Lara wrote in response to Lisa Paul's post on the cost of cans of formula.
Are cans the same size in Australia and the US?
What is that size (how long does it keep the baby fed, assuming no
waste - and of course I know there is always waste)?
And are we talking about powder, or ready to feed, or something else I
don't even know about?

Here in Norway we use the metric system and most parents use powdered
formula because ready-to-feed is considered expensive compared to
powder.  They might use it if they are going somewhere without
adequate preparation facilities for powder, but use powder otherwise.
 Very very occasionally we run across an advert for formula at cut
price but this is rare and generally due to some merchant at the very
local level who has never heard of the Code; until now, compliance
with the voluntary ban on advertising of formula in effect since 1981
has been well respected.  This means there are no adverts for formula
for the purpose of competing for market share, for the purpose of
selling it to people who don't need it, nor for the purpose of
clearing stock in danger of reaching its pull date.  Magazines for
parents do not contain formula adverts, though Nestle has advertised
its 'special milk', Nan 5 I think it is called, for two year olds,
scaremongering about iron-deficiency anemia which they would have us
believe is a huge, overhanging threat to the health of small children
here in this very wealthy, carnivorous country.

Powdered formula is sold in one kilo packages and it takes about 4.5 g
to make 30 ml of formula.  A one kilo package will make 6.67 litres of
formula which I guess is roughly one week's supply.  The average
Norwegian consumer would have to work for about two hours to net
enough money to buy a kilogram package, which is the most meaningful
way I know to compare costs for consumer goods.  Ready-to-feed formula
for one week would cost several times that much, i.e. the consumer
would need to work for the better part of a day to net enough to buy
it.

Given that shelf prices of most food items here (not to mention beer,
wine and spirits!) are high enough to curl the hair of any of my
visiting friends, formula stands out as strikingly inexpensive.  I
looked at shelf prices for various formulas last time I was in the US
four years ago and didn't see any cans of powder for under $28 and
most were more expensive.  That was for less than three quarters of a
kilo of powder, and one brand cost that much for less than half a
kilo.  At that time, the cost to a consumer purchasing formula in
Norway, converting kroner to $US, was 40% of that.  The Norwegian
consumer is not paying for the manufacturer's advertising budget,
since they don't have one for sales in Norway, nor for the amounts
supplied to health institutions at cut rates to gain brand loyalty and
certainly not for free samples, which so far I have not seen here,
ever, in 28 years of living here.  On my ward, the formula is ordered
through the kitchen, along with all other foodstuffs we serve patients
during their stay, and it is purchased at the going rate although I
assume it, too, is covered by whatever bulk purchasing agreement the
hospital has for all food.

In contrast, prepared complementary food for older babies is
advertised and it is phenomenally expensive and just as lamentably
revolting as anywhere else.  'Organic' beef stew in a screw-cap tube
holds the current record in my running competition for lowest
benchmark in this category.

Susan Burger referred to my talk in NYC about what a
breastfeeding-friendly society looks like.  It is true that the
post-WWII public poverty here was a blessing in disguise.  Norway was
late to industrialize as well, and in the countryside people gave
birth at home with the district midwife and breastfed as a matter of
course until almost 1960.  After WWII the system of well-child centres
staffed by the first professionally trained health visitors was the
first threat to BF as their mission was to inform mothers of the
importance of good habits (running one's home like a factory, by the
clock) and the rapid transition from community to hospital care for
birth was the second, coinciding with the start of advertising of
breastmilk substitutes.  The health services were not in the forefront
to save breastfeeding - they were forced to stop harmful care
practices by mothers who organized themselves into what became
Ammehjelpen and who set about becoming a thorn in the side of the
health services.  Since this is a small country they were able to have
high impact and luckily they responded quickly so we never lost a
generation of children to artificial feeding; the assumption that you
would breastfeed remained unchanged, as did initiation rates, even
while continuation rates plummeted from the late 1940's until they
bottomed out in 1968 when Ammehjelpen was founded.  It's worth noting
that the founders met each other in a feminist group and many of the
first members were active in the feminist movement of the time.

We are seeing a backlash at present because the politically correct
feminist stance today, espoused by men and women alike, is that
fathers and mothers should be equally involved in caring for babies
almost from birth.  I'll refrain from getting up on that particular
soapbox in this post.

Rachel Myr
Kristiansand, Norway

             ***********************************************

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome