to think that the formula companies are succeeding with their campaign to promote formula to be as good as breast milk...

[MissyKLo]

...when it isn't?

this article rang true in so many ways

www.analyticalarmadillo.co.uk/2010/10/how-breast-is-best-came-to-be.html

Breast milk is of course, full of amazing antibodies and nourishment etc that formula can never replicate - but the formula companies are winning in their campaign to make people believe that formula is as good as breast milk aren't they? A lot of people don't see bf as a big deal and that babies are 'perfectly fine' on formula. But what about all the benefits of breast milk and the fact that so many babies don't ever get these?

Breast milk cannot be beaten on so many levels so why are the formula companies allowed to get away with this?!!!!!!

mila - cleo has laid them out for you a few times now.

No she hasn't she's just typed a load of scaremongering twisted diction.

MilaMae

Increased risk of being 5 IQ points thicker (though apparently this has now been refuted?)
Increased risk of developing diabetes, a life threatening condition
Increased risk of high blood pressure during teens
Increased risk of obesity with leads to an increased risk of just about everything else apart from being a fat bastid.
Um, what else...

Oh yes the gastro-enteritis thing and I think Menengitis too, am I wrong?

Increased risk of ear infections
Increased risk of respiratory infections
Increased risk of asthma
Increased risk of SIDS
Increased risk of allergies
...

yup - meningitis too and leukaemia iirc

You cannot say that not bf increases risk, just that bf reduces it. That is extrapolation and isnt statistically sound
looks frustrated

If BF reduces risk, then not BF increase your risk of it?

Therefore not breastfeeding increases the risk.

So I could have been 5 IQ points higher if I had been breast fed? I think they should start to give out extra credit in exam to those who haven't been breast fed

There are proven risks of FFing - it's all there in properly done studies - it's not scare mongering, it's fact, FF babies are at increased risk of various things

No bf is the biological norm clinkers - it doesn't reduce anything - other things increase the risk from the norm.

Clinkers I think the basis of the "not doing something increases risk" in relation to BF is because BF is the biological norm.

Its not silly like saying "not wearing a helmet increases your risk of being hit in the head by a cricket ball" because it is not the biological norm to wear a helmet.

Whereas if mother nature provided us with built in helmets which people then had surgically removed, in order to practise informed consent of having this surgery would involve having the risks of flying cricket balls hitting you in the head being explained to you.

Does that make sense?

is it wrong that I've just snorted at Tatty's cricket ball helmet analogy

Well you worry your pretty little heads over your twisted stats which are in actual fact a totally miniscule no of the population anyhow.So much so we're talking minute numbers which is why formula doesn't feature on bp,obesity,diabetes risk factor lists as it simply isn't worth worrying about.

I'll just carry on feeding my dc well,giving them plenty of exercise and a stimulating childhood all of which will have far more of an impact and makes 6 months of formula totally irrelevant.

really - I didn't think WHO were in the business of twisted stats

I am surprised that someone hasn't tried to make a link between FF and Autism !!!! There surely must be one as it seems to cause everything else?!!

Oh do link Baroque.

Leonie - mine lactose intolerant, breast fed for 2 weeks before we found out, Wysoy after that. Autistic as they come!!

Sorry milamae but you sound totally abd utterly defensive about breastfeeding and all the proven benefits it gives

I would be extremely interested to see stats on how many babies who developed meningitis for example were ff

Bf does reduce the risk of such things

I would if I cba to plough through the horrendously difficult to search WHO website - their pages usually link to the studies they use to back up their advice etc.

I just don't understand why FFers (and I was one!) are often so quick to dismiss the risks associated with it as some sort of attack on their choice (or lack of choice as it was with DS2 )

NONE of the research says "if you breastfed your child WILL be 100% fit and healthy" or "If you formula feed then your child WILL be ill and suffer all these ill effects". It just says the risks are increased if you FF, (or you can see it the other way round and say that if you BF there is a lower risk of x,y,z happening).

It's a bit like the advice for SIDS. There are certain things that will increase the risk of suffering such a tragic loss. However, that doesn't mean that everyone that does those things will experience the tragedy of cot death, or that those who follow the advice to the letter with never suffer a loss.

Come on guys, time to get some perspective don't you think?

I think you'd be hard pushed to find a new mum who hasn't been made aware that 'breast is best'. We have to accept that breastfeeding doesn't work or isn't a workable option for some women. In these cases we are fortunate that there IS and alternative.

As mums who support breastfeeding, we should be doing our best to provide the best support for those who want to breastfeed. I agree that support/knowledge is severely lacking and this is a factor for a number of women who don't manage to make breastfeeding work for them.

We can go around in circles forever on this issue (and I suspect we will), but the fact remains that formula is an adequate alternative to breastmilk. It has it's place and fufills a need.

Why would I be defensive,I bf for 6 weeks with all my dc .I just don't like reading twisted stats and scaremongering.

I'm still waiting for Who's concrete proof and declarations that vast amounts of babies are at risk from contracting the loooong list of ailments provided for us by Tatty and Bubbly.