While "Harm" is Subjective, Formula-Feeding Risks are Real
The risks associated with formula-feeding as compared to breastfeeding are well-documented and diverse. Formula-fed infants are at greater risk for digestive disorders (diarrhea, gastroenteritis, necrotizing enterocolitis), respiratory infections, meningitis, otitis media, some forms of childhood lymphomas, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), etc. Breastfeeding appears to offer long-term protection against obesity, cholesterol issues, and, because it is such a “brain food,” breastfeeding encourages proper brain development. The mechanics of bottle-feeding versus breastfeeding negatively affect proper mouth and jaw development, leading to a greater risk of obstructive sleep apnea.
Just one bottle of formula causes changes in the natural gut flora, creating an environment more favorable for pathogens to take hold. If that one bottle provides a newborn’s first feeding, it can interfere with one of the important responsibilities of colostrum (the concentrated first milk a new mother produces). Colostrum contains a high concentration of secretory immunoglobulin A (sIgA) that helps coat the lining of a newborn’s immature digestive system to help seal it from invading pathogens. This sIgA, produced by the mother, is specific for diseases that either the mother or her infant has come in contact with, so it acts as a targeted attack for pathogens in the newborn’s environment. Formula has none of this substance—or any of the living cells that help protect the infant while his or her immune system matures.
Not every study has clear-cut, definitive results. Controlling all the variables needed for a long-term study comparing formula-feeding and breastfeeding is nearly impossible. Better studies carefully define breastfeeding, distinguishing between the baby who was breastfed once from those who were “mostly” breastfed and those who were exclusively breastfed. It is reasonable to expect that the effects of infant feeding would be dose-dependent, and the better-designed studies confirm this.
Of course, not every formula-fed infant is going to be ill, and not every breastfed infant is going to enjoy lifelong health. The risks are undeniably against the formula-fed infant, however. Veering off of the biologically expected norm assumes a risk.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
There are risks associated with everything... but they are not harmful, they are just risks. In fact, there is not risk, just a increased chance that something will happen. Even as such, these so-called risks barely exist.
Children in poor families are at greater risk for all sorts of things, is it then harmful for children to be poor?
My goodness....Okay so understanding that smoking can be harmful (sure many smokers live to ripe old age), its okay to smoke? The research on smoking would seem to not apply to the smoker who manages to live that long! But knowing what we know why would we just sit there and not present these risks to an unknowing pregnant mom? Just like she should know the possible dangers of smoking, including 2nd snd even 3rd hand smoke, she should know the risks of formula feeding...Then of course make the decision herself.
Of course it may be harmful for children to be raised in a "poor" environment for obvious reasons like food security, but the children (infants) don't have any control over that now do they? Nor do the infants of moms who CHOOSE not to breastfeed.
Thanks for saying moms who CHOOSE. I always feel guilty for not breastfeeding , but I didn't have the choice. My son was born very ill because of a virus I didn't know I contracted during the last couple of weeks of gestation. He was never able to nurse and is still at 9 months on a feeding tube. I pumped, but since he was in the NICU his breastmilk was fortified with formula for added calories . All of these debates and arguments make me cringe because those that breastfeed tend to have a superiority complex. (not all, but some) They never seem to take into account those who are unable, or never given the chance to breastfeed. At this point I understand that any food that is processed has its risks, but what is the alternative to formula and breastmilk? If you cannot breastfeed, you should formula feed.
You're at "risk" of committing suicide. Did you know that? "Risk" is just a likelihood. How likely is it that you'll commit suicide given that you're at risk for it? Your "risk" doesn't make a bit of difference. "At risk" is much bandyhooed and is of very little substance. "AT RISK" youths. "AT RISK" babies. You have a 50% likelihood of dieing everyday. What are you doing to reduce your "risk" of leaving your home?
One can only hope.....
There's too little research and everything you've said? It's been anecdotal. I know this one baby... This other baby had such and such.... and that mother was smoking! Let me just mention that for no reason at all!.... What about THIS baby? Three formulas!
No one denies breast is best, lady.... But formula is no more harmful than penicillin can be "harmful."
"I KNOW because I'm a WIC Nutritionist!"
(re-posted to solve the lack of wrapping functionality that made it very difficult to read)
Everyone, please note that the claim above "you have a 50% likelihood of dieing everyday [sic]" is absolutely untrue. If your chances of dying were 50% each day, your odds of surviving for one year would be 1.33x10^-108%.
In case you're not clear how small that is, that's:
0.00000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000133% chance that you will live to be one year old. Your odds of reaching an age old enough to write in a forum like this are much, much lower. Obviously the exact risk *does* matter, unless you consider the extinction of the human race to be a trivial numberical difference.
Your exact risk of dying on a given day depends heavily on factors such as your location, genes, phsyical condition, activities, and indeed are different from day to day. Your risk of dying today is certainly not something that can be exactly known by a stranger on the internet. Those who attempt to quantify this risk are called actuaries; they are highly educated, as even general estimates are very complex to calculate.
Being catastrophically wrong is a "risk" of making up numbers off the top of your head. Being corrected by a stickler for factual truth is a "risk" of posting such made-up figures on the internet. Sorry to be such a bore, but I hate to see people mislead with false information.
write this down:
Narcissism is FUN.
