"I expect some people see it as fairly trivial because...
1.) In a country where clean water is readily available both choices are perfectly acceptable."
Yes - our culture bottle feeding is the social norm and therefore socially acceptable. The NHS still puts resources into trying to persuade people to do less of it, for the sake of their children's and their own health.
"2.) There are so many other factors that mean people are less/more likely to get type 2 diabetes and cancer."
Um, yes. So if there are other factors, then not breastfeeding becomes unimportant? Like, prone sleeping is just one risk factor for SIDS. That means we can consider it unimportant because others, like smoking during pregnancy, are also factors?
Do you use that type of reasoning when it comes to other choices for your child? 'It's trivial if they don't wear a bike helmet when they cycle because more children hurt themselves falling out of trees while playing?' 'Making up feeds with hot water is a trivial issue, because when babies get sick from problems with formula, it's usually because parents haven't washed their bottles thoroughly, or are not chucking undrunk milk out after a couple of hours. I don't get it. 
Incidentally, I'm not 'all worked up' about how you individually choose to feed your baby. I do though, think it's a damn shame that so few babies in the UK get optimal nutrition from birth. I particularly think it's a shame that children from the most deprived backgrounds, who tend to get the shittest of everything as they go through life, are the ones most likely not to get optimal nutrition from birth (because of low breastfeeding rates in deprived areas) despite the fact that breastfeeding is free and available to everyone. That's a shame, and it's the result of cultural mores more than anything else.
Oh, and in a system of socialised medicine, it's not unreasonable to point out that other people's choice not to breastfeed imposes additional costs on the NHS that impact on everyone: cost