To demand a harder hitting campaign to promote breastfeeding?

[WashwithCare]

I?m sometimes taken aback to hear mothers gave up bf-ing because it was sore, or involved feeding for hours at a time? What did they expect? What did they think newborns do? Didn?t they imagine that anything chewing on your nipple for 10 hours a day was going to nip a bit?

But then again, who can blame them? Breastfeeding for the minimum WHO recommendation of 2 years is practically unheard of. Nearly everyone will tell you it?s absolutely your decision, and fine to stop. The public info campaign is fluffy and vague about the benefits, and the baby on the follow-on formula milk box looks decidedly peachy. Lots of women are so mis-informed, they believe that formula is almost as good as breastmilk.

Is it time for something a little harder hitting? How about this for a tv ad; (scene 1) mum feeding her newborn a bottle telling her mate how hard bf-ing was. Caption: Breastfeeding Hurts. (scene 2) same mum, but now older, bald and sick, hugs toddler. Caption: So does breast cancer. FADE to caption: "Breastfeeding significantly Reduces your Life Time Risk of Breast Cancer". Followed by cheesy inspirational slogan.

My point being, no matter how long you breastfeed, there are some things you can't protect against. Never mind...

absolutely - the research on BFing's protective measures is really not that compelling, for better or worse.

""Tethersend - I find the suggestion that a mother's decision to choose not to breastfeed might be partly motivated by a desire to thumb her nose at over enthusiastic or clumsy efforts to promote bf quite bizarre.""

Makes sense to me, I got close to laying about me with a machete when an over-enthusiastic evangelical hove into view.
Yes I bf both of mine past 6 months. yes. I had enough milk to have fed the needy of Somalia as well. Didn't stop me wanting to slap those attempting to make others feel guilty, incompetent failures.
I'd rather see a happy and confident mother supported with her healthy newborn, however she's feeding it.

Breastfeeding doesn't guarantee you full protection against SIDS, breast cancer, leukemia, ear infections, diarrhoeal infections or anything else.

But it DOES cut rates of all of these things.

The OP had a point.

Yes we've all heard that breast is best. But if women knew specific facts - e.g. that bottlefeeding makes it 30% more likely their baby might get leukemia then perhaps there would be more /all round effort/ to support breastfeeding.

By that, I mean there is an element of customer-driven demand here. If you are determined to breastfeed, you will seek out support from the NHS, the NCT, LLL or whoever else. Therefore the NHS will be under more pressure to recruit and train bf professionals. If you are bloodyminded, you'll try everything. You may still not be successful, but your chances of success will be higher, the more support you seek.

I think this is a really important point. Some people have very serious problems with breastfeeding and I understand that and I'm not going to belittle you. I've dealt with several, myself. But a LOT of women give it a cursory try and decide it's a bit icky or their family don't support them enough or that it's bad for their figure (yes, I have met them, especially over here) and quit after a day or so before their milk has even come in properly. Some don't even try.

I think if those women knew those specific facts, they may slide up the scale from 'don't want to breastfeed' or 'might try breastfeeding' a few notches to 'really want to breastfeed' or 'determined to breastfeed.'

(And yes, attitude to breastfeed IS an indicator of later success. Although of course there will be exceptions.)

CSD, well said. I think the best any group or health authority can do is get the information out there, have a strong support network, and work to change any cultural or social biases against BFing.

But I also support women having options, when those options have a proven record of being safe and beneficial.

The thing is, there is a fine line between providing positive information and support, and going too far, so that some women feel like failures for not managing to breastfeed, and others decide not to try at all, because they feel it is being shoved down their throats.

Somehow we need to show society that it is sensible, practical and beautiful to breastfeed, without falling into the traps I have mentioned, and then make sure that the information and support is there so that women get the best help possible to breastfeed.

"My point being, no matter how long you breastfeed, there are some things you can't protect against."

Isn't it a bit pointless stating this when nobody here has said openly or implied the opposite?

"But I also support women having options, when those options have a proven record of being safe and beneficial."

Everyone here supports the view that women should have options when it comes to feeding their baby.

Why do rational adult women constantly have to resort to using straw man arguments when it comes to this subject?

"Somehow we need to show society that it is sensible, practical and beautiful to breastfeed"

Yes. And we also need to make it clear to women what the risks are to them and their baby in rejecting the physiologically normal way of feeding. I really don't see how you can morally justify NOT telling people about it.

Can I just say, Mumsnet PLEASE don't delete this thread? Yes there is some unpleasantness in both the OP and some of the responses.

But I think there is some useful information here too and a really important debate.

"Makes sense to me, I got close to laying about me with a machete when an over-enthusiastic evangelical hove into view"

The only people who lose out if a mother chooses not to breastfeed out of a sense of rebellion are her and her baby. Why would you hint that you would be happy to deprive your baby of something that is proven to be beneficial to them, just out of spite towards someone whose approach you don't like?

Personally I feel like getting my machete out every time I see a pile of Cow and Gate leaflets lying around in the waiting area at my doctors surgery. People who promote breastfeeding - even if they sometimes do it clumsily, do it because they genuinely believe it is better for mums and babies. They have nothing to gain from it at a personal level. People who promote formula know that their product will land more babies in hospital than their main competitor - breastmilk - but they do it anyway, because there's money it it. How shite is that?

