So I just read yet another pro-breastfeeding article that makes me want to scream. It's on a study done that apparently concluded that babies who are breastfed for at least four months have greater lung capacity than babies who either were not breastfed or breastfed for less than four months. The study sounds so odd to me ... it was done on the Isle of Wight in the UK, where about 1,000 kids who were born in 1989 were tested for their lung capacity at the age of 10. So how strange is it to take a bunch of 10-year-olds and assume that their lung function depends purely on whether or not they were breastfed for four months. Am I missing something here?? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28471503/
The researchers asserted that it takes more effort for babies to suckle a human nipple than one on a bottle, and therefore breastfed babies are getting more exercise, directly and positively impacting their lungs. (Say what??)
Just more ammo for the "breast is best" advocates.
Comment on this postAll user-generated information on this site is the opinion of its author only and is not a substitute for medical advice or treatment for any medical conditions. Members and guests are responsible for their own posts and the potential consequences of those posts detailed in our Terms of Service.
Add a Comment19 Comments
Kristin, I am going to step in and tell you that it is very possible that this report may reveal just more wisdom from mother nature.
Have you ever asked yourself why females in the animal kingdom have been equipped with mammary glands? (with some medically indicated exceptions) and why babies have to learn very quickly (right after a few hours of breathing on their own) how to "suck" on a nipple? Why is it harder for babies to latch and get that milk out from mommy? Why do babies once given the rubber nipple do not want to go back to the real thing? Answer: artificial nipples do not take much work why would a baby want to go back to mommy's nipple when he can satisy his hunger with "fast food"? This report makes so much sense! Mother nature has a purpose for everything, this is the wisdom that we still do not understand.
I am pro-breastfeeding and proud of it! Here is why: There is plenty of medical evidence that shows that human milk is uniquely suited for human infants. Human milk is a living dynamic fluid specifically produced for human infants but this amazing body engineering. The brain knows exactly what type of nutrients to manufacture, what amounts, and what quality to meet the infant's nutritional needs.
No formula has EVER been produced that replicates the composition of nutrients in human milk. In addition to nutrients, human milk contains enzymes, hormones, growth factors, immunological and anti-allergic factors and prostaglandins. Formula contains nutrients but does not contain any of the other components mentioned above. And, the concentration and bioavailability of nutrients are superior in human milk. For example, fatty acids, unique to human milk, play a role in infant brain and visual development.
As the baby grows in the first year of life, the mother's milk also "evolves" to meet the nutritional needs of the offspring. You can replace the process of breastfeeding with convinience food any time you want. There are many "good" formulas out there, but when a baby has a chance to get the "real" thing, why deny him the option!
Modern-era adults have bombarded their bodies with artificially manufactured foods instead of choosing natural options whenever possible, could this be the reason why we are now on a health crisis?
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recently published an analysis of studies on the impact of breastfeeding in developed countries. Published in 2007, one conclusion was that breastfeeding has a profound impact on both infant and maternal health, including reducing the risk of ear infections, gastroenteritis, respiratory tract infections, dermatitis, asthma, obesity, type 1 and 2 diabetes, childhood leukemia and sudden infant death syndrome in the child, as well as breast cancer, ovarian cancer and type 2 diabetes in the mother.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has joined other organizations such as the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Dietetic Association (ADA), and the World Health Organization (WHO) in recommending breastfeeding as the BEST for babies. Breastfeeding helps defend against infections, prevent allergies, and protect against a number of chronic conditions. The AAP says babies should be breastfed exclusively for the first 6 months. Beyond that, the AAP encourages breastfeeding until at least 12 months, and longer if both the mother and baby are willing.
Although breastfeeding may not be physically possible for all women, I think women have a personal responsibility when deciding to breastfeed or formula feed, not different than parents making healthy food choices for this older children when shopping at a food market.
It does take more effort to nurse from a breast than from a bottle, although I'm not sure how that would strengthen the lungs - the jaw or mouth muscles, maybe?
I suppose I could be put the in 'breast is best advocate' category, if one had to categorize me. From a nutritional standpoint, breast is, in fact, best, although not possible for all mothers or babies. With all due respect, there is no 'ammo' needed and I would not consider this 'propaganda'. If the studies seem wrong or suspect to people, that's ok, they are entitled to think that. But 'propaganda' seems such a strong and negative word for a subject that many women feel very bonded to (breastfeeding).