Everyone, please note that the claim above "you have a 50% likelihood of dieing everyday [sic]" is absolutely untrue. If your chances of dying were 50% each day, your odds of surviving for one year would be 1.33x10^-108%.
In case you're not clear how small that is, that's:
0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000133% chance that you will live to be one year old. Your odds of reaching an age old enough to write in a forum like this are much, much lower. Obviously the exact risk *does* matter, unless you consider the extinction of the human race to be a trivial numberical difference.
Your exact risk of dying on a given day depends heavily on factors such as your location, genes, phsyical condition, activities, and indeed are different from day to day. Your risk of dying today is certainly not something that can be exactly known by a stranger on the internet. Those who attempt to quantify this risk are called actuaries; they are highly educated, as even general estimates are very complex to calculate.
Being catastrophically wrong is a "risk" of making up numbers off the top of your head. Being corrected by a stickler for factual truth is a "risk" of posting such made-up figures on the internet. Sorry to be such a bore, but I hate to see people mislead with false information.
on any given day, you either live or you die. it's half and half. on any given day. the next day is always new, and it's always the same. you either live, or you die.
that Is absolutely true. and one day you'll get the wrong half. it's ALWAYS that way. even if you have cancer, or are terminally ill... on any given day, you will either live, or die.
It is true that on any given day, you will either die or not die. It is not true that the odds of this happening are 50/50 as I explained above.
I'm sad to see that you could not resist stooping to name-calling. I even apologized in my post to you for possibly seeming to be rude, my intent was merely to shed light on a misleading statement. There is no reason to fear the truth.
......We can now see things that no one else can such as name calling and apologies.
Share with the class you so desperately want to take notes?
Every day is a new day. You will either live or die. Who wants coffee ? Half and half?
Statistics - which calculate "risk" - do not tell us the "who" in the "dead" part. That comes after the fact.
Hindsight being 20/20.... it's still only a 50% chance I'll live. In every second, even. Second to second. Once it over... then it's 100% success. I've lived another 20 seconds.... yes!. I did not drop dead. I am not that small small percentage of people who die from brain aneurysm. My heart did not stop beating from .... stuff my tiredness doesn't want me to think of right now. stuff. In any given moment, it's always 50/50 because science will never tell us the who... only the how many and IF (which is really just speculation). And after I'm dead... they'll go "Well, you know... considering this n this n this n this... she should have died 2 years ago!" or "Well her chances were increased."
Chance is not fact until it happens. If my aunt is schizophrenic that doesn't mean I'm schizophrenic until I am. ....Weird sentence, I'm aware. It may be more likely to occur.... but I am still either schizophrenic or not.
Where is the evidence that breastfeeding is a threat to the mother's education?
Where is the evidence that breastfeeding is a risk to the whole family?
Where is the evidence that breastfeeding is a risk to the infant?
If women who feed their babies artificial milk feel guilty this is unfortunate, but it's the fault of the propaganda, not the breastfeeding.
By all means, correct alarmist nonsense in the promotion of breastfeeding. However, we should also reject alarmist nonsense going the other way.
M. Glass
Breastfeeding has been shown to help mother's bodies recover faster from childbirth, has calming and relaxing properties for moms, prevent post postpartum depression, and lose weight put on during pregnancy. But the biggest payoff of all for moms is the incredible bonding experience.
Besides everything Santa Cruz Mom already stated, breastfeeding protects mother against reproductive cancers.
Think about it...everything your body goes through to conceive, grow, and birth a baby...when a woman breastfeeds, that keeps everything in the body flowing as it should.....
But if she forces it to stop or dry up, the flow stops...besides the risk of breast infections or mastisis, the natural order of the body is interrupted....hormones are interrupted....breastfeeding is connected to the uterus; because breastfeeding helps shrink the uterus after birth....if a woman does not breastfeed, there is no help there for the uterus....things get backed up in the body, and the risk of reproductive cancer is significantly higher.
Formula should be by prescription only...it should not be available to mothers who simply don't feel like trying, to give their babies what they were born to have.
I don't see why other risks, both to the whole family and to the infant, count as much as the supposed risk of formula feeding, a risk that we are supposed to take on faith since there are no controlled experiments in this area. What about the risks associated with the loss of the mother's education? Or the risk of unjustified feelings of guilt on the part of mothers unable to breastfeed? Why don't these count?
Since when does breastfeeding affect a woman's education? That is like saying a woman should be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. Women are more independent breastfeeding than they are bottlefeeding. They do not have to cart around all the sterilized bottles, nipples, formula, water, etc. They can attend class easily. I couldn't even begin to say how well colleges and universities attend to new mothers. For my undergrad degree, I almost always had a new mother and baby in the room. Mothers could even take online classes if they wanted to stay home!
Yes, some mothers are physically unable to breastfeed and need the support. But we have to be aware of all the artificial garbage they are putting in formula, words we cannot even pronounce. Illnesses like autism are on the rise and while not attributed to formula, couldn't that be attributable to what is in our diets (processed foods, fast food, garbage)? We have to look at all angles.