Like many parents, I wasn’t aware of the laws around the promotion of baby formula until I needed to buy it, to feed my pre-term, extremely hungry baby. I discussed the stigma with a friend who was also formula feeding. She had had a double mastectomy, so couldn’t breastfeed. Thus we discovered that advertising promotions for baby formula for use from birth up to six months is banned in the UK, owing to the belief they’ll discourage breastfeeding.
It was a shock, as modern women, to be subjected to such paternalistic laws around what we did with our bodies and how we fed our own offspring. It felt, and it still feels, supremely patronising that mothers are not to be trusted to make their own decisions, as though we are so brainless and easily dazzled that a supermarket promotion is enough to sway us into rejecting breastfeeding outright.
Boots recently fell foul of these laws and was forced to apologise. Iceland, meanwhile, has dropped its formula prices in light of the cost of living crisis, and says it will risk an unlimited fine by advertising the fact.
In the last year, the cost of formula has shot up, but retailers are under the impression that they are not allowed to accept loyalty points, vouchers from food banks and local authorities, or store gift cards in exchange for formula. As I have noted previously, food banks usually will not accept it either. Alongside the charity Feed and the newspaper Metro, Iceland has called for a change in the law. More than 40,000 people have signed a petition.
“The UK law on infant formula sale is failing; it doesn’t go far enough to curtail the coercive marketing and profiteering by formula companies, but there is clear overreach in what is considered promotion, and that is penalising families,” Dr Erin Williams, cofounder and director of Feed, tells me. An urgent review is needed. “We don’t believe accepting cash equivalents as payment for infant formula is illegal, yet retailers have been led to believe this is the case. We are delighted that Iceland has taken the bold move to back our campaign and become the first UK retailer to accept cash equivalents, including loyalty points, for payment of infant formula.”
Anything written about formula usually includes the phrase “breast is best” or some variation thereof. Iceland accepts the WHO’s recommendation that babies be exclusively breastfed for the first six months. But it rightly points out that many parents, including women with medical problems, or who struggle to breastfeed, as well as gay couples and adoptive parents, simply don’t have that option.
It also defends the right to choose: “Women should be in control of their own bodies and lives, not compelled to breastfeed if they do not wish to do so,” its statement reads. “Why in this one area should we deny them freedom? Parents are capable of making their own life choices, and should be allowed to do so.”
This made me feel like punching the air. Because breast isn’t always best. I have had discussions with mental health professionals who have seen women in severe crisis because of the pressure to breastfeed. A healthy baby needs a healthy mother, but this is still not emphasised. Instead, Unicef’s controversial “baby friendly” initiative, with its prescriptive approach, continues to influence infant feeding policy.
Of all the things I found irritating around breastfeeding culture, it was the superstitious attitude around mentioning the mere existence of formula that annoyed me the most. It was like a pre-modern belief system predicated on a spooky myth that even uttering the evil word “formula” would jeopardise a woman’s decision to do this lovely, natural thing (though, as I discovered, breastfeeding can be far from idyllic, especially at the start), like reading aloud from a book that summons demons, or standing in a dark room chanting “Cow and Gate” in front of a mirror. Like referring to Macbeth as “the Scottish play”, it was cloaked in euphemism or mentioned in a kind of hushed tone.
Yet humans have historically used and needed alternatives to breastmilk. The nefarious marketing tactics of formula companies in encouraging its use, especially in the past, must of course be acknowledged (the current Milk exhibition at the Wellcome Collection rightly highlights this). But so must the fact that formula is an incredible scientific invention that saves babies’ lives and helps families feed their children every single day.
Which is why some are calling for the return of National Milk, which saw formula free or subsidised by the state until 1976. Emily Baughan, a senior lecturer in history at the University of Sheffield, has written an excellent essay on its history. “Ceasing production of National Milk in Britain never raised breastfeeding rates: that was instead the result of the increasing age and educational status of mothers,” she tells me. “And, even now, breastfeeding rates remain low.
“The end of National Milk (and regulations on the advertisement of formula milk) has instead led to increased and unchecked profits for formula milk companies, as parents lack (and are not aware of) alternatives. Legislation intended to promote breastfeeding has had the effect of enhancing the profits of formula milk companies.
“Private companies should not be amassing major profits by providing captive, infant markets. The only way to ensure this doesn’t happen is to provide a safe, NHS-endorsed and universally available alternative: to bring back National Milk.”
It’s cheering to see such radical thinking around infant feeding. A thriving welfare state would also do much to encourage breastfeeding. Better funded breastfeeding support and education, a return of Sure Start, affordable access to lactation consultants, better understanding of tongue-tie and access to clinics for babies that have it, education and awareness around the benefits of combination feeding, improvements to parental leave, and perinatal mental health support – these are the things that would improve breastfeeding rates.
Until we have a government willing to prioritise these, alongside every child’s right to nourishment, breastfeeding rates will remain low. But most of all, remember that fed is best. However you choose to do it.
What’s working
Last week I mentioned a friend whose baby would only sleep on her, and who was desperately trying to find a solution. I had always been a bit sniffy about the Snoo crib, a robotic bassinet that swaddles and rocks your baby. It just seemed a bit dystopian. I was wrong. It worked. Her baby slept for eight hours straight last night. It costs over £1,000, but a far more affordable option is to hire one. That’s what she’s done, and it’s changed her life.
What’s not
Twitter, or X as it is now lamentably called, has become even more of a hotbed for incels since Musk took over, but the latest sad “trad wife” meme showing the momfluencer Hannah Neeleman baking next to an Aga with a baby strapped to her chest really takes the cake. “Ladies, theres [sic] nothing wrong with you if you want this over becoming a partner at a law firm,” the tweet reads. But if you are in desperate pursuit of becoming a loaded mother of seven engaging in “pioneer cosplay hit with a dash of Brooklyn hipster aesthetics”, it helps if you’re an ex-ballerina married to one of the JetBlue heirs. Oh, and she also co-runs their farm business, so is hardly an incel’s idea of a perfect stay-at-home mother.
Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett is a Guardian columnist
Comments on this piece are premoderated to ensure discussion remains on topics raised by the writer. Please be aware there may be a short delay in comments appearing on the site.
