When a mother has her new child, she faces a tough decision: breastfeed or formula feed? Perhaps a combination of both? Many mothers have reservations about breastfeeding because of the time commitment and concerns over producing enough milk, but also fear that formula feeding could impact their baby's health. Are these fears warranted, or is formula feeding a safe and effective alternative to the natural method?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's the right choice for everyone.
- Scardanelli September 17, 2008 8:21AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Yeah, and we all can see where that has led us...you are the only one who will have to look your child in the eye and tell them that you knew there was evidence out there showing breast milk was better, but you made the CHOICE to feed them formula. Good luck with that.
- Iknowbetter
September 18, 2008 9:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: No
I don't need your luck. Both of my bottle-fed children are happy, healthy and gorgeous!
By the way, how many choices do you make that are not the "best" for your kids? How will you face them when you give them a piece of candy or a slice of pizza KNOWING that they'd be better off with an apple? How will you face them when you drive 50 mph in a 40 zone KNOWING they'd be safer if you drove slower (or stayed home)? How will you face them when you put them in a Prius KNOWING they'd safer in a Humvee? How will you face your kids when they find out that you ate food with dozens of toxins in it while you were breast-feeding them KNOWING that those toxins would get into your milk? How will you face your daughter when she chooses not to breast-feed her child? Will you revile her as harshly as you revile they rest of us?
Sid
- SidAirfoil September 24, 2008 8:49AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Many people, even those who choose not to breastfeed, think that breastfeeding is best.
It isn't.
Breastfeeding is normal.
It is what mammals do, and we humans are mammals. Whether we like it or not, when a woman has a baby, her body produce the milk needed to feed it.
Each woman's milk is uniquely suited to the needs of her particular baby. Her milk changes according to her baby's age, the time of day (or night) and it's composition even varies according to whether it is the beginning or ending of a feed. Moreover, each mother produced antibodies to every germ and virus she encounters and transfers them to her baby in her milk.
Breastfeeding is important to mothers too. Mothers who do not use their breasts to feed their babies are at a much higher risk of breast and uterine cancer.
No formula can ever match those standards.
It follows that babies who are not breastfed are at a higher risk for many diseases and conditions, including diabetes and Crohn's, and because they do not receive the nutrition that nature intended, they are less likely to reach their full potential, either physically or intellectually.
Formula was invented as a way to feed those babies whose mothers had died, and in extremely rare medical conditions. Like crutches, it was never meant to be used in normal circumstances.
Of course mothers can choose not to breastfeed. However, they should not be deluded into thinking that is a lifestyle choice.
Breastfeeding is a health issue.
References:
1. American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk: Policy Statement. Pediatrics, volume 115, number 2, February 2005, pages 496-506.
2. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Your Pregnancy and Birth, 4th Edition. ACOG, Washington, DC, 2005.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Breastfeeding Trends and Updated National Health Objectives for Exclusive Breastfeeding – United States, Birth Years 2000-2004. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, volume 56, number 30, August 3, 2007, pages 760-763.
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Breastfeeding. Accessed 3/31/08.
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Neurologic Impairment in Children Associated with Maternal Dietary Deficiency of Cobalamin – Georgia, 2001. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, volume 52, number 4, January 31, 2003, pages 61-64.
6. Vohr, B.R., et al. Persistent Beneficial Effects of Breast milk Ingested in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit on Outcomes of Extremely Low Birthweight Infants at 30 Months of Age. Pediatrics, volume 120, number 4, October 2007, pages e953-e959.
7. McDowell, M.M., et al. Breastfeeding in the United States: Findings from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 1999-2006. National Center for Health Statistics Data Brief, number 5, April 2008.
- ibclc September 24, 2008 8:50PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(10)
Side: Yes
Ouch! Obviously, I hit a nerve. The questions that you ask are very low impact on a child when compared to the risks of NOT breastfeeding your child. That CHOICE affects a person's health for the REST of their lives. I'm sure if babies had a choice, they would choose breastmilk hands down. BTW, most breastfeeding women are very cautious about what they eat. They also tend to feed their children organic food and drive safely, but that is beside the point.
- Iknowbetter September 29, 2008 2:28AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: No
...it's not the nerve you think.
I agree that breast feeding is preferred ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL. But all other things are NEVER equal. Every couples abilities, situation, needs, desires, values, priorities are different and require a case-by-case evaluation that each particular couple has to make for itself. The best piece of advice our doctor gave us when deciding this and related issues was "The best thing you can do for your baby is keep yourselves sane. Unhappy, unhealthy parents do a child less than no good". This often applies to the rigors of breast feeding, which frequently takes a huge toll on the parents (especially mom). Is this the case with most non-breast feeding parents? I don't know. But your smug one-size-fits-all condemnation of everyone who doesn't breast-feed leaves no room for personal circumstances, is not helpful, offers no room for discussion, and is just plain insulting and wrong.
I have no problem with our choice not to breast feed, or with anyone else's choice to breast feed. The nerve you hit has nothing to do with breast feeding. It's the "I know better than you what is best for you" nerve that you stepped on.
Sid
- SidAirfoil September 29, 2008 7:36AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Of course, not breast feeding is a choice, a bad one, but never the less a choice.
In the very few instances where a woman cannot breast feed, should formula even be considered. If this were me, I would look for a breast milk donor because it's that serious of a CHOICE for the health of another human being.
As far as your doctor's advice to keep yourselves sane, what really does that have to do with breast feeding? It is a misnomer to think that breast feeding is harder and a burden. With proper support, many women find breast feeding much easier, i.e. no bottles to clean, less spitting up, not getting up in the middle of the night (most bf women sleep with their babies and just roll over to feed). Having children is a huge CHOICE and is not easy. Oftentimes, when a woman works it's especially hard. Babies should not have to miss out on health benefits (breast feeding), due to the parents' inability to adjust. There is lots of help out there for breast feeding mothers.
Your doctor's advice is part of the problem and the reason why most people don't understand the significance of breast feeding. Most doctors are in bed with the formula companies, anyway. This advice is about money, not about what is truly in the best interest of babies.
What this comes down to for me is that human babies have no CHOICE in how they are fed. If people don't advocate for their children's best interest, then who will? I honestly don't get why people would not give their children the BEST that they could give, i.e. free human milk that is far superior to formula. This idea of CHOICE to me compares to leaving a young child outside for a long period of time unattended in front of a busy intersection. Why take chances and who the heck would do that?
- Iknowbetter September 29, 2008 11:51AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(4)
Side: No
I don't necessarily agree with your initial response, but I love this answer. Good arguments!
- lakong October 7, 2008 12:59PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Many of my bottle-fed clients are happy, healthy, and absolutely gorgeous! But why did you choose to not breastfeed your child? Did you give it a try (kudos)? Did you scoff at the research and go with the percieved convenience? Sure they may be happy and healthy, and we are GLAD thats the case, but please don't go around telling others that what happened for you will be great for them.....I had a client who is on her 3rd pregnancy (no children-all miscarried), and at 20 weeks she has gained 2 pounds, and she smokes a pack a day. Her arguement was that her friends smoked through their pregnancy and their babies are huge. I was just honest with her and told her that with her history of miscarriages, and the possibility of a low birthweight baby this time around if she makes it full-term...that she is one of the one's who taking a risk makes it absolutely harmful....even though her terrible weight gain, and history was not obvious to her. She was too busy looking at someone else doing what she wanted to do, and that was to smoke! Many of my clients are just as flippant about formula use!
Having healthy kids is a blessing in our world today, but please, giving formula to your kids is nothing to brag about....I am just being honest here. But you go ahead and do what you have to do.....It is what it is! You are definitely NOT reviled, cause for whatever reasons, your children must be fed. But just like I tell my clients that is not really cool to give their 8-month old a lollipop or let them sleep in the bed with juice in their bottle, I am going to tell you that---once again, its nothing to brag about....It is what it is, its risky....Your kids are fortunate.
- WIC Nutritionist March 18, 2009 12:56AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Does it make sense to follow "nature's plan" when that means your child will die?
- PamalaLauren September 17, 2008 3:20PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Just because something is natural and good doesn't make it automatically easy. A few simple tricks can make the job of breastfeeding much easier.
* Putting the baby to the breast immediately after the birth boosts the chances of successful breastfeeding.
* Supportive partners can make all the difference in breastfeeding success.
* Babies sometimes go off their food. This tends to reduce the milk production just in time for the baby's appetite to come roaring back. The mother might think she doesn't have enough milk, but the extra stimulation will bring back the milk, too. Understanding this feature of the feedback loop can relax the mother so that most of the problem will disappear.
