To think that toddler milk is a marketing con?

[MumNWLondon]

I am currently BFing my baby and hadn't realised how expensive formula was (well I'd forgotten as older DC haven't had it for a while).

What I don't understand is why anyone would continue to pay for formula past one year when cows milk can be given? (Unless money is literally is no object etc)

Before anyone says my DD will not drink cows milk, mine didn't either took 6 more weeks and 2 more tubs to move from 7oz of formula to 6oz formula 1oz cows milk, 5oz formula 2oz cows milk etc.

So who buys this stuff and why?

Yes, I agree you can get an iron supplement - for free - but its not a marketing "con" - what they are saying is not untrue. Cow's milk is not a rich source of iron, formula is.

I just dont get huffy unless they are lying. It is what it is.

i really doubt they sell much of it. i've never heard of anyone buying it - until this thread!

Look, there was a time where cereal wasn't supplemented with folic acid too. Spina Bifida was more common, so was deficiency, and yet supplements were available free from your doctor then too - you just tended to end up with symptoms and an actual deficiency before getting them.

No, I dont really think anyone I know needs this stuff to be honest. I'm not saying its some major public service thing they should get a nobel peace prize for.

But its not massively diffeent from any other product that is "now with added vitamin C" or "Rich in Omega 3's" etc - yes, to an extent they are ALL a marketing con, yet not, because they are what they are - a product that is supplemented - with something you have heard is good or needed for a specific age or just harder to get sometimes if your diet isn't balanced.

I dont know about you but if I were genuinely concerned my toddler wasn't getting iron, I'd think about it. If I was genuinely concerned he needed probiotic, I'd possibly give him a Actimel. Before I went to the doctor, anyway. I dont have an HV.

Yes, I suppose it is a marketing con but I'd dispute that EVERYONE who buys it is stupid - many are making an informed decison.

Disclaimer. I dont use it.

No, wait. Its not a marketing CON - its just MARKETING.

actually agree with sloanypony. i've not considered buying it but if my son had a bad diet it would be a thought.

Sometimes I think people just want formula companies to pack up and go home.

That's fine, but it would seriously leave a whole bunch of babies and toddlers nutritionally in the shit.

It'd be back to Carnation milk.

I know, I know, it does undermine breastfeeding, there's no getting round that, but the simple fact is some people dont want to breastfeed or can't and until we deal with those issues, they will use the alternative. Its great that there is such a "viable" alternative.

If everyone who would have formula fed but didn't because there was no viable alternative breastfed, is that really a victory - breastfeeding a precious newborn through fear alone? Really? Is that good?

I suppose nutritionally its better than not but it makes me sad to think about it.

What's the big deal anyway? It's providing a child with nutrients, it's not like shoving fruit shoots down their throat.

I am fully aware that people think it is a giant con. And yet I am still happy with my decision to use it on top of a healthy balanced diet.

I should add (in case it has any relevance) - I breastfed DS until 1.

And who cares if their piss is expensive piss if it means their nutritional requirements are being met to the point they have a surplus?

Presumably whoever buys it can afford it?

YABU

I can't stay away from this thread!!!

Let me explain further why I feel this way yet have never even used the product.

I tend to think of food as something you give and that you default to choose the most possible nutrients for the least amount of calories, and on that sliding scale the better the food is.

So, say I wanted to give my toddler some "junk", a "treat", something "sweet" and tempting - out of a handful of chocolate buttons or a Rice Krispies bar, which would I choose?

The Rice Krispies bar. Its fortefied by law with B vitamins. The chocolate buttons are not.

Okay, he has buttons occasionally too but do you see where I'm going?

The Rice Krispies is still "junk", but its superior "junk" to something not fortified.

I'm not saying formula or cow's milk is junk, but whichever way you look at it, the formula is nutritionally superior.

Bring money into it, fine, but that's a separate issue. Dont buy it at the expense of your toddlers balanced diet, but if they are getting that anyway (or are not, but not because you can't afford it), then do, if you want!

Exactly!

Plus, you could equally say that spending money on fruit juice, squash or whatever other teeth-rotting, empty-calorie substances are out there are making a worse decision re what to give their child than toddler milk which is loaded with nutrients.

