Were you formula fed as a baby?

[Janni]

Do you believe you would be healthier or more intelligent had you been breastfed?

Do you believe you were disadvantaged in any other way by being formula fed?

I was not breastfed.

I breastfed my own children for 20 months.

I realise though that I do not feel in any way disadvantaged for not having been breastfed myself.

I just wondered how others felt.

I actually question what the NHS are spending their money on and whether it's productive. From my experience, the odd poster in antenatal clinics, a clunky website and teaching midwives a bit of script saying "Of course, you'll be breastfeeding" before the birth. My experience post birth in hospital and the community on feeding support was diabolical, inconsistent and humiliating, despite repeated requests for help from various different sources. My frustration with the arguments on some MN threads is the excessive finger-wagging and assumption that women who end up FF are feckless ignoramuses that can't be arsed with the whole palaver and deny the proven benefits. I would have much preferred to have a successful experience than be a 'failed breastfeeder'. In my NCT group, all but 1 of us now FF despite 100% commitment and determination before the births.

I despise the idea that people may be feeling ganged-up on, on a very personal issue that with current babies is now impossible to do anything about.

Have no problem with the info you quote on NHS direct I was aware of it when deciding to ff. My children weren't prem and those illnesses didn't seem at all serious to me when considering the benefits of ffeeding (my sanity, lack of pain etc etc).

I considered that whether I continued bf or ff the chances were they'd get one of those illnesses whatever as they are very common in all young children. As it happens they've never had any of them except for diarrhoea during the odd bug .

Anyway I digress. The info given out by the gov isn't what bothers me. It's the other heavy duty, scaremongering and at times incorrect claims that have been posted on here and are never accompanied by any proper scientific medical evidence that do. I think you know the type of posts we're talking about.

The research is on the side of formula having risks, quite clearly and definitely. That is a fact, it's not controversial! That doesn't mean parents who FF are bad parents - of course they're not - or even that they made bad decisions - 99% of parents make the best decisions they can with the resources available to them at the time, even if not all the decisions are the same - that's because it's a huge and complicated issue. But the need to avoid risking being taken as criticising parents who FF shouldn't override that basic truth, that the research is on the side of the FF being the risky option. There is clearly a place for being quite definite about formula having risks, because we all have a right to that information when making our decisions - not to have it massaged and glossed over for fear of making ourselves unpopular, shoot the messenger style, or upsetting other people who've already FF.

The greatest overall net benefit for babies and for mothers who want to BF (and who want to avoid the whole 'started BF but it went wrong and had to stop and now feel guilty' scenario) will come from a nonjudgemental but honest and factual approach, because that will create both demand for and supply of good BF support. That doesn't mean there aren't times and places when it would be completely inappropriate to go stating bald facts about research showing risks and so on, but overall, we insult people's intelligence by thinking they can't cope with facts, and also make it more likely they'll end up in precisely the 'BF went wrong and I had to stop and feel shit about it' misery hell scenarios that generally make people feel so bitter about the whole issue - because the support they'll get, or rather not get, is directly related to the blurring of the facts about BF that happens because everyone's terrified of seeming 'rabid'.

Let's avoid people getting into that situation the best way possible - not by recasting BF and FF as nearly as good as each other, when they're not, but by making BF successful for as many people as possible.

i was ff have an thyroid problem (inherited from my nan and my mum), my brother was bf and suffered from ulcerative colitus from the age of 17, at 21 he had to have an operation to have part of his bowel and the majority of his large intestine removed. my brother suffers from various allergies i do not, of the two of us i would say i am far healthier

"It's the other heavy duty, scaremongering and at times incorrect claims that have been posted on here and are never accompanied by any proper scientific medical evidence that do. I think you know the type of posts we're talking about"

But if you go to the UNICEF website (www.babyfriendly.org.uk/page.asp?page=13) you'll see a mass of research flagging up concerns about all sorts of health issues and their links with infant feeding (including research into the links between childhood cancers and diabetes and their links with infant feeding). Unicef provide the bulk of bf training and accreditation within the NHS and are a respectable, and respected organisation. If they see fit to include this research on their site then why the heck shouldn't we talk about it? It might not mean anything to you, but it's something that I as mother would want to know about. We know these things aren't cast in stone, but why the heck shouldn't we refer to it in our discussions of the subject on this site?

