To think formula feeding parents are bent over a barrel?

[inpixiehollow]

Just been discussing this with a friend and interested to know peoples thoughts.
Am I being unreasonable to think that the NHS/govt should manufacture a nutritionally complete formula for babies, sold at cost price to families? Not disputing the importance of real access to proper breastfeeding support but we have to acknowledge that some women cannot/don't want to breastfeed and instead are victim to formula companies turning over huge profits. If people want fancy formulas/special additives then the option should be there but with rising cost of living I don't think its acceptable that something so necessary for many babies is getting to the point of unaffordable.
I am a massive advocate for breastfeeding so please don't take this as an attack or downplaying the massive lack of help for bf in the UK, I just wish both options were made more accessible for whatever feeding choices people make.

Formula will never ever come close to breastmilk.

But, why isn’t the current formula offering just dehydrated cow’s milk?
Because it’s better.

Sorry to burst the bubble but formula is this, with added vitamins that they’ve been made to add because independent research has verified that they are beneficial. It’s a cheap by product of the dairy industry basically. The R&D in formula companies is not to make the product better, it’s to push what they can get away with and what advertising goes down best in each country. If they cared about creating a great product why do they add different ingredients in different countries depending on what they can get away with? For instance in S. America (growing obesity problem there) they add more sugar ‘for taste’ yet in Korea they advertise Sugar free ‘for health’. Does that sound like they give a toss about infant health to you?

In what way? The difference in outcomes is negligible. Plus you were on a thread saying bfing past the age of 2 is creepy, so does the milk change overnight then?

It's just a cost of having a child though. Like nappies, and clothes, and food once weaning.

I agree it's ridiculous that formula has to be excluded from things like offers, nectar points etc.

@User98866 “Does that sound like they give a toss about infant health to you?”

See the bit where I said, “I’m not claiming it’s altruism - it’s commercial advantage”?

Look, I’ve never bought formula in my life, and I breastfed one child til 3 and the other til a bit over 2. I’m one of the lucky mums with no problems doing that. I loved breastfeeding and I don’t think any formula product can ever be as good.

But the first formulas were excess cow’s milk production mixed with wheat.
They formula available now is better than that.
I think if the government was responsible for providing free formula, they’d still be churning out cow’s milk and wheat.
For the poorer babies of course. Rich people babies would just buy what they wanted.

I don’t think the government should provide formula.

@Mumofone1993 it's not just about 'promoting breastfeeding'

Left unregulated the formula companies engaged in seriously unethical practices which killed babies.

The WHO created the advertising code (which the UK does not enforce entirely) to try and stop such things happening.

The formula companies spend lots of money finding ways to get around this code.

They could do worse than simply putting a price cap on formula. Companies would still make a profit and they wouldn’t need to spend any money on advertising, which is what most of cost involves. The product is pence to produce.

@Cuppasoupmonster in its composition. Breastmilk is individually tailored for the baby getting it. Formula is tailored to be good for the general population of babies

While it’s an interesting fact it doesn’t really mean anything by itself. It’s the health outcomes that matter.

@Twizbe

People do know it’s superior. Of course it is. With this knowledge I still decided to formula feed my three when they were babies. It was a perfectly acceptable substitute and one that saved me from poor MH, as let me tell you, I would have been depressed having to breast feed. We are all different. Thank god for choice because depressed mothers sure as hell don’t do their babies any good either in terms of attachment.

Sorry to burst the bubble but formula is this, with added vitamins that they’ve been made to add because independent research has verified that they are beneficial.

No, the original formulas were just dried full cream dairy milk with added sugar and vitamin D like National dried alluded to above. The modern formulas are far more modified and more expensive. The first was SMA which was widely advertised on TV in the mid-60s. By around 1976, all the original formulas were withdrawn from sale as no longer suitable for babies and all the formula companies started selling modified formula similar to SMA.