- Michael Glass
September 22, 2008 7:12AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
My wife formula fed our oldest who is soon to be seven. She tried to breastfeed but our son would not latch on and she was in a lot of pain from her c-section. Our second son she supplemented with breastmilk because she did not produce enough milk to feed him. A friend of ours breastfed for a year her son and the kid was always sick. He had ear infections 2-3 times a month always had a cold. The kid was sick the whole first year of life. Our oldest was 5 before he had his first ear infection and our other son has had one when he had broncitics but he was 3. Just because you breastfeed does not mean you are going to have a happy healthy baby. I asked my wife's opinion on this and she is still trying to decided if she will breastfeed or formula feed our third due in 3 weeks.
- UltraConservative October 23, 2008 8:59AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
A decision on breastfeeding shouldn't be made simply on 'the baby doesn't get as many ear infections blah blah blah' obviously breastfeeding will not MAKE the baby sick unless maybe Mommy is not getting proper nutrition. Breastfeeding involves bonding, and at 3 weeks when it hurts and you have just carried that baby for 9 months...well you hate it. But at 9 months when you work all day it is a great way to say 'Mommy's home!' When your nursing you can say goodbye to a simple night out, because unless you want to pump halfway through it just becomes a painful 'I hope my kid is hungry night' out, which might sound bad initially but actually does make it a great thing to get back to baby because you need him/her too and that is great for bonding. Its an accomplishment, not everybody CAN do it and when you do, it makes you feel good about yourself and feel like you did something great for your baby and with all the other bad choices we are going to make as moms its nice to say 'I made this good choice for my baby and I stuck it out' on those 'I feel like a lousy Mommy and what made me think I could do this' days. Finally, women who just need to stick it out or supplement a little while they are working or get some help and support or actually pick up glass after glass of water and force themselves to drink it, oh yeah say goodbye to that extra weight loss your body will not produce if its not getting enough food , are trying to use the 'I couldn't produce enough' nobody is blaming a woman who actually cannot breastfeed. Basically, make a choice and if nature takes that choice away that's not your fault. I know you've already made a decision I just wanted to point these things out because it is extremely necessary for women to have the support of their significant other and the choice to breastfeed isn't only about physical health .
- LifeFrames May 21, 2009 12:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
.....but it doesn't give a single iota of evidence that formula feeding is harmful. As for skin-to-skin contact, this can occur between father and child - and I've yet to see a male breastfeed.
- SocialistBetty December 24, 2008 11:49AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
This has been documented. So let that one go.
Listen, I have seen the harm formula does-especially when moms DECIDE for some reason to stop breastfeeding. One mom says the baby takes too long on the breast, gave us our 800.00 pump back and demanded formula. One month later here she was with a Rx note wanting to switch formulas because of spit-up, GERD, blah blah blah, and again a month or so after that with a new note for a different formula....As this is the case for MANY moms. Many of them were smart enough to put in the work to re-lactate, only to see the symptoms of GERD, so called lactose intolerance (as breastmilk is full of lactose) and milk protein allergy (milk-protein lactoferrin in human milk is better digested) related rashes go away once the baby was back on breastmilk. It shocked the heck out of me then, and it enboldened me to stand my ground when it comes to promoting putting in the work to breastfeed. Its even better to breastfeed a little, than totally NOT breastfeed.
If I can get my busy mom/students to do that, then I am doing alright...However it is dangerous to tell a mom-especially in that situation is okay. I have hundreds who had babies in similar situations-even those who had to be sent to the hospital cause the mom didn't know WHAT the baby was reacting to-then to be told to switch to an expensive formula they can't afford, or even find in the store!....They will tell you how harmful formula is. After I saw that I was completely convinced, and my trust in infant formula fell 100% flat.
- WIC Nutritionist March 5, 2009 10:07AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
all you do is give anecdotal evidence. wow.
- SocialistBetty March 11, 2009 1:34PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I don't know a guy who knows a guy. I am the woman, the licensed and registered nutritionist dealing with this. I am the one CHARTING the problems I see daily with formula....I was responding to an earlier comment. However, once again, I actually SAW and CHARTED as part of my job-MANY women who had to discontinue formula IF they were smart enought not to completely stop breastfeeding, but decided after the 3rd or 4th different formula reaction, just to become devoted to breastfeeding. So for them it was out of necessity.
Don't get me wrong, formula has its place. In my office, (and the hospital hours after a baby is born) I sit and personally help moms get their babies latched on the breast and I am very successful-even if the baby is doped up on the medicine from a c-section and is too sleepy to nurse like my last client who's baby is nursing well finally after 2 weeks.
But I am ALSO the nutritionist who personally dragged 412 2-oz Similac Special Care formula bottles to the car of a mom (21-year old-smoker-probably why the full term baby was only 3 pounds) who decided to discontinue pumping milk for her preemie (gave me the 800 buck pump back), who cannot be out in public per doctor's orders, but has weight gaining problems and was doing great on moms 20-32 calorie breastmilk (breastmilk is dynamic and even preemies can thrive on it) to gain weight, but is now stuck to thrive on the 24 calorie/oz formula that WIC provides (the ready to feed formula (more $$)-no powder (though its LESS $$-doc's orders)...that she CANNOT afford or find in a store).....UGH.....so at a mere cost of $100 bucks a case (over 9 cases/month)....on YOUR DIME and MINE....we can provide her with formula which I am glad to do...I even give my personal office line and extension AGAINST my supervisor's recommendation, and an invitation for the mom or the doc to call....But this baby was eating for free (the pump has already paid for itself)!!!!......Sure the baby MAY be okay...time will tell, but to me, she had a GOOD thing going....but it is what it is......I am not totally opposed to formula when it is needed when mom CANNOT or WILL NOT breastfeed. No problem there. Most breastfeeding advocates are concerned with people who DECIDE on their own that they would rather NOT breastfeed....when they can.....Is formula harmful? For many people, the proof is there......but not for EVERYONE, I am no fool....But please, when you are trained to not only be a counselor, but in research, as I have published work before, you never, ever depend or report ANECDOTAL evidence....I have YET to publish my findings....And when I decide to, I will provide you with the link to the paper.....Give me a break! I am not new to this....
But it is dangerous to flippantly say there is no risk and that it won't harm the baby...My clients are full proof of that.....When I was new to this, and had a naive view of formula as an equivalent to breastmilk, I too was surprised to see the numerous complications.....As were my clients.....
- WIC Nutritionist March 12, 2009 6:46PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Not anecdotal at all... no. LoL.
- SocialistBetty March 16, 2009 3:09AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
LOL? This is so not funny Sooooo what is your deal? The research isn't conclusive enough for you? Not for me either....what people don't realize is that research is just what it is-research. I won't argue that. However for most passionate breastfeeding advocates, its not about deciding not to breastfeed for whatever reasons, some very valid, but I have a problem when people just flippantly say that human milk and infant formula is equivalent, and that is dangerous.
Where the research is actually in the most agreement is that babies on human milk have less hospital visits due to formula intolerance and gastrointestinal problems, ear infections, and the like-and that the human milk does protect infant's gut by providing a protective layer of antibodies in the intestines as the baby's organs grow and mature. Formula cannot do this....
I'd love to see research on the cost savings on medical bills and formula for the first 6 months alone......... If more people just did what comes natural, it wouldn't cost America billions (yes billions) to pay the medical bills or higher insurance premiums for infants who are ALWAYS in the hospital or doctor's office due to formula issues. Everyday in my office I have at least 1-2 requests for some 30.00/can formula on YOUR dime! And we give 10/month. If its not that is "GERD" or supposed lactose intolerance (in an infant that's a laugh), or intact protein intolerance-when in 6-12 months these same babies are gulping down whole milk. Is it the artificial baby milk?
I don't even understand why this is even an arguement because its obvious that formula CAN be harmful in more cases that human milk can ever be (outside of the HIV positive mom or the mom with tuberculosis, or galactosemia, etc).....The "proof" that formula is not harmful is what is completely anectodal.....Like I said, my clients may be the one actually going through this but like me they live in the real world, and the "proof" that formula is not harmful is laughable when their babies are sick on it. It is what it is, and human milk and its 4000 plus components will always be superior to infant formula. Hell Kool-aid isn't "harmful" but tell that to the 2 year old's mom who has been giving it to her daily and she can't chew food because her teeth are rotted out. Oh-let me not go there because that information would be anecdotal. Much research can be considered anecdotal, we call those case studies, and in a clinical setting we can "control" them. Most of it of course is unpublished however. This is very boring now. No one on this board is presenting real information that formula is just not harmful other than anecdotes...(I'm sure you would argue the same)....But how much research needs to be done when epidemiological, and clinical studies show that formula is risky (if not dangerous)? So many people argue, the research is weak, its weak, its inconclusive, but so what? Why other than for reasons beyond that mom's control, would a person give their baby a subpar food? If you can give your baby the best why not give it a try, and if it doesn't work-after a good effort go to the artificial baby milk and let it go?
