Carbon footprint of bottle feeding?

[jandanaligazan]

I am not promoting breastfeeding or bottlefeeding (I did a mixture for my three). I know lots of people are struggling with breastfeeding (it is hard sometimes, I know) and I don't want to add to their guilt, but was quite interested to read about the environmental cost of bottle feeding.

pregnancyandchildbirtharoundtheworld.blogspot.com/

Any thoughts?

I'm sure having a child isn't green at all. I remember one of these pseudo science studies that equate a cat to a 4x4 carbon footprint wise. I'm sure my DD is worse than my tabby.

You don't want to add to the guilt?

Oh ..... Just go way.

Actually, I think it's a valid point to make. If BFing hasn't worked for you despite you wanting it to, this is not relevant (let's face it, the fact that we have life saving formula is worth a bit of CO2, and is a small amount compared to the overall about of additional CO2 that a person will produce in their life). Hardly something to feel guilty about.

But it is relevant in a wider discussion of formula, its promotion and its being pushed into wider markets.

Interesting link, OP.

Interesting responses!

I don't think knowing this would strongly affect many people's choices about breast vs. formula feeding. As organiccarrotcake says, in your individual circumstances you have to do what suits you, and as lilham says, if we really cared about the environment we wouldn't be having children in the first place!

But I'd never heard about infant formula from this point of view before.

Dont breastfeeding women need more calories? What about the carbon footprint of their food?

Yes i wondered about this too. I think when breastfeeding we need up to 500 extra calories a day (mostly chocolate muffins in my case!) which would have a carbon cost.

But I suppose the calories needed for a whole extra cow which wouldn't be there otherwise, is more? i have no idea what the recommended calorie intake for your average dairy cow is, but I suspect more than 500. Anyone know?!

And theres all that methane they release into the environment through farting which apparently is seriously bad for the atmosphere. Could be a good study, do breastfeeding women or dairy cows fart more....

Yet another good reason to breastfeed! And apart from the milk, there is also the carbon footprint of the bottles, packaging, manufacture of formula...

Breastfeeding women don't need extra calories in most cases. It's a common sort-of myth (ie not completely true nor completely untrue) which came from studies which looked at the amount of calories in a day of breastmilk, and assumed that women needed to eat that amount extra.

Sadly it's not really true - at least not as cut and dried. A nursing mum's metabolism changes to allow for the extra calories that it's needing for the milk. Some mums do need more (and just by judging your own weight loss, if you have any, you can do this) but many don't, which is why BFing doesn't always make you lose weight!!

Either way, 500 (or whatever) additional food calories is nothing to the whole carbon footprint of formula.

But yes, having a child is a creating a person whose life (assuming they're a western child) will have a hooooge CO2 footprint... just somewhat less if they're BF :) Prob bringing them up to be eco conscious will be better overall!!

Oh, I didn't realise we don't need more calories while breastfeeding. I had sort of thought that when breastfeeding you really were 'eating for two' rather than during pregnancy.

Hmmm, probably explains why the weight didn't drop off me when breastfeeding! On the other hand lots of my friends whose babies are struggling to put on weight have been told to eat more food themselves to pass on to the baby.

But as with all these things, its probably depends on lots of factors.

janandn, your friends with slow-to-gain babies are being very badly advised if they are told to eat more to make their babies gain :( :(

What a crock.

The only thing that will help the babies gain is if the babies eat more ie get more breastmilk.

The mother's diet will not make a difference.

Mums eating extra won't make their milk more calorific - but making sure that they eat enough (as the intensity of a young baby can mean missed meals sometimes) is important for mum's health.

Feeding the baby more, ie getting more milk in (or working out if there is a milk transfer problem and fixing this) is far more effective than trying to "change" the milk.

Some mums may need more calories (for themselves, not their milk), but generally not - although the energy needed to care for babies definately means more cake! Certainly!

Sorry, Xpost with TT there.

It's not just the manufacture of formula milk but the buying of bottles, teats and how they are disposed which add up to the environmental cost.

A bfing mum can more often then not keep the same calorie intake so no big extra cost in food.
No tins and old bottles to dispose of
No relying on a product whioch could have been shipped halfway around the world
No boiling kettles to heat up the water
No microwave use to take the chill off, I know you shouldn't but how many people do
No sterilizing every day
More money in you pocket, milk is around £8 a tin for a weeks supply

I think the environmental impact should be made more aware to pregnant mums so they can make a more informed choice in feeding.

If you have to resort to formula then the above reasons don't come into it you are doing the best you can to keep your baby alive and if you can't feed bm you then shouldn't feel bad about it

Yes, I hadn't even thought of all of those things, which I suppose would apply whether you bottlefeed formula or bottlefeed expressed milk.

I'm definitely guilty of all of that stuff too.