The subject seems to rile so many people, both for advocacy or not. I don't know why. There are passionate areas in life from wars, foreign policy, health care and gun ownership but nothing seems to get women going like the subject of breastfeeding! I breastfed all my children and would do so again (and again! and again!). I have friends who didn't even try. For most, it's all a personal choice. I've never said anything to those who didn't, because why would I? It's none of my business. It's like my vegetarianism; I'm not out to convert the world, particularly when the world doesn't want to be converted! But I should also be allowed to do my own thing.
One well-meaning (I hope!) lady at an airport lounge asked me once if I'd prefer the privacy of a toilet stall to nurse my daughter! I had to smile and tell her that my family doesn't eat in toilet stalls! I had to wonder to myself later, if she'd be happy to take her chicken salad sandwich and soda pop in to a toilet stall at lunch time and be happy to munch away for half an hour while sitting on a toilet seat:)
The subject brings out the hippie in me!
It's just breasts and breastmilk and babies. The science on breastmilk has been studied in depth and the results are very clear. But let's allow women to make their own choices.
This dialogue is getting interesting, here is what I think. Women's biological programming includes the nurturing thing (feeding their offspring is an example of it). How so? To ensure survival of the baby who is not yet equipped to find/hunt for food on his own, the mother produces the food (home made)to feed him (with some exceptions of those who are unable to due it for XYZ reason).
Like birds pick the right type of worms to feed their chicks, humans can discern and pick the most appropriate food for their baby either by learning more about it, reading latest scientific evidence, or simply following her own "mother's instinct. Is there a moral obligation for a parent at any stage of a child's development to offer the most nutritious food? I think most of us believe the answer is a big YES!
Is it morally wrong to ignore the abundant science which shows that breast milk is best for a baby human at least the first 6 months of life in the name of "choice"? I think "choice" in this case does not imply gambling with another being's health. The freedoms women want to enjoy should not come at the expense of another human's wellbeing, especially when that mother is physically capable of offering the best food.
If you hold strongly the argument of women's choice, then every parent who buys and feeds their child junk food should be off the hook for the child's health conditions such as diabetes, obesity, malnutrition, high cholesterol, etc. Smoking during pregnancy is also a choice, should we ignore this fact when we spend millions of dollars caring from premies in the hospital due to premature births caused by smoking? Is this the price we are willing to pay in the name of SELF? Wow!
The main problem I have with the "breast is best" trend (and yes, this is simply a trend -- remember the "formula is best" trend of the 60's?) that has been going strong for about the past ten years or so is the fact that some new moms and their infants are unable to breastfeed. Thus, yet another thing for moms to feel guilty about.
I breastfed two of my four babies. Of the two who were fed formula: one I was unable to breastfeed after her first week of life, and the other I chose not to breastfeed. When I chose not to breastfeed my fourth baby due to medical reasons, I was horrified at the way I was treated by the nurses and the lactation consultant at the hospital where I delivered. They were so unwilling to respect my choice, no matter what or how legitimate the reasons.
I feel very strongly that breast is NOT necessarily best. Whatever works for a mom and her infant IS best. I think if we all could agree to that, then we'd all get along when it comes to this issue. I think it's so ridiculous how we moms can be so polarized on such a trivial issue. I mean, our kids are most likely going to live on this planet for HOW MANY YEARS? -- eating and drinking and smoking God knows what, and we're so focused on what they're fed for their first one?!? Let's get off our soapboxes, ladies!
Sorry, but I cannot share your soapbox. I have no political agenda, I am a modern, hard working executive that cannot support views such as yours just in the name of women's rights. Although I appreciate your views, these are the result of years of marketing and brainwashing by formula companies that have convinced many women that fast/convinience foods come first before healthy choices. You know that there is no substitute for the natural, real thing. Physiology design is not a "trend", it is a fact. Mammary glands are there for a reason. They are used for breastfeeding when needed. Modern choices do not make trendy anything designed by physiology that has remained the same for thousands of years.
The original intent in the early 1800s, when swiss chemist Nestle invented formula was to help mothers who were NOT able to feed premature babies. This original purpose was noble and truly a medical necessity but when BIG money saw the opportunity it became a very profitable business and convinced women it was OK to do it as a replacement of a natural biological process.
We are among a handfull of societies in the world that follows "trends" while the rest of the world including many European countries are going back to basics and since 2004 these efforts have become the norm and embraced by many countries in Europe. http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_projects/2002/promotion/fp_promotion_2002_...
