Did anyone else feel rage at Karen Millen's comments on breastfeeding?

[Hoooray]

According to Karen Millen (who is, notably, a clothing designer and not a child development expert), breastfeeding beyond six months has no benefit for the child, is selfish, and is a sign of addiction.

You're not allowed to get it right as a mother, are you? Bad if you don't breastfeed but also bad if you breastfeed for too long, apparently.

God knows why Karen Millen was being asked for her opinion on the subject in the first place 🙄

"The insinuation that mothers breastfeed beyond 6m for their own benefit is often offensive because it's often portrayed in a seedy way. People rightly object to ignorant criticism about formula feeding, the reasons for it and its benefits. We don't need more ignorant opinions adding to a challenging culture that makes it harder to make optimal choices for our babies."

Oh and I got cross-posted by a poster claiming that mothers breast feed for the orgasmic feelings 🙄

I don’t find it difficult to understand I just don’t agree with it. Not that hard of a concept to follows. But keep believing what they want you to believe 🤭

And if you actually wanted to understand what the NCT person was trying to tell you@MyLimeGuide - breastfeeding releases oxytocin. Orgasms release it too, but so does hugging anyone you love. It's a bonding hormone, so released when you're bonding with someone you love. Just because sex is one way that happens, doesn't mean oxytocin release in itself is sexual. Women might enjoy the closeness and nurturing of breastfeeding, but they aren't getting sexual pleasure from it. And you release oxytocin when you cuddle your baby close and bottle feed them too. All women cuddling their babies get that feeling - and so do the babies! It's very important for babies to be loved and cuddled, no matter how they're fed. It's absolutely revolting that you tried to make that a sexual thing! You got it very wrong and didn't listen to your NCT teacher properly.

I agree its revolting. I didn't say I did that, it was actually my sister! She also told me she enjoyed being waited on, thanks for an explanation though and not anger anger anger!

The woman is clearly an idiot and so is anyone who agrees with her.

Perhaps it stems from her own insecurity but really how embarrassing for her to flag up her own ignorance to the world.

That's exactly my point!!! I had a DIFFERENT opinion to the OP she said I was insane. I was going by experience and what others had said. Some people on here need to lighted up big time. (Not you, you seem reasonable)

You've embarrassed yourself. I'm sorry that you were so let down by the education system.

I'm sure you realise breastmilk is not comparable to thalidomide.

It definitely definitely never did in the collective 5 years I breastfed, it also dampened my sexual I terest, removed my breasts from being any kind of sexual organ in my own eyes and put up a massive barrier to sex in my relationship. Noone is breastfeeding for sexual reasons unless there is something seriously wrong with them

You were told that women get a sexual thrill out of bfing in an NCT class? 😵‍💫

I think you may have misunderstood.

Exactly this

A lot of your follow up comments kind of back up the stance that you're nuts in fairness

And/or there are some big issues with the sister. There's a backstory here for sure. 🫣

Actually, I qualified in medicine in 1991.

But you don't need to be signed up to the GMC to understand that breastfeeding past 6 months has health benefits for a young child and doesn't indicate an addiction. If KM made the comments alleged in the OP, then she is clearly wrong.

Here is some useful information from a very reliable source, the National Institute of Health in America. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11597163/

I quote

"Breastfeeding is globally recognized as the optimal method of infant nutrition, offering health benefits for both the child and the mother, making it a public health priority. However, the potential advantages of breastfeeding extend well beyond initial months. Breast milk adapts to the evolving needs of the growing infant, and its immunological, microbiological, and biochemical properties have been associated with enhanced protection against infections and chronic diseases, improved growth and development, and lower rates of hospitalization and mortality. This review explores the evidence supporting the continuation of breastfeeding beyond six months."

and

"Children breastfed for extended periods experience lower rates of infectious morbidity and mortality. Growing evidence suggests that longer breastfeeding durations may also protect against overweight, diabetes, allergies, and other chronic illnesses later in life, and contribute to fewer dental malocclusions and higher intelligence scores compared to shorter breastfeeding durations or no breastfeeding at all. These benefits persist into later stages of life"

Also

"As previously established, breastfeeding not only benefits infants but also offers considerable advantages for maternal health. It can lower the risk of breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancers, and potentially reduce the risk of diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia"

Quite apart from "emotional closeness through intimate skin-to-skin contact. ...a calming effect and enhancing the overall bonding experience between mother and child" and so on.

The thorough review linked above cites 178 scientific papers in support of its various arguments.

Exactly.

@Hoooray But also, it's worth noting - I'm not sure many people have realised - a lot of the 'data' from the WHO is based on women in the developing world. That's where the least uptake of BF used to be and there was a real issue as they gave water or used water when mixing formula that was not sterile which posed a significant risk. and it was found that in these populations (mainly developing world), infant mortality and morbidity was decreased by protecting against infections etc.

A lot of the health benefit studies are not of course cause-effect (would be almost impossible to control for) studies but cohort/epidemiological/correlational.

A lot of health advice changes over time. We've all seen it - remember the 'x number of bread slices per day', using margarine instead of butter etc.

Saying to mum's not to introduce certain allergens if you have allergies/asthma in the family which is now seriously questioned and supported by numerous studies. But changing guidelines is a very slow process in the NHS.

Of course it's great and ideal if babies are BF, at least initially. But not everyone finds it easy and if expressing milk and 'chasing' the ideal of solely BF when it causes severe stress, then I would say it's better to give formula. Mums are better mums when not stressed or sleep deprived.

Sadly, most of us don't live in the communities of the distant past where you could rely on support from the wider family to help you with everyday tasks.

Obviously it's great that BF was something that received more support but it's the introduction of the first foods (weaning) being delayed that may be the cause of the increase in food allergies. The weaning window changed in 2003 from 3-4 months to exclusively BF/formula for 6 months.

