Google Laid back breastfeeding and the Breast Crawl. We all need to tune out the noise the formula companies are making.

One of the formula ads says something about when you decide to wean put the baby onto follow on milk. Why would you ever wean your baby onto that stuff?

So I think fair play to the women who complained about the cinema! I'm sick of having formula shoved down my throat as normal!

quozl

Dades wrote: »

There are two options - breast and formula. Despite the fact that people disagree to which might be better (or how better)

This was so striking I just had to query it. What reputable organisation argues that formula feeding is better?

Or are you equating random people with no expertise on one side, versus the WHO etc on the other?

implausible

quozl wrote: »

Unfortunately he or she is likely correct about it being poorer and less well educated people being more likely to formula feed.

There are also large numbers of studies for countries outside of Ireland supporting this, particularly mother's education level.

The arguments I have seen for it are that the better educated the mother the more likely she is to know of and to appreciate the arguments in favour of breast-feeding, and additionally she is likely to be older when having children, a factor which increases the likelihood of choosing to breast-feed. Also the more likely she is to be able to access information to help her deal with any breast-feeding difficulties experienced. In Ireland we've lost a fair proportion of our expertise as many people won't be able to go to their own mothers for experience and advice. That is totally different in scandanavia for example.

Thanks for that - very interesting stuff. It goes to show that maybe the wrong demographic are being targeted by health promoters. Those of us who are in the middle-class, educated, older category are more likely to access information on breastfeeding in the first place and probably don't need the leaflets and posters.

Tayla

Evil-p wrote: »

It is a very poor substitute.

It's not a 'very poor' substitute.

January

Tayla wrote: »

It's not a 'very poor' substitute.

While it's not a "very poor" substitute, it's not an exact substitute and it doesn't change the fact that breast is best... that being said, nobody should make another person feel bad for choosing to formula feed. Breast feeding can be a very difficult thing to do and sometimes it's better for the well being of mother and baby to formula feed.

irish_eyes

those bloody breastfeeding women at it again trying to feed their babies, how dare they!

January

irish_eyes wrote: »

those bloody breastfeeding women at it again trying to feed their babies, how dare they!

Unhelpful posting is not tolerated here.

littlemissfixit

It is always a very touchy subject and people feel so passionate about this, especially when they are breasfeeding, and I dont really understand why people care so much about what other people decide to do, whatever happened to freedom of choice.
I am a breasfeeding mum, believe very strongly that it is a million times better than formula and thats why I chose it for my child. This said, I never gave a second thought about formula advertising and sponsorship, like it or not, it is business and is the world we live in. And people who choose to formula feed can check out those ads and make their choice then. The pushiness of BF advocates is not doing much good to the cause.
I think that the mentality on breasfeeding here (bf is much more common and "normal" where I come from) is established way before you see/pay attention to any formula brand ads. It needs to be addressed with the much younger people. For as long as I remember knowing about BF, I never remember myself or any peers thinking it was disgusting or weird. Yet I have heard here people as old as their mid-twenties talking about it that way???
It is not taking all formula ads off that will change that, it is education from a young age, more accessible and comfortable public places where women will feel its completely acceptable and "normal" to BF wherever they are. The more people see it happen, the more "normal" it will become!

Dades

deemark wrote: »

Dades wrote: »

^^ Yeah, I don't get the whole "normalising" concept.

It's about removing barriers to breastfeeding. Perception is a big barrier - lots of women don't do it because they think it's icky, or other people think it's weird. Bombardment with advertising for formula creates a situation where formula is equated with babies and breastfeeding becomes an alternative to the norm i.e. formula.

Barriers to breastfeeding? From the look of the replies I've received it appears there are no barriers to breastfeeding and shame on anyone who suggests the alternative is not evil. For both my kids my wife was aggressively encouraged to breastfeed (expressed eventually after a lot of tears) so I find this notion of wannabe breastfeeders being oppressed by Big Company somewhat weak.