It seems asinine to argue facts over and over again! Once again this is absolutely BORING! Worthless conversation. The proof appears in the long-term! Just give me something other than "my formula-fed tyke is healthier than my friend/sister/whoever's breast-fed baby"....That one boring!
- WIC Nutritionist March 18, 2009 12:31AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
breast feeding . Now what can be more American than that!
- truehappiness October 1, 2009 7:03PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Yes, we do circumvent nature in a myriad of ways. However, this does not mean that circumventing nature is automatically better or worse. When faced with a choice between nature and something different we should go with nature unless the alternative is demonstratively better.
Breast milk is widely accepted as being better than artificial formula. Therefore it is better to go for breast milk unless there are compelling reasons not to.
- Michael Glass January 5, 2009 5:14AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
We know how dangerous it is to fail to use a car seat or to smoke cigarettes. There is solid research on those topics. But there is only accumulated folk wisdom about formula feeding. Mothers should be able to make decisions about their child-raising with reliable expertise and good judgment; instead we give them moralizing and scare tactics.
- Scardanelli September 17, 2008 8:26AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
It actually is equivalent. There is plenty of research out there that shows this. Formula feeding is very inferior when compared to breast milk. There are living properties in human milk that protect babies and cannot be duplicated in formula. Why anyone would choose less than the best for their child is beyond me.
- Iknowbetter September 18, 2008 8:54PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(4)
Side: No
I think this is really a very good analogy. There is an abundance of evidence that shows that not breastfeeding a baby has risks, just as not using a car seat or smoking has risks. Why are we afraid to talk about the risks of not breastfeeding? This is a major public health issue that is as important as car seat use, smoking, eating low fat diets.
As women each of us has to decide how we will feed our baby. To make this decision we need to know the facts and not ignore the research that tells us that there are indeed risks to using formula.
- Linda Wieser
September 27, 2008 10:21AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(4)
Side: Yes
You hit it on the head! This is a great analogy. I was just telling someone else that just flippantly saying formula is okay is risky, and dangerous. Its downright irresponsible to say that its absolutely carries no risk. We absolutely cannot ignore the research. Sure some people will argue that its a weak correlation, but thousands of papers are still saying the same thing.
- WIC Nutritionist March 18, 2009 12:36AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
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?
- Scardanelli September 17, 2008 8:30AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
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.
- missinu3400 September 25, 2008 4:52PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
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.
- Michael Glass September 22, 2008 7:23AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Uncommitted
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.
- Santa Cruz Mom September 24, 2008 1:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
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.
- piggyfairy October 1, 2008 10:35AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
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?
- SocialistBetty December 24, 2008 12:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
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.
- WIC Nutritionist March 18, 2009 12:41AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
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!"
- SocialistBetty March 18, 2009 10:06PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
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.
- lostlo March 19, 2009 5:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
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.
- SocialistBetty March 20, 2009 10:32AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
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.
- lostlo March 20, 2009 2:20PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
......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.
- SocialistBetty March 21, 2009 2:58AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
(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.
- lostlo March 19, 2009 5:03PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
write this down:
Narcissism is FUN.
- SocialistBetty March 20, 2009 10:36AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
these are all speculative, and yet you feel comfortable making this decision for all moms, regardless of individual situation.
- Scardanelli September 17, 2008 8:33AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
These are not speculative. There is a ton of scientific research that backs up this information up. If a person refuses to believe or look at this information, I don't think that there is much anyone can do. Denial is not just a river in
Egypt.
- Iknowbetter September 18, 2008 9:23PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: No
The risk isn't increased for mothers who do not breastfeed. The risks are lowered if a mother does. The supposed risk doesn't increase if you don't. There's a difference. Also, this isn't evidence that formula feeding harms the baby. It's just a good reason to breastfeed. Granted, there are many good reasons, but it's not harming anyone to choose not to breastfeed.
There is No evidence that says breastfed babies are healthier. It's speculation.
A family who chooses to spend more isn't harming the baby.
"Widespread use of formula—with its accompanying use of natural resources to manufacture, transport, and dispose of—adds to the global climate change problem as well."
The excuse of the amount of money and natural resources that bring bottles and formulas to the consumer is a false argument. No one would argue that vegetables are good for the body. But no one seems to have a problem with getting their veggies in the middle of winter. Should the breastfeeding mother then skip over the veggies because to eat them would be to add to the cost of global warming? Should she only eat what would be available to her locally?
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
- SocialistBetty December 24, 2008 12:18PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
If the dear reader would do a google search for "HHS Toned down Breast-feeding ADs", she would discover that our very own government in collaboration with the American Academy of Pediatrics, gutted an ad campaign about the health risks of formula. According to research from the CDC, babies that are not breastfed are 40% more likely to develop Type 1 diabetes, and 250% more likely to develop respiratory disease.
Doing a search on the National Library of Medicine's PubMed on "milk proteins in the etiology of insulin dependent diabetes" will retrieve 142 citations. Most formula is derived from cow milk.
Currently, there are 9 theories as to why formula is associated with diabetes.
The evidence says that formula feeding is the first step towards overweight/obesity and diabetes, both of which are epidemic in the US.
Drs Rogan and Chen calculated that 720 babies die every year in the US because they are not breastfed.
The public does not know this. At least one-third of the public believes that formula is equivalent to human milk. Industry encourages this belief through marketing and by giving free samples of their product away to new mothers.
Mothers can't make informed choices if the information is kept from them.
I want the truth to be told to all.
warmly,
Nikki Lee
- Nleeguitar September 25, 2008 6:20PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(7)
Side: No
Human babies are born with immature immune systems. That's why they can get sick very easily and quickly. They depend on their mother's milk until their immune system if fully developed. There are many things about this relationship that I find amazing. Mother's milk not only helps her baby fight infection, it also helps her baby's immune system develop stronger and faster. For example, the thymus, an important organ in the immune system and the site for production of T-lymphocytes, is 2X's bigger is fully breastfed babies compared with exclusively formula-fed babies. Breastfed babies also have more of these T-lymphocytes circulating in their bodies.
Another important part of this relationship is that the ingredients of human milk - proteins, sugars and fats - all provide both nutrition for the baby's growth and protection against illness. And what I find truely amazing is that these cells fight infection without causing inflammation, so baby can continue to use all his or her energy on growth. Some of the cells line the digestive and respiratory tracts destroying germs and providing a barrier to prevent germs from entering baby's body. Others promote the growth of "good" bacteria (low-virulent E.coli) in the baby's gut.
Because of the living cells in human milk and how they provide babies with protection against illnesses, there is no comparison between breastfeeding and formula-feeding.
Reference: Hanson, L. Immunobiology of Human Milk: How Breastfeeding Protect Babies. Amarillo, TX:Pharmasoft Publishing, 2004.
- Linda Wieser September 27, 2008 11:00AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
Formula does not harm babies. Breastfeeding is best, but formula doesn't harm babies. Nothing in these "arguments" gives any evidence that formula is harmful. Only that it's not as good as breast milk.
- SocialistBetty December 24, 2008 12:24PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Your analogy of breastmilk is better, but formula does not harm babies is like using the analogy of a car crash victim, who died of a stroke, but wasn't adversely effected by the crash. The victim died of a stroke, that was brought on by the crash. Indirectly, the crash killed the victim. This is the same analogy of formula, certain biological sequences were set off from not having the optimum food, thus diabetes sets in or obesity. I would say that it caused harm.
Risks are harmful, if they come to fruition. They are real. It's like playing russian roulette, you never know what trigger pull will kill you. So when the bullet does come out and kill or maim someone, I'd say that it caused harm, even though the person knew it was a risk and did not believe it to be real or really statistically probable.
- Iknowbetter January 25, 2009 1:28AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
Bottle feeding is like taking your newborn to McDonald's everyday. They get the same nasty tasting stuff day after day with little to no positive effects. Yes, they can grow and develop with formula. Yes, formula feeding continues to be better accepted by the public (we can watch a murder and be fine but god forbid we see a child at breast!). We have to work to change that.
Most, if not all, states require workplaces to provide a place to pump that is not the employee's bathroom. These places are not always utilized because these same places do not provide the time needed to pump. Thus, we get the feeling that society still does not feel breastfeeding is a valued experience. Who is making these decisions in society? Men that have no idea what breastfeeding entails? Men that don't understand the bonding or immunologic points to breastfeeding? Or is it the formula companies telling us that yes, formula is safe and almost like breast milk?
Yes, how you feed is a choice but if women are making the decision out of convenience, how can they be making an informed decision? How can they truly understand the benefits of breastfeeding if they don't hear them? WIC is doing better with the breastfeeding promotion but they still have a long way to go. Breastmilk is free, formula costs anywhere from $2000 on up per year.
