This article brought back some bad memories for me.
I had to deal with a "Lactation Consultant" within 2 hrs of an emergency c-section. I hadn't even seen my daughter, much less had the time to breast feed her. Thankfully, my husband threw her out of the room.

She came back the next day w/ reinforcements. She and her fascist friends tried to make me feel as though I was a bad mother for not breast feeding. Never mind the fact that I was trying very hard to breast feed, and at the very least, I was making sure my baby got colostrum.

According to her, I was a failure, a bad mother, and I should have my child taken from me, because I couldn't produce breast milk. (No woman in either side of my family has been able to produce for generations.)

I felt horrible and wanted to make sure I wasn't hurting my daughter. I even looked into hiring a nurse maid, (Yes, they are out there.)and buying breast milk.

Thankfully, I had an honest OB who assured me my daughter would be just fine and brought me studies to read about breast milk. She also kicked the consultant out of my room, loudly. :-)

The lactation industry (and it is an industry) accuses the formula industry of brain washing women, etc.. and while that may have been true once upon a time ago, it no longer is. Formula has made leaps and bounds and honestly, in some cases, is BETTER than breast milk.

They are just as guilty, if not more so, of brain washing women.

It should be left up to the mother whether or not to breast feed. Some women can't for whatever reason, and they should NEVER be made to feel guilty over this, but they are, for the sake of "the children."

This reminds me of a discussion I recently had with a friend who is also a doctor.

I had just read an article where someone had done a "meta-study" on heart treatments. They found that most of the treatment recommendations were based on the opinions of prominent doctors, but had no formal basis on patient studies. Example: aspirin is often prescribed for heart patients. When? How much? Apparently no studies have been done.

My friend commented, apparently as a non sequiter, that his time in the Army had been really refreshing - great teamwork, little emphasis on rank. He then explained that doctors have amongst themselves a very authoritarian hierarcy. If a famous doctor says that painting patients' eyelids yellow is good, then this will become dogma and no one will dare question it.

His lovely summary: medicine is often not "evidence based" but rather "eminence based".

Busted.

I had a really positive experience breastfeeding, but I know several women who, for one reason or another, didn't. You are not a bad mother if you don't breastfeed, whether it is by choice or necessity. The vast majority of babies from my generation (I'm thirty) were given formula. Are we any less intelligent or healthy? I doubt it.

Despite the promised benefits of breastfeeding, my baby had terrible colic, allergies, and one ear infection after another. (No, it wasn't because of anything in my milk. We tested that option.) I suspect that many of the positive benefits of breastfeeding, such as higher IQ, are really a matter of correlation, not causation. The middle and upper class women who breastfeed are also more likely to follow other practices that lead to higher intelligence and healthier babies. Genetics is also a huge factor.

The primary reasons I breastfed were that it's free milk and there are no bottles to clean. Also, it's true that breast-milk poop really isn't too stinky. To be perfectly honest, I hadn't planned on breastfeeding at all. Based on other mothers' stories, I assumed it would be a horrible, uncomfortable experience. Fortunately for us, my baby latched on right away like a pro, and I produced enough milk to feed the Octomom's babies. (Seriously, I was practically a dairy cow. I should have sold the extra milk.) If I have another baby, I will probably breastfeed again, but if I don't produce enough milk, if it's too painful the second time around, or if the baby is resistant to latching on, I'll switch to the bottle and I won't feel guilty about it.

I've heard stories similiar to Truth's, too. The social pressure to breastfeed seems to be immense. A year or so ago, there were public awareness billboards up around Austin advising that "breast is best," or something like that.

When I have a child, I'll try to breast feed, but if I can't, I can't. If someone tries to make me feel guilty about it, they are likely to get a reaction that will make them profoundly regret their meddling.

I group the breast-feeding zealots in with the "natural birth only" people... If that's what's right for you, wonderful. But, decisons regarding my health, or my child's, are mine to make.

Finally, after 26 years as a mother, I am vindicated!

I also saw a bit on the news last night that said all the nutrients in breast milk are in formula. I have literally been saying this for 26 years, that formula is just as good as breast milk, and if you happen to be a working mother (or any mother not agoraphobic, for that matter), uh, definitely, more practical.

I tried to breastfeed -- for one whole week. I gave it up because my daughter was always hungry and her cries overrode their guilt trips. Switched to formula, and voila, she was satisfied and sleeping through the night (pretty unusual in a one week old), normal feeding patterns throughout the day. She was getting some milk but not enough. Oh, and she had a grand total of two ear infections her whole life -- one when she was an infant but the other not until she was 12.

