Umm... I just saw an add for formula encouraging mums to 'move on' from breastfeeding

[Jakabella]

Red- yep. It's cheap.

[Lolpigs]

Red- yep. It's cheap.

That makes sense to me TBH.

[Jellybean29]

This thread seems to have gone way off track. It was supposed to be the stupidity of one advert, I definitely didn't want a BF vs FF debate!! The intent here isn't to label people or upset, it's to point out a ridiculous advert that really shouldn't be on tv because...
Toddler formula is unneccesary, BF is reccomended for 2yrs and even if you didn't Bf, babies can have cows/goats milk after 12 months anyway..

I think if they really have to advertise their toddler formula they shouldn't be allowed to till 2yrs +, none of this promotion of comp feeding or moving on before 2yrs, it's not good enough to subtitle your advert with fine print "WHO reccomends 2yrs BF" and then totally dismiss this with every other idea and image in your advertising.

I disagree that this advert forms necessary information. If you are already FF under 12 months age then you'd already know about follow on formulas, if you are still breastfeeding, you don't need them. The advertisers know this too..... so who do you think their target audience really is???? It's surely not Mums who are already FFing is it?! So therefore it's aimed on getting babies off the breast at 1year, otherwise they would compare their product to cows milk, would they not?

[glenny_c]

I think a bigger issue is educating nurses/midwives on how to really help mums. When we were in the hospital I was in floods of tears on the 2nd night trying to get my (premmie) baby to stay attched. I was told by a nurse/midwife that if I didn't let her feed my baby formula then she would put a feeding tube in. Talk about blackmail! I was also told that there was no real difference and if you looked at a school yard you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between bf and ff children so why was I upset? What was the big deal? They didn't understand why I was so against putting my baby on a bottle.

[Jellybean29]

I think a bigger issue is educating nurses/midwives on how to really help mums. When we were in the hospital I was in floods of tears on the 2nd night trying to get my (premmie) baby to stay attched. I was told by a nurse/midwife that if I didn't let her feed my baby formula then she would put a feeding tube in. Talk about blackmail! I was also told that there was no real difference and if you looked at a school yard you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between bf and ff children so why was I upset? What was the big deal? They didn't understand why I was so against putting my baby on a bottle.

Please stay on topic hun, I agree, but this thread is not the place.

[onthefly]

Just my 2c (and totally off topic), but I think it's natural for conversations to veer off into related areas and that's fine, so long as the discussion remains constructive.

[onthefly]

Yeah, I think it *might* appeal to breastfeeding mothers looking to wean at/around 12 months and feeling they have to replace each feed with some other sort of milk (very common).
Also it is meant to keep formula-ffeeding mothers still purchasing their products.
Fundamentally, it's devious implied advertising for infant formula.

[glenny_c]

I was just trying to say that I don't think the advertising is the reason ff numbers are so high. I think it's a waste of energy blaming the advertising when there are so many more important factors influencing the ff decisions. I thought I was staying on the topic of education.

[Freya]

I think toddler formula is unneccesary. Thats my pet peeve. I have had so many people raise eyebrows when they find out I never had any of my kids on toddler formula (even the formula fed ones). They just went straight to cows milk and water. It is really just a marketing ploy to get more money out of unsuspecting mothers.

[emc2]

I think a bigger issue is educating nurses/midwives on how to really help mums. When we were in the hospital I was in floods of tears on the 2nd night trying to get my (premmie) baby to stay attched. I was told by a nurse/midwife that if I didn't let her feed my baby formula then she would put a feeding tube in. Talk about blackmail! I was also told that there was no real difference and if you looked at a school yard you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between bf and ff children so why was I upset? What was the big deal? They didn't understand why I was so against putting my baby on a bottle.

Well we had the same problem but it was to do with breastfeeding. Couldn't get top up feeds from some staff members and I had to wait for a change in shift to get one. They knew I was very pro breastfeeding it was all over my file, and they took offence that I wouldn't do the hospital class on breastfeeding when I'd already done the ABA one.

