To think it will all kick off on here after this is aired?

[MsScarlett]

My mum just texted me to say that tomorrow there is a documentary on BBC3 at 9pm called, "Is Breast Best?".

I predict a bunfight!

I don't understand why everyone sees this as so black and white - there are shades of grey.
In the health debate - ok the stats show that on average bf babies are healthier but what do they mean by bf - babies who have had any breast milk- or ones who are bf for 6 months exclusively, 12 months, 18 months? what about combination? is it having breast milk that creates the health benefit or not having formula? I thought the health benefit was highest in the first couple of weeks/days and then less dramatic.
or is the health benefit illusionary eg as most b/f babies are middle class and wealthier people tend to be healthier as they have access to better food/better education etc- eg a spurious correlation?
I think for me, you educate (not lecture) people (not just mums but the wider population) on the benefits (economic/ease as well as health) , provide the support to help and make the environment more friendly.
Then they make their own choices.
All the mums in my NCT group made different choices for a variety of reasons and tbh it isn't even a matter of debate. But we all thought about the options and knew about them (obviously not through NCT which has a blinkered view!)

"but whether or not the process of breastfeeding is best for a baby or a mother is another matter"

Could you say more about this?

Because from what we know breastfeeding seems mainly to be 'best' for middle class mothers and babies, as these are the people most likely to start and carry on breastfeeding.

Wonder what it is about breastfeeding that makes it less workable for the children of poor and uneducated women?

Don't be silly Tethers - they might be wearing Boden. Orr Uggs or heaven forbid linen trousers. I'm not sure you could take the risk.

SOH - just don't invite to inspect your poop deck. Or is that only on Fridays?

"I don't understand why everyone sees this as so black and white"

People don't see it as a 'black and white' issue.

"eg a spurious correlation?"

Research controls for confounding factors. Unsurprisingly.

"obviously not through NCT which has a blinkered view!"

I've seen a lot of NCT information on infant feeding and I haven't stumbled across factual inaccuracies, bias or discrimination against ff mums. Maybe you have. Would you like to link us to it?

"Not bfing does not make you a bad Mum just like BFing doesn't make you a good one."

Well this is a fairly widely accepted viewpoint, wouldn't you say? Can we move beyond it now, given that it's something we all agree on?

"but I think perhaps what is being suggested is that it is not the consideration in dciding on a feeding method. There is ability, practicality, personal preference and mental health factors, not to mention physical health such as medications being passed through the breast milk. All those things have to be weighed against the health benefits to reach a conclusion that works best for the family concerned."

I didn't say it was the ONLY thing that was important to consider! And of course if you're taking medication that puts your baby at risk then you can't breastfeed. It's not fair to imply that wanting us to be more 'baby centred' in the way we approach this issue somehow means that I'm encouraging people to disregard every other concern!

I also did make a point about PND as a complicating factor, which you've chosen to ignore.

I was trying to make a point that baby's long term health and development, and their quality of life in infancy gets very little obvious consideration when this is being discussed publicly.

Well this sounds like a fantastic documentary - we can slag off the thick as shit teenage mum on benefits, and we can also slag off the earnest middle class lentil weaving breastfeeding nazis.

It sounds like a documentary made to cater to the type of people who read the daily Express.

I can't be bothered to watch shite like that. I always loathe the portrayal of teenage parents and cannot be subjective about it anyway. Why raise my blood pressure?

SOH, mainbraces need constant splicing in this house. Preferably after DS1 is in bed. (drinkies)

Am loving how this thread has kicked off in entirely predictable fashion even before the wretched programme airs. Which I shall be watching. I wish I had better self-control, but sod it, I just don't.

"No - breast milk is best and safest for babies even if it's not convenient for mothers."

But it is! Objectively - if the mother is able to breastfeed (most are) and has no infections that she can pass on to her baby through her milk, then her milk will be more nutritionally appropriate and less likely to make her baby sick than formula milk. No moral judgement implied there, just the facts.

"Posters on mumsnet on the other hand put lifestyle choices and the feelings of adults at the centre of this issue and have very little to say about the experience of children. It just doesn't really feature much as part of the discussion"

But they don't!