When she asked my advice for T, I advised the bottle since she would be working and told her exactly what experience had taught me. That breast feeding is nice if you're able but that they put far too much of a guilt trip on women about it. She bottlefed. T is subject to ear infections but he also suffers from food and seasonal and pet allergies. I'd lay dollars to donuts that has more to do with it than the bottle.

I was really pissed off when they came down on Carnation for donating all that formula to third world countries, condemned them for discouraging breast feeding. Yeah, that's a really good idea. Encourage starving mothers to breastfeed.

I'm hardly in a position to know anything about this, but am I wrong in detecting a little snobbery among the pro-breast zealots? "We breastfeed, therefore our babies are, well, it's not really nice to say it this way, but um, better?"

I did both, with both girls, and they're both fine. I breastfed #1 for about a week, and #2 for about a week, before switching over totally to formula. I think #1 had one ear infection, when she was 4 months old, #2 had two of them when she was 18 and 20 months old. And not one since then. And they're both very bright and have been on the honor rolls at schools for most of their academic careers, so far. Fortunately for me, I was never accosted by a Lactation Consultant or anyone else. I probably would have told them to get lost, anyway. o.O

In our parenting classes we observed the fanaticism for breast feeding. Later, when our pediatrician told us to supplement with formula, we greatly enjoyed the practical benefits (like trading off nighttime feedings.)

If you must breast feed in public, please be discreet. I don't like to watch other people use the toilet either.

Old rpm daddy, I agree with you: Boob nazis do seem to believe that their children are better, but, more importantly, their kids are better because they're better mommies for breastfeeding. I have some friends who are at least in the closet about it: They definitely feel superior to moms who bottle feed, but at least they have the social awareness to know that it's not nice to beat people up for that sort of thing.

Actually, T's Grammy, Carnation marketing (not donating!) formula to third world countries was pretty vile. If there's no clean water to make formula and if there's no way to sterilize the bottles afterwards, baby bottles are just a great big breeding ground for bacteria. Not the best for babies who are already missing out on antibodies they would have gotten through breastmilk. AND breastfeeding helps prevent rapid repeat pregnancies, reducing the chances that women would have child after child after child that they couldn't support.

Of course blanket statement that mothers who don't breastfeed are bad mothers is stupid, but I still think this article is complete bullshit.

I wouldn't be surprised if we start to see litigation targeting breast feeding consultants.

The wife of my business partner had an experience that seems similar to the one Truth describes. She was harassed and lied to by 'Leaders' of a wing of La Leche that operates through the local hospital. These women have no medical background but have insinuated themselves into the maternity ward's pre and post natal programs.

Basically they'd attempted to undermine her physician and deliberately gave her an incorrect definition of the diagnosis he'd rendered, with the intent of keeping her breast feeding. Her son was having a severe immune reaction to her breast milk and suffering a range of health problems due to this. These persisted for about seven months.

Eventually she found another doctor because she couldn't deal with the harassment, contradictory advice and diagnoses. Once she started using formula, his weight became normal and his symptoms subsided.

Pseudonym - wow... like a toilet? I would have totally pissed you off a thousand times. Every chance I got I had my boob out and flopping around: on the bus, at the beach, in the supermarket, on my bike (legal in Florida to ride with a kid in a sling). I love my breasts; I love the sense of power they give me. I love embracing that part of my womanhood. I love that I can nourish my kid all by myself!! And I love how happy she is afterwords. It's also really convenient for a mom that's always on the go and has shit for brains when it comes to remembering to pack snacks for her child.

As for the article, I thought it was great. I am a big "whatever works for you as long as it doesn't really infringe on others rights" kinda mom/person, which is often a tricky position. I do think breast milk is superior to formula. But the article is right on that "Breast is best" is laden with guilt trips, and is another way to control women and their bodies. But it doesn't change the fact that the whole act of nursing a child is superior to formula feeding. Well, so is having a two-parent household. So is being able to feed your family a home cooked meal instead of frozen potpies. But sometimes you gotta make do.

Disclosure: I am (or have been in the past)
a pot-pie-family-feeding, single parent.

Sam why in the hell would Carnation bother trying to market baby formula to people who can't afford potable water and don't know how to make fire?

Are they going to trade them for the bones in their noses?

I gotta call a big BS on the upper-class thing. They're on the whole less likely to BF in my experience. They can afford the formula, and don't want their lifestyle crimped any by needing available boobs. You know, it's always shocking to people when a hollywood star BFs. Poor people do it more, at least that I know, because it's free.

