Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Infant feeding

Get advice and support with infant feeding from other users here.

Breast is best. Or is it?

110 replies

RubyBuckleberry · 07/01/2011 20:07

video g by Dr Karleen Gribble exploring the damaging impact of the language we use when talking about how breast is 'best'.

OP posts:
EauRouge · 07/01/2011 20:41

Haven't got time to watch the whole vid now (looks interesting from the first minute though!) but is the fixed link :)

HaveAHappyNewJung · 07/01/2011 20:45

Can't watch it ATM but assuming you mean what I think you mean, I agree.

I did a peer supporter course last year, and we discussed how it's damaging to refer to "the benefits of BFing" when actually we should (especially in third world countries, with no clean water etc) talk about "the dangers of FFing"

HaveAHappyNewJung · 07/01/2011 20:47

(or rather "disadvantages" maybe)

toddlerwrangler · 07/01/2011 21:33

The UK is not the third world. I strongly resent the term 'dangers of breast feeding'.

toddlerwrangler · 07/01/2011 21:33

Link wont work for me unfortunately.

toddlerwrangler · 07/01/2011 21:34

I mean dangers of FORMULA feeding.

toddlerwrangler · 07/01/2011 21:38

'Disadvantages' I feel is fair enough.

MoonFaceMamaaaaargh · 07/01/2011 21:42

I haven't see the link but have heard similar things before.

Iirc the idea is that as mammals bf is the physialogical norm so it shouuld be used as the basis to which other things are compered...

toddlerwrangler · 07/01/2011 21:57

See, now I just don't get this 'it's not the best, it's the norm business'.

Just because something is normal, it doesnt stop it being beneficil, surely? So why not promote those benefits.

This is, once again, going bck to the promotion of BF (fine and appropriate) through the deamonisation of Formula (not fine, or fair enough).

maxpower · 07/01/2011 21:58

I would be interested to know how the researchers found evidence to attribute poor health in later life directly to being FF - surely there are numerous other factors which could influence diabetes, high cholesterol etc etc such as genetics, exercise, smoking, drinking etc etc?

wukter · 07/01/2011 21:59

I agree with toddlerwrangler. Not fair to demonise formula.

MoonUnitAlpha · 07/01/2011 22:08

It's not demonising formula though, just presenting breastmilk as the norm. So breastmilk doesn't reduce the risk of eczema - that level of risk is normal. It's using formula that increases the risk.

No additional risk isn't the same as a benefit really.

thisisyesterday · 07/01/2011 22:08

toddler: beneficial implies (maybe not strictly correctly) that it is something "extra" than the norm, that it is enhanced.

it implies that formula is ok, and breastmilk is a bit better. if that makes sense?

I've seen an analogy to chickens before. You know a chicken normally lives to X years. They tend to grow at a fairly standard rate. They used to (and are supposed to) live outside and grub about for food.
that's a normal chicken.

then someone came along and said hey, let's feed them antibiotics and growth hormones. then we can eat them quicker. let's keep them all inside so we can fit more in a small space. let's pump the meat full of water to make it seem bigger.

But that wouldn't sell would it? no-one would want that chicken. so they make that the norm. that's your regular chicken. The free-range, organic chicken becomes something special. soemthing that costs more- wsomething that is beneficial because of the lack of additives and water that were put in unnecessarily in the first place.

and it's a similar thing. Breastfeeding is just normal. The "benefits" it offers are not strictly speaking benefits. They are just how human babies are supposed to be. The protection against disease and allergies and obesity... that's how people shoudl be

anything less than that is sub-standard. and I do think it's an important distinction.
The risks in some areas may be small, but all women have the right to know that there ARE risks to formula feeding, rrather than assuming that formula is fine and breastmilk is simply a "better" version of it

wukter · 07/01/2011 22:12

I do know what you're saying.
It would have to be very very skillfully and carefully done though or it would cause a lot of worry and anguish. There will always be people who choose to formula feed.

MoonFaceMamaaaaargh · 07/01/2011 22:14

Maxpower I have no doubt that people better read than me can point youu in the direction of studies, done by people better trained than them, that take into account all the things you mention.

thisisyesterday · 07/01/2011 22:18

maxpower.. that's a bit like saying, how do we know smoking causes cancer

after all... all those things apply to cancer patients too, so how do we know it was the cigarettes that caused it?

MoonFaceMamaaaaargh · 07/01/2011 22:20

WUkter you are right about it needing skill...I think that's the problem with the Breast is best campaign...in hindsight it doesn't seem very well considered.

I think the concern is that it implies that
ff is the normal way to feed a baby...after all, in what other areas of our lives do we have "the best"?

gaelicsheep · 07/01/2011 22:25

Surely it could be expressed as the risks of not breastfeeding, rather than formula per se? It isn't the formula itself that's risky - not in this country anyway, assuming preparation safety guidelines are followed etc. The risk is that it isn't breastmilk.

StealthPolarBear · 07/01/2011 22:28

maxpower surely that is a bog standard issue in most medical research. They control for those factors - obviously they can't do a randomised trial but they can still control the confounding variables.

toddlerwrangler · 07/01/2011 22:42

Echo Galiecsheep. I see what people are seeing about termenology and the normalisation of BF, but I maintain that formula is not the devils work and should not be made out to be so just to get people to understand that Bf is 'the' natural way to feed.

thisisyesterday · 07/01/2011 22:45

but formula does carry risks

how do we let people know this if we are scared of upsetting those who have chosen to use it?

gaelicsheep · 07/01/2011 22:50

Admittedly I am probably suffering from baby brain/sleep deprivation as I used to know this stuff. But what are the actual risks of formula per se? Of the formula itself, assuming that it is prepared in a safe manner that negates contamination risks etc. I am struggling to think of any that can not be put down to the fact that it isn't breastmilk.

toddlerwrangler · 07/01/2011 22:52

Thisisyesterday - you keep using this 'well we have to get the BF message across so diddums to people if offends' excuse.

Can you not see what I am saying? I have no issue at all with message such as 'these are the benefits of BF' or 'these are the risks of not BF', but i DO take issue with massges like 'the dangers of formula', as was originally suggested in this very thread.

gaelicsheep · 07/01/2011 22:52

Didn't express that very well. I mean obviously it's got foreign enzymes etc, it carries a risk of inducing allergies, all that stuff. But in my mind all of that is because it is a substance other than breastmilk.

gaelicsheep · 07/01/2011 22:54

As opposed to feeding your baby vodka shots or something, which would be actively dangerous.

Swipe left for the next trending thread