to wonder which formula company sponsored this article?

[nittynittynora]

yano.co.uk/2013/03/breast-is-best-or-is-it/

It just seems so anti-breastfeeding! Surely the health benefits of BFing are proven - there's nothing political about saying that it protects against disease, for example.I agree that of course you can form a close bond with your baby when FFing but the rest of the article seems determined to bat away all the 'supposed' benefits of BFing and focus on any perceived 'cons'.

[DolomitesDonkey]

YABU. You sound quite militant and hot under the collar about the BFing message.

Have you tried lentils?

[MrsMak]

I have not managed to read the whole thread yet, but wanted to chip in re formula advertising being everywhere and rammed down throats etc.....

I am newly pregnant with my second baby, after a gap of almost 11 years. I ff my first, and was talking to dh last week trying to remember how I dealt with taking bottles on a day out etc - it was so long ago, i honestly can't remember.

I was in the supermarket last night and had a quick look down the baby isle - was amazed to see that they now do ready made bottles with teats. Surely if ff was rammed down my throat, I would have known about this, and a couple of other things new to ff long before now? Just a thought.

[ICBINEG]

shag 15890 babies tested and all the relevant confounding factors controlled for....but don't you get it?

There are woman right here on this very thread who formula fed and their babies and they are fine!

So how the hell can your so called research be right?

I'd rather believe an article an ex-DM jorno spunked out after a late night out than all the medical evidence in the world!

[Shagmundfreud]

Smee - there are large scale, properly constructed studies done in the UK which show that fully ff babies are much more likely to be admitted to hospital with a range of common conditions, than fully breastfed babies. There are studies showing that ff babies make many more GP visits than fully bf babies. Studies involving large numbers of IK babies and which control for parental smoking status, income, education.

There are studies showing bf babies are less likely to die from SIDS and NEC.

You are totally entitled to dismiss the evidence if it makes you feel more comfortable about your choices but for goodness sake, accept that it's not unreasonable for other people who have read it to treat it with seriousness. It forms the basis for NHS recommendations on infant feeding and underpins parent information disseminated by FSIDS - the main UK cot death charity. It's really not 'extreme' or 'fanatical' or 'lactivist' to give these studies some weight.

As for life in developed countries being less brutal - yes, because we have modern medicine and antibiotics to put right the infections that kill babies in other countries. I wonder, if antibiotics weren't available how comfortable people would feel in knowing that ff babies are more prone to infectious illnesses in the first few months because they've been deprived of the protective qualities of breastmilk. .

[DuPainDuVinDuFromage]

YAB totally U, for reasons listed by previous posters. I hate all this bashing of FF when there are all sorts of reasons for not being able to/choosing not to bf

[Shagmundfreud]

ICBINEG

There are mothers posting on mumsnet who drank too much, smoked and ate crap the whole way through their pregnancies. In all likelihood they will be unable to identify any ill effects in their children from these behaviours. Does this mean that all the research suggesting that smoking, alcohol and poor diet in pregnancy harms babies is false, and we can dismiss it? Of course not. Grow up ffs.

[ICBINEG]

shag sorry-thought you would recognise my name....I am a scientist....the whole of my post was tongue firmly in cheek!

[ChairmanWow]

Anyone ever been on one of these threads and walked away with their perspective altered by what has been posted? That's a genuine question.

I'm relatively new to MN and the threads on this subject I've seen tend to end in the same way, often with the same posters. I'd be interested to see if all the time people spend on these threads achieves anything.

I'll start by saying that as a mum who ff (not by choice) I willl still try to bf next time round but have no qualms about giving formula and think it's an excellent alternative. My opinions haven't been changed by anything I've seen on MN.

[ICBINEG]

My opinion has been changed by these threads.

I used to believe that the NHS treated people too much like children. I mean adults are perfectly capable of finding information and evaluating it's provenance to reach an informed decision aren't they?

but then people on these threads say things like

"But it's true in saying no benefit has been measured in isolation as that's not possible."
"I was a ff baby and I have no allergies, illness, and I have a bond with my mum. "
"To me, common sense says that something that is natural, additive-free and physiologically the right option, is the right option."

So my opinion of the woman on the street and their reasons for either BFing or FFing changes drastically.

Instead of proposing that women read up and become informed I am now proposing they just do whatever NICE guidelines currently recommend because there is no way woman can be reaching a truly informed decision on anything, while making comments like those...

