Aptamil closest to breastmilk... who says?

[knittynoodle]

So many people have said this to me, MW's, mum, MIL, SIL, friends...

Whats the source for this statement as obviously there are no formula ad's. Its starting to annoy me that people are repeating this to me as 'advice'. Unless theres a study to prove it, its just hearsay!

Anyone know where it originated?

Umm, wild guess, at a marketing meeting for Aptamil?? My otherwise lovely MW said this to me and she was fab, spent ages helping me to get DD latched on.

Tis a winner, tho - so many people have heard it they believe it and repeat it. It's the gift that keeps on giving (if you make/sell/distribute Aptamil)

I think it was the first to have DHA in it which is something in breastmilk that helps with brain development (????) - i could be wrong though.

It's akin to saying "Apples, closer to oranges". The two milks are different substances. One comes from humans, one from cows (or soya). Wasn't the DHA claim removed from advertising as their was nothing to back up the assertion?

They all say that their milk is the "closest" to breastmilk, but based on different criteria - DHA, proteins, probiotics...!

Aptamil says, mostly! They concentrated on marketing to health care people and it seems to have been an effective campaign.

All formulas are much the same though, what they have to contain is controlled by law so all milks will provide adequate nutrition.

Boring legal bit here if you want a look

I totally agree knittynoodle
so many people have said this to me and I have no idea where it comes from.

Load of tosh IMO!!

i am guessing it originated from aptimil

in fact, they were told off quite badly for it and made to remove it

It seems to have stuck though, doesnt it! And they can get away with charging a fair amount more for it on the basis of that statement too.

I just find it really annoying because theres no fact to it what so ever!

Don't Aptimil fund midwives training and that kind of thing?

We were told it by two HCPs in the SCBU when our bubba needed rehydrating ASAP and we were told to choose what we wanted to give her. We'd never planned on giving formula and didn't know a thing about it.

I think it looks more "scientific" than other formulas. SMA and Cow and Gate seem to go for packaging that's more cutesy, little cows on the boxes or photos of mummies and so on. Aptamil's packaging seems to be intended to look more like a medical product, so that perhaps has an influence. Plus the name Aptamil sounds vaguely medical?

There is no reason to think Aptamil is better than other formulas.

In the nursing and midwifery journals, all the main names advertise heavily (SMA, Cow&Gate, Aptamil) and all make some claim about their own superiority. In the past Aptamil has been promoted very heavily to midwives and HVs, so it's likely this reputation for being the best has remained.

The packaging looks more sophisticated than others, too. Of course that has everything to do with marketing and nothing to do with the quality of product inside!

The contents of formula are regulated not just nationally but internationally.

I've heard it often too and always feel like asking exactly how they think formula can in any way resemble bm.

I compared the contents on the back of some SMA and Aptimil and showed my mum that they were almost exactly the same. But because a Health Professional has told her its better she has no concept of thinking about it herself. SIL/MIL are the same. Its bad really, because they are under the belief they are giving their baby the 'best' when they are paying more to give their baby the 'same'.

Ive challenged my friends on it too, and they say the poo is similar to breastmilk poo. Is that not just the addition of something in the milk doing that?

The poo is similar to bf babies' poo because of the addition of prebiotics - these are added at the time of manufacture, and are not inherent in the milk.

Virtually all formulas have prebiotics in them these days.

Manufacturers all claim (in the nursing and midwifery journals, where they are permitted to advertise) that their particular version of prebiotics are better than their competitors.

Someone on here told me it was to do with Aptamil giving freebie's to the HCP. It's promoted a lot more with HCP so they promote it when asked.

How can it be close to breastmilk? it's dried industrial made powder compared to a living milk made by a mum to meet her infants needs completely.

Dessen/Jilted - I think the OPs question was about a particular brand of formula rather than inviting views on BM v formula feeding,

My HV suggested Aptamil when I saw her when DD2 was 12 weeks. I was exhausted at the time from 3/4 feeds a night plus a 3 year old to look after. DD2 wouldn't take BM or Hipp from a bottle. I concluded the bottle was the problem. If she wouldn't take BM why would Aptamil be different? DD2 has happily taken a bottle from daddy after a few nights of trying from 14 weeks.

I'm not anti formula as both of mine have had it but I don't think HCPs should be pushing one brand over another. Haven't seen the HV since.

mws and hvs are not allowed to promote products, their code of conduct prehibits it.

that should be 'prohibits'

How is 'promote' defined? I had a visit from a MW the other day and her diary had Aptimil logos on it.

Look at the ingredients. Aptamil is made by Cow and Gate, and the ingredients are identical.

Aptamil is extremely cleverly marketed, both to HCPs and parents. Because it is the most expensive, almost everyone thinks it is the best.

Sorry, I should change that,
Because it is the most expensive, many people think it is the best.

When my babies went into the NICU with low blood sugar and I was told that my choices were formula or brain damage due to low glucose (DTS too tired to feed and needed to be tube-fed), the consultant paed told me that Aptamil was the 'most popular with parents who wanted to bf'

I was too exhausted to pull him up on it (I had read the politics of bf and knew he wasn't supposed to say things like that).

(we did manage to bf after all and neither twin had formula after 4 days old.....)

barm - the paed was probably right. Aptamil prob is 'most popular with parents who want to bf'...this is the result of marketing and promotion, and of course price-pitching.

It is no good for manufacturers to produce 2 virtually identical products (Aptamil, Cow&Gate) both chasing the same market segment. You need to differentiate your market, to avoid all your strategies being in competition with each other.

Aptamil is posh formula - their packaging and their pricing differentiate it from Cow&Gate.

Aptamil looks cool, modern and sophisticated. It is a brand of milk only, not baby food. People's mothers did not use it as it has not been around that long.

Cow&Gate is in marketing terms a 'heritage brand' (like Daz, Kellogs Corn Flakes, Domestos) which has been around forever, and which people remember from their own childhood and which their own mothers used. Cow&Gate is also branded baby food. So, a powerful brand with a mass appeal, with bright colours on the pack and a lower price point.

Different people 'go for' different brands (obviously not totally consistently - I am talking trends here). The posh mother who wants to breastfeed and who has maybe not so much faith in formula feeding and who feels a bit wobbly about even using it, can be 'reassured' by the 'feel' that Aptamil gives her.

Cow&Gate sells itself, because of being a heritage brand; all it has to do is to look like itself. The target market is mothers who formula feed from the start, or near the start, and who don't feel a bit wobbly about using formula.

No one has to be stupid to fall for marketing like this. All you have to be is human.