Formula is one of the most unethically produced and marketed substances in the world. These compulsory messages are a somewhat feeble attempt to counter that, because governments won’t do what would actually make a difference, which is to properly regulate the market and the manufacturers. To do so would be better for everyone - babies and FF mums included, because it would bring prices down - but Nestle, Danone etc are so incredibly big and powerful they’re basically untouchable.
Strip it back to basics. Formula is powdered cows’ milk, with added vegetable oil and vitamins. That’s basically it. There is no need whatsoever for it to cost £12 a tin or whatever ridiculous price is set for it these days. The fact it’s so expensive is to pay for the marketing campaigns, adverts (do Cow and Gate still give away “free” cuddly cows?) and in fact to give mums false reassurance that their product is “better” because it’s more expensive. In reality, the core ingredients of formula are set in law and the extras which the likes of Aptamil include to promote the idea that their milk is better are just window-dressing. There is basically no nutritional difference between Aldi own-brand formula and the most expensive tub of Aptamil, but the manufacturers are very good at manipulating mothers (who may already be feeling guilty, so are an easy market) to buy their expensive products.
They have whole marketing strategies for this. Aptamil is targeted at women who wanted to bf and couldn’t. They know these women didn’t want to FF, so they make the packaging scientific, they claim lots of extra ingredients are included which makes the milk better (not true - it would be totally unethical for one milk to be more like bm than another, so any ingredient that is really essential must be included in all milks by law) and they stick a big price tag on. On the other hand, Cow and Gate has cutesy packaging and a lower price-point. Its target market are Mums who have probably chosen to FF, who are confident in their choice and whose own mums probably used C&G as it’s a heritage brand so they seek out the same. There is actually no difference between the core ingredients of the two milks.
All of this marketing costs money, and none of it is about promoting babies’ health. Formula should be regarded as any other food product, scrutinised accordingly, but the manufacturers have done a good job of basically presenting themselves as charities who exist to provide an essential public service and are therefore immune from criticism. If this were really the case, they would reduce their packaging costs and they wouldn’t invent things like “follow-on” milk - there’s no need for this, but because it is intended for babies over 6m, they are allowed to advertise it, which is the sole reason it’s produced. Even then, you’ll notice the babies they use are as young-looking as possible and the shots of mum breastfeeding often show her alone, at home and in washed-out lighting. When she “decides to move on”, she’s often shown in bright light, in company, out and about. There’s an obvious undermining of bf right there.
Before TV ads, they undermined bf in other ways. In the 50s and 60s, manufacturers donated huge sums of money to build lovely new maternity wards in hospitals in America. By coincidence, the design of these wards meant that they all had separate nurseries for the babies. They were kept there, and brought to Mum every few hours for a feed. Ostensibly this was to make sure Mum “rested” - but in reality the manufacturers knew full-well that the best way to sabotage bf from the start was to ensure Mum and baby were separated and Mum was encouraged to feed on a schedule rather than on demand. This was combined with free samples of formula handed out on the wards to the mothers. It’s no wonder that the majority of babies in the USA began to be FF at this point.
This is not about whether it’s right or wrong to feed babies formula. It’s 100% about recognising manufacturers for what they are - they’re not saints trying to support mothers, they are huge multinationals who make billions of pounds/dollars of profit from formula. It is in their interests for every baby to be FF from birth, so they do what they can to achieve that. And they know once they’ve got you, you’ll probably stick with their brand for the whole time your baby is FF, so they work to persuade you that you mustn’t switch milk either. Again, this isn’t actually particularly good for babies. But once you look at the manufacturers critically, you see all kinds of unethical practice.