Breastfeeding is not best - Dr Karleen Gribble

[fabsmum]

Love this video

i do think you'd have to stop them trading here, though. i've not deviated from that, you've just misread my post.

my poiint, which i'll repeat, about norway is that we are not norwegian, we don't have a record in this country of accepting the need to pay high taxes in order to fund high quality programmes.

this is just so much twittering, it's a bore. commercial formula manufacturers have a huge amount of influence over this issue, it's just silly to pretend that they don't, or that they wouldn't direct their substantial resources to scupper a move towards 98% bfing rates in this country.

Aitch - of course in some cases there ARE medical reasons and some women DO have problems that cannot be overcome, or are unable to feed due to their own medication (look at darling Ggrandmother) but I think there is far too much encouragement for women to move onto FF without getting access to the support you had - this is not about making women feel guilty, as soon as you are a mother you feel guilty, it's about getting people to accept that the norm is breast feeding IYSWIM and anything else is a substitute.

Nancy66 - maybe if she DOES die prematurely, she COULD have avoided this, had she had the support and information to help her continue to BF - how would you or I know if this was or wasn't the case? She was told by her HV that it was about time to give a bottle a go - neither she nor I had access to the information about health or the statistics, so how at an intensely emotional time during her life, when she had been suffering from WEEKS of sleep deprivation (a common torture...)could she make a fully informed choisce based on the information provided - she see's ff as the norm and bf as better than normal - this is the problem. She is neither mentally defecient, or unintelligent, so why isn't she given the facts...(Even if she was both of these, she would still have the right to know.) Why not? How insulting is that? She made a life changing decision for her and her son, which has had financial implications for her family, based on incomplete information and this is what women are facing - crappy info, to make really important decisions. How typical.

And yes, I do feel a little hysterical that the information provided is so deficient.

And why is the information so incomplete - IMHO it is because of PURE PROFITEERING on behalf of the formula companies. They aren't there to be our friends, or for the benefit of baby kind, they are there to MAKE MONEY - there is little money in getting mothers to BF...

There will always be a need for a BM substitute - there always has been, but it need to be recognised as a substitute for when all else fails, not as an alternative and almost exactly the same as optional extra.

i don't disagree with your point to me in essence, although i don't subscribe to the thinking that as soon as you're a mother you feel guilty, myself. i don't really get that. disappointed, gutted, overwhelmed, underwhelmed, but not guilty for me.

You know, if they moved Norway somewhere a bit warmer I'd really find it rather tempting.

BB99 - you will drive youself insane if you use that sort of logic. Alochol consumption, family history, obesity and smoking all play a far more signinicant role in breast cancer than breastfeeding/not breasfeeding does.

Why are people on here so adamant that the information on BF vs FF is not available? I think it's pretty widely available

Now I've read the next page -

Is it time to move away from the worrying about making women who couldn't / didn't bf feel guilty and move on to pure education, to allow a true choice?

Lots of womens issues seem to become clouded in this way, eg (off subject - sorry) I had a late mc, and never even knew they existed until I had the joy of one. Why didn't I know that your baby could die in the second trimester, not quite as easily as the first, but it was still a risk? I don't consider myself grossly stupid...

MW who attended me after discharge said 'there there dear, why would we want to SPOIL pg for people who didn't have late mc?' (She was being reasonable - I have condensed what she said).

FFS there is an assumption here that we have to make life all flowers and lovely times, instead of being honest with each other. Did knowing the statistics about early mc ruin that, or any of my other pg experiences - no, I enjoyed them all (except when they went wrong).

I think it's the same with the unpalatable information about ff, mentioned in the article. But this attitude just leads to lies thru omission and another generation of babies and women getting a raw deal.

Most women I know carry a secret shame that part (or most) of their mothering is insufficient. They're not doing a good enough job. Not being honest about the pitfalls of ff will not stop (IMHO) women from feeling guilty, but it may stop women from bfing.

How do we knobble the HUGE multi nationals, who have demonstrated time and time again that they don't care about the mums and babies, just about the bottom line and their share-holders?

Is that possible, or should we take really radical action as individuals and just target other women and be completely intolerant of ff ?

Honestly - what could we do to insist this information becomes public knowledge, because it just isn't. If health professionals are having a hard time communicating this to mothers, even when their babies lives are at risk (such as in New Orleans) what hope has the general public of getting access to this information?

I WILL be telling my SIL all this information next time she has a baby - it won't make me popular but it may contribute to her resolution (she's almost as stroppy as I am - lol) and give her the support she needed.

Aitch - all those feelings combine in me as guilt, but maybe I spent too much time in church as a child .

Nancy66 - I consider myself relatively well informed, and a successful bfer (am a real cow, ha, ha) BUT I had NEVER come across the concept that ff could actually have a detrimental affect on the mother and the child...why not?
Because (IMO) it's not information that's in the public domain.

re the multinationals, amen. if they're quite happy to promote ffing and thus kill babies in the third world i don't think they'd have an issue with an all-out political lobbying campaign to prevent a turnaround in govt feeding policies.

I'm tempted to be outraged from...

and write to my MP! I don't often feel this strongly about things, generally I am a individual choicer, but this has really shaken me and it seems that the information is insufficient to make an informed choice!

If any other product came into my home that could potentially increase my risk of contracting some forms of cancer by up to 33.3% I would expect it to have a dirty great big label on the outside of the can!

