Bulk Buy SMA baby mik?

lidlest

DON79 wrote: »

I know it is available everywhere - that is not the issue. The issue is that for those mothers who CANNOT breastfeed (not everyone can!) are being punished for it almost by having to pay ridiculously expensive prices for baby milk. I am sure it does not cost as much as £9 per tin to produce the baby milk and therefore the companies which make it, are making a great profit at the expense of others who have no choice but to buy their product.

Punished??? a £9 tin of formula is lasting me at least a week at the moment - granted my son is only 5 weeks old. But that is the equivalent of £1.28 a day to feed my baby. That's not exactly excessive particularly when you think of what the munchkin will cost in the future, my eldest son costs me over a £1 in apples everyday lol

It's our choice to have children even if it's not our choice to be unable to breastfeed

Nicki

DON79 wrote: »

that may be true but by the time your child is drinking cow's milk, it is not their sole form of nourishment therefore 4 pints of cow's milk will last longer for a toddler than a tin of formula for a baby.

But that is a different argument.

You said that baby milk manufacturers artificially inflate their prices to exploit a captive market. It has now been pointed out to you that baby milk is in fact cheaper than straight cows milk on which it is based.

What is your evidence that baby milk manufacturers have a higher profit margin than the manufacturers of any other food stuff?

Why should milk be subsidized for babies when other essentials such as nappies, clothing, etc is not?

The price of baby milk did not ratchet up between you getting pregnant and giving birth. It ought therefore to be one of the essentials you budgeted for, and in any case is more than covered by child benefit.

Just because a woman is unable or unwilling to breastfeed does not mean she is being striped to pay for baby milk. I happily breastfed my first two, and my youngest was unable to breastfeed for health reasons (his not mine). So i've been on both sides of the divide and have never begrudged my children the price of a bottle of milk.

tronski

DON79 wrote: »

that may be true but by the time your child is drinking cow's milk, it is not their sole form of nourishment therefore 4 pints of cow's milk will last longer for a toddler than a tin of formula for a baby.

But by the time they are drinking cows milk, they are also eating food. Costs a lot more then!

Ravenlady_2

tronski wrote: »

But by the time they are drinking cows milk, they are also eating food. Costs a lot more then!

I wish my kids still cost me £9 a week each.

peachyprice

Nicki wrote: »

Why should milk be subsidized for babies when other essentials such as nappies, clothing, etc is not?

Whils I do agree with most of your points, I don't think you can make a comparison between baby milk and nappies or clothes.

If you cannot BF you HAVE to feed formula, no if's no but's, but you don't have to buy nappies and you don't have to buy clothes, if necessary you can stick anything on a baby to catch the poo and pee and you can wrap anything around it to keep it warm.

onlyroz

You will be receiving around £80 a month in child benefit. This should be PLENTY to cover nappies, clothing, formula etc - and you'd be quids in if you chose to breastfeed and use washable nappies. Regardless of the breast vs. bottle debate, I really don't get the people who moan about the price of formula.

Nicki

peachyprice wrote: »

If you cannot BF you HAVE to feed formula, no if's no but's, but you don't have to buy nappies and you don't have to buy clothes, if necessary you can stick anything on a baby to catch the poo and pee and you can wrap anything around it to keep it warm.

That's true but maybe then, using your argument, it should be available on prescription but only for mothers who can't breastfeed for medical reasons (either theirs or babies)? Mothers who would prefer not to, or who decide go give up because it is difficult in the first few weeks, can buy it from their child benefit at the normal price.

I am fairly unsympathetic to complaints from FFers that milk is too expensive I am afraid, because in many cases it is just a way at taking another pop at breastfeeders. Rather than accepting that mik costs what it costs (ie is in line wih other food stuffs) some mothers like to portray themselves as victimized by the government/food manufacturers for their choice not to breast feed. The tax payer already pays most parents a subsidy to feed and clothe their children. Why should they pay an extra subsidy to a proportion of parents who want to formula feed? Would that not then victimise and discriminated against breastfeeders?

DON79

Nicki wrote: »

But that is a different argument.

You said that baby milk manufacturers artificially inflate their prices to exploit a captive market. It has now been pointed out to you that baby milk is in fact cheaper than straight cows milk on which it is based. - being "pointed out" is not proof...

What is your evidence that baby milk manufacturers have a higher profit margin than the manufacturers of any other food stuff? I never said that they did.

Why should milk be subsidized for babies when other essentials such as nappies, clothing, etc is not? Because health issues and medical complications can prevent you from breastfeeding, but there is no medical reason or health implication that would prevent you changing a nappy

The price of baby milk did not ratchet up between you getting pregnant and giving birth. It ought therefore to be one of the essentials you budgeted for, and in any case is more than covered by child benefit. I really disagree as since my little girl went through the stages of the formula milk (she is one year old now) the price has shot up by over £1.50 per tin

Just because a woman is unable or unwilling to breastfeed does not mean she is being striped to pay for baby milk. I happily breastfed my first two, and my youngest was unable to breastfeed for health reasons (his not mine). So i've been on both sides of the divide and have never begrudged my children the price of a bottle of milk.

Again I never said I begrudged it, I simply object to the fact that prices for formula have reached IMO ridiculous levels. It is the same with petrol and no one gets criticised for complaining about the high cost of fuel and it is much less essential than baby formula.

DON79

tronski wrote: »

But by the time they are drinking cows milk, they are also eating food. Costs a lot more then!

My little girl has just turned one and it has not changed my shopping budget as she now eats what the family eats and I spend maybe £1.10 extra on cow's milk per week as opposed to £9 for a tin of formula per week. so I disagree.

basscadette

God I am dreading the teenage years, me and my bro ate my poor mum and dad out of house and home. Must have cost a fortune to keep us fed lol. I'm having a baby boy next month and will probably FFeed. It is a shame that it can't be on offer unlike later formulas as it comes across more as social engineering than anything else. I don;t think the price in itself is the problem as really, it's not that steep - cost of a take-away a week if that. It's the fact that it is FORBIDDEN to sell it two for one or 33% off in the baby event that seems unfair.