diabetes
ear infections
bacterial infections
SIDS
breast cancer for mothers and daughters
diarrhea
acute respiratory infections
asthma
eczema
allergies
depression in the mother
physical and psychological effects of mother’s depression on the baby
That’s off the top of my head (well, I looked up the cites, I’m not that good :))
And please let’s leave out anecdotal evidence. I think Dopers know that it’s not indicative of truth. All our parents probably rode around without car seats as kids, and they’re all fine, right? I don’t think that’s an argument for tossing the car seats.
Do you not realize your argument there goes beyond just breastfeeding and endorses a lifestyle? In order to breastfeed for 12 months, you need to be a stay-at-home mom. Can you not see how advocating this as the ‘best way’ and striving to make it the norm demeans all women who at the very least only consider going back to work within a year after giving birth?
Looking through your first few cites I don’t see the actual studies linked, just certain doctors/writers conclusions of those studies. I would imagine an increase in many of these things could just as easily be explained by income disparities, diet and environmental factors - which also could impact the amount to which formula is used.
I’ve been reading this thread, and I want to write some things, but I can’t do that in good conscience. You see, through an odd set of circumstances, I’ve been nominated to the Board of Directors of La Leche League. I’m neither a doctor (well, I am, but not that kind) nor a lactation consultant nor even a mom (I’m not that gender), I’ve been nominated because of my experience in fundraising. I don’t even have any experience working for LLL, other than a bit of unpaid consulting in prospect research, the kind of which I’ve done for many other organizations. So for obvious reasons I don’t want to say much on the record until the nomination process is complete.
But I did want to address this point, which I do have some knowledge of:
I know from conversations that some executives and leaders in La Leche League believe that political lobbying could endanger their non-profit status. While certain kinds of lobbying are not permitted under 501(c)(3) regulations, I believe there are avenues for LLL to work in this regard. If I am selected as a Board member, I will be pressing for it.
I can’t say much else about LLL on the record. I will say, though, that if I was 100% happy with everything that was happening in LLL I wouldn’t have put my name into nomination.
To be fair, you don’t need to be a stay-at-home mom–an unrealistic option for most women, no matter how much they might wish they could be at home with their babies–but you do have to have a supportive employer. Currently, I’d say that most employers are not especially supportive of breastfeeding mothers, though there are some exceptions.
Your cites are not convincing for the following reasons:
Cite 1 - Appears to be a “Breastfeeding Taskforce” flyer. I checked the references, and 90% of them seem to be from social economicists interested in promoting WIC programs
Cite 2 - Doesn’t address the baby’s health or mental impact. Addresses a lower rate of breat cancer in the mothers - while fantastic news, doesn’t address infant development
Cite 3 - See #2 above
Cite 4 - Promotes breastfeeding for prevention of diarrhea. Directed at poor folks who may be unable to mix formula properly, leading to sickness in the baby. Not related to the baby’s health and development. And, the UNICEF publication it was pulled from has no cites whatsoever, so I have no idea what data they have and what it says.
Cite 5 - Promotes breastfeeding as a good choice for parents that have children at “high-risk” for allegeries, particularly milk allergies. Doesn’t really apply to anyone else. Plus, includes this statement that doesn’t help your cause…
Cite 6 - Again, address mother’s post-partum depression, not the baby. Again, great news, but so what? Plus, I have a dim view of this since the author is a member in good standing of the LL and a breastfeeding “taskforce”
Cite 7 - See #6 above
So, I’m really not trying to be a pain in the neck, but I have yet to see any definitive study that says BF is better. I know science is inexact, and they may never be a “definitive study”
That being the case, why are you so convinced? What evidence do you have?
But there’s the rub. People, myself included, cannot just throw out anecdotal evidence that is right in front of them in lieu of a study by a pointy head on the east coast. I have three kids that look at me every day who were breast fed at most for six weeks. They are the epitome of healthy, happy kids.
My sister in law breast fed both of her kids for at least a year or more. Both kids have terrible food allergies, breathing problems and general health issues. How exactly am I supposed to look at the stark contrast between the two and in good faith, accept that we were somehow wrong in feeding our kids what we did when we did?
To be even more fair teaching is a female dominated profession. And I’m pretty sure it’s not the only profession where this is the case: changing the schedule of one person impacts the schedule of every other teacher and student in the building. It’s not as simple is “the employer supporting mothers by giving them 15-30 minute breaks every 2-4 hours”.
No, it’s not and I didn’t mean to imply that it was. But if we as a society are going to treat breastfeeding as a public health issue rather than a lifestyle choice, employers are going to have to find a way to accommodate nursing mothers. Again, the onus can’t be solely on the individual if we truly want to increase breastfeeding.
I didn’t say you were wrong for feeding them the way you did. You are wrong for thinking that anecdotal evidence has much worth. Lots of people smoke all their lives and never get lung cancer; some people never smoke, and do get it - is this evidence that smoking doesn’t increase the risk of lung cancer?
