@Ennirem To say you don't see ethics or internal reasoning etc in my suggestion (following on from yours) about formula being prescribed, I think you misunderstand what prescriptions are for - they are for required drugs, and you are just trying to insult someone with an alternative view point.
Formula is not a required drug. It is food (and yes food is required to survive, but you can't get a loaf of bread on prescription, so why should you get formula?!?).
BF is free. It is said to be better for the baby than FF. if you can BF, then do. If you choose not to, then pay for the food (as a very poor example, see this as the difference between choosing to grow your own tomatoes or buying them).
However, if you are unable to bf (eg taking medication not compatible with bf, don't produce enough milk and have tried every bit of advice), perhaps then getting a benefit to contribute towards the cost of FF would be a good idea to prevent babies starving.
I think one of the smaller considerations which should also be taken into account when choosing how to feed your baby is the cost (as it is when choosing whether to use reusable or disposable nappies). Please note I said "choosing", so this is where both feeding options are available to the parents.
Otherwise @Ennirem I think we shall have to agree to disagree.
@Grandmaswagsbag Why on earth would I know formula companies advertising approaches all over the world? This is like being shocked I don't know the advertising regulations for alcohol/tobacco/sanitary products in the rest of the world.
Personally, the words "breast milk substitute" makes me think of something being more similar to breast milk than the word "formula" does. Perhaps I'm not that easily swayed by advertising but the words "closer to breastmilk" don't make me think it's the same thing and "40 years of breast milk research" just makes me realise they are struggling to understand breast milk if they're still researching it 40 years later.