To me, something that is labeled as "formula" belongs in the high school chemistry classroom and not in our precious newborns.
- missinu3400 October 1, 2008 1:46PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Formula made my baby healthy. I guess I can't complain.
- PamalaLauren September 17, 2008 3:20PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Joan Wolf said:
"Multiple studies indicate that breastfeeding reduces the risk of gastrointestinal infection (such as diarrhea or vomiting); PROBIT, a large study lauded for its design and reliability, found that one in twenty-five bottle-fed babies was at greater risk to have one or more episodes of such infection in a year"
She also said:
"Significant data indicate that breastfeeding might actually increase the risk of allergy and asthma for particular children."
She said that there was no difference in other measures.
As gastroenteritis can be life threatening this is a definite advantage of breastfeeding over artificial feeding. When it comes to allergies and asthma, the use of the words "might" and "particular children" suggests that there is some doubt about this data. Therefore based on Wolf's own summary of the data, the advantage lies with breastfeeding.
- Michael Glass September 19, 2008 5:35PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Uncommitted
In the past 9 months at least 53,000 babies have become sick from formula in China, 12,892 hospitalized, 104 in serious condition, with at 4 infants who have died. Feel safe because you're not in China? It can happen anywhere babies are bottle fed. Breastmilk is the perfect food, and science has not been able to improve upon it. With all of the food scares lately, why take a chance with your babies life?
- Santa Cruz Mom September 24, 2008 1:28PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(5)
Side: Yes
Yup, in processing cow's milk into formula powder, many things were added to fortify the nutrients, to mimic breastmilk content. In the process, contaminations can happen. In China's case, the cow's milk certainly has low protein content (measured in nitrogen). Therefore, they added melamine (a type of plastic byproduct), to mimic it.
So, (a) the milk has low protein, affecting children's growth (issues just reported last year), (b) to meet the 'standard' (i.e. copying mother's milk), they added POISONS.
If we breastfeed our children, the only way to poison their milk is to poison us. So, who dare say formula is safe?
Sata Cruz Mom, you are right - if it happens in China, it can happen in any parts of the world. Let's not to be complacent in this.
- Suzette
October 16, 2008 12:25AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Just realized that there is a conflict in between the question for voting and the 'side'. I actually take LLL's side, that is the 'Yes'. But the question for voting is, "Should you Formula Feed?" So my answer is 'No'. After voted the last time for 'no' to formula, then it appeared as I sided 'No'? I am confused...
- Suzette October 22, 2008 11:30PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Formula fed babies who live in the most affluent families in developed countries where healthcare is the right of all citizens (and not just the priviledge of those who can pay) are five times more likely to be hospitalised with either pnuemonia or gastro-enteritis (1, 2).
In the UK, the Millenium Cohort Study (2) (huge study; rigourous execution and analysis - controlled for confounders) found that 53% of diarrhoea hospitalisations could have been prevented each month if all infants were exclusively breastfed. Similarly, 27% of pnuemonia hospitalisations could have been prevented each month if all those babies were exclusively breastfed. This means 3 out of every four babies in hospital for gastro or pnuemonia are there because formula made them sick. The more formula they got, the more likely they were to get sick. That's a causal relationship.
Mothers absolutely have a right to choose how they will feed their babies. They also have the right to be given all the information they need to make an informed choice.
1. Paricio Talayero, J. M., M. Lizan-Garcia, et al. (2006). "Full Breastfeeding and Hospitalization as a Result of Infections in the First Year of Life." Pediatrics 118(1): e92-99.
2. Quigley MA et al. Breastfeeding and Hospitalization for Diarrheal and Respiratory Infection in the United Kingdom Millennium Cohort Study Pediatrics 2007; 119:(4): e837-42
- Iris September 24, 2008 9:43PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(5)
Side: Yes
Are you not aware of the numerous recalls on Infant formula---
- ginajohnson September 25, 2008 10:34AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
The _Summary of the Hazards of Infant Formula_ published in three parts by the International Lactation Consultant Association (ILCA) documents TWENTY SEVEN areas of health risk to infants from lack of breastfeeding. My children's pediatrician says he can pick out the formula-fed babies on his records shelf by the thickness of their files. Dr. Wolf puts the health of babies at risk by lending her academic credentials to these untruths.
- Motherbaby September 28, 2008 1:02PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(5)
Side: Yes
I had gestational diabetes and pregnancy induced hypertension, which very quickly went from pre-eclampsia to toxeima. My son was delivered via emergency c-section at 31 weeks. I was so sick, this pregnancy was killing me (liver and kidneys were starting to shut down). My son was in the NICU for six and one half weeks. He was on oxygen therapy for most of that time, even being intubated for about 2 days.
I had to pump (most babies don't develop the suck ability until 34 weeks). For 5 weeks, I pumped every 2 hours, day and night. I'd go visit him in the hospital and use the pumping room there to see if that helped me get more milk out. I went on medication and herbs via my doctors advice to help increase my supply. At 5 weeks, I was getting less than an ounce out, total, each session. I meet with a lactation consultant a few times, nothing helped. Her and I decided that the stress of trying to produce milk was hampering all my efforts.
During this time, the lactation consultant, my doctor and I had a meeting. Did you know that having gestational diabetes can hamper milk production? As can high blood pressure and most especially an early delivery. So can the polycystic ovarian syndrome with insulin resistance I deal with when not pregnant.
So basically, my options were breastfeed and starve my son who was born at less than 3 lbs or such him to formula. No suprise I chose to make sure my son was eating. He's 2 now, wanna know how sick being on formula made him? He has asthma, most likely from being a preemie born with underdeveloped lungs and being on oxygen therapy for almost 6 weeks. He has eczma, but so do his dad and I. Let's see...he's actually ahead of most full-term kids his age in the development curve and has been since he was 18 months old.
I have a daughter who was born 3 weeks early, once again, I wasn't making any milk (had GD and PIH again). Tried all the meds/herbs again...nothing.
Both my formula fed babies are happy and healthy. No everyone can produce breast milk. There is nothing wrong with formula. I don't buy my formula from China, so that's really not an issue to me.
The breastfeeding mafia needs to get off their high horse and realize that most of us who formula feed know that breast milk is best, but it's not always the best choice for our families and sometimes it's not a choice at all (medication, illness, just don't make milk).
- candlemomma124 October 1, 2008 6:12AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I have read numerous times that less than 6% of women ACTUALLY are unable to produce enough milk for their baby.....
It seems like you fell into that percentage, and that stinks.....it really does.....
It's your situation, that formula should be available by RX only......
The World Health Organization ranks infant feeding choices as such:
1.Breastmilk from the breast, 2. Pumped breastmilk from the baby's own mother, 3. Donated breastmilk, and 4. Infant formula.
While formula has it's place - when mother truly cannot breastfeed due to a compelling medical condition, adopted babes, etc. - it is often overused. It is not 2nd best, but rather 4th in line of infant feeding choices.
- piggyfairy October 1, 2008 10:48AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
One of my sisters couldn't produce milk either, and she had an uncomplicated full-term delivery, and has no medical problems when not pregnant.
Donated breast milk is great, in theory. It costs money to get it (for some reason the amount of $4/oz sticks in my head) and I'm actually uncomfortable giving my children milk from another woman. Will it be treated the same as cow's milk? Screened like they do other milks? I was given that option while my son was in the NICU, I felt better giving him formula. And actually it is second best, the first 3 options are still breast milk.
It's my choice, they are my kids. If someone wants to say what I can and cannot do with my kids they can start paying me some child support.
- candlemomma124 October 1, 2008 11:01AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Of the hundreds of thousands of women having babies every year, 6% is still a large number of women.
A milk bank does in fact screen the milk that is donated...just like they do at a blood bank. What I don't like about milk banks, is they pasteurize the breast milk; which kills nutrients and antibodies.
That's why I donate via private donation....I am a member of milkshare.com, there are always parents on there looking for breast milk for their babies. Most of them request medical records from the donors doctor, typically the tests the mother had when she was pregnant....the recipient pays for the shipping, and will reimburse the donor for the bags.....I did not accept reimbursement for the bags because I had to buy them anyways, the recipient shipped me a cooler and I shipped it back to her with my milk.
If you or your baby needed blood, would you give your baby artificial blood? Donated milk isn't that different....as in, the real thing is always best.
I'm not telling you what you can or cannot do; I'm simply telling you that there are better options. Not everyone is willing to go that extra mile.
- piggyfairy October 1, 2008 2:03PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
ARE YOU AWARE OF THE FACT THAT SOME OF THE INGREDIENTS USED TO MANUFACTURE INFANT FORMULA HERE IN THE US COMES FROM CHINA??