Evil-p wrote: »

Hmm you think feeding a human baby with powered cows milk with added vitamins and minerals is normal? It is a very poor substitute. There are hundreds of compounds in breast milk. So far formula companies have identified about 50. I think I'll stick to breastfeeding thanks.

Normal for those that choose it, yes.

Evil-p wrote: »

Have you ever seen any other mammal not feed its baby is the normal way.

I've never seen any other mammal wear make up either. What's your point?

Evil-p wrote: »

One of the formula ads says something about when you decide to wean put the baby onto follow on milk. Why would you ever wean your baby onto that stuff?

You do realise that some mothers have to return to work, or simply can't or don't have the inclination to feed/express for a year?

The perceived oppression here is frightening!

wolfpawnat

deemark wrote: »

In what country?! Are you for real? I have no statistics to hand, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that it is nowhere near half!

Most of the parents not breastfeeding in Ireland is because of lazy parenting, not wanting "saggy breasts" and mothers not being able to take the time they want with their children. Breast is cheap and if the mother is healthy, the milk is better, but you cannot slate those who do not do it, even if their reasons are somewhat immature and ridiculous.

I tried breastfeeding, didn't work so I expressed for 6 weeks, and then changed over. Not everyone would have put in the exhausting effort of doing what I did, so why should they not choose to formula feed.

When I was in the hospital no time was giving to help me with the feeding, but yet people tut tut when they see formula milk.

Ayla

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Most of the parents not breastfeeding in Ireland is because of lazy parenting, not wanting "saggy breasts" and mothers not being able to take the time they want with their children. ...

I assume you have evidence to support this assertion?

Evil-p

Dades wrote: »

Barriers to breastfeeding? From the look of the replies I've received it appears there are no barriers to breastfeeding and shame on anyone who suggests the alternative is not evil. For both my kids my wife was aggressively encouraged to breastfeed (expressed eventually after a lot of tears) so I find this notion of wannabe breastfeeders being oppressed by Big Company somewhat weak.

Normal for those that choose it, yes.

I've never seen any other mammal wear make up either. What's your point?

You do realise that some mothers have to return to work, or simply can't or don't have the inclination to feed/express for a year?

The perceived oppression here is frightening!

I am not speaking hypothetically. I am working, breastfeeding mother. My child does not get formula.

The notion that human females are unable to feed their children is ridiculous. And your comparison with makeup is utterly nonsensical. I am sorry your wife did not have a good breastfeeding experience. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. But if most women breastfed instead of a small minority there would have been peer support and far more expert support in place for her.

And that breastfeeders aren't being suppressed by the big company? With all due respect Dades I think you are very ill informed about what exactly formula companies tactics are. For instance do you believe the breastfeeding help boards on all the formula companies website are genuinely trying to support breastfeeding mothers? Oh how about that incredibly misleading SMA ad stating that unless you give formula your child will be iron deficient? That ad is banned everywhere but Ireland. And don't get me started on what formula companies get up to in third world countries where they are literally responsible for babies dying.

Also promoting breastfeeding does not necessarily have to undermine a mothers choice. However formula and breastmilk are not equal and it is crazy to think they are. Breastmilk is tailor-made to suit your baby so like it or not formula is an inferior substitute. Thats not emotive, its fact.

quozl

Evil-p wrote:

One of the formula ads says something about when you decide to wean put the baby onto follow on milk. Why would you ever wean your baby onto that stuff?

Dades wrote:

You do realise that some mothers have to return to work, or simply can't or don't have the inclination to feed/express for a year?

Dades, did you miss that Evil-P specifically mentioned follow on milk?

There is no need for follow on milk. It is a product that was created to give breast milk companies something to advertise seeing as they are not allowed advertise formula milk for children under 6 months. They don't even advertise it in countries where there are no bans on advertising infant formulas.

anthonymax

Am I completely missing the point here, forgive me if I am.

