[trishalishous]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-...ys-charity.html

Baby formula milk should have cigarette-style health warnings telling mothers breast is best, says top charity

Save the Children wants the messages to be big enough to cover at least a third of the packaging.
Its proposal would apply to the UK and other European nations as well as the developing world.
Campaigners claim, however, that the advice will only pile guilt on mothers who want to breastfeed but are unable to do so.
The Department of Health recommends exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months with optional further breastfeeding when the baby moves on to solids.
But a report, Superfood for Babies, released today by Save the Children, says the lives of 95 babies could be saved every hour worldwide – 830,000 a year – if new mothers breastfed immediately after giving birth.
It points out the benefits of babies receiving colostrum – the mother’s first milk – within an hour of birth.
This kickstarts children’s immune systems, making them three times more likely to survive.
However, the report says marketing practices by some breast milk substitute companies can result in mothers believing formula is the best way to feed their baby even if they are unable to afford it.
The aid agency is launching a petition to get breast milk substitute companies ‘to increase health warnings that formula is inferior to breast milk to cover a third of its packaging’.
At present, all formula milks in the UK have to carry mandatory advice – under the heading ‘Important Notice’ – that says breast feeding is best for babies.
The message ‘breastfeeding is best’ is carried on an advice panel the size of two postage stamps and hidden among information about ingredients and how to make it.

Mothers are advised that the ‘product be used only on the advice of a doctor, midwife, health visitor, public health nurse, dietitian, pharmacist, or other professional responsible for maternal and child care’.
Brendan Cox, director of policy at Save the Children, said changes to warnings would have to apply in the UK and other developed countries because the packs might be exported to the Third World.
He said: ‘It’s about having a standard measure of packaging information saying that breastfeeding is the most effective way of protecting the health of the child.
'We have lots of examples of formula products where the information is illegible or very small.’

But Clare Byam-Cook, former nurse, midwife and breast feeding counsellor, said the report was ‘emotive’ and ignored the fact that feeding babies in the UK was different to the Third World.
‘The saving of 95 babies applies to developing countries, not Britain,’ she added.
‘I’m concerned that cigarette-style warnings will increase the guilt felt by mums who need or want to use formula feed – when all women are aware that breastfeeding is good for the baby and the mother.
'These mothers already feel a failure because they have to use formula feed and then they are treated like bad people when buying it.’
The author of Top Tips For Breast Feeding and Top Tips For Bottle Feeding added: ‘Ask any sheep farmer if animals can always produce enough milk and the answer is no. The same principle applies in humans.’

Research shows breast milk protects babies against stomach bugs, chest infections, asthma, eczema, and allergies, and confers health advantages in later life.
Survey findings show around two thirds of women and parents of under-fives think large warning labels would be a ‘step too far’.
Only one in four people thought it would be a ‘reasonable move to discourage parents from using infant formula milks’, says the Populus survey of 2,000 Britons.
Helen Messenger, of Danone Baby Nutrition, which makes Cow & Gate and Aptamil, said: ‘Infant formula is the only safe, legal alternative to breast feeding and we believe an increase in the size of the warning label is counterproductive in that it would send mixed messages to parents and potentially confuse them about which milks can be used safely for babies.
‘Our products are safe and popular with parents because they meet a real need for mums who choose to bottle feed. All of our infant formulas carry warning labels and meet strict legislative rules.’

[trishalishous]

Personally, I dont support this. I have Sheehans Syndrome and have had to mixed feed my kids (though Im now able to exclusively boob my son) and a warning like this would have made me even more reluctant to mixed feed my (then very ill) newborn, which would have had disastrous effects on her health and weight.

[zande]

I am very very pro breastfeeding, both my girls were breastfed until 2.5yo and neither had a drop of formula, but I think this is ridiculous!

[SeaPrincess]

This is the main point that should be highlighted:

Infant formula is the only safe, legal alternative to breast feeding

Putting warning labels on formula is just another way of making those who can't BF for whatever reason feel guilty.

[katpaws]

It would be interesting to see where they based the 830,000 babies dying from and how that related to formula and the circumstances of the mother and child were. What is the correlation etc? Facts would be good too.

Considering that formula is number 3 on the WHO recommendatons for infant feeding I don't see the point of the labelling. Using formula is nothing like using cigarettes, for example, which according to one website i visited causes 5 million deaths per year, with predictions of 8 million deaths annually by 2030. When DD was born the medical staff gave her formula as I was unable to feed her (long story) for a couple of weeks. It's not like the staff were giving DD cigarettes - they were giving her something to keep her alive. And no-one can die or become ill from passive formula use.

With the fallout of my traumatic birth, using formula with such labelling would have been like a slap in the face, particulary because it was not my fault i was not able to feed DD in her first couple of weeks of life. I also wonder what the impact would be with the partners and family members of women who were very adversely affected by the birth of their babies (ie comas, organ failure, etc) or die in child birth would feel when there are circumstances beyond their control and they have to use formula (it's not as if milk banks are widely available all over the world) and have to look at pictures of sick and dying children (if they go that far) or read stories of the dangers of using formula.

ETA - also the impact on mothers with PND and bonding issues

This post has been edited by katpaws: 20/02/2013, 06:43 AM

[AvadaKedavra]

Who posts something controversial without offering their own views on it?

As an aside - the lives of well more than 95 babies an hour would be saved by substantial global economic restructure, and by people in wealthy countries actually engaging in fair and equitable trade policies... But it's way easier to 'blame' poor mothers for killing their own babies rather than consider the health consequences of our own insatiable desire for cheap clothes/food/coffee/chocolate/petroleum/minerals/electronics etc.

[kpingitquiet]

The only warning I'd consider applicable is one to be sure you have safe, clean water for preparation, as THAT is the only genuinely harmful thing I've ever heard about formula feeding.

[SnazzySass]

I would support the current warnings appearing in languages other than english.

[*Spikey*]

The only warning I'd consider applicable is one to be sure you have safe, clean water for preparation, as THAT is the only genuinely harmful thing I've ever heard about formula feeding.

THIS.

[Madnesscraves]

I am all for breast feeding. I was devasted when I couldn't BF.

But this proposed change is going a step too far. No need to make mums feel any worse and alienated.

There needs to be a good balance between BF and FF. I do believe at this current stage the scales are tipped too far towards pro BF.