I pumped for 4 months with my twins then went to formula when my body just crapped out. Baby #3 got BF'd. Boy was it easier. I really do not understand people who say it's so hard. Hello, if you're there, your boob is too. Car dealer? No problem. mall? No problem. Middle of the woods? No problem. And the twins had hella digestive issues with all formulas. We ended up having to get one that was over $400 a MONTH for them. Not fun.

Formula does NOT have every thing in it that breast milk has. Absolutely not. Breast milk has live immune cells, and antibodies, and any number of other things formula doesn't. Kids obviously can live on formula, but it's not ideal. What nature designed strictly for human babies is ideal. Given that formula is something like 75% corn syrup, and people seem to be so anti corn syrup anymore, it seems odd that anyone would espouse it over breast milk.

I'm not saying go against your Dr or drive yourself insane if it's not working, but most women who don't do it are just lazy (Ooo, I tried a week and it didn't work! Never mind that milk can take longer than that to come in!), or want their body back, or don't want to have to actually be around their baby that much. True BFing problems are not common.

There was something we studied in sociology called the mexican american miracle, having to do with poor hispanics higher rates of good outcomes in babies, and they typically breastfeed. Or at least did until this generation.

Isn't breastfeeding supposed to help you lose the baby weight faster? And, I was under the impression that it's being pregnant that ruins boobs, not breastfeeding.

Interesting reactions.

The article does establish that breast IS best, if only by a little, and that it may be even better than that. It is indisputable that, from a healthy mother, breast milk is the perfect infant food designed by nature over millenia. It is also, when it works properly, the easiest and most efficient baby food delivery system available.
So, why the fangs-bared assault on breast-feeding by some here? For women who want to breast-feed but have problems, I am sure they are happy to have people who have experience who can help them. Ah, but it might take some sacrifice, you say? Not a popular concept, these days, I admit.

So, now it's insulting to be encouraged to breast-feed? To be told that "X is better than Y" is NOT to be told that "Y is bad." Why do so many people have trouble with this concept? (I know, I know. People like black and white; distinguishing shades of gray proves just tooooooo haaaaard!) If a woman choosing not to breast-feed takes offense, that is more her problem than anything else.

I think the "anti-breast" crowd (can you even imagine such a thing?!) is a wee bit too defensive.

Jay, I think the "anti-breast" sentiment can be strong because many women ARE being told that formula-feeding is bad, and, worse, that they are bad mothers for doing it.

I think the big appeal of breastfeeding would be that it's free and convenient if you happen to be around your baby all day. If you're working outside the home, I imagine formula is more convenient than pumping.

> "put breast-feeding's health benefits on the plus side of the ledger and other things--modesty, independence, career, sanity--on the minus side, and then tally them up and make a decision."

This means, "Put baby's best interest on one side, and mommy's self-interest on the other."

Ladies, the time to be self-centered and self-absorbed is BEFORE or INSTEAD OF becoming a mother.

Maurice - Don't know how to make fire? Bones in their noses?

Nice comment, sure makes it sound like you know what you're talking about.

Nestle provided free samples of formula to mothers in hospital maternity wards, and the supplementation interfered with lactation, so after mothers left the hospital, they needed to buy formula so their babies didn't starve since they'd been unable to develop a suffcient milk supply. I think that's pretty vile, but Google the Nestle boycott and see what you think.

My mum didn't BF, considering that Brother and I were adopted (hahaha) so thank God. She was completely repulsed by the idea of me nursing my children. I was always discreet but to her it was "gross knowing what you're doing in the other room." What, like I'm masturbating or something?

Imagine her surprise when my sister-in-law was not discreet; it got to the point where her three year old walked up to her and lifted mummy's shirt, bellying up to the milk bar while everyone was sitting around the table at a restaurant. LMAO :@

Jay R, my assumption is that you don't have a wife, or a girlfriend, and that women find you and your attitude repugnant in general. However, if you ever manage to con someone with no self esteem into breeding your offspring, she will be the one to make the decision as to whether or not she breast feeds.

I often find Jay R's tone annoying, but its hard to argue with his comment. The time to be self-absorbed and self-centered IS before or instead of having kids. I see you're not a parent yet ahw, but its something to keep in mind. Sure you get to have some "time-outs" and date nights when you find a babysitter, but there's never a time you get to be totally "off" for quite a few years once those kids come along!

For the record I struggled in pain for three weeks before it finally got easier and I'm glad I stuck through, just for the convenience factor. I was so grateful for the lactation nurse that came by the house during the first week, took one look at my rock hard boobs, cracked nipples and tear-stained face, and sent my poor-suffering husband off for an hour while she took control.

There are many reasons a woman might not breast feed. Trying to make someone feel bad about it is disgusting. And my comment is referring to Jay R's general disdane for women.