I have never breastfed either of my kids. I made my own decision on that. If I went to this cinema and saw an ad for formula, I am big enough and bold enough not to be affected by it. I am not a child, and it is not an ad for toys or sweets. So I would not care what is advertised.

deemark

deemark wrote: »

In what country?! Are you for real? I have no statistics to hand, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that it is nowhere near half!

In Ireland. I am for real. And leaving aside the fact that you don't make it clear what half you mean, it's only reasonable of me to point out that if you don't have statistics to hand you can't tell anyone anything with 100% certainty.

As I said previously, about half of kids are breastfed, and half fed on formula. That's "about", so if it turns out that the ratio is 55-45 or 45-55, it doesn't alter the fact that both methods of feeding are normalised already and therefore do not require normalisation.

A source or two showing percentage rates for breastfeeding in Ireland between mid-40s and mid-50s.


http://www.rcpi.ie/Faculties/Faculty%20of%20Public%20Health%20Medicine%20Downloads/1235%20Doyle.pdf

http://www.breastfeeding.ie/policy_strategy

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=14334

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/56/43136964.pdf

deemark wrote: »

And as for your previous comment about status, I'm very confused. Surely, it should be the other way around that women who are poorer would provide their kids with free food, while those who can afford it, pay for formula. Have you a link to the research?

Why should you be confused? This is not a novel concept. Anyone who has done or read research in this area will have seen the phenomenon where poorer families spend the highest proportion of their income - and sometimes the highest sums of money - on stuff that costs more and is less healthy.

Some sources:


In Australia, the gap in duration of breastfeeding between the poorest and most well-off families widened between 1995 and 2005.

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/189_05_010908/ami11480_fm.html


In the USA, white women are more likely to breastfeed than black or Hispanic women, and there is a significant gap in breastfeeding rates between the lowest and highest income groups.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5512a3.htm


In Ireland (North and South) children born to poorer women are less likely to be breastfed.

http://www.publichealth.ie/healthinequalities/healthinequalitiesontheislandstatistics

Ayla

Deleted User wrote: »

As I said previously, about half of kids are breastfed, and half fed on formula. That's "about", so if it turns out that the ratio is 55-45 or 45-55, it doesn't alter the fact that both methods of feeding are normalised already and therefore do not require normalisation.

Ugh, another breast vs bottle fight.

Anyway, just thought I'd clarify with this from the 5-yr Strategic Action Plan, 2005 :

Since the publication of the 1994 Policy there has been some improvement in the national breastfeeding rates, though these fall short of the targets set by the Policy. The most up-to-date available breastfeeding
rates at national level are 39.11% exclusive breastfeeding plus 2.47% partial breastfeeding at maternity hospital discharge in 2001 (NPRS, 2005) This is the only national data source currently available on infant feeding and there is a 3-4 year time lag between collection and availability. At present there is no national source of infant feeding data following discharge from maternity hospital/care. This makes it difficult to review breastfeeding duration rate targets or evaluate the effect on rates of community supports for breastfeeding.

And another from the Irish Medical Times, 2010:

Some 52.2 per cent of mothers indicated they had started breastfeeding but now stopped, 26.2 per cent were currently breastfeeding (with baby at six months) and 21.6 per cent never breastfed. The survey included a sample of mothers at various stages of breastfeeding from the four HSE regions.

And one more, just for fun, from the US National Library of Mecidine, Institute of Health, 1997:

Breast feeding rates in Ireland have stagnated at around 33% over the past 10 years.

Anthonymax, thank you. People don't have to behave like mindless sheep - advertisers are paid to try to convince people to buy their products, but people have the individual choice to buy into it or ignore it.

Dades

Evil-p wrote: »

I am not speaking hypothetically. I am working, breastfeeding mother. My child does not get formula.

Not everybody can have that luxury - or should be judged for not managing to do that.

Evil-p wrote: »

I am sorry your wife did not have a good breastfeeding experience. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. But if most women breastfed instead of a small minority there would have been peer support and far more expert support in place for her.