Does formula land more babies in hospital in the developed world, or is this a statistic for the whole world, in which case it would be skewed by the much higher risks of bottle feeding in the third world (dirty water, poor sanitation, not sterilising bottles etc)?

"absolutely - the research on BFing's protective measures is really not that compelling, for better or worse"

If it's compelling enough for the RCM, the NHS, the RCOG, AAP, UNICEF and the WHO to make recommendations about infant feeding based on it, then it's compelling enough for me.

"Does formula land more babies in hospital in the developed world"

Yes it does.

=Initial breastfeeding rates in 2005 were 78 per cent in England, 70 per cent in Scotland, 67 per cent in Wales, and 63 per cent in Northern Ireland=
source: NHS

It looks like most women do consider it the normal thing to do, though admittedly the rates decline over time and by six months only 25% are BFing.

In that case, I have a supplementary question, if that's ok, standandeliver.

How big is the difference between the number of breastfed babies and the number of formulafed babies who land up in hospital? What are the comparative figures, please (or where can I find them - sorry, brain not working very well this morning)?

I personally have never known any one with a baby who was ff who was rushed to hospital as a result of ff. Yes most of us are aware of the benefits of bf vs formula and thats why the initial bf rates are so high, but its maintaining that and supporting women who are having problems. I know that if i did not give the formula my baby would have been landed in hospital anyway. Being a good parents does not rely on what feeding method you do, its just one aspect of it. What if someone bf than feeds their child crap than they are counteracting the benefits of bf. Mabey formula should be available on prescription so that it can be free to those who need it, at the momet it is really high, i would rather bf not only from a health point of view but it is free.

I have a dd who was initially bf but mostly ff due to problems, she is happy and healthy and never been into a hospital.

STAD and CSD all well and good but when you are a new mum, stressed and a mw is saying that you should use formula top ups and coming in everyday to weight and that if baby does not put on a certain amount of weight they will have to go to hospital. You leave all that info about the benefits of bf behind and do what you have to do immediately to prevent your baby going into hospital. Sheer determination and bloodied mindedness does not come into it, you do what you have to do at that moment in time.

Please look back at my post of Mon 11-Jan-10 23:46:55 where I have cited research.

Yes. Babies do end up in hospital because they are formula fed. Lives are lost because babies are formula fed. If every baby was breastfed, 30% less babies would have leukemia. Fewer babies would die from SIDS. A New Zealand study shows bottlefeeding triples the risk of SIDS and a Swedish study suggests it may be even higher (More discussion and studies cited here: www.askdrsears.com/html/10/T102100.asp)

There are more hospital admissions with everything from diarrhoea to bacterial meningitis to respiratory infections. Yes, this research includes Western (US and European) countries. It would take forever to cite all the research, but here's a great website which lists a lot of the major studies:

101 Reasons to Breastfeed

CSD i have heard of bf babies getting gastrointestinal problems and other illnesses, though it helps its not total prevention. I have ff i have a happy and healthy toddler thats all that matters, nothing i can do about it now though i would bf in the future. No good to bf and then have a unhealthy lifestyle for your child counteracts it all imo.CSD Yes i unserstand what you are saying and do agree with it totally, but the way in which you are putting it across can come as quite harsh and unempathetic to women who are experiencing problems with bf. CSD It seems as though you are saying that we did not try hard enough and should have tried harder to bf as these are the beneftits and what might or might not happen if you do not bf, and are doing our dcs a disservice which is not the case. If you want to promote bf you have to be a little more understanding imo and less dictatoriaP

It's also a good idea to find out who is funding the research. Not that it invalidates the findings, but that it gives you an idea of what they were looking for.

Mumsnet - please delete this thread. It disgusts me.

BF is clearly the best thing, it's the natural thing. But get a grip - it's NOT the be all and end all. It is such a small part of parenting in the wider scheme of things!

CSD you are sounding quite like the op btw, the benefits of bf has been emphasised and i and many women are aware of it, however bf is not the be all and end all, and if you dont bf your child wont be thick and sick.

Piglet: I was answering your questions. I feel I /have/ been sympathetic on this thread. No-one is saying any of these things offer total protection.

But saying 'My toddler is ok' is like saying 'Well, my dad smoked 60 a day and lived to be 93.' No-one is saying that formula feeding will kill the average baby. But some babies DO die who wouldn't have died if they were breastfed. Those are the statistics.

Goblinchild: Absolutely agree. But these trends have been consistent throughout numerous studies. Also, bad research is more often funded by people who have something to gain (i.e. formula manufacturers). The fact that there /isn't/ significant research showing benefits of formula over breastmilk is very, very telling. There aren't many people who stand to profit from breastmilk.

PotPourri: Maybe not, but it's important. If more women breastfed, less babies would die. Thankfully most babies survive fine on formula milk. But better breastfeeding rates would mean healthier babies, fewer infant deaths and a healthier population. That to me is really important. Of course, mothers' feelings are important too and choice is important. But I think an awful lot of women aren't getting the full facts OR the full support. I'd like to see more of both out there. I'm sorry if that disgusts you.

Dear lord, gives OP a shiny medal for her BF successfully!

BF is "NOT" THE BEST THING IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES!

If I continued to bf my son, he would now be a angel in heaven