And its not just my opinion that its nutritionally superior - its a scientific fact as proven by the nutritional info on the back of the pack.

I think toddler milk has its place with very very fussy eaters or very very sick toddlers who would be malnutritioned otherwise. other than that, save your money

I think you should probably downsize your mortgage though, MousyMouse - you dont really need that study or pagoda, it isn't necessary.

Not my business how you spend your money? Oh, sorry, I beg your pardon.

With the amount DS drinks, it costs me £7 a month. I'm not going to be jetting off on hols or buying a new car with that sort of savings.

Honestly, I can afford it. So I don't see the problem.

I thought this whole follow-on milk was some kind of marketing ploy

They can't advertise stage 1 milk so they made up an unnecessary product which they were allowed to advertise

Seems a bit bogus to me, I didn't bother with it

They are not outright lying but they are misleading. It's like Evian saying you'd have to eat a ton of cornflakes to get the same amount of hydration as a sip of Evian and then having a disclaimer at the bottom saying - cornflakes are not a good source of hydration. It is trying to make parents think "oh no my child could not possibly drink this much cows milk I must buy this product or they will be ill". Yes, all advertising misleads to an extent but follow on formula advertising particularly rankles with me because it is so expensive and unecessary. I also think it is below the belt to use kids health as a scare tactic to make people spend money. And I'm not anti-formula at all. I'm just anti follow on formula. If people are aware it is unnecessary and want to buy it regardless because they have more money than sense then that is up to them but I worry that some people will be tricked by the advertising into thinking that they will be harming their child by giving them a balanced diet plus cows milk and spend money they can ill afford on follow on formula. Just because most advertising is BS it doesn't make it right!

Cat - that is a very good point.

If it is a marketing ploy, it is for that reason, not because it isn't nutritionally superior, etc etc.

You have it.

(But it's still nutritionally superior, but by no means necessary)...

If your toddler is getting all the nutrients they need from their diet (as most do) then it ISN'T nutritionally superior. They would be getting all the nutrients they needed from cows milk. It is giving them extra stuff that they don't need at an extortionate cost.

Our case is unusual but I buy it. DS has SN and wakes for milk 4-5 times a night and the little bottles are easily-opened in a bleary state.

He's BF too but at three years of age I'm buggered if I'm going to lift him out of his cot that many times, besides he gets his couple of oz and goes back to sleep more quickly than if he's in bed with me.

It is an awful waste though, I hate it. UHT cartons are an invitation to spillage and much less easy to open.

He has twice accepted a bit of water instead so we're hoping to do away with them altogether quite soon.

And they are useful for trips out as they are small.

I wouldn't bother at all though if he was getting his protein, iron and calcium from any other sources. Maybe just a drink of cows milk twice a day, I'm sure that's all DD had.

Can you get vitamin and mineral supplements from your doctors? My ds(4)'s diet is appaling he refuses to drink any milk since we threw his bottles away at 3 so his only source of calcium is chocolate of fromage frais. He won't eat fruit, veg or meat and I just end up feeling completely depressed just thinking about meal times

Sorry for hijacking the thread.

I still don't get it (unless ill or very fussy eater) - yes it might be nutrionally superior but if your toddler is eating a balanced diet then why do they need it?

Could it be that just as the advertising of formula including toddler formula makes us doubt what we are doing as parents? Or think of that aptamil advert and think someone the friendly bacteria will help our child? As others have pointed out the iron isn't well absorbed anyway (iron best taken with orange juice) and iron supplements are available free.

Toddler milk is different IMO to follow on milk. Follow on milk is used from 6 months when cows milk is not suitable. The alternative is breastfeeding. I have BF both my DC until 6 months so used formula for 6 months after that.

Toddler milk is from age 1 when cows milk is fine.

There are enough discussions now about BFing, I was wondering why people used toddler milk.

I carried on giving my formula fed baby a bottle of formula a day (as well as cow's milk) beyond her 1st yr as we were in the middle east and the food's just not as fresh there as at home and was concerned about her not getting all the nutrients she needed.

That said, we are back in the UK and although she's now just on cow's milk, those ads have given me the heebeegeebees about iron. Stupid really as little ones get their iron from other sources but such is the power of marketing...

DS is three years of age btw, not me