As for the studies, I do apologize - afaik you can’t access medical journals like Lancet & Journal of Human Lactation online, at least not for free. I did a quick search and tried to link articles with references to such journals.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the CDC and the WHO all state that breastfeeding is superior to formula.
That’s messed up. Where were this woman’s healthcare providers? Mastitis for two months and blood in breastmilk is VERY abnormal and needed to be treated professionally.
It’s the blurring of the lines between groups two and three that’s the main impetus for much of the “boob nazi” behavior. There has been a generation or two of women in the US who were not educated on how to prepare for breastfeeding. Whose mothers didn’t breastfeed, and who have very little support for their own efforts. For decades the medical community didn’t consider it important for doctors to know much about breastfeeding because it was the norm and they weren’t responsible for teaching women about it. Their mothers would handle that. Except for a couple generations now, their mothers haven’t. It’s still very prevalent for women to receive little to no counseling during pregnancy about how to evaluate and prepare for breastfeeding. Biologically the third group(mothers or children with physiological difficulties which truly bar breastfeeding) is extremely small. Many with misconceptions or lack of proper preparation believe themselves to be in this group. A woman with a mild case of flat or inverted nipples may have difficulty getting a child to latch on. Given the current state of American society and breastfeeding education/preparation odds are this condition will go undetected and she will have difficulty breastfeeding. The formula industry has been very good at getting their products in front of new mothers and marketing them as “just as good” as breastfeeding. This alternative looks pretty good when you’re sitting up at 2AM just recovering from delivery, your baby is crying from hunger, and you can’t make your own breasts work.
In an ideal world a breast exam during pregnancy could detect this condition and wearing breast shields for a couple weeks towards the end of the pregnancy would correct it. Problems latching on would never have occurred. Ten minutes worth of breast exam, fifteen minutes of counseling, five dollars for the breast shields. 2 AM feedings become a relaxing and bonding experience instead of a frustrating and painful one.
Biologically group one is the norm. Most women can breastfeed without problems. Ideally, group two should consist of only those who have made an informed decision to bottle feed. In a world with breast exams, counseling before birth, and a good support system including family, friends, groups like LLL, and medical professionals, group three would be extremely small.
I generally agree with this, but there’s a couple of twists. A lot of LLL members are angry women who received little to no counseling/help when they were trying to breastfeed and had difficulties. They joined the LLL as a result of what they consider their failure as a woman/mother and discovered the problem is largely societal and within the medical profession. A profession which didn’t take breastfeeding issues seriously for decades. They feel betrayed and mislead, and not entirely without cause. Had it not been for the societal breakdown in the passing on of tribal knowledge regarding breastfeeding(largely championed by for-profit formula companies), and the neglect of this aspect of healthcare by the medical community, someone who should have been in group one ended up in group two. The more they investigate the matter, the worse they feel about what happened, because they want the best for their children. They all join the group, learn about how various social and economic factors made their attempt to breastfeed more difficult, and they get energized to slay that dragon. This is the typical “boob nazi.” They’ve found something big and significant and want to share it as forcefully and as widely as they can.
The professional side of LLL, and other breastfeeding advocacy groups, is mostly concerned with pushing the medical field to handle breastfeeding issues better and convincing lawmakers to support breastfeeding. They are heavily opposed by the formula industry and you don’t see much out of them except publications like The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding and resource websites. They would love to make inroads like the formula makers have and get their pamphlets distributed by OB/GYNs when a mother-to-be makes her appointments, but they’re not there yet. Beyond that they support the local groups with training and resources. They’re really very professional and don’t get in anyone’s face about their personal decisions. The big picture is more important.
Wow, I think your view of this is rather paranoid. My wife combo breastfed and gave the baby formula, simply to give her nipples time to heal so she wouldn’t be in excrutiating pain. Maybe I just live in a benighted world of benevolent open-mindedness, but I never encountered the opposition that you propose. If I had I probably would have just looked at them cross-eyed and moved along.
I’m quite willing to believe that breast-feeding is superior to formula, all else being equal and on average (indeed I would have saved myself a lot of trouble if I thought otherwise). The issue really is how much better.
If the decision was essentially costless it would be a no-brainer - go with breastfeeding.
But it isn’t, it has lots of costs for some people. So on a cost/benefit analysis, how much should one give up to pursue breast feeding?
My issue is that I get the impression that the benefits of breastfeeding (or if you like the disadvantages of formula) have been wildly overblown by some activists, leading to some to greatly exaggerate the costs they think the average person ought to bear to pursue one strategy over another.
Others take a sort of absolutist POV - namely, that if there are any advantages you should pursue it - which I think is not correct; there may be disadvantages which outweigh those advantages. Parents who are stressed and unhappy for one - their stress and unhappiness may cause more adverse issues for the child than formula.