>>I was so grateful for the lactation nurse that came by the house during the first week, took one look at my rock hard boobs, cracked nipples and tear-stained face, and sent my poor-suffering husband off for an hour while she took control.

Moreta,
That bit of your comment is lovely. Lucky you!
The lactation expert I saw had onion breath, slippery fingers and barely seemed out of diapers herself. A hopeless woman.

But Jay R's comment makes him the biggest boob here.

He's not the least interested in the nuances of the pros and cons of the bf issue - he's just chucking tiny turds.

There isn't an "anti-breast" crowd. There are women who either do can not or chose not to breast feed, and that's their business. No one is saying that there's anything wrong with breast feeding or the women who do it.

AHW says: "Jay R, my assumption is that you don't have a wife, or a girlfriend, and that women find you and your attitude repugnant in general."

Yes, it is true. Most of the women I meet, like you, do find it repugnant to have it suggested that they should put their interests second to the interests of their babies -- or anyone or anything else, for that matter. It is REVOLTING to them to even consider self-sacrifice. Such a foreign concept....

AHW, my wife breast-fed all of our babies. So, your assumption is faulty, hmmmmm? Perhaps you need to go back to the drawing board to figure out how the world works.

By the way, Moreta, I often find my tone annoying, as well!

Please eliminate the "do" from previous comment.

I think every mom should give their baby the colostrum. That is the stuff that has all the anti bodies and other goodies. After that, whatever the mother (and father chooses), is fine w/ me.

I don't mind public breast feeding any more than I mind public bottle feeding.

When ones baby is hungry, it shouldn't matter where you are. Go ahead and feed him/her.

What I don't like is the notion that formula fed babies aren't as good as breast fed babies and the mothers that feed formula are horrible. This is complete and utter BULLSHIT. It shouldn't effing matter what a mother chooses to feed her baby as long as the baby is getting fed.

The consultants in the hospital where I was at where fascists. I don't know about other hospitals. I am sure that they are like any other group of people. You have bad ones and good ones. I had the misfortune to run into a bad one.

My daughter is gifted (high IQ etc..), advanced for her age, and has never been sick with the exception of a couple MINOR colds. She was formula fed. Most of the children in my gifted kids group where formula fed as well. (For whatever reason.)

Do I still feel guilty for not breast feeding her? Not at all. I know there was nothing I could do.(And Momof3, I did try longer than a week.)

I think Jay R's tone is mostly annoying, and I do think he gets a little too excited about every opportunity to bash women, but I still think this particular comment is right on. What are the many reasons you're thinking of, ahw? I can think of some (like the immune response discussed above, some medications or a job that's neccessary but completely inflexible when it comes to pumping at work) but insurmountable obstacles don't seem like they'd be that common.

So, not breast feeding is selfish... thanks for the schooling.

And no, the assumption isn't faulty; she made the decision, no?

It's not the concept of self-sacrifice that women find offensive, it's the condescension.

Well, you named three in about 5 seconds...

>>Well, you named three in about 5 seconds...

Heh!

Sam,
You could add to your list in another 5 seconds with mastitis, any "failure to thrive" noted in the infant, preemie babies...

ahw is right about the condescension too.

It is indisputable that, from a healthy mother, breast milk is the perfect infant food designed by nature over millenia.

This is nonsense.

Firstly 'nature' is not an entity that goes around designing things.

Secondly the presence of an immune response (e.g. mucus) as well as gastrointestinal distress (e.g. colic) indicates that breast milk is not 'perfect' for the infant. It may be the best option, but it's obviously not a perfect option.

Also MomOf3, the jury is still out regarding the availability of immunoglobulins ingested by an infant. Human infants don't appear to have an alternative means of absorbing these. So it's quite possible that they're dissolved in the stomach (i.e. destroyed). Though some do survive in the mucus lining of the throat. The immunological benefits of breast milk may actually be due to its bacterial content, which assists digestion and may promote the development of native antibodies.

But regardless, even if 100% of antibodies consumed via breast milk are absorbed into the infant's bloodstream, this doesn't argue for the strict breastfeeding regimens that are promoted to mothers. The infant would obtain the same benefits from less frequent breast feeding and supplementation w/ formula.

I'm not arguing against breast feeding, what I'm opposed to is the assumption that a woman's body becomes public property once she bears a child, and that she should be subject to every quack and zealot with an opinion on the matter.

> 'nature' is not an entity that
> goes around designing things.

Excellent, excellent point. You should visit the blog more often.

I'd bet breast milk does all sort of things for kids that we don't know about. When people say "All the nutrients are in formula", I think they're kidding themselves about the depth of our medical understanding. But in the loving, safe, well-fed populations we're talking about, it's probably not a big deal either way.

