To think my sister is selfish for choosing not to breast feed?

[IHateWinter]

She hasn't even had her baby yet but has already decided that she doesn't want to try it and if she does she'll only do it for a month at most.

I've told her that breast milk is healthier and gives the baby antibodies etc, but she won't listen to me. I gave her a baby book that explains why breast is best but she won't read that either.

What else can I say? I worry about my future neice. I understand that she many not want to carry on doing it for a long time, but I really do feel that if you have a baby you have the responsibility to try and give it the best start in life. I really feel she is more concerned about what her breasts will look like than her babies needs.

I'm suprised by how strongly I feel. I find myself avoiding her in case I end up saying something upsetting. Am I being unreasonable?

Oh, and before anyone says, I AM NOT A TROLL I am a regular poster who has name changed.

I think there's a difference between having heard the message and really believing it, though. So much of the information about breastfeeding ends with a cosy reassuring 'but it's your choice' - which of course it is, but emphasising it all the time just dilutes the strength of the original health message.

Take MN bfing threads - someone (I don't mean anyone specific) saying "I know breast is best, but..." is not usually someone who really does know that, in my experience. Certainly what follows after the '...' often only makes sense if you assume the person writing it doesn't think breast is really any better than formula! There's an awful lot of that sort of view about.

IHateWinter - sounds like you are doing a great job in the circumstances. I think everyone on here may have been more sympathetic if they'd known all that background info.

Try to bear in mind that nothing is more likely to make your sister become more responsible and less teenagerish than becoming a mum! perhaps things will change when the baby is born.

Yes, have to say I agree with you there impfty!

YANBU. I personally don't understand how any mother could decide not even to give bfing a try. And I hate the 'my baby, my choice' line that people like to quote on these AIBU threads. Surely as a parent you have the duty to do the objectively best for your child. Whether it suits you or not.

impfty - I'm not sure that your last post is true, I agree more with the one before. The safety and nutritional adequacy of modern formulas has been analysed. In rich countries it is not incorrect to say that formula is an acceptable alternative even when you understand fully that breast is better. It comes down to a choice, breast might be better but formula is not so bad and fits better with my life/alleviates my stress in some way. I think the first post said it better.

A good test of whether someone is really convinced that 'breast is best' is if they can cope with formula being presented as a relative risk. If not, then they're probably someone who just sees breastmilk as nice if you can get it but not something that will make that much difference to the baby. In that case they're likely to have quite different views about what counts as selfish, or too much or little pressure to breastfeed, etc. than someone who feels more strongly. And I would disagree with them because given that the research shows real illnesses like gastroenteritis are more likely in formula fed babies, then it's perfectly reasonable to think of that as a risk (even if it's sometimes an unavoidable risk, and not one that people who are stuck with it should panic over or feel upset about).

impfty - If you take that as a premise, that some studies report that gastro bugs are more common in formula fed babies, why is that? Perhaps that is because the formula fed babies are often in nursery care where they pick up bugs, perhaps it is to do with storage of bottled milk, perhaps it is to do with not having some protection from being breastfed, perhaps it is to do with the sterilisation of feeding equipment or the content of the formula it could be a huge number of reasons and asking why is very important in interpreting the conclusions of the research and the impact on public health. I don't think you can take the conclusions of individual research studies out of context.

That's why I suppose I am sceptical about research studies. I'm not sure it's possible to reliably and impartially investigate all the various thought risks and benefits.

I choose to breastfeed because human babies have human milk and calves have cow's milk. It seems sensible and logical to give the right baby the right milk and I'm not sure what effect giving other milks would have because it's not really known (by that I mean proved).

If someone feels formula will fit better with their lifestyle and feels comfortable with their conclusion that formula is a viable alternative then that's their decision. I wouldn't assume based merely on that that they where ill-informed or incorrect just that they'd made a different decision to me.

They might be ill-informed and incorrect but just that information on it's own would not be enough to convince me.

+proven

But the people who do these studies do an awful lot of controlling for that sort of thing - they're not stupid. Obviously individual studies can screw up in that regard in different ways, but you can't dismiss all research because of that. That's why studies talk about statistical significance and so on - they know it's not straightforward! And they still end up with some pretty clear conclusions about breastfeeding.

