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.

Ok, happy to rephrase that as

"Available research shows that babies are 30% more likely to get leukemia if they have never breastfed"

Of course there is a debate over how reliable that data is. I find it fairly convincing and have posted several citations to the leading study (Robison et. al) It's the best available information though. Yes, scientific studies are being updated all the time and sometimes they are contradicted by later studies, but we have to base information on the best current information.

Anyway, interesting debate. Off to get much needed sleep.

Carmen, read Ben Goldacre's 'Bad Science', particularly the bit about what statistics really mean. If something says 'XYZ leads to 30% greater likelihood of getting cancer', you have to look at how many children overall get leukemia - let's say less than 1% because I can't be arsed to look it up and I can't imagine it being more. So a 30% increase, i.e. 30% of less than 1%, is actually a miniscule increase in RL numbers of children with leukemia.

Brahms, we all know that leukemia is a rare disease in children, but if a third more children are getting it than is perhaps necessary because of their diet in infancy, then I do think that's of concern, don't you? Only about 5 children a year are abducted and killed by strangers, but that doesn't stop most of us worrying about these things happening to our kids, and regularly doing things to reduce the risk of them being exposed to this sort of danger.

"i always find it interesting how some people seem to think the word "mother" means you have to have natural birth and a baby hanging off your tit how middle class."

Err - who? You've just made that up! Don't talk rubbish.

Breastfeeding was the normal way for ALL babies to be fed for 99.9% of human history, and still is the way the vast majority of babies around the world are fed today. It's silly to try to portray the physiologically normal way to feed a baby as some sort of fashion or fad.

"I still don't see how more advertising about BF is going to help women who struggle with it....they have accepted that they should try and BF, but find it hard. Banging on about the benefits doesn't help them, whereas sympathetic and relevant support might."

Actually they need both. There'll never be the sort of political and social impetus to drive the sort of cultural change we need to make breastfeeding the norm without a challenge to the sort of thinking we have now about the issue - as evidenced by the sheer number of posts on this board which are insistent that how a baby is fed doesn't actually matter. It does matter. People need to understand exactly why.

"Carmen, I think it is the assumption that those who choose not to BF for whatever reason do not have those facts which grates."

Tethersend - I was a graduate working in health education when I had my first baby. I knew vaguely that 'breast is best', but had no clear idea of how or why. It took several years of reading specialist texts to really get my head around the issue. Most of the public health information out there on this subject is very superficial.

"I'm not saying it's biased, just that because it's impossible to separate the variables there is no way of proving how strong the links really are."

This is true of pretty much all health research, including that into SIDS. But I don't hear anyone going around encouraging parents to be cynical about that.

"But trying to make a connection between a ff baby who gets breast cancer as an adult is ridiculous, as there are so many other factors which intrude during the 30-40 yrs between the two events."

Are you saying it's impossible to make any links between diet in infancy and health in adulthood? What about the links between diet in infancy and differences in arterial stiffness and blood pressure in adolescents? How long is 'too long'? If you hold this view does it not slightly concern you that formula manufacturers are introducing novel ingredients into infant formula on the strength of very small trials conducted over a period of just a few months?

(referring to this: "The infant formula referenced by Doak was supplemented with Martek Biosciences Corporation's laboratory-produced oils containing DHA and ARA. DHA, an omega-3 fatty acid, and ARA, an omega-6 fatty acid, are naturally found in human breast milk and are considered important nutrients for infants.
But laboratory-produced DHASCO and ARASCO (Martek's names for their proprietary oils) are materially different from the fats found in a mother's breast milk. Martek's products are extracted from fermented algae and fungus, with the use of the neurotoxic solvent hexane. They contain only 40 to 50% DHA and ARA, with the balance from sunflower oil and other components, including some not found in human breast milk and never before a part of the human infant diet."

It's like the whole soy formula thing: it was introduced and widely used for several decades without concern - until research discovered that some adolescents who'd been fully fed on it as babies were experiencing endocrine problems worrying enough for the some governments to request that warnings be put on tins.

Anyway - we all know that the quality of scientific research varies hugely. But there's no serious debate within the major health organisations about whether breast milk is safer and healthier for babies. The research in which the government recommendations on infant feeding are rooted is extremely broad and of good quality. How the research is reported by the media (through which I suspect your knowledge of this subject and the knowledge of many contributors to this thread is filtered) is another subject altogether.

Is this thread still going??

Yawn...

Stand if you have time to spend several years reading specialist texts on breastfeeding you have too much time on your hands! Maybe you could come and make a start on my ironing pile

Personally, I am very suspicious of any Swedish studies. My own experiences are that Swedish mums almost invariably claim to be breastfeeding, but that if you watch them closely enough, an awful lot of them are topping up with formula. They call that breastfeeding, because they don't have the perception that mixed feeding is wrong or inferior; they think of it as breastfeeding if the breast is involved at any point.

standanddeliver- you have illustrated my point perfectly.

