Miriam Stoppard is an idiot who should not be allowed to spout this rubbish about bf

[50shadesofslapntickle]

Some of my La Leche League friends have just shown me this and I am totally surprised that this supposed 'doctor' can spout this crap in a national newspaper?!

www.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/health/when-should-you-stop-breast-feeding-1259599

And then we discover she has links to Nestle... what a surprise...

boycottnestle.blogspot.co.uk/2008/02/nestle-panic-miriam-stoppard.html

Miriam Stoppard you should be ashamed of yourself for writing this totally innacurate rubbish.

Exactly queen. There aare a lot of other factors to take into consideration. To say that children or people who are bf are healthier than those who are ff are very simplistic

Sirboobalot : And you're wrong. For a mother, breastfeeding reduces rates of: ovarian, womb, uterine and breast cancer, osteoparosis, type 2 diabetes, and post natal depression. For baby: Reduced rates of asthma, eczema, UTIs, ear infections, chest infections, heart disease (for premature babies, from four weeks!), obesity, childhood cancers, diabetes, mental health conditions, M.S., orthodontic issues... I could go on.
Then my family must be freaks of medical science then as I breastfed my DC and was breastfed myself as a baby and lo and behold I live with 3 off your list. My DC - 2.
As others have said, many factors influence health and putting it all down to BF is absolutely ridiculous.

Nobody puts 'it all down to breastfeeding.

They don't.

Nobody sensible talks in absolutes about any health related behaviours.

And it winds me up no end when people wheel out the 'my mum is 90 and she's smoked since she was 15' arguments in relation to breastfeeding. Makes me think - oh for goodness sake, just grow up.

In simple terms, if you eat a healthy diet, don't smoke, don't drink, exercise, are fulfilled by your job, have good relationships with your DH, family and friends and live a stress free life full of physical and mental wellbeing then you reduce the chances of getting certain illnesses. But not all.
BF plays a minuscule part in reducing chances of illness.

Shag I would disagree that nobody thinks so after reading some of the posts on this thread!

"Reduces rates" is very different to eliminates.

No one is saying BF eliminates any type of disease or condition but the links already given show there is evidence of a reduction in risk.

I'm not saying that to make anyone feel bad. If a mother takes all the information into account and still decides that it is in the best interest of their child not to BF or to stop BF, then who is anyone to judge them in that decision. We all make decisions every day in how we parent that another mother may make a different choice.

Well shag that's exactly what sirboobalot s doing. All it serves really is to make women feel bad and not promote bf

It's more important to try to live a healthy and happy life than obsess over BF.
Formula is not poison, BMilk is not some magic potion which guarantees a healthy life (and if you don't drink it you're doomed).

Why are certain women so obsessed?

Oh and comparing smoking to formula is insulting. Not a comparison

having a fag, giving formula not the same. Formula if the baby is not being bf is a life saving bm alternative. how else is a baby to survive ?where there is no bm available throug choice, or the mum not able to bf

But MS is not saying "don't beat yourself up if you choose formula over breastmilk, it'll all be fine in the end".
She is actively discouraging women from breastfeeding. That's something else.

Am I reading a different article? She may be odd as a box of frogs talking about teeth and mix feeding from four months but that's not actively discouraging breast feeding.

"having a fag, giving formula not the same"

No. And if you read my post you'll see that I haven't compared them. I've compared the arguments used by those seeking to downplay the risks of using these products.

And the fact that you've jumped in and suggested that I'm comparing using formula with smoking suggests to me that you're gearing up for a 'debate' which involves the usual idiocies and straw man tactics

"Formula if the baby is not being bf is a life saving bm alternative"

Yes - if donor breastmilk is not available then formula milk is life-saving for babies.

However, its widespread use is also associated with increased incidence of cases of post-menopausal breast cancer.

And increased risk of hospitalisation in babies under 6 months.

But hey ho - all choices we make for our children have pros and cons. For us and for them.

"BF plays a minuscule part in reducing chances of illness."

How do you know? It's a very complex issue and there's a mass of research out there. My reading of the research suggests to me that in terms of numbers, hundreds, if not thousands women's lives would be saved every year if we followed WHO recommendations on breastfeeding, as many women in developing countries do (2 years +).

I think the point is about risks of not breastfeeding outweighing benefits - actually we tend to make these decisions under pressure, emotional and social and without a crystal ball which can tell us how this choice might impact on us or our babies in the long term.

That's the truth. We just don't know and maybe will never know. We just have to try and work out what we can cope with at the time.

MS has never got over Tom dumping her for Felicity Kendal!

However, I get fed up hearing statements that say "breastfeeding reduces the risk of this, or that, without quantifying it.

My personal view is that in the developing world it is probably imperative to bf until 2. Not so in a developed country like the UK where formula is a real alternative. I successfully ff both of mine from birth though choice.

For many it is the only alternative as donor milk is very hard to get hold of on a regular basis

To most of us donor milk is not readily available, so apart from BM formula has to be used. We know the risks, but it's way we have to do as our babies have to be fed som way or another

And you're wrong. For a mother, breastfeeding reduces rates of: ovarian, womb, uterine and breast cancer, osteoparosis, type 2 diabetes,

But millions of women (including the majority of childless women) won't suffer from any of these things anyway. I notice Type 1 diabetes is not on your list; whereas type 2 diabetes is very much a lifestyle illness. The sort of lifestyle that more that is more common amongst demographics that are less likely to breastfeed.

and post natal depression.

Or maybe if BF works fine for you, you are less likely to be depressed.

For baby: Reduced rates of asthma, eczema, UTIs, ear infections, chest infections, heart disease (for premature babies, from four weeks!), obesity, childhood cancers, diabetes, mental health conditions, M.S., orthodontic issues... I could go on.

I can quite accept that BF might help prevent allergy-related complaints. However, if you have been BF, you still cannot eat excessive quantities of whatever you like and not expect to become obese. It would seem that BF, as a healthy lifestyle choice, is more of a correlation than a cause. Likewise 'orthodontic issues' whatever that actually means. You have not been specific here about which type of diabetes - that would be interesting.

Piglet - it is the only option for the vast majority of women who can't breastfeed.

My interest really is in why such disproportionately large numbers in the UK either can't or won't breastfeed. I'm always asking that question - what is it about this culture which makes breastfeeding such a difficult choice for UK mums. And the article in question goes towards answering that: there is a profound lack of confidence in and understanding of normal breastfeeding here. That's what this article says to me.

What a breath of fresh air amothersplaceisinthewrong! A positive view of ff and a more sceptical approach to the vague claims made by many.

Moomin she says people should exclusively bf for a shorter time than reccommended, and that we are placing a burden of choice on our children if we allow them to continue to feed. Saying we should stop when teeth come in is obviously something that would reduce the amount of bf.

Sorry pigletmania - what risks??

Yes reduce the amount of time people bf for, that's hardly actively discouraging bf. Maybe discouraging extended bf after weaning but she's not saying don't bf at all, it's just her opinion why would anyone care.

Like I've said I doubt anyone who is happy bf will read her opinion and stop.

Those highlighted by sirboob. I ff dd as I had problems bf and supply went and had to ff, ds 6.5 months I am mixed feeding. Fortunately so far no one has been sick or hospitalised from having formula. I wash all bottled in hot soapy water and sterilise