help lactivist.net

Lactivist.net is funded from sales from www.lactivist.co.uk and from sponsors adverts. No profit is made from it. Every little helps.

Categories

adverts

Find out about Conwy Breastfeeders Peer Supporters 7th March 2012

February 22nd, 2012

Conwy Breastfeeding Friends Peer Supporters have been nominated for the Pride Of Conwy Award and have decided to open their doors to those wanting further information about training to become a Peer Supporter.

Have you ever thought you’d like to help other mothers?  Have you breastfed your children for a 6 months or longer?  If so then come along to Princes Drive Baptist Church, Colwyn Bay, LL29 8LA on the Wednesday 7th March, from 10am-12pm.

You can ask questions about the training and what’s involved.  You can also find out about becoming a Breastfeeding Councillor too.  If you would like some Peer Support yourself, then you are welcome too.

There will be some filming for our awards clip but that won’t take up much time.  Tea and coffee will be available and some friendly faces and children are always welcome.

 

Posted in Breastfeeding | Comments

< |||| > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Ed Miliband, Labour Party Leader Endorsing Formula on BBC TV

By Lisa Lactivist, on November 26th, 2010

This was BBC News at pm on Thursday 25th November 2010.  When you get past all the depressing news, at about 15 minutes 21 seconds in there is more depressing stuff.

Ed Milibrand, who has recently been criticized for taking paternity leave is shown going back to work, they film a walkaround in Dudley Tescos where he points to a tin of infant formula and says ‘Yeah, this is the formula we use, Aptimil 0-3 months’. The camera then zooms in to the shelves and shows the product very clearly.

Words are about to fail me but irresponsible and unnecessary are two of them. Why do it Ed? It doesn’t matter to me that you are feeding your baby second rate milk but why endorse it on national television?  It is vitally important for the future health of the nation that breastfeeding is accepted.

I would like to see Ed Miliband issue a statement to tell the nation that he knows that breastfeeding is best for our children, for their mothers and for the future of our health care system. If more babies were breastfed there would be less illness and less cost to the NHS.

I am sorry but this link no longer works.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/w7f3g/?t=15m21s

You can complain to the BBC here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/process/news?id=RPT0PUU8ASGRQM5J8LU4FAQIOK&uid=318805604

The contact form for the Labour Party is here

http://www2.labour.org.uk/contact

My message to the Labour Party was:

On the 6pm news on BBC TV on the 25th November Ed Milibrand endorsed infant formula. The effects of infant formula are far ranging, from asthma to obesity, heart disease and allergies and lead to a huge cost to the NHS.
If more babies were breastfed the health or our nation would be improved radically.
Please could Ed MIlibrand issue a statement to lessen the damage of the promotion of Aptimil 0-3 months by stating that he knows that breastfeeding is best and that there are many help lines for people who are having difficulty.
Lisa Cole

You can also email BBC’s points of view here -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/features/pov/aps/form.shtml

Ed Milibrand was filmed in Dudley Tescos where he pointed to a tin of infant formula and said ‘Yeah, this is the formula we use, Aptimil 0-3 months’. The camera then zoomed in to the shelves and showed the product very clearly.
It is illegal to promote infant formula and irresponsible of the BBC to allow this to be shown.
It is important to the health of the nation that breastfeeding be seen as the norm and endorsements of brands of infant formula undermine the good work of midwives, health visitors and lactation supporters throughout the country.
Please be aware that lives and health depend on the feeding choices that parents make. Infant formula has links to many problems in later life including asthma, obesity, heart disease and allergies. Breastfeeding protects babies from all this and mothers who breastfeed are less likely to develop breast cancer.
This is not just the ranting of the milk mafia, this is important to the health of our nation.
Lisa
www.lactivist.net

Ed Miliband has a facebook page – http://www.facebook.com/edmiliband

This is my comment on there.

Mr Miliband – I am really disappointed to see you endorsing infant formula. Are you not aware that there is a breastfeeding manifesto? Many of your colleagues have signed it with the hope that increased support would help more mothers breastfeed and lessen the cost of medical care for diseases directly related to infant formula such as asthma, obesity, heart disease and allergies. A public figure such as yourself seen naming and pointing out the formula you use on BBC news is unhelpful and irresponsible. Whatever choices you made in feeding your baby are your own business but the health of future generations depends on what they are fed at birth and beyond and you have the power to influence peoples choices. http://www.breastfeedingmanifesto.org.uk/
November 26th, 2010 | Tags: , , , , | Category: Breastfeeding News, Media Complaints | 34 comments

Amazon UK are breaking the law promoting infant formula

By Lisa Lactivist, on November 19th, 2010

Please help by reporting them, and by asking them to take the formula off.