Couldn't agree more with your statement that they need to be educated on how to really help Mums.

[Fleur]

This thread seems to have gone way off track. It was supposed to be the stupidity of one advert, I definitely didn't want a BF vs FF debate!! The intent here isn't to label people or upset, it's to point out a ridiculous advert that really shouldn't be on tv because...
Toddler formula is unneccesary, BF is reccomended for 2yrs and even if you didn't Bf, babies can have cows/goats milk after 12 months anyway..

I think if they really have to advertise their toddler formula they shouldn't be allowed to till 2yrs +, none of this promotion of comp feeding or moving on before 2yrs, it's not good enough to subtitle your advert with fine print "WHO reccomends 2yrs BF" and then totally dismiss this with every other idea and image in your advertising.

I disagree that this advert forms necessary information. If you are already FF under 12 months age then you'd already know about follow on formulas, if you are still breastfeeding, you don't need them. The advertisers know this too..... so who do you think their target audience really is???? It's surely not Mums who are already FFing is it?! So therefore it's aimed on getting babies off the breast at 1year, otherwise they would compare their product to cows milk, would they not?

Really well said
I honestly couldn't see anything in the OP that would make this a FF vs BF debate. Not every discussion involving feeding your child has to be a debate on the best way to do it. The issue IMO here is advertising, and whether it is being done truthfully & ethically.

I dont argue with your right to use it, but Im sorry it IS unneccesary. I know a few people who have used it for failure to thrive babies who are still on the very small end of the growth spectrum as toddlers but the fact of the matter is it isnt neccesary for healthy toddlers and it is just a way for formula companies to make more money.

You would be surprised the amount of first time mothers Ive come across who think they HAVE to use toddler formula. They dont realise that cows milk is fine along with solids.

Totally agree.

[willow5]

I think if they really have to advertise their toddler formula they shouldn't be allowed to till 2yrs +, none of this promotion of comp feeding or moving on before 2yrs, it's not good enough to subtitle your advert with fine print "WHO reccomends 2yrs BF" and then totally dismiss this with every other idea and image in your advertising.

I disagree that this advert forms necessary information. If you are already FF under 12 months age then you'd already know about follow on formulas, if you are still breastfeeding, you don't need them. The advertisers know this too..... so who do you think their target audience really is???? It's surely not Mums who are already FFing is it?! So therefore it's aimed on getting babies off the breast at 1year, otherwise they would compare their product to cows milk, would they not?

I agree. Very good point about comparing to cow's milk rather than BF.

[onthefly]

Actually there is plenty of evidence that formula advertising does reduce breastfeeding rates.

There is nothing in toddler formula that children can't get from a normal diet (aside from mountains of sugar). If a toddler isn't eating at all, it would make far more sense to either keep breastfeeding or give infant formula.
The way it is marketed as Step 3 is just more misinformation for parents.

[Traveller]

A cynic might even go so far to say that the only reason step 3 formulas are available is because it is against advertising guidelines to market formula to infants below 12 months and this is the only legal way that infant formula manufacturers can create brand awareness of their (identically branded) step 1 and step 2 formulas. Their use as a food source is not necessary for toddlers who are eating a normal diet, unless there is some medical condition which necessitates their use.

[onthefly]

i don't think you need to be a cynic to make that very short leap of logic

[delphmoon]

This thread seems to have gone way off track. It was supposed to be the stupidity of one advert, I definitely didn't want a BF vs FF debate!!

I am absolutely sure you didn't intend it to become a debate, but when I read this statement I had alittle chuckle. Surely you have been here long enough to know that pretty much all bfing and ffing posts turn down this corner at some stage or another

Anyway thats my 2cents...I will go back to my naughty corner now...LOL

[onthefly]

as surely as the sun will rise. it's ok, we've actually done pretty well in here. nice change.

[Jellybean29]

Just Me, I think you missed my point. I am angry over the intent of the advert. Whether you think it is corny of effective is irrelevant. Karicare are still advertising an intent to encourage Mums to move on after 12 months and to normalise FF