[PickledInAPearTree]

I try not to read any of them anymore wow.

They all end the same just read one of them and that should see you right.

[Mylittlepuds]

It's a very poor piece of journalism.

[smeeeheee]

shag I'm not dismissing evidence, I'm listening to it. I'm pregnant with my first child, and am fully intending to try breastfeeding. I might not be able to, I might find that it's a massive amount of stress to put myself through at a time that is already likely to be one of the most stressful in my life. You don't have the right to stand on your high horse and tell me that if I choose to formula feed I'm damaging my child. It's insulting. I've read studies and opinions from both sides of the argument, and have come to my own conclusion. I'll give it a go, but refuse to beat myself up about it if it's too difficult. I've decided that, given what I've read, there is very little difference between the two. It's my choice and my right to feed my child as I chose. I make no judgement whatsoever about how other women chose to feed their children as it's none of my damn business. What worries me is the idea that is being put forward by some that formula feeding is somehow dangerous or even life threatening to babies in this country, because from what I've read, it's just not true.

I think you misunderstood what I said about breastfeeding vs. formula in developing countries being a different issue (even then it's still not clear cut, breastfeeding is one of the most effective ways of transmitting the HIV virus from mother to baby for example). I really don't understand your point? If it's only western women that don't breastfeed, and breastmilk contains some magical property that protects against all infectious diseases (it doesn't), surely infants in the West would be more likely to suffer life threatening illnesses, not less? I really don't understand your argument at all, and I think you've deliberately misconstrued mine.

It's not that I'm anti breastfeeding, I really am not and I'm looking forward to trying it, but neither am I anti formula. Both are totally valid choices, and women shouldn't be vilified for choosing either... My point is that you can't compare what happens in the West with what happens in the developing world, you are not comparing like with like.

[Shagmundfreud]

ICBINEG - Sorry!

It seems to me that people fit their reading and thinking to the decision they make, not the other way around.

Most women with babies over a week old in the UK use formula. By 16 weeks only one in three babies is being breastfed at all.

On the whole women reject information which doesn't appear to support what they want to do when it comes to feeding.

I have had my opinion changed by these threads. I think there is an astonishing amount of mental weirdness going on in relation to this issue.

"I hate all this bashing of FF"

If you enter into a discussion of the the comparative merits of breastfeeding and formula feeding, as this discussion inevitably did in response to the article, it usually means you are going to discuss the underpinning health issues. Quite rightly. And you know, you can't have a sensible discussion about this topic if every time you challenge the view that breastfeeding has no significant benefits you're accused of attacking ff mothers. If it's distressing for you to hear doubts being raised about how safe and healthy formula is, you probably shouldn't engage in discussions about bf vs ff.

If you want to take part, woman-up, stand by your decisions, engage with the facts like a sensible and intelligent adult. Then maybe these debates won't end up disintegrating into accusations of bf facism, and massive 'oh woe is me' blubfests.

[Shagmundfreud]

"I might find that it's a massive amount of stress to put myself through at a time that is already likely to be one of the most stressful in my life".

You might indeed find this. And the less informed and prepared you are, and the more you doubt your ability to do it, the more stressful and difficult you are likely to find it.


"You don't have the right to stand on your high horse and tell me that if I choose to formula feed I'm damaging my child."

Any choice you make might damage your child. Welcome to the world of parenting. How you choose to feed your baby is not a consequence free decision, no matter what you do, breastfeed or formula feed. The science appears to tell us that some babies are harmed by not having breast milk. I appreciate that if you are worried about breastfeeding not working, then it might be hard to accept this, but we don't have to pretend it's not true just to protect your feelings.

"even then it's still not clear cut, breastfeeding is one of the most effective ways of transmitting the HIV virus from mother to baby for example"

Actually breastfeeding is a very inefficient way of transmitting HIV if complementary feeding (ie mixed feeding or giving solids) is not taking place. This is why in areas where formula is too expensive to use safely as the sole food for babies, HIV+ mothers are being encouraged to exclusively breastfeed for six months, and then switch completely to formula. This saves lives and results in a HIV transmission rate of less than 4%.

"because from what I've read, it's just not true."