I spend a lot of money at Amazon and I really cannot be boycotting them, especially this near Xmas :-)

The advert is for Hipp Organic 1 from Birth Onwards – it is being sold at a discounted rate which is illegal in the UK.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B003Y6OOZE/ref=cm_cr_rev_prod_title

If you look at the seller they have lots of code breaking items:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=grocery&field-keywords=HiPP%20Organic

You can report it online here

http://www.babyfeedinglawgroup.org.uk/monitoring.html

The Baby Feeding Law Group suggest contacting local Trading Standards Offices as well as completing the BFLG form. In England, Scotland and Wales call 08454 04 05 06 or visit Consumer Direct.

I used this contact form on Consumer Direct – https://ssl.datamotion.com/form.aspx?co=583&frm=complainform&ri=SW&to=enquiries

And I said this:

“Hipp Organic are illegally discounting infant formula on Amazon.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B003Y6OOZE/

This contravenes the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes which say that infant formula must not be sold at a discounted price.
Please could you get it removed.
Many thanks
Lisa”

I left a review on Amazon saying it is a law breaker but the reviews get moderated so I doubt that will show up ever :-)


November 19th, 2010 | Category: Lactivism, Media Complaints | 16 comments

BBC Northern Ireland ~ Talkback

By Dispelling Breastfeeding Myths, on October 6th, 2010



(this image has been authorised by Wendy Austin
for free use and by Wendy Austin’s management
and uploaded by Austenlennon~
Austenlennon 17:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
austenlennon with full permissions.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wendy_austin.jpg)

Some of you will have seen a link on the DBM Facebook page to an item which was broadcast last week on Radio Ulster concerning breastfeeding.  The programme is presented by Wendy Austin.

A DBM member brought it to my attention and I have made a complaint to the BBC via their website.  The complaint that I sent is copied below.

During the course of the programme the tone was very negative in regards to breastfeeding, and the language used by the presenter was offensive, seeming to label breastfeeding advocates ‘breastfeeding gestapo’ on more than one occasion.  Northern Ireland has the lowest breastfeeding rates in the United Kingdom, and despite valiant efforts in some quarters, only a tiny minority of mothers breastfeed.  With local press coverage like this, it’s not hard to see why.

If anyone else wishes to make a similar complaint you can do so (fairly quickly!) here, or if you’d like to hear the broadcast (it’s only available online until Friday so you’ve got to be quick!) the link is here.  You need to scroll to about 42 minutes in &amp; the piece lasts about ten minutes in total.  

 I’m writing to express my concern about an item broadcast last Friday as part of your ‘Talkback’ programme with Wendy Austin.

 I feel that the section regarding breastfeeding failed to present a balanced range of opinions and not only represented breastfeeding unfairly, but also cause offenced to breastfeeding advocates in the community by repeated use of the words ‘breastfeeding gestapo’ and ‘mafia’. The programme link is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00twxhw/Talkback_01_10_2010/ and the section to which I refer starts at about 42 minutes in.

 Several people were interviewed during the course of the item. None of them had (apparently) any breastfeeding training or represented the breastfeeding community. I also feel that it failed to acknowledge or discuss any of the efforts being made to SUPPORT mothers in our communities – much of which is done on a voluntary basis.

 During the course of the discussion it became clear to me that the presenter had an agenda which was fairly ‘anti’ breastfeeding and despite the fact that several of the commentators called breastfeeding ‘best’ they then went to to simply discuss negatives. Many mothers do face difficulties, but most of these can be overcome swiftly with access to good support and many mothers (myself included) continue to enjoy a happy nursing relationship, a good social life and work too! I am sure it would have been possible to approach breastfeeding mothers for an alternative viewpoint if you had wanted to. For the presented to invite ‘members of the breastfeeding gestapo’ to ring in a put their points of view was simply offensive – who was going to call in when that was the agenda?

 There was much discussion about the ‘inconvenience’ of breastfeeding, and none about the dangers related to formula feeding and the inconvenience that can bring. There was no discussion about mother’s rights in the workplace with regards to lactation breaks and expressing which many mothers would have found very helpful I’m sure.