Anyway, I really like the entirety of Mack's comment.

Mack: "I'm opposed to ... the assumption that a woman's body becomes public property once she bears a child"

WTF? Who ever suggested such a thing? Talk about quacks and zealots ... . Set up the strawman and then knock him down. If anything could be characterized as "public property" in this scenario, it is the sustenance-needing BABY, not the ever-precious "woman's body."

BTW, Sam, I never bash "women," and I challenge you to find an example. Do I treat them equally (and thus sometimes critically, and not always with fawning deference)? You bet. Eagerly bashing feminism and feminists? Well, that's completely different now, isn't it? Someone's gotta do it! I particularly enjoy ripping male feminists (the sorry, self-hating, deluded bastards). If you can't distinguish between "feminist" and "woman," then you are, unfortunately for clarity of analysis, typical.

Nestle provided free samples of formula to mothers .. they needed to buy formula so their babies didn't starve since they'd been unable to develop a sufficient milk supply.

How is this possible?

A sample of infant formula was given to infants and it stopped their mothers from lactating?!?

You have the claim wrong. It is that the samples interfered with the habituation of breast feeding. Not that there was a cessation of lactation. And this is bunk. Women who cannot immediately produce milk often use formula and then habituate the infant to breastfeeding once they can.

My comment regarding fire and bones in the nose was to poke fun at your ridiculous assumptions regarding the third world.

That is, they must be so primitive that they can't boil water to sterilize bottles - the sorts of people who wear a bone in their nose like the caricature of a caveman.

Have you considered that women who are so poor that they must consume septic water and cannot obtain clean bottles are also likely to be dangerously undernourished? If this is the case, then their infants are actually good candidates for supplementation.

I fail to see what was so condescending about Jay R's comments personally. Was it because he's a man?

Hey, thanks, Maureen!

BTW, it's not "man" any more. Now, it's "testosterone-poisoned sub-human." ;)

Breastfeeding is a cheaper and more streamlined process than formula-feeding and helps to promote weight loss in women with baby weight to lose. HOWEVER, based on various things I've read over the years and heard from actual medical professionals, according to *actual scientific studies,* breastfeeding isn't at the level of, say vaccinating your kids in terms of importance to their health and safety. The supposed effect on the IQ essentially disappears when you factor in the fact that, overall, women who are higher-IQ are much more likely to be college-educated, which means they're *very* unlikely to be giving birth as single moms and are more likely to be financially comfortable enough to take time off from work (or quit working altogether) rather than trying to find an empty room and time in a busy workday to pump. If you want smart kids, start with a high IQ yourself and marry someone else who has one too. (That's my strategy.)

There does seem to be some effect on immune response, levels of ear infections, and other similar issues from breast-feeding. Some. Not on the level of every breast-fed kid sailing through life infection-free while formula-free kids struggle to live a week without clogged ears. Take into account, also, that what a mom eats and drinks gets passed through breast milk to some degree; there are infants out there right now screaming from indirect lactose exposure who would be happy as clams on soy formula.

Know what ALSO has a big effect on infant well-being? The happiness of that infant's parents. Babies pick up on emotions to an amazing degree. Breast feeding problems are actually pretty damn common; the lactation consultation industry didn't spring up in a vacuum. We give birth later, have far more medical intervention and have far, FAR less social support as new parents than did our ancestors - in fact, than did women throughout most of history. I think the availability of epidurals and C-sections is a marvelous thing, but women who have them are far less likely to be able to spend skin-to-skin time with alert newborns immediately. Which doesn't affect the kids' emotional development, it would appear, but does affect the chance that they'll be able to breastfeed successfully. We won't even go into the sheer number of women who conceive kids through assisted methods who probably wouldn't have been able to conceive - at least at the ages at which they start trying - for most of human history. If your body isn't all that eager to get and stay pregnant, it's probably not that eager to produce a sufficient quantity of breast milk, too.

job that's neccessary but completely inflexible when it comes to pumping at work

That would be MOST JOBS. I have a feeling that just about everyone here would be pissed if, in the middle of their dinner out, their waitress disappeared for 30 minutes and returned saying, "Sorry, had to pump!" In order to produce enough milk to support a growing baby sufficiently, most women have to expel milk from their bodies frequently. Do you want the woman sitting in the next cubicle to be whipping out her breast every other hour? Alternatively, do you want to have to answer her phone and deal with her boss's work requests while she's pumping? You don't? Then you're not supportive of breastfeeding! Your evil card is over there.

