I understand that breastmilk is better than formula because of the antibodies and benefits for the baby's immune system. I know too that it's a safer way of feeding baby as there is no danger of inadequate sterilisation etc. But leaving those benefits aside for a moment, is it always nutritionally superior? I see how it is in a woman who gets an excellent diet, eats her 5-a-day, oily fish once a week etc - but what about in a woman who lives on chip butties and mars bars and never goes near a piece of fruit, or one whose diet is otherwise nutritionally inadequate? I know women on such diets can still produce plenty of milk - hence women in times of famine can still feed their babies - but is it as nutritionally complete as formula in those circumstances? Where do all the vitamins etc (that are added to forumla) come from if the woman isn't consuming enough?
(I have no hidden agenda here BTW - I am breastfeeding my 7 week old son, but that has nothing to do with it really - I'm just genuinely curious about the properties of the milk and if there are ever circumstances in which formula might be nutritionally superior - and if not, how the breastmilk manages to be so nutritious even when the woman eats badly).