"I personally think socio-economic factors plays more a part in development more than just BF or FF ..... yet in the BF and FF debate other factors for increased health and achievement of potential are rarely mentioned."
As has been mentioned several times on this thread in response to this sort of speculation - the research into the health issues connected to infant feeding does 'control' for social class, age and education, among a range of factors.
"despite some emotional arguments to the contrary, it isn't actually poisonous".
I have never heard anyone arguing that formula is akin to 'poison', only that there are risks associated with using it - a view which is supported by all reputable medical bodies, including the NHS and the Royal College of Midwives. Suggesting that people who hold this view are promoting the idea that formula is 'poison' is unfair - it polarises the argument in a way which is very unhelpful.
"I think you can acknowledge that bf is best but not accept that ff is putting your child at risk.The height argument is just daft.A non processed organic pure diet is also the ideal but I am sure there are many healthy thriving children who are not fed this way"
So breastfeeding is the equivalent of a 'pure organic diet'?
It's not you know! Here - this explains it better than I can myself. It's from an essay by Diane Wessienger.
Do you understand the point she is making about not using ff as the 'standard' against which bf is measured? When medicine uses the biological norm as the standard, why on earth do we distort the issue by doing something completely opposite with ff and bf?:
"When we (and the artificial milk manufacturers) say that breastfeeding is the best possible way to feed babies because it provides their ideal food, perfectly balanced for optimal infant nutrition, the logical response is, "So what?" Our own experience tells us that optimal is not necessary. Normal is fine, and implied in this language is the absolute normalcyand thus safety and adequacyof artificial feeding.
The truth is, breastfeeding is nothing more than normal. Artificial feeding, which is neither the same nor superior, is therefore deficient, incomplete, and inferior. Those are difficult words, but they have an appropriate place in our vocabulary.
When we talk about the advantages of breastfeedingthe "lower rates" of cancer, the "reduced risk" of allergies, the "enhanced" bonding, the "stronger" immune systemwe reinforce bottlefeeding yet again as the accepted, acceptable norm.
Health comparisons use a biological, not cultural, norm, whether the deviation is harmful or helpful. Smokers have higher rates of illness; increasing prenatal folic acid may reduce fetal defects. Because breastfeeding is the biological norm, breastfed babies are not "healthier;" artificially-fed babies are ill more often and more seriously. Breastfed babies do not "smell better;" artificial feeding results in an abnormal and unpleasant odor that reflects problems in an infant's gut. We cannot expect to create a breastfeeding culture if we do not insist on a breastfeeding model of health in both our language and our literature.
We must not let inverted phrasing by the media and by our peers go unchallenged. When we fail to describe the hazards of artificial feeding, we deprive mothers of crucial decision-making information. The mother having difficulty with breastfeeding may not seek help just to achieve a "special bonus;" but she may clamor for help if she knows how much she and her baby stand to lose. She is less likely to use artificial milk just "to get him used to a bottle" if she knows that the contents of that bottle cause harm.
Nowhere is the comfortable illusion of bottlefed normalcy more carefully preserved than in discussions of cognitive development. When I ask groups of health professionals if they are familiar with the study on parental smoking and IQ (1), someone always tells me that the children of smoking mothers had "lower IQs." When I ask about the study of premature infants fed either human milk or artificial milk (2), someone always knows that the breastmilk-fed babies were "smarter." I have never seen either study presented any other way by the media--or even by the authors themselves. Even health professionals are shocked when I rephrase the results using breastfeeding as the norm: the artificially-fed children, like children of smokers, had lower IQs.
Inverting reality becomes even more misleading when we use percentages, because the numbers change depending on what we choose as our standard. If B is 3/4 of A, then a is 4/3 of B. Choose A as the standard, and B is 25% less. Choose B as the standard, and A is 33 1/3% more. Thus, if an item costing 100 units is put on sale for "25% less,"the price becomes 75. When the sale is over, and the item is marked back up, it must be marked up 33 1/3% to get the price up to 100. Those same figures appear in a recent study (3), which found a "25% decrease" in breast cancer rates among women who were breastfed as infants. Restated using breastfed health as the norm, there was a 33-1/3% increase in breast cancer rates among women who were artificially fed. Imagine the different impact those two statements would have on the public. "
*
And people don't get appropriate help with either bf or ff because postnatal care is generally crap in this country. There is major understaffing in both hospitals and in the community which results in women getting incomplete information and support in all things, not just in baby feeding.
Midwives who imply that they can't talk to mothers about ff because of hospital policy on bf are simply not doing their jobs properly - there is no government push to stop hospitals giving out the information that women need to ff their babies safely - only to discourage midwives from giving routine demonstrations of making up feeds to groups of parents antenatally, firstly because it's ineffectual as parents don't retain the information well enough and secondly because it normalises bottlefeeding in away which is very demotivating for those who wish to breastfeed.