What have you read then? I arrived at my views from reading a range of evidence on this subject including large scale reviews of the evidence, rather than looking at individual studies. and reading shite articles in the Daily Mail. I have a fair amount of trust in UNICEF here who do breastfeeding training, support and accreditation across the NHS and are linked to the World Health Organisation. Who is your trusted source of information on this topic?

"breastmilk contains some magical property that protects against all infectious diseases (it doesn't), surely infants in the West would be more likely to suffer life threatening illnesses, not less?"

Umm, there's nothing 'magical' in breastmilk, just antiviral, antibacterial agents, and ANTIBODIES. You know, those things nature puts in a baby's natural food to compensate for the fact that they are born with immature immune systems and are therefore more vulnerable to infections than older children and adults.

Babies in developing countries who have been innoculated, who live in decent housing, have access to clean water, medical care and parents who are healthy and not starving, are no more vulnerable to infections than Western babies. Less vulnerable in fact, if they are fully breastfed.

UK babies still get respitory illnesses like bronchiolitis, plus ear infections and gastric illness. And fully ff babies get these minor infections more often than fully breastfed babies, which is why as a group they clock up more GP appointments and hospital visits than fully bf babies.

That's not to say you should breastfeed or that your baby will be unwell if you don't. Most babies in the UK are still healthy and happy, even if their diet is not the ideal. This is also true of older children, many of whom in the UK eat god-awful disgusting diets.

[rollmopses]

If mother eats additive-ladden, nutrient-poor processed food, drinks alcohol, smokes and uses drugs whilst breastfeeding - is breast still the best?

[Mylittlepuds]

Smeehee. You don't want to put YOURSELF through the stress?

[smeeeheee]

It might seem to you that people fit their reading to their decision, but all I can say is that I've tried not to to the best of my ability. I certainly can't speak for all other women. "Most babies over a week old in the uk use formula". Yup, that might be true, my point is that that's not a public health issue, and it's not a massive issue that "by 16 weeks only 1 in 3 babies are breastfed at all".

Unfortunately, the stance you've chosen to take is going against the general scientific consensus, and you are doing so in order to support your own belief despite it not being supported by evidence, which seems to be exactly what you are accusing others of doing. That's your right, but in order to make extraordinary claims, you have to be able to produce extraordinary proof, which you haven't done. You can't say things that are patronising and insulting then get all humpty when people are insulted and patronised by them! I very much stand by my decisions, I certainly engage with "the facts" like a "sensible and intelligent adult", your issue seems to be that I just don't agree that what you state are 'facts'. You haven't addressed any of the points I've made even when all I've asked you to do is clarify your stance, all you've done is essentially say that if I don't agree with you I shouldn't engage in the discussion at all. I'm totally confounded by the "woe is me blubfest" comment. I actually just don't understand what you mean, and I assure you I'm not in the slightest bit distressed that you don't agree with me.

[PickledInAPearTree]

Why shouldn't she consider her stress puds?

Why not?

Breastfeeding seems to be the one subject on here where women are expected to plough on with no thought whatsoever for their physical or mental well being or happiness.

[CommanderShepard]

I hate the way we have a habit of completely dismissing the welfare of the mother when talking about feeding.

There are TWO (or more, if you have multiples or are tandem feeding) people in a breastfeeding relationship and both need to be happy in order for it to be successful. Not as facile as 'happy mum happy baby', of course, but each individual must be considered. If it's not working for one, something needs to be done about it.

I have breastfed for 10 months now and am delighted. Do I love breastfeeding? Not exactly, but it works for us so that's great. Contrast that with a friend who had such a rough time that she was a suicide risk until she moved to bottlefeeding. Surely no one could judge her for doing that despite her son thriving on breastfeeding but this is the internet so I wouldn't be surprised

[Shagmundfreud]

"If mother eats additive-ladden, nutrient-poor processed food, drinks alcohol, smokes and uses drugs whilst breastfeeding - is breast still the best?"

Depends how much she's drinking, and what drugs she's using.

Even mothers who are eating poor quality food produce good quality milk for their babies. Find out more here: here

"my point is that that's not a public health issue, and it's not a massive issue that "by 16 weeks only 1 in 3 babies are breastfed at all"

If a suboptimal diet for the majority of UK babies is resulting in millions of extra pounds cost to the NHS (through increased gp visits and hospital admissions), and death and disability to more babies through extra cases of SIDS and NEC then I think it IS a health issue.

