Without looking it up, do you know what SMA stands for?

[hunkermunker]

I was a bit surprised - surprised I didn't know until I read it this week, that is! I thought I did.

[Stinkermink]

Also it does bug me when people refer to Aptimil as milk in the same way that people refer to vacuum cleaners as "hoovers" iykwim. It's a very covert marketing scheme and has cemented the idea that it's a premium brand.
And it is a lot more expensive than other formulas and definately marketed to the middle classes....such as myself. I did BF my children, but I also gave them SMA and my reasoning was:

• that was the milk brand I had heard of and I knew that my mother gave it to my sister and I.
• And I tasted 3 different ones and that one tasted the best to me!

[Stinkermink]

I live overseas (Cyprus) and SMA is called "S-26 Gold" I can't remember the follow on version, never used it, but it does sound more scientific than substitutional and perhaps is just honest about what it is. I.E. this brand is made by a pharmaceutical company, it's not breast milk, it's powdered milk.

There is no advertising of any formula here (follow on or not) as far as I am aware and a limited selection, not to mention quantity available in supermarkets. That said I understand that breast feeding is not that popular here.

[pigletmania]

I always thought that follow on milk is absolutely pointless, if you need to use formula you use it for the first year than cows milk after that. All that marketing and money in the pockets of the formula companies. I have seen the SMA advert (i think) showing a baby with a massive bottle of cows milk that they would not be able to drink saying this is how much iron that your baby needs in a day, but if your toddler drinks their follow on milk they will the right amout of iron that they need.

That is it with this growing up milk, is it the same as follow on milk, its suitable for up to 3 years, be dammed if im paying extra money for this rubbish when cows milk is just as good.

[StealthPolarBear]

Thanks TA, that makes sense

[MillBill]

Not intending to go off the subject, but you can't use healthy start tokens on follow-on milk, I don't think. That must mean something. Ie that follow-on milk is pointless?

[NoHotAshes]

some formula brands to "toddler milk" as well don't they? Though I'm not sure why anyone would buy that rather than using cow's milk or breastfeeding.

[hunkermunker]

DEMissSmiling, it's perfectly fine to use infant formula until one. Follow-on was only invented so they could advertise the brand, after all.

[DEMissmiling]

? was under the impression that the follow on milk was from 1yo -2 yo. Am i completely delusional?

I thought you needed to use proper formular until they were nearly 1.

Clearly delusional

[hunkermunker]

About the "not intended as a breastmilk substitute" thing for follow-on - this infuriates me.

Babies up to the age of one, we are told, need breastmilk or formula.

So from six months, if they're having follow-on formula, surely it's a breastmilk substitute?!

And the advert for Aptamil says, specifically, "If you decide to move on from breastfeeding..." - the very clear implication being that you're not bfing any more, so use their follow-on formula. Which makes it a substitute, no? Grr!

[TrillianAstra]

I don't know, why?

Oh, just looked at what I wrote.

Someone was objecting to formula being 'baby milk', as if breastmilk was not baby milk.

I meant that of the two kinds of milk you can buy (formula and cow) formula is milk for babies, cow is not. Because you do buy formula. You don't buy breastmilk.

[StealthPolarBear]

Before I got involved in pregnancy / motherhood I assumed it was somehow related to the instant mashed potato brand!
Trillian - do US mothers get formula free?

[KSal]

erm... better... not batter!!

[KSal]

tiktok - is there really so little difference between them all?

the point i was trying to make about Aptamil branding is that although they are all breastmilk subsitute at that stage, Aptamil is the one that says it in big letters on the box. They have specifically targetted themselves at mums like me who want to be made to feel batter that they are not breastfeeding.

I guess I accepted a long time ago that businesses are out there to make money... and yes that does mean regarding success as "managing to convince midwives, HVs and mothers that there is anything special or even very different about" their product.

[TotalChaos]

despite feeding DS on it for several months, it never one occurred to me to look up what it stood for . Suppose at least the full name is accurate, better than Cow and Gate etc...