 I also feel that new mothers who might be considering breastfeeding (which is in fact not the ‘best’ but simply the ‘normal’ way to feed a human baby!) might have been put-off by the very negative attitude of the guests and the presenter. This has health implications for both them and their babies.

 In regard to the programmes obligations under the broadcasting code, I feel that there were a few areas where issue can be taken.

 Firstly, section 2:

 http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/harmoffence/

2.3 In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context (see meaning of “context” below). Such material may include, but is not limited to, offensive language, violence, sex, sexual violence, humiliation, distress, violation of human dignity, discriminatory treatment or language (for example on the grounds of age, disability, gender, race, religion, beliefs and sexual orientation). Appropriate information should also be broadcast where it would assist in avoiding or minimising offence.

I feel that the use of the word ‘breastfeeding gestapo’ on at least two occasions constitutes offensive language, and that appropriate information to balance the discussion was not presented. This could have been in the form of a proper contribution from a breastfeeding mother with a positive story of her breastfeeding experience (not simply the short voxpops at the start!) and by having a healthcare professional give correct information in relation to the subject being discussed. No-one was there to challenge the use of the offensive terms, and asking members of the ‘breastfeeding gestapo’ to phone in does not, in my view, enhance fairness.

 In addition, I believe that section 5 of the code was also not adhered to:

  http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/impartiality/

5.9 Presenters and reporters (with the exception of news presenters and reporters in news programmes), presenters of “personal view” or “authored” programmes or items, and chairs of discussion programmes may express their own views on matters of political or industrial controversy or matters relating to current public policy. However, alternative viewpoints must be adequately represented either in the programme, or in a series of programmes taken as a whole. Additionally, presenters must not use the advantage of regular appearances to promote their views in a way that compromises the requirement for due impartiality. Presenter phone-ins must encourage and must not exclude alternative views.

 I do not feel the programme represented a range of views. I feel a very one-sided agenda was persued. Wendy Austin’s use of demeaning language did not invite alternative views.

 5.10 A personal view or authored programme or item must be clearly signalled to the audience at the outset. This is a minimum requirement and may not be sufficient in all circumstances. (Personality phone-in hosts on radio are exempted from this provision unless their personal view status is unclear.)

 Wendy Austin did not state clearly her opinion on the subject although it could be argued that it became apparrent as the programme progressed both through her ‘leading’ the guests and her choice of words. She did not appear, to me, to be impartial.

If BBCNI wish to redress the balance I suggest there are a number of places they could start. 

First of all, you might wish to do another piece, this time showing the alternative viewpoint.

 I think in the interests of fairness you might involve other representatives from the community onboard to give their experiences. You will find that not everyone has a negative breastfeeding experience to relate.

 I look forward to hearing from you.

 Best regards,

 

‘Dispelling Breastfeeding Myths’ Project



October 6th, 2010 | Tags: , , , , , | Category: Blogs, Lactivism, Media Complaints, Random | Leave a comment

Press Complaints Commission say Mother and Baby did not breach Code

By Lisa Lactivist, on September 22nd, 2010

Our reference:  103159

Dear Miss Cole

Further to our last correspondence, the Commission has now made its assessment of your complaint under the Code of Practice.

The Commission members have asked me to thank you for giving them the opportunity to consider the points you raise.  However, their decision was that there was no breach of the Code and a full explanation is enclosed.

If you are dissatisfied with the way in which your complaint has been handled – as opposed to the Commission’s decision itself – you should write within one month to the independent Charter Commissioner, whose details can be found in our How to Complain leaflet or at http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/process.html

Thank you for taking this matter up with us.

Yours sincerely

William Gore

will.gore@pcc.org.uk

Commission’s decision in the case of

Young/Cole v Mother & Baby

The Commission acknowledged that the issue of formula-feeding, when set against breast-feeding, is a hugely contentious one.  There remains a significant level of debate about the pros and cons of each option, even though that medical research has concluded that breast-feeding is preferable insofar as babies’ health is concerned.

This case – in relation to which the Commission had received a fairly high number of complaints (thirty-seven) – related to the accuracy, or otherwise, of a comment column by a woman who had decided not to breast-feed her baby but to use formula instead.  Complainants had raised a number of specific issues about the article, which the Commission was happy to examine.  At the outset of its consideration, however, it was important for the Commission to emphasise that individuals are quite entitled to express their own opinions, even on sensitive issues such as this one – that right is enshrined in the Code, provided that comment is distinguished from fact.   In this matter, there was no doubt that the article was presented as a comment piece and the Commission did not consider that readers would generally have been misled into thinking it was anything other than that.

