Ok this is the reply I got back about why we focus more on the risks of FFing over the Benifits of BFing.

what we are trying to emphasise to mums and in fact the whole community is that there are no benefits to breastfeeding your baby. To say that there are benefits implies something above what you would normally expect. Breastfeeding has no benefits, it enables babies to develop normally. They get lots of mouth and jaw exercise for the development of their mouth and facial muscles. They practise looking and relating to their mother at the distance where their eyes focus. They learn security and trust. Mums' bodies return to their normal state (not faster, just at a normal rate - not breastfeeding means that your body will be slower than normal to return to its pre-pregnant state)

So the emphasis isn't so much on the risks of formula feeding, but the importance of breastfeeding. Although it should be pointed out that artificial milks are processed foods not whole foods and as such are not the normal choice for an infant's diet. As with any deviation from normal, there will be side effects from its use. It doesn't have lots of the ingredients that allow for baby's development, so all babies will be affected if they are having only formula milk. The more breastmilk they get, the more chance they have of being less affected by having missed out on some of their breastmilk.

For some babies, formula milks won't seem to have had any obvious effect on their development. The children might be bright, active, slim, healthy children, but they have still missed out on a normal part of their development. Their mouth shape may be different from having feeds in a bottle, they may have food sensitivities that are more of an annoyance than anything, but may not even have happened if they had been breastfed. Some children who have been formula fed from birth will have obvious side effects, auto-immune problems, allergies that may have been either avoided or lessened had they been breastfed.

Some breastfed babies will also have medical problems, they may be sensitive to what their mother eats or drinks, they may have reflux, allergies or other problems. This may have been influenced by circumstances before or after birth, or by genetics. Breastmilk is not a miracle drug, it is simply what human babies are meant to be fed once they are born. For parents who need to decide whether to feed their babies formula as well as or instead of breastmilk, they need to know the potential risks, just as with any other medicine or intervention. It is not ethical, now that there is so much research that reinforces the fact that babies who have artificial milks have more health problems than babies who are breastfed, to treat it as an equal choice or a simple food item.

These days, all the health authorities tell us that for our health, we should eat whole foods in preference to processed foods; grains, fruit, nuts and meat in preference to bread, cake, juices and cordials. Unfortunately there seems to be a cultural blindfold when it comes to infant formula - because it looks like 'milk' it must be the same. Unfortunately, just as processed fish flavoured and shaped cutlets are not 'fish' nor is processed, modified cows' milk the same as human milk.
I know alot of that has already been said in previous posts But I am just the messenger on this one & didn't want to cut out any of the explination I was given.

This is another reply I also got from another counsellor, But covers more why ABA refer to formula as Artifical Baby Milk. Again I am just passing this on.

As an Association we now refer to breastfeeding as the biological
norm, ie there are no advantages to being breastfed rather there are
risks associated with not being breastfed.
The preferred term for use in the Association when a mother is not
breastfeeding (or bottle-feeding expressed breastmilk) is that she is
artificially feeding or using artificial baby milk. These terms are
in keeping with: La Leche League International, who write artificial
baby milk (formula); UNICEF UK Baby Friendly Initiative, who write
artificially-fed; and many health professionals (particularly those
who deal with mothers/infants such as midwives and child health
nurses) who also write artificially-fed, but most importantly it is a
reflection of the biological norm.
This is a sensitive subject, which is why it is a 'preferred term'.
When counselling individual mothers the term 'infant formula' may be
more appropriate. However, over time as we all change our terminology
to reflect the biological norm, these occasions will become the
exception rather than the rule.
Formula is a positive word in our language today, eg formula for
success. Formula is also scientific and therefore important or good
in many eyes. When we have a substitute on a playing field we take
off one player and replace with another player of equal value and the
game continues. Artificial baby milk is not a breastmilk substitute.
It is a greatly inferior product. Breastfeeding is not special.
Special indicates something extra or harder work, not everyday or
normal. Breastfeeding is everyday and needs to be incorporated into
the everyday rather than seen as an extra.

I hope I haven't gone to far off topic & that it helps make it clearer why ABA presents it that way. Now even I understand it a bit better.