There is very little speculation or discussion about the experience of breastfeeding from the child's point of view. Almost all of the discussions on this site (bar the argy bargy about health/research issues) is about women's feelings and experiences. I get the feeling that hardly anyone stops and thinks about what feeding is like for babies at all.

"The clear implication from your posts is that those who ff do so for their own convenience."

But people who chose to ff from birth do -as far as the research shows us - primarily choose to ff because they want someone else to be able to feed the baby and because they don't like the idea of breastfeeding. I don't think this makes them bad mothers. I think women who choose to ff genuinely don't feel that their baby is missing out on anything important, because they're unconvinced that bf has any significant benefits, and because ff is what they know and feel comfortable and familiar with.

" Not because that they found it too hard/painful to keep it up or that their LO was not thriving"

No - I accept that women mostly stop bf because they believe they don't have enough milk, and/or because they are finding it painful. The research bears this out. The sad thing is that most of these problems are avoidable and/or transient and that these women who are giving up could have continued bf, had they wanted to and had the right help been there for them.

Realistically, no-one in this day and age is unaware that BF is better for babies than FF and that most people could do it for as long as they wanted to if they stuck at it. So if you don't manage to, or choose not to, you feel the need to justify it - which is unfair.

It should be the same as any other parenting decision, but it's not, because... BF is natural, it's what breasts are designed for, people in developing worlds do it etc. So the implication is that if you're FFing then you're neglectful or uncaring.

If someone's decided that it's more important to them that the baby's father should be able to feed it, or that they're too uncomfortable with the idea of it and decided that it's better to give a baby a better experience of feeding than an uncomfortable mother over breastmilk - then that should be a perfectly valid choice, but that isn't the way people react to it.

I mix fed DS and FF DD - and if asked would say, DS wasn't getting enough milk and it was such a PITA that I decided not to even try with DD, which always, leads to the reply of, oh but if you'd stuck at it it would have got easier, they go through growth spurts, it's really rare not to have enough milk and a lovely cat's bum face when I just say, well it was too much hassle.

I wouldn't ask for detailed explanations as to why someone made different parenting choices from me, but when it comes to feeding, somehow that's not considered rude?

The truth of it was I BF DS for 5 weeks, they were the most horrendous 5 weeks of my life, I fed him for at least an hour at a time with if I was lucky a 30 minute sleep in between feeds - night and day. So when he fell asleep, I had 30 minutes to try to put him down without waking him and do anything I couldn't do while feeding him, go to the toilet, wash, sleep... before he would wake up again wanting fed. I remember crying at my midwife when he was 10 days old about it when she visited at home and she gave me a talk about sticking at it and how much better it was for him. So I tried. Only it wasn't better for him, at that point he wasn't even back up to his birthweight. In fact he didn't start putting on weight until I started FF as well at 5 weeks. After that I would have been trying to get DD weighed daily even if she'd fed fine, lol.

If I tell people that, I don't get the same reaction - but I don't see why people should need an explanation about a parenting choice, but they definitely judge you if you don't give it.

putting in my tuppence worth. FF or BF it is no one's fucking business but the mother. how dare anyone judge how a mother chooses to feed HER child? let he without sin cast the first stone etc. BFs are not to be looked up to nor FFs looked down upon. Formula is not the devil and breastmilk not the elixir of the gods.

(i say this as a FF who lives in a world of modern medicine and is proud, and MY circumstances dictated how i fed MY child)

I think breastmilk is best. Breastfeeding isn't always best.

Also, while breastmilk is better for baby, formula is not poisonous and has it's place.

It may well kick off here, but I bet the programme will be ridiculous and polarised and that Cherry woman is a bit crap anyway and WILL BRING HER OWN EXPERIENCE in Blah Shite Blah!!!!

The media love to demonise both formula feeders as chavs etc...and BFers as wildly excentric loons....there is no happy medium.

I fed by baby FF then BF for 3.5 years (A LOON YOU KNOW), some people do it the other way around or both at the same time, as long as they live WHO FUCKING CARES????????????????

