Here's how I see it.
WRT the UK, the risks associated with FF are pretty neglible, by and large (owing to the NHS, general sanitation, etc.). Sure, money might be saved if everyone BF, but WRT to the risks, well, they're very small. Real, but small.
Obviously, FF in the developing world is another matter entirely. Regrettably, profits made by FF companies in the West do get ploughed into pushing FF in developing nations. But this is a consequence of globalised capitalism, and we all make choices all the time which have an impact on the less fortunate in the developing world (clothes, foods, etc.). Few people have clean hands in this respect.
Anyway, to return to my main point.
The reason I am against FF advertising is part of a wider problem, as I see it. Our society is so overwhelmingly biased towards bottle-feeding (despite the prevalence of public health initiatives about BF) that it - inevitably - has an effect on BF, or people who want to BF. This thread is testament to that! I don't know the OP's circumstances, but many people on MN, for example, claim that, with better support, BF could've been successful for them.
So, FF directly and indirectly stops women from BF-ing, even if they wanted to.
On the contrary, BF does not have the power to stop someone from FF their child: even with the worst societal condemnation in the world, one could still retreat to the kitchen and make up a bottle.
BF needs to be supported; FF, on the whole, does not. This is not to say that clear information should not be available - and in fact, as I showed earlier, it is. But it should not be "supported". It doesn't need to be.
People on MN are very keen on "choice": "my body, my choice"; "my baby, my choice". Etc.
Well, FF impacts on BFers choices.
And that's why I am against FF advertising.