There was no lack of support - there was emotional pressure on her to do so. From every 'expert' during her 3-day hospital stay. She's be feeling the same kind of sense of failure now if she was reading this thread.

Evil-p wrote: »

And that breastfeeders aren't being suppressed by the big company? With all due respect Dades I think you are very ill informed about what exactly formula companies tactics are. For instance do you believe the breastfeeding help boards on all the formula companies website are genuinely trying to support breastfeeding mothers? Oh how about that incredibly misleading SMA ad stating that unless you give formula your child will be iron deficient? That ad is banned everywhere but Ireland. And don't get me started on what formula companies get up to in third world countries where they are literally responsible for babies dying.

I'll come clean and admit I know nothing of what goes on in the 3rd World regarding this. My point was that we have an educated population with access to this thread and a 1,000 other resources, so my contention is the amount of mothers who base their feeding decisions solely on formula marketing is next to nothing.

Evil-p wrote: »

Also promoting breastfeeding does not necessarily have to undermine a mothers choice. However formula and breastmilk are not equal and it is crazy to think they are. Breastmilk is tailor-made to suit your baby so like it or not formula is an inferior substitute. Thats not emotive, its fact.

Somewhat predictably my comments have been straw-manned to represent some view I have not put forward. I have no doubt breast-milk is better I just have an issue with the idea that breastfeeders are an oppressed minority, when from what I read here is the complete opposite seems to be true.

wolfpawnat

Ayla wrote: »

I assume you have evidence to support this assertion?

Have you asked women why they didn't. These tend to be a few the usual suspects. I laughed at a girl I know because of the saggy breasts one, seriously pathetic excuse IMHO, but a common one in the younger mums. I do not know of a survey done with reasons for not trying to BF, I am sure it should be somewhere in the records though.

There are those who try and fail (myself being one) there are those who try and succeed, and there are those who don't bother. We all have the choice, and tbh I found the pro breastfeeding brigade a pain in the behind and self esteem racking when I had to swap over. "Your clearly not doing it right" and "God, you really should have stayed at it" were not what I wanted to hear, and the Formula mums weren't driving me insane with demanding I try brand names that they did!

quozl

Dades wrote: »

Somewhat predictably my comments have been straw-manned to represent some view I have not put forward. I have no doubt breast-milk is better I just have an issue with the idea that breastfeeders are an oppressed minority, when from what I read here is the complete opposite seems to be true.

I would point out that the whole point of this thread seems to be an attack on the idea that people should stand up for breast-feeding... the only reason that anybody even needs to is because of the advertising and money on one side, and the lack of those things on the other.

Add to that that flippant comments comparing the companies to Philip Morris are not a basis for constructive debate.

I certainly haven't straw manned anything you've said and I think you could do with more research into this if you don't see any similarities between Philip Morris and Nestle for example...

I think you may be coming at this from an emotional standpoint because of how poorly you feel your wife has been treated - I can understand that, my wife and I came under a lot of pressure to formula feed as it would have suited Holles street to get our twins out of ICU slightly quicker as they're so short of room. This was even though formula fed premature babies have significantly higher rates of various very unpleasant illnesses. It was purely for their expediency as they're so over-crowded.

In all of Holles street - the busiest maternity hospital in europe this year, we were told - there were two lactation consultants. That made me pretty angry myself. There is little chance that my wife would have succeeded at breastfeeding our twins without us being able to afford to pay the 60 or so euro it was for an hour with a private lactation consultant - if we'd had no money, or less awareness of the value of breast-feeding, then the system would have pretty much ensured formula feeding.

The only assistance my wife got in all of this was from one lovely philipino nurse in the special care unit who helped her though it was no responsibility of hers. They couldn't even provide breast-pumping equipment - there were two pumps for the whole hospital IIRC and they did not have any disposible breast atatchments - so we were forced to clean and re-use one-use attachments to pump milk for infection sensitive babies.

This is the reality of my experience of breast-feeding support in Ireland anyway.