Personally, I don't assume people are ill-informed or incorrect just because they make different decisions to me, but I do when they make statements that I know to be wrong. Normally in that situation I either end up learning something I didn't know before (it was me who was ill informed, in other words) or realising that there are things the other person doesn't know that explains their decision, or putting it down to other personal reasons I can't know about. But an awful lot of the time there is a lot of ignorance about the science behind breastfeeding out there.

It's often blindingly obvious from things people say - you wouldn't conclude just from someone saying "I formula fed" that they were ill-informed, of course not - but sometimes it can become clear very quickly when they start talking about the issue. (Not that I'm saying that's the main reason people end up formula feeding, there are obviously lots of reasons.)

curiosity, you say "The safety and nutritional adequacy of modern formulas has been analysed"

Where? All of them? All the new ingredients? With their long term effects?

They haven't, you know....

This is not to scare people. Just to correct sweeping statements like this. You might assume that new ingredients, such as prebiotics and LCPUFAs in formulas, have been tested. Of course they have been - they are given to real babies whose growth and health is monitored for a few months such as here:

journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=A82090FF6EC195693A9D1C88295BCB34.tomcat1?fr omPage=online&aid=5830428

But long term effects are not checked for. There's no reason to think there are any long term effects, but we can't tell, anyway, 'cos the research stops in that paper at 7 mths. Also, not everything is tested for. In that paper, babies' weight, length, head circumference and response to vaccines was tested. And that was it. Not illness, crying, or (something many mothers notice with prebiotic containing formulas) diarrhoea.

impfty - I don't dismiss research, I enjoy reading research. I'm just a sceptic. I don't think you can give conclusions credibility without an adequate amount of controlling and I'm not convinced studies like the dundee and millenium cohorts satisfy my requirements. I'm not convinced about the significance of statistics either.

I suspect apart from that we're very much together in our actual choices and beliefs.

tiktok - you are making the same point as me. I never said I personally felt formulas had been adequately tested or analysed. I said they had been analysed. By that I meant there are research, guidelines and reports available to parents when considering their decisions about formula feeding. There's information out there basically. It's the same thing I'm arguing but you are only applying it to the formula side of the argument.

There isn't research which looks at the long term impact of the addition of novel ingredients to formula or independent research which compares different brands of formula which analyses which one is best tolerated by the larges number of babies. In other words, the research is completely inadequate if you want to make a fully informed decision about whether to use formula or which brand to use.

That said most parents I know who have ff have spent less time researching brands than they have choosing a buggy. What am I saying 'most'.... I mean 'all'.

curiosity, you say "By that I meant there are research, guidelines and reports available to parents when considering their decisions about formula feeding."....where are these guidelines and reports available to parents?

I plan to breastfeed with my first when its born but only for a short while as I am going back to work within 3 months as I'm freelance and will only get Government maternity allowance which is pitiful.
One of the things midwives say is you get all the antibodies you need from breast milk - neither me, nor my two siblings were breastfed at all and I am healthier than anyone I know - never took a day off work sick, never get ill, avoided the swine flu outbreak which hit my office.
I feel sorry for so many of my friends who as first time mums struggled to breastfeed because they were pressurised by their midwives. I really hope I don't fall into that same trap and plan to take it as they come. Its got to be the decision of the mother at the end of the day - surely a happy mother equals a happy baby?

There is plenty around, just google it. You can find a lot of research on both sides by spending time googling ff/bf. There is a WHO CODEX about formula feeding. I believe you can also pay for downloading research from medical journals.

I'm not advocating the research into formula. I'm not sure why you are behaving as though I believe formula research is in some way superior to breastfeeding research.

I am sceptical about conclusions drawn from research into infant feeding, that includes formula, breast and solids which is why my choice is to give what I believe is the appropriate milk to the appropriate baby animal!

You cannot draw conclusions about formula or breast feeders based only on people that you know. That is not reliable.

curiosity : I am not saying there is no research into formula. I am asking you where are the 'research, guidelines and reports available to parents' on formula - the sort that parents need and can use in decisions for their babies ie brands, formulations, long term effects.

