IS Follow on milk is MUST?

[diva4mgl]

Can anyone tell me. do i have to use follow on milk? my dd is 7mo and she was on SMA gold since birth, we astarted using follow on and she seems to have very runny poo( sorry a bit tmi) It could be coincident, but i just wondered if i can try SMA gold again, or is follow on milk is must.
thank you

Not really sure..so shouldnt be answering.
Maybe you could try a different brand as she my be just reacting to that one?

No, follow-on milk is not at all mandatory. It only exists so formula companies can advertise it, IYWIM. It is regular formula with added iron, only babies can't absorb the added iron, and it causes gut problems.

Go back to SMA Gold, if it suited your dd.

Nope, you do not have to use follow-on milk at all.

Follow-on milk is a marketing ploy dreamed up by milk companies because they aren't allowed to advertise or promote their 'first' milks, but they can advertise anything aimed at babies over 6 months. So, if your dd is happy on SMA Gold, carry on using that and don't worry about switching.

snap, NQC!

i better dress dd and go out to buy sma gold now. dh is away should be back home lunch time.
how miserable. follow on milk-sounds like you suppose to use it. i must be silliest mum in the world

do they not need that added iron after 6 months though?

You're not silly at all! You can't know these things unless you ask.

think the iron stores only start to run out then auntymandy - by the time they would actually have run out the baby would be on a fairly varied solid diet and getting iron from that.

thanks.

Message withdrawn

what exactly is a follow-on milk? I've had a few people expressing surprise that DS only gets breast milk (he's 14mo)

Follow On Milk is a marketing con

formula producers are not allowed to promote formula .. so by creating brands like follow on milk and milk for hungrier babies they get round the guidelines

put your child back on the milk she was happy with

Highlander,

Follow-on is a "second" stage milk ie. "suitable from 6 months" It claims to have higher iron content as by then babies natural reserves of iron from mother are starting to deplete than regualr formula. However its specific benefits are unproven in babies who are starting to be weaned anyway and the lower iron content of breastmilk is arguably more readily digested. It is actually a cynical marketing tool so that the manufacturers can advertise it (since it is not a direct replacement for breastmilk) and thereby develop brand awareness in new mums.

Highlander, excellent - keep with the breast milk. As mentioned follow-on does have extra iron - more than breastmilk - but their bodies have difficulty in absorning it.

HOWEVER all the iron available in breastmilk is better absorbed (about 40-50%), so no need to supplement. Assuming DS is on a good & varied diet, very doubtful there will be any iron problems. And certainly none that will be helped by follow-on.

diva4mgI, you're not silly at all! You've just been the target of a marketing ploy! Who hasn't been fooled by advertising/marketing at some point or another? When ds1 was a baby, I was fooled by jars of baby food which looked so much better and varied than anything I could make myself. It was only when my GP was horrified that that was all ds1 was getting and pointed out how poor they were in comparison to real food, that I realised that I could do better! (And the jars all taste the same, whatever the ingredients are!)

I only found out about the follow-on milk thing from mumsnet
never thought of giving it to my children because it is cows milk and we have allergy family history.

As far as iron goes, they only put the extra in to worry mothers and make sure they are allowed to advertise it as it's sufficiently "different" from first milk.

Even though I had to bottle feed mine I never used it. I kept them on SMA gold up to a year and then full fat cows milk (they were well and truly weaned by then and I had no worries regarding iron levels)