Another weird ad-ism - "Not intended to replace breastfeeding"

[NomDePlume]

Eh ?

Surely it is ? Surely it is to be used instead of breastmilk ?

I know they are not allowed to diss BF and whatnot, but I genuinely don't 'get' this phrase. Can anyone explain to me how they are allowed to use it ?

BTW - This is not intended to stir up a BF/FF debate AT ALL, it is more about the weirdy ad language that seems to completely contradict the actual function of the product.

For the record, I breastfed for 10 weeks and formula fed thereafter, so am not on either side of the debate

Its NOT intended to REPLACE breastfeeding... its a "back up" (i know that sounds bad, I cant think how else to phrase it) if you cant BF. It cant REPLACE it, because... well , you all know why.

Please, im not very good with words, so dont stone me

If I were cynical (and of course I'm not!), I'd say it's a sop to the advertising watchdogs or DoH, or whoever it is who is supposed to be keeping an eye on the occasionally nefarious practices of the formula companies' marketing strategies.

Indeed, corrie. I'd agree wholeheartedly there, but it just seems so glaringly contradictory.

Sounds good though, doesn't it? Very worthy and wholesome.

I think the "not intended to replace" wording is only for the follow on milks (i.e. 6 months plus). The wording is so that mums don't feed those milks to younger babies as their first milk. The first milks are of course intended to replace breastfeeding and I think they say so in some way on the packet - afraid I'm too lazy to get up and check

Oh all right I'l check - Aptamil First says "it is intended to replace breastmilk when mothers do not breastfeed"

that is interesting, WeaselMum

It's a get-out clause. It is on follow on milks, and allows them to claim they are not 'breastmilk substitutes' - in some countries (including this one) breastmilk substitutes are not allowed to be advertised direct to mothers.

It's marketing, not nutrition.

This is what I don't get. I understand the meaning of the statement "Not intended to replace breastfeeding", I also understand the function of infant formula and the motivation of the marketing the product. But I'm not entirely sure how they can get away with stamping all over products whose function contradicts the statement.

Maybe Quootie's point on the semantics of it all are right. Maybe they have just been clever and sneaky with the wording so that it gets past the regulatory bodies

It's strange isn't it - why are they able to market formula directly to mothers as long as it's for 6 months plus? Formula is still a breastmilk substitute at that age! Perhaps the govt should be braver about this and ban the advertising of formula altogether...there's no need for advertising at all since all the formulas appear to be basically the same. Is there any country where no advertising of infant formula at all is allowed?