Look, the world is full of people quite happy to tell mothers that they're being selfish by ever, EVER considering their needs when dealing with their babies. Are you willing to let your baby cry himself to sleep rather than getting up five times a night for three years? Selfish! Are you unwilling to have your kids sleep in the same room with you so you might preserve some semblance of a sex life with your spouse? Selfish! Do you buy baby food instead of making it? Selfish! Would you rather spend time cuddling your baby and your spouse than you would being chained to a pump while your spouse deals solo with a crying baby who will only take a bottle? Selfish! Do you not wear your baby everywhere? Selfish! Do you ever plop your toddler in front of "Baby Einstein" while you make dinner? Selfish! Did you try breastfeeding but found it painful, exhausting and inadequate at a time when you were recovering either from pushing something the size of a watermelon out of an opening with a typical circumference the size of a lime OR from surgery in which your belly was sliced open? Selfish! Selfish selfish selfish! New mothers are supposed to be eager to maximize the pain and sleeplessness they experience! Otherwise they're SELFISH.

And people wonder why the childfree movement is growing in leaps and bounds. Gah.

Look, I was breastfed. If I can have biological children, I will do my best to breastfeed them, and will keep in mind that the process is typically painful at first (but improves). However, I'm also open to eschewing a sling and will almost definitely have my kid sleep in a separate room and allow said kid to cry it out when it comes time to do sleep training. For that, I would be villified as a child abuser across a sizable portion of the Internet. As would my mother, who did the same thing. Hell, the fact that I plan to vaccinate early and often would garner me death threats in some circles.

Breastfeeding has many advantages. But it alone will not ensure that nothing bad will ever happen to your kid. Feeding your child organic food will not automatically make his life easier. Co-sleeping will not save him from all ills. Cloth diapers will not ensure that he grows up on a clean Earth. I don't object to any of those things in principle - I object to the passionate assertion that they serve as magic talismans that divide the good parents from the bad, the selfish from the selfless. I'm sure that 100% of those parents who call their kids' employers to complain that the employers are working their kids too hard take great pains in not being "selfish." That doesn't mean they're doing right by their offspring.

As for the reaction to Jay R.'s comments: I think at least part of the opposition stems from the fact that a lack of social support is considered to be one of THE factors discouraging breastfeeding. As I said before, and Amy has pointed out many times: We evolved as creatures who had babies in the context of large extended families who provided constant, on-the-spot emotional and physical support in countless areas, including breastfeeding practices. That's not true for most people any more. Everyone says they support breastfeeding. Few people make it a habit of going over to the homes of their new parent friends on a regular basis to take the baby for an hour so that the parents can get a shower and feel human, or make it a point to ensure that their coworkers/subordinates feel they can take time for breastfeeding needs without killing their careers. Moms who feel judged and isolated tend to do certain things; one of them is giving up breastfeeding. If Jay really wanted to encourage breastfeeding, he'd be training to teach a parenting course to 16-year-old pregnant girls so that they have a clue as to what they're doing, not making lofty comments on this blog about how any woman who doesn't breastfeed is SELFISH. (No, I'm not rushing out to teach such a class...but I'm not deeming my friends who have tried and failed to breastfeed for whatever reasons to be SELFISH.)

On a slightly different note, one thing to consider about breastfeeding among poor rural populations is that it has a powerful contraceptive effect...which means that women who breastfeed get pregnant less often, bear fewer children who strain existing resources, and are less likely to be pregnant at a time at which their bodies are still recovering from a previous pregnancy. Grown women have other ways of ingesting sufficient moisture than just drinking products made with something mixed into water; babies do not. I'm not saying it's a bad thing for formula to be available in developing countries, but breast really is typically best in terms of overall survival and health rates for children there. And keep in mind that formula makers actively tried to convince women in Third World countries that formula was *superior* to breast milk. I'm not advocating a boycott of Nestle or anything, but this isn't a case where well-meaning corporations are being unfairly tarred by Commie fanatics.

I think this is the key quote from Rosin's article:

"An ideal study would randomly divide a group of mothers, tell one half to breast-feed and the other not to, and then measure the outcomes. But researchers cannot ethically tell mothers what to feed their babies. Instead they have to settle for “observational” studies. These simply look for differences in two populations, one breast-fed and one not. The problem is, breast-fed infants are typically brought up in very different families from those raised on the bottle. In the U.S., breast-feeding is on the rise—69 percent of mothers initiate the practice at the hospital, and 17 percent nurse exclusively for at least six months. But the numbers are much higher among women who are white, older, and educated; a woman who attended college, for instance, is roughly twice as likely to nurse for six months. Researchers try to factor out all these “confounding variables” that might affect the babies’ health and development. But they still can’t know if they’ve missed some critical factor."