Another poster asked in what way formula wouldn't come close to breastmilk.

Formula is like a good healthy salad you got from a restaurant. It's good for you, has lots of good nutrients and is what we need to eat. But it might have a few too many tomatoes for you. That's not bad for you as such, it's just more than you need.
Breastmilk is a salad that you've made yourself. It's been made just to your taste with everything you need. Plus a little dressing for extra tailored immunity etc.

If you don't want to breastfeed - fine. We live in a country where we have access to clean water and literacy rates that mean women can read the instructions. On an individual level formula is a perfectly ok substitute for breastmilk.

I have a teen Ds to feed. I would love to buy him a tub of formula for the week. He is in a medium men's clothes i would love to buy baby clothes and a size 9 mens trainers.

I think part of the difference is the sheer quantity of food you can see your large teen eating. OTOH, a baby is just drinking milk and it still works out expensive. I don’t know how much formula costs compared to the equivalent from a 4 pint bottle of milk from the dairy counter but assume it’s a whole lot more!

Cool story. I believe that most women can breastfeed with enough time and effort. Of course there will always be the exception to the rule, but many women do claim that they can't, when the very opposite is true.

How do you look into whether your breasts will do their job? Whether your pregnancy will end too soon or too traumatically for your milk to kick in on time? Whether you'll have multiples which means you need to produce twice as much, or a poorly baby which affects your supply for a ton of reason and their ability to take it? Of course people should have babies they can afford, but I planned two singleton pregnancies and in both cases got screwed over for BF by life.

How long did you expect my twins to go without food waiting for my milk to come in and us establish breastfeeding?

And yes, shot useless excuse as a mother that I am, with twins there was a limit to how much time I could just sit there trying to coax milk out and two babies to suck

I think this is very unfair. In a period of 2 weeks I had mastitis back to back on the same boob, went on antibiotics and it was fine for 2 days then had virtually no breast milk for 3 days then just nothing. Not from a lack of manually pumping to try produce more, my son would latch repeatedly and nothing came out. I cried so much for feeling like a failure over those 3 days and the next 2 weeks before realising I really couldn’t change anything about it.

Stating that if women tried harder they could breastfeed? say you’re right - then my tears really should’ve filled my boobs right up with milk then?

@SleepingStandingUp with all due respect you go into it with all possible costs considered and work back the way. I have had two babies and I had to supplement the second one so I know that things can go against your plan but I didn’t expect the government to foot the bill!!

And yet the government foots the bill for pretty much every other health item for a baby. Prescription drugs, eye drops, vitamin drops, moisturiser for skin issues etc.
Why is nutrition so different?

There is really no negative in the cost of formula being regulated.

We already have a pretty wide teaching welfare state so unless you’re against sure start food vouchers, free school meals, in work benefits, tax free childcare, free prescriptions for children etc then the idea that the government shouldn’t foot the bill is pretty contradictory.

Because lack of food isn't caused by a medical issue. It doesn't need to be fixed by the health service.

This. Plus all the lanolin and gel pads,and nipple shields etc that it takes to establish breastfeeding in the first few torturous weeks (it's not easy for most people ime).

If you have a baby, you need to factor in all the costs, the government (taxpayer!) shouldn't have to subsidise you.

YABU.

If the government are to push anything it should be breastfeeding, but they don’t even do that.

Wowser. Calling a post about a baby so underweight he was hospitalised and tube fed a 'cool story' is proper cuntish behaviour.

And I'm someone who was not able to breastfeed due to daily drugs as a result of cancer. But I guess I have a 'cool story' too @Hallyup14

I'm pretty sure child benefit covers the cost of formula. 0-6 months is pretty much the cheapest part of the whole 18 years anyway.

Rubbish,

I get free prescriptions for a health condition, but that doesn’t extend to free meals and nor should it

too much is given away for no reason, I wish people would take more responsibility, specifically financial responsibility, for their own lifestyles and choices