Benefits of bfing over ffing?

[you]

Okay I'm writing this on the back of reading the bfing thread in aibu but putting it here as I'd really like it to not turn into a gunfight if at all possible please :)

With regards to the risks of formula feeding an otherwise healthy term infant in this country, and presuming all other environmental and social factors are the same, what are the risks, really? I've rad the leaflets and been on a UNICEF course and am totally pro breastfeedibg, however I can't help but think a lot of the benefits are emotional rather than physical especially as the child gets older.

I've read a lot of research but a lot if it does show extra factors to be involved such as making up bottles indifferent.

So, IF a mother makes up the bottles correctly thus vastly reducing her chances of gastroenteritis, feeds baby in arms rather than with a bottle propped up against a cot side which seemed contribute to most babies ending up with ear infections, feeds on demand as would a bf mother etc what is a baby in this country really likely to end up with, risks wise? I believe the allergy link is pretty poor evidence wise so all were really left with is 3 points worth of iq and of course the not insignificant lack of antibodies, so more coughs/ colds pressumably but anything long term?

I really am interested so please let's not turn this into a debate as they all go the same way are boring :)

And sorry for any silly typos am on my iPod and the spell check is dire.

No, you haven't.

You have called into question the validity of observational and epidemiological research with bf.

That's all.

"What exactly do you think the benefit of stem cells in breast milk would be to a baby - given that the cells are those of the mother."

In the days before anti-rejection drugs, the greatest success of donated tissue were between siblings who were breastfed. I would hazard a guess that this factor still aid organ transplants even with the drugs now available.

I agree to some extent Kikibo but the breastfeeding industry is absolutely miniscule in relation to the formula feeding industry.

There are some similarities e.g. bottles and teats, steriliser etc are needed for both (if you express) but would be used less for BF.

But formula itself probably works out at around £10 per week - lets say £300 ish for the first 6 months as people will buy the odd carton etc for night feeds.

Mums might buy nursing bras, pads etc but they are not going to spend £300 on them. Also there is not as much brand recognition involved in the BF stuff.

Formula feeding is also associated with earlier introduction of solid foods...more money there for the manufacturers.

Personally I have breastfed 3 babies - two for 18 months and one for 6 months and still going. I do not own a steriliser, bottles...my nursing bras were bought on ebay. My only expense was breastpads for the first few months.

There are a few studies like it but not exactly what you are describing. They have shown that if you feed BF expressed milk they will drink less calorie wise than a FF baby fed with a bottle. Also there are studies to show that mums who have milk with a higher fat content have babies who consume lower volumes of milk - but if you manipulate the fat content of Formula they do not adapt in the same way.

Interestingly they think a lot of the formula and overweight is to do with the type and amount of protein - formula has much more than breast milk and of course is cows milk protein made for different growth patterns. There are a group which are manipulating the level of protein in formula and have found that by lowering the amount of protein in the formula those babies are no different in weight to the BF ones. Really interesting.

so you are comparing the leaflet i posted, which has many many many many studies showing links between formula and various ailments/lack of development to your one study which is not a link but a summary from you about 'women subjected to breastfeeding promotion'. interesting language use there, and two sibling studies which did in fact find a lower risk of gastroenteritis and higher development (although you start by saying they find 'bugger all' - a sore tummy to a baby is not bugger all imo) and then tell me that the agencies who 'protect promote and support' breastfeeding have a selfish agenda that has nothing to do with helping mothers and babies and everything to do with keeping their jobs. totally bizarre. incidentally, i am sure that were there actual evidence to the contrary, even a little bit, agencies such as the WHA, IBFAN, WABA, and UNICEF would be more than happy to turn their attention to violence against women perhaps, or starvation, or child labour maybe, rather than focus on something as pointless as breastfeeding - after all they have their work cut out for them trying to right the wrongs of this world and working to protect human rights everywhere, and a little less on the list would be welcome.

As for the impact on the environment:

formula is superheated to process it into a powder then water boiled to reconstitute it. Add in the transportation costs from dairy farm to store shelf and storage costs (keeping it cold before dehydrating it) and formula leaves a large carbon footprint.

Just about every brand of formula uses palm oil these days to make it into 'formula'.

Now that has a lot of impact, imo.

i've just read your probit study again and to quote: 'and had a significant reduction in the risk of 1 or more gastrointestinal tract infections'

so i don't really get what you are saying. i would rather my ds had no risk of gastro. gastro can be pretty nasty for babies because of the risks of dehydration - i am surprised you are so blase about this

'[No, you haven't.

You have called into question the validity of observational and epidemiological research with bf.

That's all'

Agree tiktok - and more than that the majority of researchers writing the papers say that themselves in the discussion anyway. Is nothing new.

However this seems to be the new undercurrent against breastfeeding at the moment - I would hazard a guess based on Joan Wolf (the feminist/gender researcher who fancied writing a book on BF) and Zoe Williams et al jumping on the bandwagon.

For some reason we (as a society) love to jump on studies which suggest that BF and delayed solids have no benefit.

www.bmj.com/content/333/7575/945.abridgemen%20t.pdf

this link doen't work

'What exactly do you think the benefit of stem cells in breast milk would be to a baby - given that the cells are those of the mother.'