I'm also keeping in mind that Rosin has breast-fed all three of her children - she has little personal motive to portray it as anything but a superior approach, yet here she is in a prominent national magazine admitting that she may have overestimated its value.

Wow. First of all this-

"According to her, I was a failure, a bad mother, and I should have my child taken from me, because I couldn't produce breast milk"

is unforgivable. Someone should yank that one's license.

"She was harassed and lied to by 'Leaders' of a wing of La Leche that operates through the local hospital. These women have no medical background but have insinuated themselves into the maternity ward's pre and post natal programs."

Oh boy....I was fairly high in administration in LLL in my country. I retired in '97. I have to say that officially zealotry is not allowed, but we can't catch every instance of leaders gone haywire, unfortunately. Every time I found one I'd buttonhole them for a talk and try to re-drum into their heads that we don't preach, and the mothers and fathers make the final choices for their babies. I am sorry that anyone you know had an experience like that, it shouldn't happen.

"Nestle provided free samples of formula to mothers .. they needed to buy formula so their babies didn't starve since they'd been unable to develop a sufficient milk supply.

How is this possible?

A sample of infant formula was given to infants and it stopped their mothers from lactating?!? "

Breastfeeding is based on supply and demand. The number of times the baby suckles at the breast determines how much milk you have. To a new mother with an unestablished milk supply, supplements are a real detriment. Every time the baby takes a bottle, that sucking is happening in a rubber nipple and not mom's. No sucking, no production. Yes, continually feeding supplements can delay a mother's milk from coming in, and for some women it never comes in.

The Nestle sales force entered the hospitals wearing nurses' uniforms and handed out formula samples, giving a sales spiel about how 'scientifically designed' formula was better than breast milk. For feeding the babies in the nursery formula, hospitals got donations of money and equipment.India was one country this was carried out, and some countries in Africa. Now ,that would be unthinkable to dress your sales staff like hospital staff! The upshot was exactly as written, these mothers went home not yet making milk after a week in the hospital using formula, and had to continue on it as they could not bring their milk in.

UNICEF's website has information on this travesty, and you could probably get information from a number of other sources online. Formula in a third-world country at times took up to 1/3 of the family's total income. Therefore mothers very often diluted it to make it last longer. Enter rickets. One tap of fresh water may be shared by 5 families, conditions weren't sanitary so enter diarrhea into the equation. That particular formula campaign caused a great deal of illness and suffering.

Marion, applause, applause, applause. Yours was by far the best, most knowledgeable, least emotion-driven comment on this subject. Well said.

The point about the birth control factor is well taken but I think the water and all else is moot as far as the impoverished countries go. If the water's bad (and did they donate the powder that had to be mixed with water or the pre-mixed; if the powder, then yes, shame on them), I would think it's not going to be too healthy for mom either. And what she injests, she passes on to baby through her milk. Also, if suitable water isn't even available, adequate food sure isn't and there isn't, as a result, going to be adequate nutrition in her milk.

And, no, I don't care who breastfeeds. I do care when they try to coerce me (the hospital did) or my daughter into it. If my daughter breastfed despite my advice (and she did debate it), yes, I'd have fully supported her in it.

Including dropping by for a visit with T so she can get a long hot bath and a nice long nap. Did plenty of that with the bottle. Hell, when she and daddy were both working evenings 'til after 11:00 at night for a time, it was me pacing the floor with him and getting him to sleep long before they picked him up, right after an emergency operation and all. But, hell, that's as it should be. That's what a grandma does.

I love that you mentioned the support. One thing I do think is wrong with Western society is to leave too many people hanging on their own to do it all while still being nosy anyhow and screaming at them that they're horrible for not choosing the same way of doing things we'd pick. Or else, like the bad lactation nurses mentioned throughout, misconstruing overbearing do it my way dictatorship as support.

I like Jay R here. The time for "You" time is prior to procreating. Once you've birthed, what's best for baby does come first. Every time. Sometimes, yes, crying it out is best. Sometimes it's very harmful. Sometimes, formula is best. Usually, it's not. Almost always, vaccinating is best, but not always. If your job or lifestyle makes feeding your own child an impossibility, you need to rethink having them. The time requirements of kids don't go down. If anything they get more needs as they grow, and parental support to learn how to navigate life. And I am by no means a helicopter mom. They aren't cute little accesories to kiss when convenient and carry pictures of.

Oh, and to all those who say giving it a week was whimping out and not giving it long enough, read my post again.