"Tethersend - I was a graduate working in health education when I had my first baby. I knew vaguely that 'breast is best', but had no clear idea of how or why. It took several years of reading specialist texts to really get my head around the issue. Most of the public health information out there on this subject is very superficial."

How on earth do you know that I haven't read exactly the same specialist texts as you? I could even be a graduate working in health education.

You assumed that you have read more than me on the subject because we made different feeding choices for our babies.

Were you correct in your assumption? I won't say .

It's the assumption itself which is abhorrent.

Going to have to take issue with your historical accuracy, standanddeliver.

Babies were mostly breastfed in the past, but not all by their mothers. It wasn't just aristocratic women who had wetnurses, although pretty much 100% of them did. It was a recognised issue that some women just couldn't breastfeed, and so handed their babies over to be fed by someone whose child had died but who still had milk. Babies were often fed solids very early on, although this was of course very unhealthy because of bad water and total lack of understanding about infant nutrition. Infant mortality overall was high until relatively recently - of course this is to do with issues affecting people's health in general, but if a woman couldn't breastfeed and there was no one else to do it, the baby just died if solids didn't work.

Yes, bfing is the 'natural' way to go, but it's not in nature's best interests for every baby to survive, otherwise there would be massive overpopulation and competition for resources.

You assumed that you have read more than me on the subject because we made different feeding choices for our babies.

No I didn't!

My comments were made on the strength of the knowledge (or lack of it) about infant feeding you've shown on this thread.

I'm happy to reveal my sources of information. Are you?

Ummm, Brahms, thanks for the lecture, but I never said that ALL babies were breastfed by their mothers, only that the vast majority were breastfed (at least those who survived). I'm perfectly aware of the existence in the past (and today in developing countries) of what we now call 'cross feeding', but I'm sure other people here have enjoyed your comment.

I think it's ironic that in this day an age, with vastly more mothers than ever before emerging from childbirth with their lives and their health intact, so few opt to breastfeed for more than a few weeks.

"Yes, bfing is the 'natural' way to go, but it's not in nature's best interests for every baby to survive, otherwise there would be massive overpopulation and competition for resources."

But in countries where bf is the norm, very few babies die from a failure of lactation, particularly when the mother is reasonably well nourished. It's other things which carry them off.

"I'm happy to reveal my sources of information. Are you?"

No. I'm not. Maybe I don't have any. Maybe I am widely read on the subject. I have already stated this.

The thing is, you seem to want me to justify my choice to you, back it up with information, studies etc (which your previous post assumed I hadn't read) When- and here's the key issue- I don't have to.

You don't have to justify your decision to BF to me- I wouldn't dream of asking you to; and furthermore, to produce evidence on which you have based your decision.

standandeliver Wed 13-Jan-10 15:10:17

"But in countries where bf is the norm, very few babies die from a failure of lactation, particularly when the mother is reasonably well nourished. It's other things which carry them off."

Disabled babies and babies with certain medical conditions might well do- in which case, their deaths might be put down to the medical condition. I have very strong reason to believe my own dd would not have survived in this kind of situation; though it might not actually have been starvation that carried her off but some secondary infection that got a hold due to malnutrition. Certainly, I can't imagine her surviving to adulthood in anything like a state of nature.

I was well nourished and lactating like a dairy, but she had problems with the basic suckling mechanism due to hypotonia.
In all probability, her death certificate, had she lived in a third world country wouldn't have said starvation,but pneumonia or something.

"The thing is, you seem to want me to justify my choice to you, back it up with information, studies etc (which your previous post assumed I hadn't read) When- and here's the key issue- I don't have to."

No - I don't want or expect you to justify your personal feeding choices, only your generalisations about baby feeding as expressed on this thread. It's reasonable, if you engage in an debate about an issue, to expect people to back their views up with references to a formal body of knowledge on the subject, as well as with anecdotal evidence, doncha think?

Cory, I fully accept that there are babies who are unable to breastfeed. I still wish the UK government made it possible for these babies to have access to breast milk at least when they are very tiny and vulnerable. In any case, nobody on this thread, least of all me, would argue that there is *no place for artificial feeding or for formula, and it gets a bit wearing to have to keep answering posts which are based on the assumption that this is a belief which I or anyone else here holds.

You do have to ask yourself what's going on when so many of the posts here are insisting that a) some women are unable to breastfeed, b) that some babies are unable to breastfeed, c) that we are entitled to make the choice for ourselves and d) that we don't have to justify our choices to anyone

in the face of a complete dearth of posts arguing the opposite!

HELLO - WE ARE ALL IN AGREEMENT ON THE BASIC PRINCIPLES HERE!

Let's let it die then.

Boobs are boring.

"Stand if you have time to spend several years reading specialist texts on breastfeeding you have too much time on your hands! Maybe you could come and make a start on my ironing pile"

I did is as part of my professional training. But I would have done it anyway because the issue is such an interesting and important one (in my view!)

"Boobs are boring"

I find them fascinating.

But if you're not enjoying the debate, don't let the door bang your arse on the way out!

"your generalisations about baby feeding as expressed on this thread"

Please point me to them. I am at a loss to see where I have made any generalisations.