"I despise the idea that people may be feeling ganged-up on, on a very personal issue that with current babies is now impossible to do anything about." - So are you suggesting that we should censor our discussion of the research in order to spare the feelings of those people who haven't been able to breastfeed? Can you think of any context in which it is 'politically correct' to discuss the evidence on infant feeding or should we just stop talking about it altogether? Personally I think we should be free to criticise and question formula as a product without constantly being accused of passing moral judgements women who use it.

Radiobellspicture - I agree with everything you say. You put it very well.

"It's the other heavy duty, scaremongering and at times incorrect claims that have been posted on here and are never accompanied by any proper scientific medical evidence that do. I think you know the type of posts we're talking about"

But if you go to the UNICEF website (www.babyfriendly.org.uk/page.asp?page=13) you'll see a mass of research flagging up concerns about all sorts of health issues and their links with infant feeding (including research into the links between childhood cancers and diabetes and their links with infant feeding). Unicef provide the bulk of bf training and accreditation within the NHS and are a respectable, and respected organisation. If they see fit to include this research on their site then why the heck shouldn't we talk about it? It might not mean anything to you, but it's something that I as mother would want to know about. We know these things aren't cast in stone, but why the heck shouldn't we refer to it in our discussions of the subject on this site?

"I despise the idea that people may be feeling ganged-up on, on a very personal issue that with current babies is now impossible to do anything about." - So are you suggesting that we should censor our discussion of the research in order to spare the feelings of those people who haven't been able to breastfeed? Can you think of any context in which it is 'politically correct' to discuss the evidence on infant feeding or should we just stop talking about it altogether? Personally I think we should be free to criticise and question formula as a product without constantly being accused of passing moral judgements women who use it.

Radiobellspicture - I agree with everything you say. You put it very well.

WELL, this is my contribution to the subject

out of 5 babies from my NCT the only one bottlefed was mine.

She hasn't had any eczema, breathing issues, sleeping issues, infections, colds, coughs. NOTHING!!

SHE IS AS HAPPY AS LARRY AS HER MAMA IS!

I can assure you that breastfeed babies can get very sick very sick much so than bottle fed babies! I HAVE WITNESSED THIS AND NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE MY OPINION!

thanks!

Gosh my first MN fite, not quite what I had in mind. Sabire, if anything you seem like a very clued-up lady and there are offenders on this site (and off it) who don't back up their claims with proven evidence and cause considerable unnecessary offence and distress. I'm sorry that you have interpreted my posts as attacks, they weren't. I think we all want the same thing here - healthy, contented babies and parents. As I see it, real life communication on this topic is not what it should be and as I said before I certainly don't advocate censorship, just some more empathy, sensitivity and realism. We all know that this is not a black & white issue hence the pages and pages of this stuff that gets produced. I guess all these threads end up like this, eh?

Kmum - you talk about 'finger wagging'. Where on this thread has ANYONE been criticised for not breastfeeding?

"and assumption that women who end up FF are feckless ignoramuses that can't be arsed with the whole palaver and deny the proven benefits."

Nobody is assuming this anywhere on this thread or anywhere else on mumsnet.

"However, please remember that FF-ers are not ignorant, eczema-lovin?, IQ-hatin?, gin-toting, jezebels (well not all of us ) and this path hasn?t always strictly been our choice; so what I and others perceive as pompous, preachy tactics"

Again - where is anyone stereotyping women who formula feed as 'excema loving' or implying that all women have a choice as to how they feed their babies?

I think you need to ask yourself why you feel the need to keep ascribing these sentiments to people who haven't said or implied anything of the sort. What's behind it?

I'd describe myself as a lactivist: I feel breastfeeding is very important to babies and I'mm concerned about the way that only a tiny minority of babies are bf for more than a few weeks. Given what I've read about the health risks of formula, at a population level I do think it's worrying that that 90% of babies in this country are getting formula before they're 6 months old. These views are sincerely held and I feel I should be able to express them without exposing myself to character assassination from people like yourself. I've never criticised the morals of women who choose to ff or who ff because bf has gone wrong.