I didn't give up because of cracked nipples, or discomfort, or inconvenience. I did not have to be back to work for months. I gave up because I knew my child was hungry. (Though any that did quit for those reasons, they are also valid reasons.) Part her crying and part maternal instinct telling me why she was. Must have been spot on given that it stopped with the formula.

EXACTLY HOW LONG, ASSHAT, WAS I SUPPOSED TO LET MY CHILD GO HUNGRY BEFORE TRYING FORMULA INSTEAD OF BOOB?

I feel bad enough that I gave it a week because of the pressure to breastfeed and all the assholes making me feel like I'd have been depriving her of something otherwise.

I like Jay R here. The time for "You" time is prior to procreating. Once you've birthed, what's best for baby does come first.

Sure, but when he writes:

This means, "Put baby's best interest on one side, and mommy's self-interest on the other."

Jay R makes it sounds like putting the child first is so very simple!

People — moms and dads and children — are complex, as are families. The things he mentions disdainfully — modesty, independence, career, sanity — are part of the equation for people. Perhaps the family needs mom's income. Perhaps the mom having a modicum of independence reminds her of why she loves being with her kids. Perhaps mom doing things to keep herself sane goes a long way toward having a peaceful and loving home. Parenting is a massive commitment. But to make it seem as though as though one can do what's best for a child without paying mind to things that are good for the mom's well-being is massively wrong-headed. Mom and child are part of the same family system, and the well-being of everyone in that system is interconnected.

Crella I think that you're confusing the claims of other activist groups with those of UNICEF. UNICEF and WHO have criticized Nestle for their marketing tactics. But they don't endorse claims of a deliberate campaign to trick mothers into becoming dependent on infant formula. These had actually be addressed by a libel suit in the mid 70's, and Nestle had prevailed. The incidents at the root of this campaign are over 30 years old.

I think that it's fair to say that, at this point, the Nestle Boycott is really a campaign against infant formula as a product. Nestle is simply a foil for this effort.

Do I think that infant formula should be pushed on women who can't afford it using deceptive marketing tactics - NO.

But I do think that women in the 3rd world should have access to formula if they choose to use it.

The anti-Nestle campaign seems like another example of white supremacy run amuck.

Oh we must save our monkey children from the horrors of the modern world!

I do think we all feel a bit of superiority for making the "right" choices-which most of us conveniently assume are the ones we make. I do feel I am a better mother with healthier kids than the moms who feed no fruits or veggies, or who's kids are fat. I feel I am a better mother than the women who drop their kid off at daycare to be watched after by minimum wage high-turnover daycare workers instead of caring for them themselves. I feel I'm a better mother than the one's who say "oh, but we NEED my income" all the while paying the least amount of money they can get away with on childcare (like that's really a place to bargain shop) while driving $35k SUVs and living in 3000 sq ft houses and paying someone to do their errands for them. And I darn sure feel I'm a better mother than the ones who let their kids sit glued in front of tv/playstation/computer screens all day. I'm sure plenty of moms feel they are better than me too. That's life.

"The anti-Nestle campaign seems like another example of white supremacy run amuck.

Oh we must save our monkey children from the horrors of the modern world!"

This makes no sense to me. We're racist if we want the poor babies getting BM instead of contaminated formula, and we're racist if we don't care that they drink contaminated formula too, right? That's the way that racism thing works, right? We're just damned all around?

Marion, your comment was great. Thanks!

No MomOf3 what's racist is assuming that it should be your decision whether they have access to these products in the first place.

> T's Grammy said, "Marion, applause, applause, applause. Yours was by far the best, most knowledgeable, least emotion-driven comment on this subject. Well said."

I agree! Marion's comments are commendable. While I don't think Marion interpreted my comments quite accurately (I do not think that everyone who chooses to bottle-feed is necessarily selfish), I don't care; she took the time to articulate her points thoughtfully, rather than resorting to name-calling and cheap shaming tactics. Even though at times my comments may be somewhat provocative, I try to do the same.

> Momof3 said, "I like Jay R here."

Hey, thanks, Momof3!

"Crella I think that you're confusing the claims of other activist groups with those of UNICEF."

That could very well be, and if so, I apologize.I've been digging through my bookcase, but I can't lay my hands on my old papers. We've moved twice since I quit. UNICEF was involved in enactment of the Innocenti Declaration, the rules of formula marketing, in the early 90s. The conferences I attended most often were for the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative, so UNICEF reps here in Japan spoke about milk marketing methods and about why distributing milk products everywhere isn't a good idea. That's probably why I thought there would be some info on UNICEF's site on the issue. I'm sorry. Thank you for bringing it to my attention, Maurice. I should have hopped over to the UNICEF site and double-checked before I posted and not relied on my memory.