[MrsBadger]

fascinating re middle-class mums and Aptimil

similar niche for Hipp Organic (because it's organic, innit)

for the one day when a freezer failure meant dd couldn;t have ebm I asked for Hipp merely because it doesn't smell of fish [bleurgh]

[KingRolo]

X post!

[KingRolo]

They aren't actually allowed to advertise formula for babies under 6 months, that's why they invented 'follow-on' milk for babies over 6 months old which is virtually the same as the other stuff - allows them to advertise on TV and get their brand out there.

[jimbobsmummy]

Oh and all first stage ones are breastmilk substitutes, that is what they are designed to be.

The follow on milks are sold as 'not to replace breastfeeding' - which they aren't designed to - now that is very clever marketing. Mainly because it gets them round the ban on advertising the standard milks and allows brand promotion they couldn't otherwise do.

Its just business really.

[tiktok]

KSal : "isn't the whole point of 'brands' to differentiate yourself from the crowd of other products on the market."....er, yes, isn't that what we are saying?

In the case of formula, the market has to be segmented in purely marketing terms, as the actual differences between the products are very small. At the same time, the underlying would-be selling point of them all is 'closeness to breastmilk'. They all try to sell themselves on that basis and then need something else to forge a relationship with the potential buyer...hence the different logos, package colours, places where they advertise and so on.

Aptamil has been a success (if you regard 'success' as managing to convince midwives, HVs and mothers that there is anything special or even very different about it) and has forged an indentity against many more established brands.

[jimbobsmummy]

The advertising principles apply exactly the same to formula as to anything else though, because whether we like it or not, in reality it is just a product like any other.

It is a bit different because you may have no choice but to buy it, and there are of course different emotional reactions to formula rather than say E45.

But both are about brand awareness, so if you need a product you buy that particular one rather than another. So SMA rather than Aptamil, where in fact there is really no difference between them. Or E45 rather than a cheaper generic tub of aqueous cream, for example.

[KSal]

maybe I'm too much of a capitalist for this thread, but isn't the whole point of 'brands' to differentiate yourself from the crowd of other products on the market.

Aptamil is pretty clever marketing in my opinion. Even if you ignore the immunofortis stuff, it sells itself as a breastmilk substitute (which thay all are, frankly)... although if my daughters nappies were anything to go by it must be a fairly good approximation - i didn't notice any difference when i changed over from BF to Aptamil.

[KingRolo]

jimbobsmummy - the difference is that infant formula is a baby's sole source of nutrition for the first 6 months if not breastfed. It's not the same as shampoo or washing powder - things you arguably don't acually need.

E45, WD40 and TCP etc aren't food products are they so they are a little different.

I believe there should just be one generic type of formula available to avoid the mega-corporations making vast amounts of money out of what is an absolute necessity for babies whose mothers can't breastfeed or don't want to.

[jimbobsmummy]

All brand names are designed to advertise and create an 'image' and there is no reason why baby milk/formula should be any different really. I don't have a problem with that really.

Lots of brand names we easily recognise stand for things that we wouldn't find terribly appealing.

E45? WD40? TCP? Names we all know but do you know what any of them stand for? I do, but they wouldn't particularly encourage you to buy the product. What about the origins of the name Coca-cola?

In many ways SMA is better than others, at least it says what it is. Better that than Aptamil (a made up pseudoscientific name that sounds like 'apt milk') or Cow and Gate (just made up and absolutely meaningless!)

[TrillianAstra]

Oh, I thought you were surprised because it was something really 'hey, this stuff is so great' that they wouldn't be allowed to say nowadays, whereas in fact it's the opposite.

I think in the US they call it 'baby milk' to distinguish from the other kind of milk that you buy (cow's milk), which is not suitable for babies. Not to suggest that human milk is not for babies.

[TrillianAstra]

Guessing without looking - something like "Smart Mothers' Alternative'.