to ask what the point of 2+ formula milk

[BlissfulMistletoe]

i can understand special milk for children with special needs.

but for an average 2 year old, what is the point

I thought all those 'follow on' formulas were produced because the rules about marketing formula for younger babies are much stricter?

They might not sell much of it because most parents can see through it and see it's not necessary, but by marketing formula for toddlers they can raise their brand profile in ways they can't get away with for the infant formula they're really trying to sell.

Or is that too cynical?

Doninkillerheels...

All three of mine were like that! Sorry I posted before I read your post.

Don, does he eat cheese/yogurt and a generally varied diet etc? If so then there's no real need for the milk IMO.

DS2 drank cows milk from a bottle until about 15m, but when gave up the bottle refused to drink milk from a cup, but I never bothered with formula.

As far as I know, it's also a marketing ploy for formula for newborns. Its illegal to advertise formula for babies under 6months, so the companies make various follow on milks so they can get air time. (or so my bfn tutor told us!)

nah, you're spot on nelly and as a bonus they get to sell the follow on milks to parents who believe their DC need it

Yeah. What NellyJane said. Follow-on milk seems to have been 'invented' in order to rather aggressively promote formula through adverts where it's legal to use slightly older babies.

Of course, I might be being cynical too.

DS1 was breastfed until past 2, but we did give him the odd bottle of formula when I needed to be out or wanted a night off. Since I was crap at expressing, I used Aptamil but never, ever, the 'stage 2' or follow-on, or whatever the rubbery fuck they call it. DS1 probably had his last bottle of that around 20 months, because at that age he still prefered formula to straight cow's milk (but prefered breastmilk to either of them). Have given up trying to convince friends that follow-ons are a con.

Formula milk is very sweet.
When dd2 was about 18 months we got asked to do a trial of follow on milk. She had to drink it and point to whichever she preferred. At that point she was still bf (obviously not exclusively) and had never had formula. She looked skeptically at the little things of milk she had to drink, and took a little persuading to try a sip.

At the first taste her eyes lit up and she downed the lot and asked for "more sugar drink". She labelled one of the others "sweetie drink" and kept on commenting on each one about it being sweet. She asked me afterwards why I couldn't put more sugar in bmilk for her so it would be like the milk she'd just had.

Couldn't believe how sweet they were really.

Tired, he guzzles yoghurt and loves cheese. I know he doesn't really need milk on top of that, but he does like a bottle at bedtime. I've turned into one of those SOFT mothers I used to despise!

I was thinking the same. ie marketing con.

FWIW my son aged 21 months is very fussy eater, but filling him up with formula is a sure way for him to eat less food not more. He has full fat cows milk twice a day.

I do buy 1+ formula for very occasional use (ie ready made) probably on average 1 per month as doesn't need to be kept in fridge so useful in changing bag etc. But if I could find UHT full fat milk in 200ml carton that would be just as good.

What sort of milk, nellyjane?

"I do think extra vits are important for young, growing bodies"

If it's excess to requirements it's either going to be excreted or will do their bodies harm.

Thought I'd C&P an extract from a Unicef mailing I got a few weeks ago. Makes you see the C&G giant cup of milk advert in a different light.......

"Iron-Fortified vs Low-Iron Infant Formula: Developmental Outcome at 10 Years

This study enrolled 835 healthy, full-term infants in Santiago, Chile. From 6-12 months infants were fed iron-fortified (mean 12.7mg/L) or low-iron (mean 2.3mg/L) formula milk. At 10 years of age 473 (56.6%) of the children were assessed for IQ, spatial memory, arithmetic achievement, visual-motor integration, visual perception, and motor functioning.

Compared with the low-iron group, the iron fortified group scored lower on every 10 year outcome.

Betsy Lozoff, MD; Marcela Castillo, PhD; Katy M. Clark, MA; Julia B. Smith, EdD. Iron-Fortified vs Low-Iron Infant Formula: Developmental Outcome at 10 Years. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. Published online November 7, 2011. doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2011.197

For more information on the iron content of UK follow-on formula milk see the Caroline Walker Trust report Infant Milks in the UK (2011).
"

SetFiretotheRain I am with you as some of the probable few MNers who use it. My just turned 3 yr old has a cup a day of 2-3. He has reflux, alot better now but it has left him a very fussy eater (getting better luckily) and I worry about vitamins etc. His paed actually recommended it and gives it to her own same aged toddler. He won't drink cows milk but I am working on this! I don't see any harm in it though if a parent is willing to pay for it!