It's upsetting to be told that you're 'pompous', 'preaching', and frankly downright nasty and stupid (because that's what your comments imply), simply because you challenge the view that formula use has no risks for babies. There's no one on this site who'd describe themselves as a lactivist who hasn't acknowledged the challenges of establishing breastfeeding, and who wouldn't come out fighting for the rights of all mothers to choose how they feed their babies, and for all mothers to have the support with breastfeeding that they really need.

Again - ask yourself why you feel the need to smear people in this hurtful way. Might it have something to do with the fact that if you discredit someone's motives it's easier to discredit everything else they say on the subject? I think this tactic is sometimes described as 'poisoning the well'.

Sorry - didn't mean to come over all cross at this time in the morning....

radio - of course FF has risks I don't think anyone has disputed that

I've been asking for evidence of some questionable claims on here

'you would have had excema worse if you had been FF than if you were BF'

'cows milk is the main trigger for excema'

my point being that ALL your and sabire's worthy aims and wishes (which i share 100% btw and have spent alot of my energy promoting) are actually being undermined by people on here who say this stuff in the 'defence' of BF

If we're talking about spurious claims - there are dozens and dozens of comments on this thread to the effect that how you feed a baby makes no difference to their health. If someone can find good quality, peer reviewed research from a reputable source, backing up their belief that infant feeding has no impact on infant health in the long or short term I'd be interested to see it.

Anecdotal stuff will always be there; how mrs X fed baby X may well have made no difference to their health - because we're talking about risk which means that statistically it will affect some and not others; and yes, it's impossible to 'prove' that baby X would have been healthier on BF! That's my whole point; I'm not talking about those defending FF because I'm not interested in 'defending' it; I'm interested in GENUINE support and advocacy of BF, which is skewed by people spouting non-evidenced stuff on here and it's that very thing that gives people an impression of a 'rabid' BF lobby on this site - which obviously doesn't help the cause

and I don't think that saying "well, the formula feeders do it" is any defence of those BF advocates who are giving out false information! Once again all that does is contributes to an 'us and them' feeling on this subject.

milamae: DD has eczema. she is also allergic to 2 things. done by blood tests at 18 months.

egg and cow's milk.

both have been excluded from her diet.

eczema has improved by 90%

so yes, diet IS a trigger.

Tori and HG:

over 13,000 pieces of research have shown risks with formula feeding.

surely because you don't like the fact that 'pro-breastfeeding' sites acknowledge that the risks exist does not mean that they are discreditable.

what an odd way of justifying your point of view.

the Department of Health also acknowledges the risks of formula feeding. are you aware of the reasons behind why the guidelines for the preparation of formula were officially changed in April 2007?

oh FGS I actually love the fact that pro bf sites acknowledge the risks of ff

what I am TRYING to point out is that when PRO BREASTFEEDERS post INACCURATE stuff on sites like this THAT IT DOES THE LOBBY NO GOOD AT ALL

and that posts like yours and sabire's which are SO obtuse in not understanding that, actually ADD to the 'us and them' feeling and turn people LIKE ME who are passionately PRO BF to thinking that these sites are 'rabid' and no help at all

and with that I am sodding off as you have very nicely actually proved my point better than I ever could

inaccurate stuff like what (example please) on this site (do you mean on MN)?

i have only scanned some of the lastest posts HG, sorry if i've misinterpreted the jist of what you are trying to express.

sorry to go off on one then kiski if you haven't read it all

I really am sick of this now so am off but you only have to look back at one or two recent pages to see what I'm referring to

inaccurate information about bf/ff posted particularly by greenmonkies

no acknowledgement from gm or any other 'defender' of bf that this is problematic or may contribute to the way this subject is viewed on here by some

Is there inaccurate stuff about breastfeeding posted on this thread? HG - can you point it out? Without reading it all again, I seem to remember that posts are pretty clear about increases/decreases in risks, and not saying anything about certainties.