With the information thrown at people about healthy eating and preventing potentially life limiting conditions, it seems bizarre that this fundamental information isn't included in the welcome baby packs the hospitals chuck at you.

I had all sorts of information about stopping smoking or not smoking during pg (fortunately not a personal issue) as it would have a detrimental affect on the baby, but nothing about why you SHOULD bf if at all possible...

BB99 you are every bit as guilty as the very people you profess to despise so much by perpetuating urban myth and propaganda
Formula increases your risk of cancer by 33.3%? Here's another statistic for you - that is 100% not true.

re nancy's last post:

thunk

Nancy can you provide us with one link which backs up your claim that information on formula is widely available.

I said that information on the benefits of BF vs FF is widely available. It is.

Just because people choose to ignore advice doesn't meant it wasn't widely available - it just means people didn't go with it.

link please. otherwise your opinions have no weight.

You want a link to everything I've read in my 41 year existance that clearly states that breastfeeding is far better than formula feeding?

Maybe you're not very bright, maybe you're not very well read or perhaps you are just incredibly annoying. But just try Googling breastfeeding vs formula and you'll instantly have about 200 at your finger tips.

oh ffs. get a grip. I want you to provide a link that you deem reliable. especially now that you are questioning my intelligence. lol lol

and yes, on the feeding pages round here lots of posters, not just me, expect others to back up their claims with evidence. you don't like that aspect of discussion, tough.

btw, i said 'a link' not 'all the links' of everything you have read in 41 yrs. I may be annoying to people who don't agree with me but I am certainly, i hope, not being unreasonable.

link:

www.llli.org/NB/NBJulAug01p124.html

for info on whether the info is widely available.

Bfing is, according to much research, a preventative ie if you bf you reduce, therefore quid pro quo, if you don't you potentially increase your risk...

I have always been told if I use cigarettes I will increase my risk, so why not if I use ff?

Nancy66, Why are you so apparently against the information being couched in terms of - it could be potentially harmful for you and your child to not bf?

The counter representation of the information that it is normal to ff and optimum to bf, but you don't REALLY have to to ensure your health and your babies' is just not getting the facts through to people. It is becoming a mis-representation of the facts themselves and therefore limiting the choices that women are able to make for themselves.

Yes, the preventative concept IS a scary one, but people will still make their own choices - have ALL individuals stopped smoking yet, even though they have the full facts?

Has anyone EVER been told about the health benefits to them as a mother when discussing bfing? I've never heard of this...

just for clarity's sake:
"Formula increases your risk of cancer by 33.3%? Here's another statistic for you - that is 100% not true."

I want a link which verifies the above opinion of yours. Not to anything about "that breastfeeding is far better than formula feeding" or bf vs ff as you claim in your last post. (this seems to be new addition of yours but I can be wrong.)

Nancy,

Quote from here

QUOTE 49. Breastfeeding protects the mother against breast cancer, and the longer she breastfeeds, the less the risk is. (Studies were done in the UK, China, Japan, New Zealand, and Mexico. Byers et al. 1985; McTiernan and Thomas 1986; Furberg et al 1999, British Medical Journal #307 1993) Women who were breastfed as infants show a decrease of 25% in breast cancer rates compared to women fed formula as infants. This can be restated as follows: Women who were fed formula as infants had a 33.3% increase in breast cancer rates.UNQUOTE

Like I said - Google and they will come up.

ps. I wouldn't use 'LOL' in a sentence when trying to defend intelligence if I were you.

sorry, nancy. lol lol do your own work. why would you trust my googling skills?

The common consensus in this section is that if somebody disagrees with a popular opinion then they are wrong.

Prolonged breastfeeding can decrease the risk of breast cancer by 3% - 4%. This is the most widely held view and the one stated by Breakthrough, MacMillan and Cancer Relief and based on the biggest and most reliable study.

Therefore, other 'lifestyle' factors are far more relevant in breast cancer. So, I daresay, the reason why women won't be told that using formula will give them cancer is because it isn't true.

link please.

"The common consensus in this section is that if somebody disagrees with a popular opinion then they are wrong."

no, the consensus is that when someone puts forward a proposition which goes against what we think we know, we ask them to provide independent evidence so that hopefully, we may learn something new.

my aunt who died from pre-menopausal breast cancer was never obese, never smoked, did not drink to excess, had regular mammogrammes (lived in the US where they are done more often and at younger ages than here) none of her sisters or her mother suffer from breast cancer.

the only risk factor I can think of that she had was that she never breastfed.

"Therefore, other 'lifestyle' factors are far more relevant in breast cancer. So, I daresay, the reason why women won't be told that using formula will give them cancer is because it isn't true."

According to the MIDIRS Informed Choice booklet "Breastfeeding or Bottlefeeding" 400 women's lives would be saved each year if we had the same bf rates as Norway (ie nigh on 98%).

Other lifestyle factors are relevant.

And so is breastfeeding.

Some women will die of breastcancer because they used formula instead of giving their babies their own milk. Most of these women will have made the choice to use formula without being aware of the link between not breastfeeding and cancer.

Biology prepares your breasts to feed your baby, whatever your intentions as to whether you're going to breastfeed or not. Formula feeding suppresses lactation, which is part of the normal physiology of childbearing. In other words, women who use formula have an abnormal physiological experience of maternity. When you look at it this way you start to understand the logic of saying 'formula feeding increases your risk of breastcancer'.