Who said this? Was it you Rollit? I guess Mother Nature just put them there too look nice.

Leonie - At three to six months of age, formula fed infants are consuming 66 ? 70% more protein than breastfed infants. This higher intake of protein is what may be a key reason for the different in weight.

There are also hormonal reasons, enzymes that differ and the simple reason that your average FF baby consumes more energy than a BF baby.

Hambreus, L. (1977). Proprietory milk versus human breastmilk in infant feeding: a critical appraisal from the nutritional point of view. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 24/1, 17-36

Heing, M.J., Nommsen, L.A., Peerson, J.M., Lonnerdal, B., & Deery, K.G. () Energy and protein intakes of breast fed and formula fed infants during the first year of life and their association with growth velocity: the DARLING study. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 58, 152 ? 161.

These two studies are the protein ones

Koletzko, B., von Kries, R., Closa, R., Escribano, J., Scaglioni, S., Giovannini, M., Beber, J., Demmelmair, H., Anton, B., Gruszfeld, D., Dobrzanska, A., Sengier, A., Langhendries, J.P., Rolland-Cachera, M.F., & Grote, V. (2009) Can infant feeding choices modulate later obesity risk? American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 89/5, 1502 ? 1508.

Koletzko, B., von Kries, R., Closa, R., Escribano, J., Scaglioni, S., Giovannini, M., Beber, J., Demmelmair, H., Anton, B., Gruszfeld, D., Dobrzanska, A., Sengier, A., Langhendries, J.P., Rolland-Cachera, M.F., Grote, V., & European Childhood obesity trial study group. (2009). Lower protein in infant formula is associated with lower weight up to age 2 y: a randomised clinical trial. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 89/6, 1836 ? 45.

p.s. I am not saying these studies are perfect, just work in the area.

Ruby - yep. Stem cells are all sparkly and glow in the dark

lol they are there so that the baby can see the milk at night time

Oh and Ruby - yes. I would say the main health reason why I BF mine is for the gastro link. Yes it may only be a mild bug every now and again but thats still good enough reason for me - and they can be more serious.

Foxytocin - you make a very good point I was watching something the other day about transplants and they where saying that milk siblings (siblings that where Both BF from the same mum) where far less likly to reject a tranplnated organ. So they must be doing something even if we don't currently understand what.

We will never have good randumised stuties as others have said due to ethical reasions. This is of couse a benifit to the formula industry. And I very much dout there is as much money to be made in Bf as formula, many mum's don't buy all the eatrax stuff as it's not needed (although advertiseing is there to try to convice us to buy things we don't need). You can't get around needing to buy formula though you have to have it if that is how your going to feed.

I was very shocked to learn recently that some addative's in formula arent' really apporved for use in babies under 12week's. And many new noval ingredents aren't tested either they just add them and see what happen's. So if your baby is formula fed they are being used a giaten test bed without you even knowing about it. Off couse all these ingedents are supposidly safe to humans but we don't know what effect they have on small babies untill they have been out there for some time. A bit like DDT I suppose they said it was perfectly safe when they first started using it. Do you really trust an industry that is really only out there to make money. Personaly I think formula should be more controled like it's a medican not a food. Who knows what the long term health problems these things could cause.

exactly peppa - why risk it at all?

Ruby - I am saying that they are committed to a cause. Everytime an aspect of BF is questioned BF supporters turn to another one. I sometimes turns a bit faith based. It is really hard for anyone - and I happily include myself in this - to look objectively at evidence when they have committed to a stance. Even scientific research (not BF related) shows the same characteristics -
if a researcher generates a theory and writes a book, gets a name for it, then the theory tends to survive until that researcher retires as it would otherwise end their career to back track.

I genuinely think that FF is a valid choice to make in the UK, but that no one has yet presented the risks in a way that makes it possible to make an informed choice.

MigGril its frightening isn't it - formula companies have been instructed to do in market testing - eeek! one big experiment?!

(because they are food 'additives', not a food, they are not subject to the same level of testing and only need a GRAS (generally recognised as safe) certificate or something. bonkers)

Ruby - I said that about stem cells - mother nature certainly didn't put them there to aid organ transplantation. We don't know what they are there for yet, so it is inappropriate to make claims about their benefits.

They are committed to a cause for a reason though. Because tiny babies die or get ill because they are not breastfed. You absolutely cannot deny it. Its just stoopid if you do.

In the UK it is definitely just risky as opposed to a matter of life and death, but these are still risks that need to be shared.

'no one has yet presented the risks in a way that makes it possible to make an informed choice.' On this thread, I haven't seen any trial, rubbish or good, that backs up what you are trying to argue. Seriously, show me ANY trial, observational or not, that says that actually feeding a tiny baby formula in the UK is not risky and i'll accept it, but there aren't any, otherwise we'd know about them.

and incidentally, the formula companies would know about them, and they would be SHOUTING it from the rooftops!!!!!! But they're not LOL because its a load of rubbish!

breatheslowly, seriously, , what are stem cells for? they are building blocks are they not? so we can work out what they are for, no? And there aren't any in formula - actually maybe there are cow stem cells...

they might not be building blocks