- ginajohnson October 1, 2008 12:24PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
THAT USING ALL CAPS IS THE SAME AS YELLING? Show me a reliable source that proves this information and then show me where any formula in the US has been recalled. And my formula is stamped Made in the USA, so I trust the ingredients.
- candlemomma124 October 1, 2008 12:52PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/health/17456051/detail.html?rss=bos&psp=news
This one is the one concerning chinese formula products in the US.
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov /~DMS/inf-warn.html
This one has a whole bunch of recalls that have been in the US recently.
- Iknowbetter October 1, 2008 1:37PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(4)
Side: No
The first link says: The fear is that some of the tainted formula could wind up in the U.S., particularly in cities that have large Chinese-American populations.
It's against the law to sell the formula in America, but sometimes the merchandise does get through illegally and is sold in ethnic grocery stores, so health officials are issuing warnings to cities such as Boston, New York and San Francisco that the formula may have been tainted with melamine.
There is no mention of the American made baby formula I choose to feed my kids. Please read thoroughly and understand what the article says before using it to support what you say.
The second link, only part is hyperlinked and and when I copied and pasted it told me no link exsisted.
- candlemomma124 October 1, 2008 1:55PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I did read the articles. The point being that all formulas have the possibility of contamination. It does not matter what country that it is made in or where the ingredients are from. You are naive in thinking that because the formula is made in the USA that it is infallible and totally safe.
You can try again with this link. For some reason opposing views didn't highlight the whole thing.
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov /~DMS/inf-warn.html
If the highlight doesn't work just type it in. And yes this has a lot of info on American brand formulas that have been recalled. If this isn't enough for you, I can add more links with different brands.
- Iknowbetter October 1, 2008 2:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: No
looking for info to support YOUR point of view. I did try typing it in, I do know how to test a link. I am done "debating" with you. Apparently you feel you are an expert on this and weather my working out side the house will "damage" my children. I am not trying to change your mind on anything, just defending my views and trying to get to to at least respect that what works for you does not work for everyone.
- candlemomma124 October 1, 2008 2:33PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
You are the reason why the use of donated breast milk needs to become a norm rather than formula, so that you don't have to choose between the health of your children and formula. Donated breast milk needs to become the alternative for women who cannot breast feed NOT artificial food of "formula".
- Iknowbetter October 1, 2008 1:32PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
None what so ever. So I repeat: The breastfeeding mafia needs to get off their high horse and realize that most of us who formula feed know that breast milk is best, but it's not always the best choice for our families and sometimes it's not a choice at all (medication, illness, just don't make milk).
- candlemomma124 October 1, 2008 1:48PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I also have this. I was VERY fortunate that it did not effect my milk production. I know it can in many women. I think your case is right. If you can't make milk of course formula is your only choice. I am glad you were able to feed your baby the milk you could. That said I think that if formula was by prescription only you would be prescribed it.
As far as China goes... I hope that never happens in the US, but it is possible. We have had other outbreaks of other food sold here.
I agree that there are families who need formula. Some people adopt and can't lactate, and like you said some have illnesses that prevent them. For all of those reasons I am glad formula is around, but to pick formula when you CAN breastfeed.....That is the decision I don't understand.
- Gavinsmama October 2, 2008 10:24AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Hats off to you for trying to breastfeed your infants. I don't think the Breastfeeding Mafia is saying that formula-feeding is evil (though some are very zealous)....However MANY moms CHOOSE NOT to breastfeed for selfish reasons, or feel in their heart that formula is an equivalent to breastmilk.
Also, its not impossible to have all those things going on ans STILL breastfeed. One of my clients right now went through PIH, GD, and took a chance and put her NOW 5-pound preemie to the breast-after being in the hospital 8 weeks, and that little one with practice and use a of a nipple shield-actually nursed at the breast! We gave her the shield because she was used to a bottle, but mom got brave for some reason, and she nursed without the shield too! One of my clients has a baby still on oxygen with physical abnormalities and some delays with a nasal cannula in her nose, she still nurses at the breast and is TUBE fed a little milk-based formula into her tummy!
Jack Newman put a 25 weeker to the breast and that baby nursed with a great latch. Not saying that the baby didn't get a little formula to help with weight gain, but a 25-weeker NURSED at the BREAST. Is the result of your situation YOUR fault? ABSOLUTELY NOT!
But we live in a doctor-run society so to speak, and I bet that with doctors who would have helped you stay calm, trust your body, and de-stress-you too would have been able to nurse your babies, even with the assistance of a little formula when needed. I gave a mom an electronic breast pump yesterday, and a couple cans of Neosure a month, because she is dedicated to breastfeeding her preemie who just was released from the hospital after being born at 31 weeks. And he is JUST out of the hospital 2 days ago after 4 weeks in NICU...So it is POSSIBLE to still nurse a baby with preemie complications. My line of work has allowed me to see this.
It has encouraged me to still encourage moms to stay calm, expect complications, but we teach them ways to troubleshoot. Formula does have its place. No doubt it has helped decrease infant mortality, but we Breastfeeding Mafia have to stay on our "high horse" so we can share to others like yourself that EVEN with problems, babies have been able to STILL breastfeed, maybe not exclusively at first, but maybe later on down the line as so many of my clients have done!
- WIC Nutritionist March 5, 2009 9:37AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Formula has its place. You had to do what you had to do simple as that. You actually tried to breastfeed cause you believe it is better. I don't think the "mafia" is talking about your case. But kudos to you for trying your best. Thats definately better than many women. But remember a little breast milk is better than no breastmilk.
Many of my clients who have gestational diabetes go on to exclusively breastfeed with some delay, but with dedication and just dligence they succeed. I had a mom with a baby with a developmental delay and malformations pump until her baby was discharged from the hospital at 2 months with a nasal cannula and oxygen, put her baby to the breast and she nurses to this day and she is now one! WITH the nasal cannula still She still is tube fed Pediasure but many people overcome obstacles. Maybe you can spead the word to others in your situation too!
- WIC Nutritionist March 18, 2009 1:05AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
You can look at 'studies' all day long but if you aren't looking at scientific studies, published studies, those that are worth anything then the information you are trying to get across is lost. Formula feeding your baby is much more dangerous then we let on. AND think about when the commercials say "Formula is now closer than ever to breastmilk" that's not a lie it IS closer than ever but it's still miles away.
- lbeare December 11, 2008 7:37PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Hindsight is 20/20.
When you risk formula feeding and your baby is OKAY and HEALTHY, then of course you're gonna blab....Oh may baby was formula-fed and she is beautiful, and happy and healthy. And no one can argue that.
But tell my clients who started out breastfeeding, and after that couldn't keep it up, switched their babies to formula-artificial baby milk (ABM), and all HELL just broke loose! Tell them that its NOT the formula all of a sudden causing their baby to have loose stool or hard stools, its NOT the formula causing their baby to break out in hives/eczema/whatever flakes up on their skin. Try to tell THOSE moms that though their baby was not spitting up the little breastmilk they were getting, but all of a sudden their pediatricians diagnosed theie baby with lactose intolerance and they need an expensive lactose-free formula...Imagine how pissed they are when I say well the breastmilk is full of lactose! One they switch to soy, that doesn't work so they move to an even more expensive hypoallerginic formula....Imagine how pissed they are at the cost of 27.99/can at about 10-15 cans of powder a month! Imagine how they feel when they finally get to me-a person who wholly supports breastfeeding tells them the few things they could have done to keep breastfeeding going before a lazy lactation consultant (yes IBCLC) told them to give up? But they are confused because their breasts are still leaking milk!
This is my world everyday. Formula is risky, expensive, and aggravating. Too many moms are gambling their children's long-term health because someone gave them bad advice. I understand for many formula posed little risk, but that is dangerous for someone who is not familiar with their own health to gamble their children's. Case and point. My husband was and still is allergic to ALL cow's milk proteins......His mom DECIDED not to breastfeed. He begged me to breastfeed our kids knowing his family history because his sister just so happened to remind him of the expense of finding the right formula...which didn't exist 30 years ago! Don't risk it. Its too much of a gamble. Breastfeeding is worth taking time to work on.
- WIC Nutritionist March 5, 2009 9:06AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
I am sure that you have to agree that it is comical even try to compare a living, ever changing, over %90 absorbable by the baby, species specific breast milk to chemically manufactured from dairy leftovers, and fungus, day-in-day-out same, out of the box, powder substitute.
I do acknowledge the use of formula in extreme situations, but luckily these are not much more than the adults needing nasogastric feedings.
- raiec September 27, 2008 4:53PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
Joan Wolf said:
"[B]reastfeeding also has costs, such as the labor value of women’s nursing and the potentially negative impact of breastfeeding on family dynamics, women’s career trajectories, and women’s emotional and physical health."