"Unfortunately, the stance you've chosen to take is going against the general scientific consensus"

Are you arguing that the evidence on which all current NHS recommendations on infant feeding are based is irrelevant and flawed and there is a consensus on this? Perhaps you should write and tell the health secretary that a whole swathe of NHS practice is based on irrelevant and flawed research. Because they don't currently seem to be aware of this fact in relation to infant feeding.

And maybe while you're at it, you could link me through to information you've found indicating that the major medical organisations - the NHS, the RCOG, the RCM, the RCP, and maybe the American Academy of Paediatrics, share the consensus you believe exists, that there are no significant benefits to breastfeeding. As far as I can see they all believe the opposite.

NHS Choices:
Breastfeeding is good for babies. Breastfed babies have:
less chance of diarrhoea and vomiting and having to go to hospital as a result
fewer chest and ear infections and having to go to hospital as a result
less chance of being constipated
less likelihood of becoming obese and therefore developing type 2 diabetes and other illnesses later in life

American Academy of Pediatrics
Given the documented short- and long-term medical and neurodevelopmental advantages of breastfeeding, infant nutrition should be considered a public health issue and not only a lifestyle choice. Pediatricians play a critical role in their practices and communities as advocates of breastfeeding and thus should be knowledgeable about the health risks of not breastfeeding.

Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health
"Breast-feeding gives babies a head start. We encourage all new mums to breast-feed and ask their families and healthcare professionals to support them in this choice. Breast-fed babies are at reduced risk of several types of infection.It is highly likely that breast-feeding provides many additional health benefits.

But apparently a consensus exists that this is not a public health issue and there is general agreement that breastfeeding doesn't benefit babies.

Seriously - what planet are on that you think there is a consensus on this issue when all the major health organisations are saying NOTHING OF THE SORT.

[cherryvanillajam]

Smee, I may have misunderstood you, in fact I hope I have, but are you suggesting that thinking breastfeeding is best for a baby is going against the general scientific consensus?

"Unfortunately, the stance you've chosen to take is going against the general scientific consensus, and you are doing so in order to support your own belief despite it not being supported by evidence"

I think the general consensus IS that breastfeeding is nutritionally superior and better for a baby's health than formula - there is a huge body of evidence to support this- but if you know better, you'd better get in touch with the WHO, and all the other governments and organisations who promote BFing as they've obviously got it wrong, too, in thinking breastfeeding is the best way to feed your baby!

[Shagmundfreud]

"I hate the way we have a habit of completely dismissing the welfare of the mother when talking about feeding."

Sigh.

NOBODY is doing this.

This is a straw man argument.

Even the most enthusiastic advocates of breastfeeding acknowledge that some mothers can't cope emotionally with breastfeeding and for these mothers there is no option but to stop.

Arguing that breastfeeding is important to babies is not the same as arguing that all babies should be breastfed NO MATTER WHAT.

And it bloody pisses me off that all arguments in support of breastfeeding being important and beneficial for babies are interpreted as an attack on mothers who won't or can't breastfeed. It's so bloody unhelpful.

I think this stance is used over and over again on mumsnet to try to stifle the debate.

[Shagmundfreud]

"Breastfeeding seems to be the one subject on here where women are expected to plough on with no thought whatsoever for their physical or mental well being or happiness."

I don't agree. I don't know anyone who believes this.

But the question we should all be asking is what is going on in the UK that such incredibly high numbers of mothers are finding breastfeeding physically and emotionally unsupportable? It's not intrinsic to breastfeeding per se. If it was we'd find similar rates of rejection of breastfeeding across all ages, social classes and nationalities. And actually this really isn't the case. It's a cultural issue. There is something about being a mother in the UK that makes breastfeeding not feasible for us. What is it?

[Mylittlepuds]

Of course breastfeeding is going to be bloody stressful! You're on tap for your baby 24/7. It's hard work.

Surely though knowing it's the best for your child you put yourself through a degree of stress. Personally I suffered severe postnatal anxiety - probably compounded through lack of sleep and hormones - but still it was not an option to me to give up knowing it was what was best nutritionally for my son (this is medical fact.)

I'm not advocating ploughing on at all costs. However Smee in my opinion it's worth 'stress' on your part. It's not going to be easy.

[Mylittlepuds]

Good on you for planning to give it a go though.