There were four particular points which complainants had expressed concern about in terms of possible breaches of the Editors’ Code of Practice:  the use of the word ‘supposed’ to describe the health benefits of breast-feeding; the suggestion that breast-feeding caused breast sagginess; the suggestion that it was not possible for breast-feeding mothers to drink alcohol; and the statement that “formula milk is not toxic, lacking in nutrients or in any way bad for a baby’s health”.  However, it was important to consider these points in the full context of the article, for the piece made clear that studies had shown breastmilk to reduce the risk of breast cancer for mothers and stomach upsets and allergies for infants.  It also acknowledged that formula is “not A-grade” and that breastmilk has ‘the edge over’ formula.  The word ‘supposed’ had, in the view of the Commission, essentially been used as a rhetorical device, not necessarily to cast real doubt on the veracity of medical research but simply to allow the author to put it to one side (which an individual might choose to do when deciding to use formula).  Similarly, the contention that formula milk was ‘not toxic, lacking in nutrients or bad for a baby’s health’ was not, in the Commission’s view, necessarily to be taken as a factual description of formula when compared against breastmilk.  Rather it was a legitimate view of formula, in and of itself, not being intrinsically damaging to health.  The Commission did not consider that this overstepped the boundary between legitimate comment into factual inaccuracy.

Similarly, the reference to the author wishing to give her breasts ‘a chance to stay on my chest rather than dangling around my stomach’ could not be equated to a factual statement that breast-feeding necessarily caused sagging.  The Commission was satisfied that, in the context of an article about one woman’s decision not to breast-feed, it was legitimate for her to set out why she had made that decision (even though there might be evidence to suggest some of her reasoning was medically ill-founded).

Finally, the article had made reference to the author’s desire to get ‘tipsy once in a while’.  Again, the Commission did not consider that this was the same as stating that a woman could not safely drink alcohol while breast-feeding.  Rather, the columnist appeared to be indicating that she did not wish to feel she must inhibit her alcohol intake to certain levels – and that this was another factor in her decision to feed her child formula.

Overall, the Commission was satisfied that the article did not raise a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code of Practice.  The columnist was not a medical expert; she was not writing a factual account of the medical pros and cons of formula milk when set against breast milk.  She was at liberty, in that context, to explain why she had taken the decision not to breast-feed her own baby (whether or not that decision was based on sound scientific reasoning); she was even at liberty to be cynical about medical research (even if that research was widely accepted).  The article did not state in terms that breastmilk was not better for babies’ health that formula milk and, read as a whole, it was not misleading.

September 22nd, 2010 | Tags: , | Category: Lactivism, Media Complaints | 8 comments

Closer Magazine say Breastfeeding can make your Boobs sag.

By Dispelling Breastfeeding Myths, on August 30th, 2010

The above article appeared in a the issue of Closer Magazine dated 28th August – 3rd September 2010.
It’s hard to know if the author, Dr Christian Jessen, is just ‘bandwagon-jumping’ (because of recent press contraversy over other articles) or if he’s being deliberately provocative, but many of us consider his recent writing on the subject of sagging boobs to be scaremongering.
Some of you may remember that this is the same ‘TV doc’ who told a woman her breasts were ‘too small’ to breastfeed, and advised another (on ‘The Ugly Face of Beauty’) to have a breast enlargement because breastfeeding had made her boobs saggy.  Following the latter broadcast we contacted Dr Jessen to make him aware of the most recent research into the subject (which concluded that breast-ptosis is not linked to breastfeeding but to a variety of other factors).  He responded at the time saying that his opinion was based on his ‘clinical experience’ and stated that he did not think the study was credible.  Dr Jessen’s area of speciality is sexual health.
Following the debate in parliament over free school milk Dr Jessen wrote an article in the London Evening Standard which also attracted criticism.  He maintained that milk (in any form) is not necessary after 1 year, despite the WHO advice on the subject.  You can read the article here.
I have, on behalf of ‘Dispelling Breastfeeding Myths’, written to the Press Complaints Commission regarding the content of his article in Closer Magazine and what I (and others) consider to be a mis-representation of the facts which may put women off breastfeeding.  You can read a copy of the letter here.
Closer magazine have, in the past, been more balanced in their presentation of breastfeeding articles.  They have responded to our complaint to say they will approach Dr Jessen and get back to us.  I think it is worth mentioning that via his Twitter page Dr Jessen communicated with a number of members of our group.  Although they were complaining solely about his article regarding breast-sagging, he seemed to suggest that in taking exception to the article they were trying to make ‘bottle-feeding friends feel bad’.  He also tweeted that he was taking a stand against ‘midwife tyrany’ (sic).
I have (reluctantly!) concluded that Dr Jessen is currently using his position to try and promote a negative perception about breastfeeding and breastfeeding advocates.   He would  not agree, and (also on Twitter) has said that breastfeeding is ‘a choice’ and that he is walking the ‘moderate, balanced middle ground’.
I feel that his article in Closer magazine misrepresented the facts about breastfeeding and mastitis, and in particular I am disappointed that he included no information about how best to treat the illness.  As a former ‘fan’ of Dr Jessen I am both surprised and saddened by his behaviour surrounding this issue.
If you also would like to complain about the content of this most recent article by Dr Jessen, the complaints section of the PCC website is here.
You can read more opinions from members of DBM on our facebook page.
August 30th, 2010 | Tags: , , , | Category: Breastfeeding Campaigns, Lactivism, Media Complaints | Leave a comment