This statement implies that:
* Breastfeeding is more labour-intensive than artificial formula.
* Breastfeeding could have a negative impact on family dynamics.
* Breastfeeding could have a negative impact on women's career trajectories.
* Breastfeeding could have a negative impact on women's emotional health.
* Breastfeeding could have a negative impact on women's physical health.
Where is the evidence for any of these astounding claims about breastfeeding?
- Michael Glass September 20, 2008 1:32AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Uncommitted
All of these things are likely true in a great many cases, but even if we had the "evidence" Mr. Glass seeks, it would not justify the government's position. If, for example, reliable studies showed that in four cases out of five, breastfeeding had no negative impacts in any of these areas, why should we deny one-fifth of families the freedom to make the best choice for themselves? The point is that we should not presume to decide what's best and then spend taxpayer money insisting that all families conform to our conclusions. Instead, we should all individual families to make choices based on their own situations.
- Scardanelli September 21, 2008 7:10PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I have asked for the evidence that breastfeeding is more labor-intensive than artificial feeding that it could have a negative impact on the physical, emoitional health of women, that it could have a negative impact on family dynamics and women's career trajectories. This has nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of women's choice. This has everything to do with supplying the evidence. The ball is in her court.
- Michael Glass September 21, 2008 11:35PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Uncommitted
This debate is not about the government spending money. Wolf inserted her opinions about the ad campaign into a debate concerning whether formula feeding harms babies. This is also not a debate about whether the government should legally prevent the sale or purchase of formula.
- JDmama September 22, 2008 11:14AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
I agree with Michael. There is no evidence for Joan Wolf's wild assertions. Putting out this propaganda as truth can be damaging to moms and babies. What if a mom who can breastfeed decides not to because she thinks it will have negative impacts on her? What will really happen is there will be negative impacts for her baby, who at the very least would have a much stronger immune system with breast milk. As a matter of fact, I found the opposite to be true for all of the above points.
- Santa Cruz Mom September 24, 2008 1:47PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
A few of the risks parents should consider regarding formula.
Hexane is used in the extraction of oils from algae. The oil is then used as an ingredient in infant formula. Hexane residue is found in the formula. Hexane is neurotoxic even at 'trace' levels and infants are particularly vulnerable.
http://www.cornucopia.org/replacing-mother-infant-formula-report /
Bisphenol-A (BPA), a potent endocrine disruptor, leaches out of plastic baby bottles at levels shown to cause harm.
http://www.sailhome.org/Concerns/BodyBurden/Burdens/Bisphenol-A.html #migrates
Also, liquid formulas are generally packaged in containers lined with BPA.
http://www.ewg.org/reports/infantformula
Infant formulas are typically made with soy which is allergenic, mimics estrogen, and increases the level of glutamate. Excess glutamate impairs a baby's nervous system and can contribute to developmental delays. It can lead to juvenile obesity. It can lead to sudden infant death (SIDS).
http://www.sailhome.org/Concerns/Excitotoxins.html #formulas
If a mother truly has no option but to use formula, she will be wise to learn as much as possible about the toxins she exposes her child to and how to responsibly minimize them.
(In spite of the toxins passed through breastmilk due to mother's toxic body burden, natural breastmilk is still the superior source. Dr. Wolf's suggestions that formulas are on par in health reeks with the conflicted influence of formula manufacturers.)
- toxouts October 8, 2008 11:43AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
There are no "risks" to breastfeeding-give me a break-our babies deserve it!
Why would our bodies be equipped to nourish a baby if it wasn't the BEST way?
- rara December 8, 2008 3:35PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Women are being made to feel guilty about not breast feeding their little ones, and "scared". I don't think her point is to say there are substantial risks... she's just pointing out that it's not 100% pure. Her point is those same people making those feel guilty talk about the chemicals in formula when breast milk also contains contaminates. That's not to say breast milk is not best. It's just stating that people understand the data and all the research.
Breast milk is not free of contaminants and it's not 100% pure. Why???? Because man has done disastrous things to our environment . Your argument is like saying why would anyone be apposed to eating an apple. Apples are natural. However, we humans use a boat load of pesticides on those apples. Yes, chemicals. I'm sure there are those that would argue to only eat organic apples and that non-organic apples can be harmful. The simple truth is that even the natural has risks. They may be small, but they're there because we don't live in the garden of eden anymore. To think that your breast milk can't be contaminated is just misleading. That is why mothers are told not to drink alcohol or take certain medications when feeding. We can pass bad things to our babies that way. Nothing is fool proof.
I'm not advocating formula over breast milk. But the scare tactics of those that try to force breast feeding on the public has become obnoxious and borderline fanatical. This author is just showing that the data being used in these scare tactics has a lot of holes. She points to studies in her own articles.
Should we try to breast feed - of course. But to say we are harming our children by not doing so is extremely misleading and harmful. We live in a day and age where we depend a lot on substitutes - vitamins, eye glasses, heck even disposable diapers... just because they aren't natural, doesn't mean they're bad for you.
- EBHLive June 28, 2009 3:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
If health authorities make exaggerated and alarmist claims about the risks of artificial feeding, they should be criticized. However, Joan Wolf's argument is itself questionable. She argued:
"Certainly, passion for breastfeeding .. [derives] from an ethos which presumes that a moral mother will subjugate herself completely to a culturally defined, all-inclusive notion of the needs of children."
This portrays breastfeeding as a burden or a constraint, that mothers subjugate themselves to. She continues:
"When mothers have wants, such as a sense of bodily, emotional, and psychological autonomy, but children have needs, such as an environment in which anything less than optimal is framed as perilous, then good mothering requires that mothers repress their own wants."
Once again, breastfeeding is portrayed as a threat to a woman's autonomy. The needs of children for the "optimal" - breastfeeding - is seen as a requirement for woman to "repress their own wants." It is curious Wolf views breastfeeding in so negative a way. Therefore we should ask what would make Wolf and other women react so negatively to the idea of breastfeeding.
Breastfeeding is nominally supported but subtly undermined by messages suggesting that it is tricky, burdensome, a drain on women's strength and a threat to women's autonomy. Perhaps we need to look at who benefits from these messages and how society can change to make it more friendly to breastfeeding.
- Michael Glass September 19, 2008 6:06PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Uncommitted
Wolf and others oppose heavy-handed government campaigns designed to reduce women's range of acceptable choices to one. Every woman's situation is different, every family's situation is different, and it does none of them any good to spread misinformation about risks. I don't know what Mr. Glass means to imply with his nasty and unfounded insinuations about Joan Wolf's ideals. Certainly not the truth, which is that individual families should be allowed to make their own informed decisions about what is best for them.
- Scardanelli September 21, 2008 7:05PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
In response to the abusive posting above, I should point out that I support any move to criticize any exaggerated promotion of breastfeeding. This is stated explicitly in my posting above. Alarmist propaganda is counterproductive. However, I also question a portrayal of breastfeeding to mean a woman will
* "subjugate herself completely to a culturally defined, all-inclusive notion of the needs of children"
* "requires that mothers repress their own wants."
I stated, and I repeat, that Joan Wolf's words reveal some hostility to breastfeeding and I wonder why this is so. I also repeat my suggestion that we consider who benefits from any hostility to breastfeeding and how society can change to make it more friendly to breastfeeding. And for the record, that does not have to mean that it must become more hostile to artificial feeding.
- Michael Glass September 22, 2008 6:54AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Uncommitted
Women's options concerning infant feeding are limited by many factors, including work environment and social pressures. However, far more women are bombarded with formula industry advertising than ever saw the government's ill-fated ad campaign (the content of which was in part determined by the formula industry, as reported by The Washington Post). Yes, families should be allowed to make informed choices but that requires being truly INFORMED and truly having options (education, workplace supports, medical supports) from which to choose.
- JDmama September 22, 2008 11:30AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
These arguments that mothers are burdened by breastfeeding are completely untrue. It is true that all parents make sacrifices for their children, it just goes with the territory. But in my opinion, breastfeeding is not one of those sacrifices.
- Santa Cruz Mom September 24, 2008 2:00PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
This debate, like many other debates about work, women, and childcare, is framed in a way that leads to loose-loose solutions. The problem is not that breastfeeding reduces a woman's autonomy. The problem is that our system is structured in ways that force women to choose between breastfeeding (a potentially very rewarding source of joy and bonding for both the mother and the baby) and autonomy. The solution is not to question the positive benefits of breastfeeding, and turn this into a battle where mother and child are somehow pitted against each other. The solution is to develop institutions where mothers and fathers are given options of flexiwork, generous and equal paternity and maternity leave, good quality childcare, and areas in the workplace (and childcare center) where moms can breastfeed or pump milk.