"It's reasonable, if you engage in an debate about an issue, to expect people to back their views up with references to a formal body of knowledge on the subject, as well as with anecdotal evidence, doncha think?"

Well, ok, my view is that I don't have to justify my feeding choice to you. Unfortunately I am unable to find any relevant data on that . Does this mean I am not allowed to engage in the debate? Because, if I presented you with a 'reference to a formal body of knowledge on the subject', I would then be justifying my choices- geddit?

"You do have to ask yourself what's going on when so many of the posts here are insisting that a) some women are unable to breastfeed, b) that some babies are unable to breastfeed, c) that we are entitled to make the choice for ourselves and d) that we don't have to justify our choices to anyone

in the face of a complete dearth of posts arguing the opposite!

HELLO - WE ARE ALL IN AGREEMENT ON THE BASIC PRINCIPLES HERE!"

Maybe you have to ask yourself what's going on- I'm not sure I do.

I don't think anyone is arguing that formula is better for babies that breastmilk. I'm not sure why you're shouting.

I'll say it again where has the OP gone ? classic troll MO if you ask me - start a bunfight and bugger off. Or has she name changed...I have my suspicions.

Actually, my dd did have access to breastmilk, standandeliver. I had loads of my own for a start, but the rather wonderful hospital were also ready to provide from their milk bank (to which I later contributed). They even took care to give it from a cup, not from a bottle, to facilitate breastfeeding. And they had an absolutely wonderful breastfeeding counsellor. So big thanks to them and certainly can't fault them.

Our problem was certainly not lack of access to breastmilk but my own blinkered belief that breastmilk (or whatever) had to come out of the mother and into the baby in the conventional way, plus the fact that the reason for dd's difficulties were not understood. With hindsight, what we should have done would have been to have bottle-fed her EBM. That would have been perfectly feasible, and is in fact something we did for a bit with her brother who had similar problems.

My reason for being on this thread is not that I disagree with your general principles (after all, you weren't the OP) but with the OPs tedious insistence that if only women were prepared to push it that little bit harder and refuse to accept failure everything would be fine.

In my case, it was precisely my pushing that landed dd in hospital; a willingness to accept failure would have been far safer. The option of saying 'oh our case is different, we have a disabled child' was not open to us; like many in our position, disability was not diagnosed until much much later. So the one and only thing that would have helped would have been a general flexibility of outlook, a willingness to say, ok things aren't working, I don't know why, nobody else does either, but we'll do the best we can and try to get the calories into this child. Which is as far as you can get from the OPs approach really.

However, I do think my point about causes of death are worth considering. Babies are more likely to die from other causes if they are malnourished. Usually, at least in a third world setting, this will be an argument against bottle feeding. But very occasionally, it can work the other way round. My point is that statistics of this kind are not necessarily reliable, as a death certificate will mention the immediate cause of death, not the underlying problem that led to the illness being fatal.

And more in general, what I have a problem with on these breastfeeding threads is that any difficulties are put down to a lack of support from the System. If only we could fix this... There is very seldom a recognition that sometimes you can get all conceivable support and be doing everything right and still fail, because of circumstances. And you might not even know why you are failing.

"but with the OPs tedious insistence that if only women were prepared to push it that little bit harder and refuse to accept failure everything would be fine"

But it seems to me that the evidence bears out the view that in the majority of cases all that is needed IS persistence and a refusal to accept failure.

Of course there will always be exceptions Cory - you and your baby were one of them. I appreciate it's important to acknowledge this - very important, and that it's inhumane and dangerous not to.

I my experience, among people with great expertise in breastfeeding there is a strong acknowledgement that some breastfeeding difficulties are complex or intractible. Sadly there is not enough of this expertise to go around.

None of this should blind us to the BIG story - which is the failure of the able majority to continue with breastfeeding, through choice or necessity.

A choice not to continue breastfeeding is not necessarily a failure.

"I don't think anyone is arguing that formula is better for babies that breastmilk."

What are you talking about?

I was talking about 'straw man' arguments. Here you are illustrating my point perfectly.

Strawman

But you're right you haven't generalised on this thread. I was getting you confused with someone else. Sorry.

On the other hand, having gone back through the thread, I also haven't seen any requests for you to justify your decision not to feed your baby on your own milk. Not sure if I've missed something.

I wasn't using the phrase 'failure to continue' in a pejorative sense. I'm sure you know that.

hobnob, I too have suspicions. There seem to be a few personae on this thread tbh.

Thanks for the strawman link, standanddeliver- never heard of that before

"It's reasonable, if you engage in an debate about an issue, to expect people to back their views up with references to a formal body of knowledge on the subject, as well as with anecdotal evidence, doncha think?"

That's a request- from you- for me to justify my decision by citing evidence.

I do appreciate your apology for getting me confused with another poster. My original post was to the OP who has mysteriously vanished, and was not directed at you- the OP itself demands a justification for not BFing- however, you pulled me up on it and now here we are.

Bring back the OP