Spudulika - I'm impressed by your perseverance, you are almost single-handedly trying to counter the false information, prejudice and hostile attitudes to breastfeeding that are popping up here as so many times before. I often wish to do the same, sometimes try for a bit, then give up.

I particularly appreciate this post of yours:

Nobody can force mums to breastfeed and should never try. But there's a moral imperative for society to STOP commercial forces who stand to profit from a woman's decision not to breastfeed, from shaping and influencing women's choices with partial evidence, and by emotional manipulation through sophisticated marketing strategies.

Also AvengingAngel, good post:

I also think "society" needs to take responsibility for BF rates. It's ok to have a good leer at page 3, but get squeamish redarding breastfeeding. Woman are made to feel uncomfortable and exposed because we have been cinditioned to see breasts as sexual objects. No wonder people who breastfeed can get evangelical. It's probably the counter to a patriarchal society!

It amazes me how angry posters become if someone just points out the benefits of breastfeeding. This is immediately seen as patronising or preachy. And to attach these sinister attributes to posters who speak on behalf on breastfeeding like "nazis", "mafia", "weirdos" or whatever is unpleasant. Advertisers are slowly and subtly influencing people's attitudes to infant feeding with their soft focus spiel and placing doubt in people's mind about breastfeeding (e.g. babies' iron levels) and trying to undermine breastfeeding at every opportunity. They are not thinking of what is best for women and their babies.

Pro-BFers get frustrated because they are fighting a losing battle. Fewer and fewer women BF. And as is often seen here, women don't believe what healthcare professionals (midwives, doctors) say or what the World Health Organisation says, instead they swallow the advertisers' sugar coated platitudes without questioning.

I was just thinking that if the human race could not breastfeed then it would have been exstincted by now.

Its a good job that we can feed our young because in 3rd world countries Woman could not have access to or pay FF.

we do not live in a 3rd world country and we get a choice. Yay go us.

Why is there this need to rip strips out of each other for exsercing that choice?

As long as you feed your child who cares!

Marianne: that's exactly what I was trying to convey - less articulately - in my previous post. Pointing out the benefits of bf seems to really raise people's hackles; those who have not bf for whatever reason get so defensive. Why not just say 'yes, bf is best for babies, but I chose not to do it'. I agree with Spudulika that in many cases women stop because they regard it as not convenient. If that's the case then women should be allowed to admit this without being condemned to death, but equally they should not try to defensively say ff is just as good for babies when it's not.

MarianneM... Well, considering the way women judge and treat each other, I'm not sure that I'd want a matriarchal society either. Who is it exactly who is undermining BF'ing? Somebody who wants to BF isn't going to be swayed by anything an advertiser promotes, surely? Health professionals do advocate BF'ing but they aren't opposed to FF'ing either... perhaps this is what irks some people?

As for the generalising of who is BF and who is FF based on the posts here, unless it's stated, you'd really not know althought that stops nobody from leaping to conclusions and making assumptions.

I agree with Worraliberty's posts earlier... one really can't take the moral high ground in doing what's 'best for baby' if they are stuffed full of non-organic foods once they are weaned and BF is certainly not a talisman for that, nor in preventing illnesses and diseases either. Genetic markers play a part in predisposition also.

Mothers, BF/FF whatever, they all want the best for their children and the BF smuggery from some isn't going to influence anybody, just get their backs up and serve no purpose other than to cause bad feeling and misplaced guilt.

What sugar coated platitudes from advertisers are these, that women believe without questioning?

And what information from midwives etc is it that they don't believe?

Here's a little study from a "shitsville university" for your perusal:

Office prenatal formula advertising and its effect on breast-feeding patterns.
Howard C, Howard F, Lawrence R, Andresen E, DeBlieck E, Weitzman M.

Department of Pediatrics, University of Rochester School of Medicine, New York, USA. [email protected]

Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of formula company-produced materials about infant feeding to breast-feeding promotion materials without formula advertising on breast-feeding initiation and duration.

METHODS: Five hundred forty-seven pregnant women were randomized to receive either formula company (commercial; n = 277) or specially designed (research; n = 270) educational packs about infant feeding at their first prenatal visit. Feeding method was determined at delivery. Breast-feeding duration of the 294 women who chose to breast-feed was ascertained at 2, 6, 12, and 24 weeks. Survival analyses were used to evaluate continuous outcomes, and chi2 and logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate discrete outcomes.