You can get into slogans such as "Breast is not necessarily BEST" but regardless of what these slogans promote, the fact is natural is better than anything that comes in a can with shelf life. You personal experience with your last child was due to medical reasons. But do not put down the natural act of breasfeeding by overemphasizing "guilt" If you stay to the facts (and having medical reasons for not breastfeeding is a medical fact) then why feel guilty about the only choice you had to provide nutrition to your baby? You did what you needed to do and canned formula was the best option in this case!
The issue is with women who having the ability to breastfeed, deny the baby this motherly source of nutrients. That in my book is a moral issue based solely in a selfish decision. That is not what motherhood is about. Sorry, but cannot get on board with your thinking on this one.
But I don't understand why you are condemning a woman who has the ability to breastfeed but makes the choice not to breastfeed (for whatever reason) as "denying her baby this motherly source of nutrients." You're not respecting her choice as a mother that she knows what is best. You've already judged her as being selfish and even immoral. That's what I find awful about this whole issue -- that we are so viciously quick to judge each other. Why is that?
At gatherings I always knew to stay away from discussions about politics and religion and now I will add breastfeeding to that list!
I truly cringe at some of the phrases above like "moral issue based solely in a selfish decision" and "women have a personal responsibility".
Susan-I'm proud of your response to the women who asked you to breast feed in the bathroom, if a women is comfortable breastfeeding in public then she should be allowed to do it. We are so prudish in this country and fear any glimpse of a body part.
Kristin-I think it is criminal that you felt so persecuted by the hospital staff for not breastfeeding your baby-it was ultimately your decision and it was wrong they tried to make you feel bad about it. Giving birth is already a very traumatic event and given some of the medical circumstances going on, it's not like you did not already have enough on your plate.
For the record, I breastfed my daughter for 6 weeks. I would of done it longer if I could. That being said I would not judge or think poorly of any one who did not choose to breastfeed. Although there have been many studies showing positive benefits I don't think the lack of breastfeeding will doom your child for eternity and some of the information out there does start to sound a bit "propaganda like"
My wife just asked my opinion on this issue which from the postings has shifted to an ethical discussion. I cannot tell if all the postings came from women and I am the only guy getting my nose in dangerous turf. But I will assume this forum allows for everyone's opinions.
We have one child and my wife is expecting twins in March. We both work, she is a pediatrician and I am a professor of philosophy and ethics. So, here are my two cents on this topic first as a professional:
1. Kristin and Kelley from a pure ethical perspective you both assume that the "choice" of a mother against the "choice of another human being - the baby" is greater in value. Enmanuel Kant talks about the "right to no harm" as a societal ethical issue. This has nothing to do with religion! It is pure and simple ethical analysis. Let's assume that instead of breast milk this was an issue a mother's refusal to access medical care for her baby in the name of choice, then the child dies as a result of her choice. Was that choice the right one? And YES society has the right to judge. We do it all the time. We judge politicians, religious leaders, conservative and liberals. Judging is not one sided, that is why we have a free society that seeks what is best for its survival. We do not need ethical anarchy, do we?
If scientific evidence shows that nutrients in mother's milk are of higher quality than formula, and the mother has not medical restrictions to provide this source of nutrients to her offspring, but she chooses to bottlefeed instead, are her actions ethical? She may be potentially denying a healthier life to her baby, and the report from MSNBC is just the beginning to the slippery slope...
2. As a father, I could not be more appreciative to my wife's choice of wanting to breastfeed our twins the same way she did our son. She has a busy practice and we will work as a team to ensure the necessary amounts of breast milk are pumped for both babies. As many twins tend to be born prematurely, we will always face the possibility of having to opt for formula if the medical need arises. But we will try our best to give our babies what mother nature designed her body for, the most nurturing process of life. Her choice is hers, but based on what is best for the babies not what is best for her. Pure and simple, selfless decision. We do not judge those women whose circumstances as such that even if they wanted to breastfeed could not possibly do it. But we judge those who having the " natural nutritional source" deny it to their baby. The same way we judge those parents who let kids smoke, use drugs, drink alcohol, or give their kids birth control pills at age 11. My wife can tell you the horrible stories of young kids she sees in her office whose parents act unattached from the consequences of their choices as parents. Yes, my wife can judge, I can judge, WE as a society have the right to judge when we think we have gone too far in many areas of our lives including health. I will judge those parents who:
1. Choose to smoke during pregnancy
2. Use drugs during and after having a baby
3. Feed their children junk food to the point of creating an obesity and diabetes epidemic in our society thus causing the cost of healthcare to sky rocket.
4. Push their kids to multiple sports disregarding the immature physiology of their young bodies to the point of causing long term injuries and multiple surgeries.
My list is long, but I have made my point as a man, father, husband and a professional who is committed to teaching students to know the difference between right and wrong choices....