Meant to add - apparently some children have much better iron stores than others. These children not only may not benefit from iron fortified formula, but may actually be damaged by it.

In Australia you can't advertise formula for the under 12months... it's a voluntary code, but the way around it is to WIDELY advertise the over 21 month versions WITH THE SAME NAME, so the brand is recognised.

So you have Gold formula for under 12m and then Toddler Gold for the over 12m (and probably another variation for the over 2 age group).

It's all to do with brand trustworthness / familiarity... and the extra bucks that they reap from parents that buy into it (literally) and their child gets hooked on the sweetness/flavour so won't drink regular milk.

So win-win, marketing and income stream.

JennyH

I know quite a few people here (NZ) who buy it for their toddlers because they find it to be cheaper than fresh milk. Especially if you get it on sale.

"Whether we think they're getting 'enough ' already is irrelevant IMO, a bit of extra goodness does no harm."

Totally untrue, sadly :( and a fabrication of the formula companies' marketing departments.

One article summarising the recent study: follow on formula con leads to impaired development

And yes, previous posters are right that it's a cynical marketing ploy to get around the ban on advertising formula - which originally was for "infants" (ie to 6 months) and there were no follow-on or toddler milks. So follow-on (etc) was invented so that 6+ months milks could be advertised. It still breaks the WHO code but the UK law is way behind the international treaties and recommendations from UNICEF and the World Health Organisation, bizarrely.

Some other information for those who are interested: info.babymilkaction.org/ and an excellent book which explains things very clearly and is fully referenced www.pinterandmartin.com/product/The_Politics_of_Breastfeeding%3A_When_breasts_are_bad_for_business_978-1-905177-16-5. I really do highly recommend this book to anyone interested in infant and child nutrition at any level.

For those looking at weaning or with children between 6-12 months or so, this also, by the same author, is excellent: www.pinterandmartin.com/product/Complementary_Feeding%3A_Nutrition%2C_Culture_and_Politics_978-1-905177-42-4 and gives the science behind weaning needs (the point being that it explains scientifically and anthropologically how and why children should be weaned for optimum health). Pureed apple and (even worse) baby rice isn't an option .

SetFireToTheRain - I used to think exactly like you.

I wanted to do my utmost best by PFB. He was exclusively breastfed until 6 months, at which point I started introducing formula, whilst also breastfeeding alongside.

I was totally anal about his diet, giving him nothing but the best, homemade, sugar/salt-free this and that. And then when he turned 1 I decided that cow's milk was no way good enough for my little darling; follow-on formula all the way for us.

Think of all the extra nutrients and vitamins he'll be getting! We can afford it, so what's the problem - he'll be firing on all cylinders! And yes, just like you, his diet was wide and varied, so it wasn't like he needed anything additional, but just like you, my thinking was 'well, it's not going to do him any harm'.

And then I wised up.

Follow-on formula exists solely as a vehicle for formula companies to hang their advertising on. They are not making it for altruistic reasons surrounding the health of 1 and 2 year year olds. Pffft at the very notion. It's been invented just so that they can aggressively market their product and increase revenue. The Politics of Breastfeeding give some very illuminating insights into it all. I just felt like too much of a complete gullible mug by continuing to line their pockets.

I also got a grip over other aspects of his diet as well as time went by, thankfully.

moreyear That's the same in Hong Kong. 1+ formula imported from the UK (Aptimil, HIPP etc) is actually about the same price as the Australian imported milk (Pura brand) so a lot of people just carry on using it.

I'd rather thought, that like all mammals, once we're weaned, we don't need milk at all.

Does anyone else think like the OP, and ban drinks after 6 to reduce night time weeing? Does that include water OP? What if they're thirsty?

I used it when DS2 was 18 months old. He had the most horrendous bout of norovirus and ended up in hospital on a drip When he came out he'd lost loads of weight and his little tummy could only manage to take tiny amounts of solid food. Plus he was picking up every bug going, including impetigo because his immune system was shot. My HV recommended the follow on milk that was high in probiotics to help heal his damaged stomach and all of the vitamins would help boost his immune system. Plus they're high in calories which helped build him up. It took about 6 months to get him back to normal but I'm sure the follow on milk helped.

To allow companies to advertise formula on tv without getting blasted, all a big con.