Follow-on milk ads ‘misleading’

By Lisa Lactivist, on July 23rd, 2009

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8161831.stm

A baby milk company has been criticised by the advertising watchdog for making misleading claims.


Nutricia, which trades as both Cow and Gate and Milupa, was told to remove adverts which claimed they could “support” the immune system.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled the magazine adverts were misleading and such claims should not be made without “robust” evidence.

The company said it accepted the ruling “in its entirety”.

The issue of follow-on milk for children has been at the centre of continued controversy.

Companies are not allowed to advertise formula milk for babies under six months old.
A mother has a right to make an informed choice on how to feed her child
Mike Brady, of Baby Milk Action

But some pro-breast feeding groups believe there should be a total ban on this kind of advertising.

The World Health Organization recommends that babies are given breast milk exclusively for the first six months and after that it should continue alongside food until the age of two.

In one of the ads for Cow and Gate, a toddler is shown with text stating “still building their self-defences Cow and Gate follow-on milks support your baby’s natural immune system”.

As well as the immune system ruling, Milupa Aptamil was also told to stop claiming it was the “best” formula milk.

A spokeswoman for Nutricia said: “Cow and Gate and Aptamil accept the adjudication in its entirety.”

She said they had already stopped using the claims.

Parents

Mike Brady, of the Baby Milk Action charity, welcomed the rulings, saying there needed to be accurate information about follow-on milk.

“A mother has a right to make an informed choice on how to feed her child.”

And Rosie Dodds, of the National Childbirth Trust, said: “This is a victory for all parents.

“It is another example of how commercially-motivated formula milk manufacturers are tempted to misuse research to persuade parents to use their brand.

“They have overstepped the mark with this advertisement.”

July 23rd, 2009 | Tags: , | Category: Lactivism, Media Complaints | Leave a comment

Nasty Nestle think Psycho’s are funny

By Lisa Lactivist, on February 17th, 2009

This is from 1999, so I don’t know if they are still calling sweets “Psycho Sam,” “Looney Jerry,” and “Weird Wally” but it just about sums Nestles irresponsible actions up.

Full story here:
http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=Press_Release_Archive&template=/contentmanagement/contentdisplay.cfm&ContentID=5724&title=NAMI%20Protests%20Nestle’s%20Promotion%20Of%20Mental%20Illness%20Stigma

“Arlington, VA — Nestle USA believes the names of three of its Tangy Taffy flavors are “rooted in a silly, playful humor” that “amuses children and gives personality to our cartoon characters.”

The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI), on other hand, considers the names to have “long-standing stereotypical associations with person suffering from mental illnesses” which promote stigma in society.

Former First Lady Rosalynn Carter agrees with NAMI, but so far the giant candy maker doesn’t seem to care.

NAMI’s Campaign to End Discrimination therefore has launched a second phase in its efforts to persuade Nestle of the error of its ways.

In a letter to Joseph Weller, CEO and chairman of the board of the California-based company, released today, NAMI Executive Director Laurie Flynn wrote that the organization is “outraged and offended” by Nestle’s continued use of the product names “Psycho Sam,” “Looney Jerry,” and “Weird Wally” for its Tangy Taffy bars. “We join former First Lady Rosalyn Carter in expressing our profound objection to such names and images in the promotion of candy sales.”