My observational experience of new mothers breastfeeding is that they have to be either staying at home, or *seriously committed *to breastfeeding. It seems to be a huge chore to pump breast milk while away from the child, especially in workplaces where the only “private” room one may have to do so is the bathroom. Sure a nice white-collar job might have a pleasant room or a private office for one to do so, but most people live in a very different world.
Something no one ever seems to say in these discussions, but I’ve heard from every friend of mine who has had a child is this: “Sometimes you just want your body back.” Formula affords a level of freedom to child care that is valuable to a lot of women and their mental health.
I think the benefits that exclusive breastfeeding are valid, but I don’t think they are so great that they need to be as sacrosanct as they are to some people.
Okay, great. Now where does it say that bottle-feeding is actually **harmful **to a baby’s development? Being “superior” does not automatically mean than the inferior item is not good, just not as good.
I agree that if you feel it is a public health issue, then you should demonstrate that our children are being irrevocably harmed by bottle feeding. Until then, it is a lifestyle choice.
You also probably want to let us know what LLC has to say about women who breastfeed, and have lousy diets, smoke, drink, have transmittable diseases, etc., who are actually hurting the baby by breatsfeeding. This is a tricky choice for most families, and just drawing a line between good and bad doesn’t even address one-hundreth of the issues surrounding breast feeding.
Sorry I used the word Paranoid. That was inappropriate. Ultimately though, you simply do not need to go with the Nazis. Let them languish in obscurity, you know like radical leftists.
I don’t quite understand what you’re looking for here. You asked, “What’s wrong with formula,” and I have provided some examples of how formula is inferior. As for irrevocable harm, I don’t necessarily think that’s the standard for making something a public health issue, but for what it’s worth, being dead (SIDS) is pretty harmful and irrevocable.
Having a typically lousy American diet does not impede breastfeeding; smoking makes it even more important to breastfeed - it helps protect the baby from any ill effects of second hand smoke. (However, smokers should never share a bedroom with a baby.) Drinking and breastfeeding are compatible as long as you use some common sense. If you are fit to drive, you’re fit to nurse. Very few diseases are transmitted through breastmilk, but yeah, if you have AIDS or something like that, formula is probably the way to go.
I totally agree. I believe it is every mothers right and responsibility to decide how to feed her child. If I were bipolar and needed lithium (one of the few drugs incompatible with nursing), I would take my medicine, giving my baby a sane and safe mama, and use formula. If I had to work in a place that doesn’t accommodate pumping, and I needed the income, I’d use formula while I was away, so that I could keep a roof over my baby’s head. If nursing had become such torture that it was making it hard to love and care for my baby, switching to formula might mean the best total outcome.
But what I don’t get is how, as a breastfeeding advocate, suddenly I’m responsible for these types of risk-benefit analyses. These are individual choices, and can’t be made on a broad basis. On a broad basis we can make sure that people know what the true facts are about breastfeeding and its benefits, and about how to overcome difficulties. Once people have that information, only they can assess their individual situations and make the call.
I guess it’s because you’re not simply giving out information, you’re actively promoting a hugh lifestyle choice that involves what is the most important thing to happen to most people. You can’t simply preach about it - you have to have the facts. Not necessarily to debate it on the SDMB, but when a new mom needs some counseling. If they have questions, do you answer them with hard evidence, or with platitudes and half-truths?
I’d still like to see that SIDS study. This is a continuing sore spot with me, and in numerous other debates I’ve had on this topic, not one person has ever been able to produce it or direct me to a source for it. I’d like yo see the scientific argument behind it.
Would this help? The consensus of the US Public Health Service, Office of Women’s Health, published their HHS Blueprint for Action on Breastfeeding(PDF) in 2000 with a goal of getting 75% of women to breastfeed in the immediate post-delivery timeframe and to have 50% breastfeed for 5-6 months after birth, and 25% continue until at least one year. The blueprint was the work of over thirty public health professionals, representing international policymakers, the CDC, and numerous other health offices. The blueprint cites 175 scientific publications on the topic of breastfeeding and early childhood development. Most of it is not presented very succinct forms(although the blueprint itself isn’t very long, probably 12 pages or so) but here is a table of documented benefits of breastfeeding over formula feeding.
The numbers in parenthesis are references to the studies cited at the end of the blueprint.
Very little is said about negative effects of formula feeding. The only reference to formula feeding is a notice that additional regulation should be crafted or existing regulation enforced to keep formula makers from pushing their products in preference to breastfeeding. Simple logic would allow the inversion of the above list of benefits of breastfeeding into negatives of formula feeding. Other benefits of breastfeeding, which could be logically translated into negatives of formula feeding, are delineated in the text of the document.
So, if one wants to present breastfeeding versus formula feeding as a public health issue, it seems they’re in good company. The national public health service, and numerous state, local, and international health services view it this way as well.