was this a stupid thing to say?

[robinrednomorenowemptybreasts]

my cousins just had her third baby, baby is a week old, when talking to my mum after mum had been to visit, mum said the baby was going every three hours, and that she got to have a cuddle after the baby had been fed.

when mum said the baby was being bottlefed, i said oh thats a shame, mum got quite annoyed with me.
i would not of said that to my cousin or aunt or anything.
and now im wondering if i was out of order saying that.
please be honest, i won't mind if you say i was, i just thought it a shame

We don't feel sorry for you, swmum. Just, in the immortal words of Robin , think it is such a shame for your children.

SWMUM. Is this your first baby? Do you know that breastfeeding stops you having periods, for 16 months in my case and therefore reduces you risks of ovarian cancer. Surely that is one huge reason to breastfeed that hardly ever rates a mention?

kiskidee I have a hazy idea of there being many more workplace nurseries during the war, so you wouldn;t actually have the baby with you on the assembly line

Again, I understand totally that people may feel drawn to one way of feeding rather than the other, often because like swmum says, it is likely to fit in with their life - no reason to make any one feel 'like a freak' if they conclude that ff will suit them better.

But it's just not true to say this choice has no/very little impact on their health, or, perhaps more importantly, on the baby.

This isn't the 'balanced' view that swmum is praising cola for...it's just a misreading or avoidance of the facts! Nothing 'balanced' about that

Poobah, you may well be right there was more wet nursing than is documented....it's the problem with any research done into what actually happened in people's homes. It was definitely uncommon for it to be a formal relationship, though. I expect casual wet nursing happened a lot.

yes - factories and other workplaces during the war had nurseries.

I do hear what you are saying about risks ladies - I've read all the stats. But I also think there are a considerable number of other things to be taken in to consideration. Not bf does not = ovarian cancer. It may lower the risk slightly, but I'm hopeful the rest of my extremely healthy lifestyle be more of a factor in determining if I get cancer or not.
I find it somewhat bemusing when women (and this is women in real life not on here) tell me about all the benifits of bf but then scoff at my completely organic diet, or the fact that I won't use anything products that contain parabens or sodium layral (sp?) sulphate - on me or the baby. They'll tell me how I should be bf but then slap johnsons baby lotion on their kids!
In short what I'm saying is that there are many other factors to be taken in to consideration when weighing up these stats and I really don't believe bf would be the only infulence on the majority of them.
But someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Swmum, if you'll excuse me, that's what I find strangest. You're so determined to do the best for your child in so many other ways... just not this one.

Also I do speak from experience as a ff person who has never had a single (touches wood frantically!) health complaint in my life - neither has my sister or my mum who didn't bf us. And I've come across countless other women who in the same boat as both me and my mother.
Surely this personal experience must count for something? Or were we all just 'lucky'?

So you are all for organic but are happy to feed your baby one of the most processed products in production?

That's hypocrisy!

Mrs Badger I really don't think ff will mean not doing what is best for my child. That's based on my own experience.

Are there not a range of organic formuals?

But I also know many people who were brought up on non-oraganic diets and Johnson's baby lotion who are just fine. And I bet you do too. How does that personal experience influence your choices?

my god you are like vultures around fresh meat, cancer, jesus, wtf, leave her alone have respect for someone elses view point, swum is obviously a well rounded individual and has made an informed discission, as did I.

Thought it was goingwell, bf and ff having an open and valid discussion,should have known the mummy police would be after us anytime soon BRAVO!!

Swum, you are brave to come on here and dare have an opinion that is different than the norm,

As for the rest of you who only want to scare the living shite out of an expectant mother shame on you.

Cola don't worry - nothing will scare me! But thanks for your support!
Fallenmadona my experience influences my choices because I'm totally fine and I was ff. In fact I'm more than fine without wanting to blow my own trumpet! What I mean is being ff hasn't done me any harm or the multitude of healthy ff friends I have. So I look at them and my own family and I think 'what's wrong with us - nothing - so clearly ff wasn't a bad option'.

But at the moment breastfeeding beyond a couple of weeks (if that0 is not the norm. That's what all the recent threads have been about - how have we got to a position where feeding a baby with processed cow's milk has become the norm?
I do find it interesting, as have others, that one would ensure that you eat organic, avoid processed foods, don't smoke, follow all health guidelines for pregnancy, and then still make the decision not to breastfeed when formula milk has known and proven health risks for a mother and her baby,

No one would say not breastfeeding is the only factor in ovarian cancer, swmum - that would be a bit daft!

But there is decent research into it, that controls for different variables, not only with regard to this illness but breast cancer as well. So while anyone can say 'I don't use non-organic baby lotion, it has nasties in it' we have no evidence that you increase your chance of ovarian or breast cancer by using it.

If we're looking at evidence and weighing it up, then formula has risks to mother and baby...this may or may not be true of toiletries, but we just don't know.

SWMUM have you seen this

But pooka I just don't believe a lot of those stats as as straight forward as they are hailed to be.
And that is not burying my head in the sand, it's just that I think there is far more too it. What other factors where taking place in the lives of those childrn who ended up diabetic or obese or those mothers with ovarian cancer. I just find it hard to believe that it can all be put down to bf or not. Don't you?
And formula is packed with vitamins and minerals too is it not?

Fair enough. But my point is that you were quite possibly brought up with Johnsons baby lotion as well - I know I was, and I was also ff - but like you I am just fine. So why not use Johnsons?

i am not police, nor do i want to scare anyone. im not making anything up.

and respect swmums choices, even if i dont agree with them. surely im allowed to disagree?

There have been loads of studies done on the nasties in cosmetics and toiltries. Here is just one feature I found googling.
There are known links to asthma and skin conditions.

And there evidence to link parabens with breast cancer. The reason we don't know much about this is because the cosmetics industry is so incredibly powerful but it's been in the news a lot lately.

www.greenpeople.co.uk/info_features_sls.aspx

swmum, of course its not the only factor, but it doesnt mean it isnt a factor.

Or this

But as Tiktok said, ovarian cancer or diabetes for example are not all down to formula milk. However the research, which I believe (since I have no reason not to, and am not a scientist), suggests that babies fed on formula are more likely to go on to develop type 1 and 2 diabetes, among other illnesses, and that mothers who formula feed are more likely to develop ovarian cancer.
I do think that the fallen madonna's analogy about the Johnson's is interesting in the context of this discussion about how influential how one was fed/cared for is upon what we do with our own children.

girlfrommars, with respect I could spend an hour on the net and find you 3 papers that claim the opposite. Thats science for you, its always changing, evolving, and swum is right, no paper will or can take into consideration all contributing factors unless these adults have been kept in an airtight, germ free room, and all family history is available, how can they possibley say its due to ff!