RESULTS: Breast-feeding initiation (relative risk [RR] 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61, 1.43) and duration after 2 weeks (hazard ratio 1.19, 95% CI 0.86, 1.64) were not affected. Women in the commercial group were more likely to cease breast-feeding before hospital discharge (RR 5.80, 95% CI 1.25, 54.01) and before 2 weeks (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.91, 95% CI 1.02, 3.55). In subgroup analyses, women with uncertain goals for breast-feeding or goals of 12 weeks or less experienced shortened exclusive (hazard ratio 1.53, 95% CI 1.06, 2.21), full (hazard ratio 1.70, 95% CI 1.18, 2.48), and overall (hazard ratio 1.75, 95% CI 1.16, 2.64) breast-feeding duration when exposed to the commercial intervention.

CONCLUSION: Although breast-feeding initiation and long-term duration were not affected, exposure to formula promotion materials increased significantly breast-feeding cessation in the first 2 weeks. Additionally, among women with uncertain goals or breast-feeding goals of 12 weeks or less, exclusive, full, and overall breast-feeding duration were shortened. Educational materials about infant feeding should support unequivocally breast-feeding as optimal nutrition for infants; formula promotion products should be eliminated from prenatal settings.

This might be a stupid question and I'm not doubting that breast is best, but how can all of the evidence be so conclusive if all the other factors like class, smoking and diet are all prominent and more likely to coincide with ff babies?

MarrianneM... I suppose people could stop watching TV, go and make a cup of tea when the adverts are on but is it really necessary? People who are undecided probably have tried BF and either continue it or they don't. I really dislike the inferrence that women/mothers need to be 'led' in this way.

It sounds as if what you're saying is that mothers should be steered away from FF as strongly as possible and indoctrinated into BF'ing? That's how I read it anyway. I'd hazard a guess - and it is just a guess - that most new mothers have tried BF'ing.

I don't think anybody has ever said that FF is better than BF, certainly it's been stipulated the other way around, but BF'ing doesn't prevent children from developing allegeries and illnesses, although the boost to the child's immune system is undisputed. If only that immune system boost could be replicated in FF... the arguments would cease.

It seriously annoys me that questions on statistics etc are met with patronising statements from posters.

For what it is worth the who study states that it is a problem eliminating confouding factors from studies and that a full random study should be performed.

I wasn't saying that bf wasn't better merely that the evidence for bf exclusivley for x months isn't all one way.

Further on the NCT point whether or not NCT actually has information on its website was not really my point. At my NCT course the only information on feeding was on breastfeeding - ff was not an option - any questions were dismissed - there was no such thing as people who couldn't breast feed .

Pro-BFs are often seen as evangelical about the subject and this is frankly offputting. Focus has to be on breastfeeding which is acheivable/desirable for most women - in my view the best effort/reward balance is acheived in focusing on the first few days etc and providing the support etc then.

well i didnt get on with breast feeding with my first dd she wasnt getting enough and has always been fussy!!
breast fed her for 5 weeks
she never gets ill!! her friends r ill alot more often and she is very bright
didnt breast feed my second dd altall didnt want to go through all the stress again
she is hardly ill either

What would be your goal, marianne? To see formula companies banned from all advertising?

It wouldn't have changed my decision, nor that of the other FFers I know.

I don't tend to believe adverts without question, nor do I tend to believe midwives without question, especially as thay all say slightly different things.

I resent the implication that BFers can see both sides while FFers are in blithe ignorance. I'm highly intelligent and chose to FF for - gasp - my own convenience. Women enjoy having a nice life, we've got used to having nice lives. Living hell is not something we want to go through, for some women BF is hell for whatever reason. It was for me, and not through lack of support.

MorrisZapp

From Aptamil: "Prebiotics are found in breast milk. That's why we've put them in our follow-on milk."

Posters on MN often say they were "bombarded" with BF info by midwives but think they know what is best for their babies.

LyingWitch - don't you think you are being "led" by formula advertising?!