Since 1998, NAMI has engaged in “quiet diplomacy” with the company, but this time it is going public in its efforts, calling on its network of Stigmabusters and others to join in protests against the candy names. “We assure you that mental illnesses are not silly, playful, or humorous; in no way can these devastating disorders be related to fun,” Flynn declared. “We know this because we face these illnesses every day.”

Flynn also cited President Clinton’s radio address before the recent White House Conference on Mental Health, which spoke to the “tremendous harm caused by the stigma surrounding mental illness, particularly in relation to children” and announced a national public education campaign to combat it.

“Stigma leads to children committing suicide rather than revealing their inner struggles; to adults failing to seek treatment that could salvage their lives, careers and family relations; and to tragedies like the Columbine High School massacre,” Flynn advised Weller. “Nestle cannot make the injury disappear by ignoring or dismissing our concerns, as you have thus far.”

“We are sure you have acted out of ignorance, not malice, and that it was not your intent to cause harm or to perpetuate discrimination,” Flynn said. “But you have and will, unless and until you remove these products from the shelves or repackage them more appropriately.”

Letters of protest can be sent to Mr. Joseph Weller, CEO & Chairman of the Board, Nestle USA, 800 North Brand Boulevard, Glendale, California 91203.”

February 17th, 2009 | Tags: , , , | Category: Lactivism, Media Complaints | 2 comments

Looking for dodgy marketing of infant formula…

By Lisa Lactivist, on November 25th, 2008

This email is from Baby Milk Action. If you see anything dodgy pleaseuse this link to report it:

http://www.babyfeedinglawgroup.org.uk/monitoring.html

“1 am sending you this email as I think you have reported examples of baby food companies pushing their products in questionable ways to the Baby Feeding Law Group (BFLG) monitoring project in the UK. I am hoping you can help with providing further information.

We are aiming to produce the monitoring reports every three months and it is time to finish the latest. I am particularly looking for help from people who can check the current parenting, celebrity and health worker magazines/journals and send me scans of all formula advertisements. Please let me know if you are interested and which magazines you are able to monitor so I can avoid duplicated effort.

The reports are proving to be effective in exposing aggressive marketing. We submitted evidence to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child when it was evaluating the UK and it stated in October:

“The Committee, while appreciating the progress made in recent years in the promotion and support of breastfeeding in the State party, it is concerned that implementation of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes continues to be inadequate and that aggressive promotion of breastmilk substitutes remains common.”

There is still much to be done to persuade the government to act, however. Three weeks after that report, the Advertising Standards Authority responded by clearing Danone’s advertisement for Cow & Gate formula – the one featuring laughing babies.

The reports also go to Trading Standards home authorities and the government’s panel reviewing the law. Everything submitted to us will go into our database and we will put what we can in the report. Please do let me know if you can help.

mikebrady@babymilkaction.org “

November 25th, 2008 | Tags: , | Category: Breastfeeding Campaigns, Lactivism, Media Complaints | Leave a comment

An Alternative to THAT advert

By Ruth, on July 24th, 2008

You know the advert I mean. Thankfully I’ve not seen it for a while, but you may remember it. The one that basically implies that you can only have the perfect partner / father if you feed your baby a certain brand of artificial baby milk.

One of the many things that angers me about the advert is how clever it is; a byproduct of how much money and time has been spent in designing it and making it.

And how much time and thought, by comparison, goes into breastfeeding adverts in the UK, particularly in England? Not much!

It was getting me down, so I wrote this:

http://theperfectlatch.wordpress.com/2007/10/23/an-alternative-to-that-advert/

it starts like this:

<Gorgeous bloke massaging partner’s shoulders as she breastfeeds the newborn baby>

“I promise to support you in your decision to breastfeed, and never to suggest that any problems would be easily solved with a bottle.”

<Picture of said bloke cooking hot casserole as partner nurses the baby>

“I promise to “mother” you, as you mother our baby, and never to hassle you about household chores.”

Just imagine what we could do, if we had the same budget and the same access to top advertising companies that the artificial baby milk companies do!

And if you do see the original advertisement on TV again – don’t forget to complain. Maybe one day the ASA will have to listen!

Ruth

July 24th, 2008 | Tags: , | Category: Lactivism, Media Complaints, Pregnancy, Breastfeeding and Weaning | Leave a comment

These adverts are generated by Google - now and then a sneeky formula one gets in but I can block them so please email me at moomum@lactivist.co.uk if you see one.