My experience was that nursing my son was a joy, which made a lot of other things easier because it created a strong bond between me and my son. However, the demands of my work made breastfeeding difficult and often very painful. As a graduate student I don't get any maternity leave; the university did not have any place, except the restroom, where I could pump milk; and I usually had back to back classes that did not allow me to go home and pump milk. I was determined to breastfeed my son mainly because it was something that made both of us really happy (also, my son refused the bottle). However, the complete lack of institutional support, and indeed the many barriers my workplace placed in front of me, made me feel that I was trying to do something furtive and unsavory by wanting to nurse my son. Also, it was ultimately counterproductive not just for me but in terms of my productivity as a worker since being unable to nurse on time lead to infections and pain, which in turn meant that I ended up working less than I would have if my workplace had had the foresight to institute some basic facilities for mothers.
My husband was of limited help during this time since, obviously, he can't breastfeed, and like many other children who are breastfed, my son completely refused the bottle. However, after the first year, when I stopped breastfeeding, my husband took on the majority of the child care duties. However, again, our attempts to ensure that our son had a strong bond with my husband as well as with me, were met with resistance at every step from both our workplaces (of course, he has no paternity leave and no flexitime).
As a woman, I value my autonomy, and I support all attempts to increase the choices available to women. However, I resent and disagree with attempts to frame struggles for increasing my autonomy, as a battle between men and women, or as a battle between children and women. This framing twists the reality in ways that are not only inaccurate but strategically less powerful. My reality is that my husband and son are on my side, and we are all fighting against a system that sometimes makes it impossible for us to work hard at things we enjoy doing, and at the same time have a strong commitment to our family.
So, I appreciate the motivation behind the argument proposed in this blog. And I appreciate that your motivation is not fight against anything perceived as reducing my autonomy as a woman. However, the choice between autonomy and breastfeeding is not a choice I should have to make, and I resent attempts at framing the argument in a way that makes these antithetical, and then attempts to make me feel better about it. Perhaps formula is better. Perhaps breastfeeding is better. The question is largely irrelevant. I want to breastfeed. I should be able to do so without having to reconcile myself to a loss of autonomy.
So although I think your motivations are good, I think you are going about helping me the wrong way. You are choosing the wrong argument, and ultimately you are harming instead of helping me by framing the argument in ways that pit me against my son rather than pitting me against a workplace that does not support my twin roles as worker and mother. By framing the argument as women against child instead of family against corporates, you make it impossible to pass legislation that would make my life so much easier. Legislation on things that most of us (except perhaps some retrograde corporations) can agree on - like quality childcare, and generous and equal maternity and paternity leave. Legislation that would make it unnecessary for me or any other woman to have to choose between autonomy and breastfeeding.
thanks
- dalhia September 23, 2008 9:56AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
I think that BEFORE anyone has children they need to realize that having a baby changes everything. Yes things will be more difficult, no you can't do everything you used to. You can't work 60 hour weeks or just get up and go away for a weekend. People who wnat those things don't really want kids. They like the idea of a cute baby or have visions of perfect kids that fit into their schedules. It doesn't matter if you Breastfeed or formula feed things WILL change. It may be a pain sometimes and you won't come first. Your kids come first and if someone is selfish and doesn't want to put their lives on hold then they have no business having kids.
NOW that said I am NOT accusing Women who formula feed of putting their needs before their children! I just think it is one more way to distance yourself for your baby. I don't think all women do that. I am a firm believer in attachment parenting and it is possible to AP and formula feed, but it is so easy to have someone else feed the baby, or to leave the baby because the sitter has plenty of formula. Until a child is 2 they have a need to be close to their mother that is as real as their need for food.
- Gavinsmama October 2, 2008 10:59AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I think that there are financial interests that have significantly affected the community's views on breastfeeding. Formula companies promote their products from conception via pre natal care, mother and baby magazines etc. There is not nearly as much spent on supporting women who want to breastfeed or at least give it a go.
Formula feeding a baby is not easier than breastfeeding. With some guidance, help and support at the very early stages, until breastfeeding is established, most women and babies find the whole process positive and worthwhile from a health and bonding perspective.
Unfortunately this help may not always be available whereas formula is heavily promoted via fear campaigns (your baby isn't thriving, be sure your baby gets all it needs etc etc). Many mothers feel the most pressure from family members and friends (many of whom themselves were intimidated into formula feeding because they did not have the support they, themselves needed.
- cath7472 September 18, 2008 3:52PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(6)
Side: No
The idea that women "choose" formula feeding or breastfeeding is itself flawed. If a woman is too poor to afford formula or physically unable to breastfeed, she does not have a choice. If a woman is in a community where breastfeeding is encouraged or discouraged, her choices will be constrained. If society is so structured that a woman is compelled to return to work while she is still breastfeeding, then that woman's choices about breastfeeding are restricted. If race, class and other social locations have a powerful influence on women's choices, then the very idea of choice is problematical.
There are social rules that constrain women from breastfeeding their infants in public. These "rules" are a powerful deterrent to breastfeeding. When it becomes just as acceptable to breastfeed in public as it is to bottle feed, then we, perhaps, can start talking about "choice".
- Michael Glass September 19, 2008 5:17PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Uncommitted
Mr. Glass is right that in many places, social practices make breastfeeding harder than it should be. Cath7472 is right that in some places, the pro-formula message is too strong. Neither of these facts changes the terms of the present debate, however: women ought to be able to make choices appropriate to their individual situations without pressure or hindrance from either the state or society.
- Scardanelli September 21, 2008 7:14PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I completely agree. Women should be able to choose which method works best for them and their family. Yes, there are clear health benefits and protections to breastfeeding. However, mothers who choose formula feeding should not be made to feel less than or shamed because they choose not to nurse. It is a completely personal decision either way.
- nmay88 September 21, 2008 8:50PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
There is no argument here. Choice is not choice where no choice exists. I agree with nmay88 that there are clear health benefits and protections with breastfeeding. For that reason every legitimate step should be taken to promote it and facilitate it. However, when promotion steps over the mark and becomes unacceptable pressure, this too should not be accepted. Remember, though, that formula manufacturers have all the power of advertising to promote their product and their profits.
- Michael Glass September 21, 2008 11:28PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Uncommitted
I agree that it is important breastfeeding be promoted. I definitely think it is worth it for women to try before deciding against it. I did it with all 3 of my children and experienced many of the benefits listed in the debate above. I think with the proper support more women would probably choose to nurse. I have several friends who tried it briefly, became frustrated, and gave up. With proper support, they probably would have continued longer. I also do think some women give it up because it's just easier to use formula and with more women working outside the home and having busy schedules it becomes more convenient to use formula as a substitute.
- nmay88 September 22, 2008 1:49PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Why is choice about everything seen as the Holy Grail? Some things are just better because the documented evidence (the science, if you will) demonstrates it to be the case. We don't say that people should have the choice to drink drive, for example. Just because you have the power to choose doesn't always make it your right, it just proves that you are the more powerful in the relationship. I don't believe that it is a completely personal decision either way, because you are putting your wants and desires above another less powerful person's wants and needs - usually a person that parents claim to love, want and cherish more than any other thing on the whole planet(except where it's inconvenient?). Of course some women will formula feed and there babies will be OK but hopefully that shouldn't be a matter of choice in the normal course of events, but a necessity.
- cath7472 October 2, 2008 3:54AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
I am a pro-choice person and I do believe in the power of making your own decisions. However this choice has to come from well informed decisions. Many healthcare professionals only learn about breastfeeding in physiology –more about how we lactate than breastfeeding-, and trying to give bias information provided by the multi billion industries. If you look at the formula boxes it says “mother’s milk is the best food for the baby” in very small print. Does this remind you of the warning signs on the cigarette packages?
What is more how about the maternal benefits of breastfeeding? Again it is proven that the breastfeeding reduces the woman’s chance of getting breast cancers –as per World Health Organization-. How many formula packages can do this?
How about the babies “Birthright”? How come every one talking about the mother’s right to choose, but no one ever mentions about the babies birthright?
So there is more than meets the eye as you see. Do please remember human babies born to have human milk; it is normal, it is natural, and it is the best possible choice for the mother and the baby. Therefore please use your right to choose, and make this one a well informed one.
- raiec September 27, 2008 5:17PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
>How about the babies “Birthright”? How come every one talking about the mother’s right to choose, but no one ever mentions about the babies birthright?
There is a hazard in substituting any formula that contains soy!
Soy is estrogenic enough to be marketed in capsule form refined and called genestein. The use of this product is touted to be able to suppress testosterone enough to be of use in testosterone reducing protocol in treating prostate cancer. The fact that it does this is capable of bringing the usual side effects of lowered testosterone to the user.
