Follow-on formula can apparently be advertised because it's not a breastmilk substitute

[hunkermunker]

It is though, surely?

It's advertised as being for babies of 6 months plus. Babies of this age aren't having cows' milk - so it's a substitute for breastmilk, no? Or is it an infant formula substitute?!

Isn't it more of an enhanced milk like all those wierdy digestive yoghurt thingys? Icertainly used it a lot for camping trips when DS was younger because you don't ned to keep the little cartons in a fridge.

hmmm...

For babies over one it's unnecessary, although handy for camping trips and the like, I guess. And for babies under one, it's a breastmilk substitute.

i guess they would argue that bm is not the only other food they are having/needing after 6m... but i agree. v sketchy ground.

saw an ad the other night on prime time telly, supposedly for follow on. dunno which brand... but it had loads of shots of new and little babies on there... and was all about 'new' parents... and managed to emphasise that blokes can feed too (bloke standing in dark kitchen at night waiting for kettle) if you ff. which was v sneaky and shitty i thought.

Yep, that ad's caused a lot of debate. The ASA has ruled it OK - mental decision.