Anonymous, you've given us a very thoughtful comment, and I really appreciate it. It's very interesting to hear from a dad's perspective on this topic!
About your first point: I'm not at all convinced that breast milk is of higher quality than formula. It's so subjective. A breastfeeding mom may be ingesting foods that are filled with artificial ingredients, or food that contains hormones, or food that has been covered in various pesticides, etc, etc. To say that I denied two of my kids a healthier life by feeding them formula (and very high quality formula at that) seems quite extreme.
Just a side note ... interestingly, one of my children who I did breastfeed has always had a much weaker immune system and never fails to catch every virus that's going around. One of my children who was formula fed is always unbelievably healthy.
In response to, "I'm not all convinced that breast milk is of higher quality than formula" here is one article:
http://www.mothering.com/articles/new_baby/breastfeeding/dont-trash.html
and another as recent as December 19, 2008:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/health/research/20breast.html
Kristin, I think we do need to discuss breastfeeding more in our society. We need to share information and that is not the same as passing judgment. Your stories about being treated poorly by a lactation consultant or why you decided formula was a better choice for you and your children are important things for women (and hospital staff) to hear. I want to hear your stories, now that you have hinted at them. It is none of my business, of course, but if you want to share and feel like society doesn't allow you to share your stories because some of them include formula, well please know that I and surely others believe your stories are important. All mothers need to share their stories, in my opinion.
To empower women we must make sure they have all of the information they need to make informed decisions. Now, if you truly believe breastmilk and formula are equals, then that is your opinion, but it is not supported by the evidence. Empowered women need to know what the evidence states and it is almost universally that breastmilk is the superior infant food. Not only that, breastfeeding is also beneficial to the mother, but that is often left out of the discussion.
Please see the following re: breastfeeding reducing breast cancer rates:
http://www.llli.org/llleaderweb/LV/LVAprMay99p29.html
and for all of breastfeeding benefits see this page:
http://www.llli.org/NB/NBbenefits.html
On a more radical note, I would like to offer the additional choice of using donated breast milk for the mother who cannot breastfeed her own child. If this gives the reader a knee-jerk negative reaction, please ask yourself why. Then remember that cow milk has evolved for baby cows (who later become 1500 lb adult cows), not baby humans. That soy beans are heavily processed to become soy milk. Then return to asking why using non-maternal human milk has fallen out of favor in our society. In fact, there are many mothers today who choose donor breastmilk instead of formula. This is a choice often left out of breastmilk vs. formula debates. I have never used donor milk, nor have I ever donated milk. I just wanted to share this information because it is an option that I had never heard of until learning more about the countless benefits of breastmilk and that was only after I had become a mother myself. For more information on donor breastmilk or human milk banks please see:
http://www.hmbana.org/
or
http://www.breastfeeding.com/all_about/all_about_milk_banks.html
or
http://www.womenshealth.gov/breastfeeding/index.cfm?page=359
If you would like to donate milk or find donor milk in your area, the best way to find donors is to simply network within your parenting community.
I also wanted to point out that you seemed to need to defend your choice of formula-feeding with "(and very high quality formula at that)." Be careful there, this was the very thing you stated you were against. You clarified that you have a standard that many other women in our country may not have. Let's all be careful to simply share information and when things get personal, we have to make sure that is clear to the readers as well. The downside of all this wonderful technology is that we talk differently to each other when we aren't face to face.
I think people will always judge each other because that is the nature of making hard choices for yourself. When you see other people make different choices, you wonder if your choice was truly the best choice. All we can do is make the best choices with the information we have. Making sure mothers have the best information about breastfeeding and formula feeding is the true way to empower women about this topic.
Please know that I believe that women do not always judge each other on this topic. Usually women that come across as judgmental have had their own tough battles that have made them quick to defend their beliefs, even if they were not questioned in the first place. A breastfeeding friend may question why her friend who is not breastfeeding, but it may be from a place of wanting to understand and support, not judge. That breastfeeding friend has most likely defended her choices to others, especially to the generation before us who were advised not to breastfeed, as you pointed out. That formula feeding mothers feel they may be asked to explain how they chose to formula-feed is simply the same experience breastfeeding mothers have had for over 50 years in this country. I don't see that there must be an inherent problem in sharing stories. We must simply remember the goal in doing so--so that we are doing it in a way to support each other in the constant struggle and joy that is motherhood.
Cynthia in Charlottesville, VA
(after previewing I see I don't have an account but I am worried this long post will disappear if I go create one!)