Any milk formula based on soybeans will be estrogenic in nature. Giving this to girl babies is likely to cause earlier puberty in girls- not necessarily a benefit. Fed to boy babies it is capable of confusing their sexual development. We already seem to be having evidence of some things in the environment causing lowered male fertility, lowered sperm motility, higher defective sperm.
I realize there will be cases where the use of formula may be better than inadequate breast milk. I am pleased that my wife was able to breast feed all 4 of our offspring.
Hal 84
- Hal 84 December 28, 2008 8:39AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Why, if a mother chooses to formula feed, for whatever reason, are they told their choice was an uninformed one? Why is this assumed? I've seen it mentioned here a few times that mothers have to make an informed decision. How does one person know that another persons decision is uninformed?
- candlemomma124 October 1, 2008 9:35AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
If a person knows that breast milk is far superior, then WHY would someone choose to give their child less than the best. They assume that the person is uninformed because what it would mean if they were informed and still chose formula (barring any physical inabilities to produce milk)? I think they are giving the person the benefit of the doubt instead of saying oh they really know, but made an incredibly selfish and bad decision for their child. A decision that will effect that child's health for the rest of their lives. I certainly don't get someone making the "choice" to not breastfeed beyond extenuating circumstances that I wrote above.
- Iknowbetter October 1, 2008 1:57PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Women are advised not to do many things when their babies are in utero for risk of adversely impacting on their health - drinking, smoking, taking medications etc. Yet once the child is born how to feed it becomes a "lifestyle choice"?? I accept that some women may find breastfeeding difficult for a number of reasons, but that does not change the fact that breastfeeding is a far superior form of nutrition for a baby. And as for scientific proof breastfeeding is healthier - the World Health Organisation is already pretty clear on that one. How can you possibly suggest that an artificial product, to which many babies can be allergic or intolerant, can be better than the nutrition created by nature? We are the only mammals who choose to feed our babies something other than breastmilk. Babies digestive systems were designed to process breastmilk, not cows milk formula. Breastmilk was designed to nourish babies.
As a mother who breastfed for 23 months (including whilst working) I have seen the health benefits breastfeeding can bring not only to my baby, but also to me, with the immunity benefits breastfeeding offers not just to baby but also to mother when one of us has had highly contagious illnesses (eg: chickenpox) but the other did not contract it due to the antibodies in one of us passing through to the other via breastmilk.
- jloukath December 10, 2008 10:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"If, in the future, science demonstrates that breastfeeding has serious health advantages, then public health officials, women, and their families will have to determine whether the benefits of breastfeeding override its costs. In the meantime, in the overwhelming majority of cases, either breastfeeding or formula-feeding is a healthy option." quote: mrs Wolf
Well, of course breastfeeding is in no way to be put forward as beneficial or better, it is just the biological norm. All substitutes of a norm will have to prove their necessity and safety. Human milk substitutes have for now failed to do so. Not breastfeeding is proven to be risky and morbidity is in the ranges similar to those of unsafe sleep arrangements and severe child abuse. See press release of NIH: http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/may2004/niehs-02.htm , but more evidence is out there.
Formula feeding is not a lifestyle choice, it should rather be seen as a prosthesis, like a prosthesis to replace a missing hand, eye- or ear-function, in case a mother is medically unable to breastfeed. Even then, human milk would be the preferred option. Only in very rare cases of metabolic disorders, like galactosemia, will an infant not be able to tolerate human milk.
Breast or bottle is not a lifestyle choice, it is a child health choice and a women's health choice. Not lactating increases the risks of developing ''female'' diseases like reproductive organ cancers, postpartum depression and osteoporosis.
- Gonneke
May 8, 2009 3:49AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
It is a choice. My baby was extremely little and had some health problems and his peditrician recommended that i use a formula formulated especially for him. I had planned to breast feed but of coarse I wanted what was best for my baby and that is what the dr recommended.. He did wonderfully.. Grew off like no baby i had ever seen. I was so pleased with his growth and how healty he turned out that I had the dr formulate a formula for my 2nd child even though he was a big healty baby. I have never regretted this and my kids are in their 30's now .... breast feeding is like anything else a choice an i get a little sick of people trying to say it is the best because that is not always so..
- cbooh October 30, 2009 11:07PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
15
14
14
11
17
0
0
0
0
0
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Will Formula Feeding Harm My Baby?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
This Is Not A Yes or No Question
Breastmilk will always be superior to formula, but formula needs to be there. My sister gave birth three days before my dad died. he body went into shock and she never produced milk again. Since we know formula doesn't measure up, that should be our opportunity to help make it better for unfortunate mothers like mny sister who simply cannot get her body to make milk.
- crunchymom September 21, 2008 3:17PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Careful when you vote
Just a heads-up to users who might be confused by the format and phrasing of this question. The experts are answering the question, "Will Formula Feeding Harm My Baby?" so the "Yes" side is for breastfeeding and the no side is for formula (at least as an option). The poll on the right sidebar asks, "Should You Formula Feed?" It's not the same question. If you vote yes in the poll, you're voting with the No Side expert, and if you vote no in the poll, you're voting with the Yes Side expert.
- thoughtcounts Z
October 31, 2008 7:38PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I find it sad that we are judging each other
I think it is especially sad that we are even having this debate. I don't personally know of a single mom who didn't at least try to breast feed. I appreciate that LLL and other organizations were very necessary twenty or thirty years ago when the tide had turned against breast feeding. However I believe that the majority of moms today are well aware of the risks and benefits on both sides. I think that breast milk is best whenever possible, however there are a lot of moms that aren't able to provide that for their baby for the entire first year or at all. I think by even having this debate you are just causing undue stress on those moms. My mom battled with breast feeding for three months. I consulted with LLL members, friends, and visited with a lactation consultant at least five times. By the end even my lactation consultant was recommending that I move to exclusive pumping. I was able to pump for until my son was eight months and we have been doing formula for the last two months. Yes, I would prefer to still be giving him breast milk, but that isn't want worked for us. I have enough personal guilt that breast feeding didn't work for us. What I don't need in my life is other mom, who didn't encounter the challenges I did, making me feel like less of a mom or a bad person for a decision that I made to preserve my sanity and my relationship with my son. Please continue to encourage breast feeding. Educate people. Offer resources. But DON'T make people feel scared or guilty when they are using formula.
- tlynn
December 8, 2008 7:49AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
this is not an "all size fits all' question!
Much research I have seen clearly demonstrates the superiority of human milk to manufactured formula for human babies. But no one can adequately answer the question as you word it without obtaining more information on the specific "baby" in "my baby". After breastfeeding one child for several years, I experienced what appears to have been an idiopathic primary failure to lactate with another. While artificial infant milk may have been hazardous to the health of the first, withholding it would have been hazardous to the health of the second! So unless the wording of the question is stated more specifically, I must remain uncommitted.
- mbyeagerus
December 8, 2008 6:58PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Biological norm
Breastfeeding is not the "Gold-Standard". It is the biological norm. Formula is inferior to breastfeeding.
- Betherbugs
December 9, 2008 4:51PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I think we've over simplified this question
While I don't think that feeding your baby formula is going to harm your baby, I think it is pretty common knowledge that breast milk is certainly a healthier choice for your child. Sometimes formula is needed.
Certainly formula is healthier for a child of a woman with HIV than her breastmilk is, considering that HIV can be transmitted through breastmilk. What about women who have to be on a medication?
When I went back to work, I could not pump enough during the day to feed my son, I had to supplement with formula. My work had a very accomodating pumping schedule for me (three to four half hour breaks a day, in addition to my lunch break), but I just couldn't make enough. The supplementation did not harm our nursing when I was at home. He is 12 months old now, and we are still nursing.
I have a cousin who planned to breastfeed exclusively, but never put in the amount of time required to breastfeed. She fed her son for 5 to 10 minutes at a time only three times a day! Furthermore, she did not eat nearly enough calories to make good breastmilk. She literally lived off of two cans of low fat chicken noodle soup a day for the first six months of her child's life. At 8 months old, her son had only gained three pounds. He was literally starving. Certainly, formula would have been better for him than her lame attempt at nursing. That is an extreme example, but it is a real one.
I think rather than demonizing formula we should be singing the praises of breastmilk. We should be making it easier for women to breastfeed by passing laws like the one recently passed in Colorado that makes all employers with more than 2 employees provide paid break time for pumping and offering national paid family leave, like in every other first world country. Formula should be marketed as a choice for mothers who for medical reasons cannot breastfeed, from HIV to borderline eating disorder (like my cousin, who, at the very least, got her prepregnancy figure back very quickly).
I don't think formula is an alternative to breast milk, but when breast milk is unavailable, it is certainly better than letting a baby starve.
- jessimonster
December 10, 2008 8:25AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.