Of what possible use would any of the many WHO Codex documents on formula to parents? The Codex Alimentarius is for governments, to ensure that ingredients of permitted formulas meet minimum standards.

mediamamma, you say "One of the things midwives say is you get all the antibodies you need from breast milk - neither me, nor my two siblings were breastfed at all and I am healthier than anyone I know - never took a day off work sick, never get ill, avoided the swine flu outbreak which hit my office."

No one sensible claims, or believes, that breastmilk gives you 'all the antibodies you need' - how ridiculous. If a midwife is saying this then she needs rapid retraining. Antibodies are indeed present in breastmilk, but they can never be 'all' the antibodies needed for life - especially not for illnesses (like swine flu) whose pathogens are new and don't emerge until the baby is adult.

However, it quite clear that the fact you remained well when some of your colleagues succumbed to swine flu totally proves that breastfeeding is useless and that formula is just as good . Do make sure you inform all the august and science-based bodies supporting breastfeeding that they're wasting their time, as your personal experience clearly trumps anything else.

Sheesh.

You know what curiosity, I'm quite happy to allow the scientists, epidemiologists and medics who work for the WHO and for the government review the evidence for me and make recommendations. I am reasonably research literate, and am interested in reading the literature, but frankly would prefer to leave a lot of work to those people who are trained and paid to do just that - to oversee a wide range of studies as they are published in this country and abroad.

TBH it's a bit unrealistic to expect ordinary folk to spend hundreds of hours downloading large numers of research papers off the internet, analysing and reviewing their findings to try to get an overview of the issues. Why shouldn't they be able to put some trust in the recommendations of large bodies like the NHS and the WHO?

HAven't read all the thread, but, OP, maybe your sister will change her mind once she's had her baby. As long as she has people around her who are supporting her and encouraging her through the, often, really difficult first few weeks of breastfeeding. I BF my DS for 7 months and DD for 6mths, and I can honestly say that it was a lovely bonding experience and that giving them a bottle didn't really compare. It's such an emotive subject, people will never agree cos they feel like their own parenting choices are being judged, but, personally, I think people who persevere (sp?) with bf and don't give up when it gets a bit hard reap the benefits with their DCs.

That's a bit like saying what use is the dundee cohort - it's meant for medical professionals and policy makers... That's what I'm talking about, you need to read the info at source. WHO produced the CODEX along with a report in 2001 which states infant formula as an alternative to breast under certain conditions.

There is some research, you linked some, google safety infant formula research. If you can research breastfeeding you can research formula.

All info can be useful for parents. I don't really have time to trawl through the internet or the BMJ trying to find research for you. I don't have the inclination because I am not trying to prove that formula is safe or that breastfeeding is better.

There is research there, it is of varying reliability in it's conclusions. AFAIC this is exactly the same as the breastfeeding research which is of varying qualities - dundee cohort being rather weak and millenium cohort being stronger but IMO research into infant feeding currently doesn't come to reliable conclusions because it cannot be reliably researched or controlled by the nature of the process of feeding infants and research techniques. That's all, I apply this to breastfeeding, formula feeding and weaning research. I also read research with interest.

I prefer facts. The only true fact in this argument is that human babies are meant to be fed on human milk. This says nothing about formula at all. It does not imply that formula feeding carries risks or is not a safe alternative. It says merely what it says, breastmilk is designed for feeding human babies through the breasts which are designed to be used to deliver the milk. I don't think it is fair to imply that a formula feeder cannot make an informed choice by reading research in the same way a breastfeeder can. It is possible to make informed choices and opposite decisions, like it is possible to choose breast or formula for entirely selfish and, some might consider, stupid reasons.

sabire - they can, that's a valid way of making an informed choice. Some people might prefer to make informed choices based on the conclusions of other organisations such as formula producers. Other people might think this was stupid because there's an obvious conflict of interest there but it's still a choice which has been considered. Some people might make informed choices based on what their HCPs advise them. Some might make informed choices based on trial and error with their own babies. They are all varying degrees of informed choice. I just dislike when choices or research are portrayed as fact or evidence. They are sources of information only.