I don't think it's controversial to report the notion that the effects of a tendency to eczema may be mitigated with (probably exclusive) breastfeeding; the research on this is not that robust, partly because the definition of 'breastfeeding' is inconsistent (length, exclusivity, for instance, may vary between studies. In fact, I think the effects on the development or intensity of excema is one of the more difficult topics to pin down, but it's not preposterous to discuss it, and I don't see that it makes bf supporters 'rabid' to do so

Tori - the way to judge information on any site, pro-bf or not, is to see where there information comes from - a well-researched study doesn't lose its value simply by being on a 'pro-bf' site. You will not find any evidence that breastfed babies are more likely to be sick than formula fed babies on a manufacturer's website, because there are no studies that show that - so they would have to invent one, and I don't think they would do that.

from greenmonkies

If you have excema, chances are you will have it worse if you were FF than if you were BF

cows milk is THE main trigger for excema

... she can't even SPELL eczema, either...

As a said before I have no problem with what the gov gives out re warnings about formula ie what Sabire found on NHS Direct. There can't be a mother anywhere in this country who doesn't know all that. As I said before they were pretty minor risks as they are all common in childhood. Indeed if your baby goes to nursery they are more likely to pick up all sorts of ear, chest infections etc whether they are breast fed or formula fed anyway.

The problem I have Sabire is with all the other ills you are attributing to ffeeding. So far you have linked obesity, high blood pressure, mental health issues oh and just now diabetes and childhood cancer to formula feeding-nice!!!!!

Funnily enough that immense long list doesn't seem to feature on any of the gov literature re formula feeding so forgive us formula feeding mums for not paying any heed to it.

The reason the gov doesn't list your vast list of risks is that they carefully go through research and studies as they crop up and pass on that which they believe is true. Any Tom, Dick and Harry can set up a university and produce a piece of "research" so we need to have experts to filter the good from the bad and select that which is reliable and can be held up to scrutiny- that is the health departments job not yours.

As a result it is wrong to quote from sources you find on the web which the gov don't use in order to simply scare people into breast feeding. It doesn't work-mums such as myself turn to our health vistors, midwives and GPs and follow their advice accordingly. Yes there may be funding issues re support and advice regarding brest feeding but trying to frighten mums into breast feeding is not the answer to that problem.

Kiskidee maybe your child is one of the few children that have a dairy allergy. The vast majority of children with eczema don't have a dairy allergy it's very rare so no link. I can only go by the advice we have been given.

Can you see the problem with the previous eczema comments? Your child was breast fed and has eczema, my child was ff and had it mildly. If you follow the reasoning others have stated my child should have had it far worse. Actually he only had it mildly and has no dairy allergy. It was down to genes and allergens which we cut out NOT my use of formula.

"Kiskidee maybe your child is one of the few children that have a dairy allergy. The vast majority of children with eczema don't have a dairy allergy it's very rare so no link. I can only go by the advice we have been given."

do you have any references you can provide me with that 'the vast majority of childen with eczema don't have a dairy allergy?"

I am also now disputing your claim that dairy allergy is 'very rare'.

I vaguely remember from teh paediatrician who initially assessed dd's eczema taht it is one of the more common allergies so definitely not 'very rare'.

here is a blurb taken from here
"The most common food intolerances, in order of frequency are milk, eggs, nuts, fish/shellfish, wheat/flour, chocolate, artificial colours, pork/bacon, chicken, tomato, soft fruit, cheese and yeast."

"Indeed if your baby goes to nursery they are more likely to pick up all sorts of ear, chest infections etc whether they are breast fed or formula fed anyway."

Reference for this sweeping assumption? Please?

And at the naive idea that because the government doesn't choose to highlight something then this means the research does not stand up to scrutiny....

There are many reasons why public health messages might be selective - to take one aspect, one that you highlight yourself, the link between childhood cancers and infant feeding methods. Thankfully, childhood cancers are rare. The research linking an increase in incidence with less or no breastfeeding is pretty well established, nevertheless, and you can google if you like, or check on PubMed. It's a tricky thing to highlight, though: not all cancers seem to be affected by infant feeding methods, for a start, so the message is complex. In addition, maybe more importantly, I dunno, you are going to affect far, far more babies if you highlight the more common illnesses like infections and try to point out how less or no breastfeeding increases their incidence. When it comes to saving money for the NHS, keeping kids out of hospital and the doc's surgery for diarrhoea, chest infection and ear iinfection by reducing the no. of them who are formula fed is going to be more effective.

But none of that means the link between infant feeding and serious diseases is not there.