Sweden briefly recommended delaying gluten introduction until 6 months, but reverted to an earlier introduction (around 4 months) due to increased incidence of early-onset coeliac diseases.

Nothing like a topic like BF for people being totally polarised with no nuance in analysis or discussion.

What do you mean? Milk is the main source of nutrients for the first 12 months... You don't just stop giving milk at 6 months. They need breast milk or an artificial milk alternative for at least a year

I should qualify, when I say 'weaning' I don't mean full weaning but introduction of first solids.

@BatchCookBabe I didn't feel rage, because I (mostly) agree with her. Not necessarily that it's an addiction, but that there's no need to breastfeed babies past 6 months.

Except for the fact that babies don’t begin weaning onto solids until 6 months. Cutting out milk when they’re barely doing anything than sucking a cucumber is beyond stupid. Of course there’s a need, it’s the bulk of their nutrition until they move onto solids fully.

Even if that were true (and I'm not convinced it is) the WHO is not the only source of information on breastfeeding. The NHI article linked by Gunners above cites multiple studies which are not based on data solely from the developing world. There is a substantial, world-wide body of evidence which indicates breastfeeding is beneficial beyond six months, for any baby, wherever they live.

I agree there are specific benefits to babies born in countries where there are barriers to preparing safe, clean formula.

And this is not to say that breastfeeding is the right choice for every woman. There are multiple biological, social, economical and personal reasons why breastfeeding might not be the right choice for some women, and where that is the case - as I said upthread - formula is amazing and I'm glad it exists.

Saying that breastfeeding is beneficial beyond six months is not the same as saying all women should breastfeed, or that formula is bad. It is a fact that breastfeeding is beneficial well past infancy. That fact is independent of all the other reasons why breastfeeding might not be the right choice for everyone.

What a lovely analysis... Which has nothing to do with whether or not women should continue breastfeeding after 6 months.

Personally fed is best! I breastfed, I had poor supply, I topped up with formula right from nicu onwards with baby 1. I also expressed as much as I physically could because nicu babies do better with breast milk, that is a scientific fact! Formula can cause necrotising enterocolitis which causes the bowel to die in roem babies.

Now continuing beyond 6 months if a baby has always been breastfed, if like my youngest they bottle refuse, it's a no brainer, baby who won't take a bottle still needs milk and if always breastfed breatmilk is the only option there. If babies need breatmilk or formula as the bulk of their diet before a year old then stopping at 6 months makes absolutely no sense (with the exception of parents wanting to move to formula which is grand and up to them) but this ridiculous idea that women breastfeeding beyond 6 months, not even a year, is for them not the baby is lyicrous

Interesting I’ve literally never seen anyone advocate that bottles of formula should be stopped when a baby turns 6 months.

Of course, and I'm not saying I agree with Karen Millen - and I've not seen the clip or interview so can't comment on how it was asked - but maybe she's seen the research emerging that actually shows that longer breastfeeding may have a link (not proven or not known why this is so) that extended BF is linked with significantly (36-40% increased chance) of early onset colon cancer? But probably not.

I suppose what I'm saying is that if she was asked what she thought, maybe she is entitled to her opinion, and she's hardly a figurehead for medical advice so I'd hope that women nowadays are stronger in holding their own position (i.e. wanting to BF until much later than 6 months).

I just feel that BF - whether for or against - is associated with such high emotions. I don't think we need to 'rage' about Karen Millen's opinion.

I do think mums everywhere need to feel that they can do what they feel is best for their baby. If that's BF for 2 years, that should obviously be fine but I'd like that women feel empowered to make that choice without getting too emotional when someone like Karen M (who is hardly a figurehead or major celebrity) makes a comment.

Agree. I suppose the women I met who did the extended BF (way beyond 6 months) were also the ones that were pretty set on not introducing any solids until 6-7 months.

Each to their own, but I do feel that some babies are definitely ready for some solids before then.

I guess as a fairly mature mum - and I've worked in research and did lots of research when I was pregnant - I didn't feel compelled either way necessarily on the solids introduction period but knew to trust my own babies and instinct. I did baby led weaning; introduced taster portions from 4 months.

We have asthma and allergies in the family (my DH is severely allergic to animals, pollen, dust, had asthma etc etc; my mother too - weirdly I was purely formula fed and have none of these, but that's just an aside).

But, on doing my own research (this was back in 2006), I did not heed the advice about not eating nuts or fish (if cooked properly) etc etc as I had already read about some of the research that was the early basis of what has found in the EAT, LEAP studies etc. It's about introducing allergens, essentially developing immunity (of course peanut allergy research is now very focused on desensitisation therapies).

I felt strong enough as a person to just go with what I felt was right, especially as a couple of the health visitors I met simply hadn't done their research, but understand they had to 'toe the line'. But I saw so many mums who were sleep deprived, with hormones going wild who felt 'terrorised' by their health visitors for not BF or introducing solids earlier.

Neither of my kids have allergies; neither are overweight - I did introduction of solids at 4 - 4.5 months, which is when both of them started showing interest, reaching for food, and bringing it to their mouths whilst doing chewing motions.

Well it's hardly the first thing women have been chastised for being 'too emotional' about, I'll just add it to the list.

I think a key thing to this debate is that she didnt just ‘express her opinion’. Quite rightly, people are entitled to their opinions. The view she gave was stated as fact -There’s no benefit for a child to breastfed beyond 6 months.

This is what she should have apologised for, for stating incorrect information as fact. She could have even said “ I dont agree with it beyond 6 months, however I was wrong to say there is no benefit”.

The point is that on national TV, people should be pulled up on stating incorrect ‘facts’ (not opinions.)