So today I learned that gorillas nurse their young until they are 3 or 4....

[georgimama]

That's it really. Was at Bristol Zoo and the lovely keeper gave a talk about all their gorillas. They have a 23 month old baby and he is still nursing and apparently will continue to do so until he is about 3 or 4.

I just thought that was lovely. Seriously cute gorilla baby.

"The female kangaroo is usually pregnant in permanence, except on the day she gives birth. "

No wonder they don't have kangaroosnet, when would they find the time?

Where are your pitchforks?

Right, let's approach this sensibly shall we? FSID was criticised about 2 years ago for research methods involving suffocating babies to study their breathing patterns. I can't find it now but it was all over the news back then.

Now relating to my statement that no baby has died in this country because of formula feeding. If you take that statement solely, it's true because there is no death certificate that states a baby died in this country because of it was fed on formula. The formula milk may be contaminated, in 14% of tins studies (how many were in the study?) they found traces of a bacteria Enterobacter Sakazakii, resulting illnesses, it states, is rare but it is "linked" to meningitis.

However if you look here you will see that breast milk has a very high number of toxins which can build up in the body over time and cause cancer and it's also infected with so called "gender bending" chemicals.

So I'd call that an even score.

Cot death.

"Bacteria linked to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) seem to thrive in vomit-soaked polyurethane foam, especially if the babies drink formula, rather than breast milk, it is revealed." BBC.

Now the words I'm picking up here are "linked". All the stuff I've read about cot death and formula feeding are still not proven. It's not the same as saying that smoking causes serious birth defects. We know this, it's a fact. But the cot death links to formula feeding are not facts, they cannot be proven without a doubt. Therefore I am uncomfortable with people blaming ff for cot deaths, I think that's unfair and extreme.

As for the racist thing, well if developing countries such as Sudan and Ethopia aren't experiencing malnutrition and poor hygiene then someone should tell Oxfam!

I believe I did give links as asked on the cultural differences to extended bf in Ethopia and here. My point was that they are different, I illustrated that with those links.

"Rhubarb, I don't believe you have replied to those of us who question whether you think we should not discuss risk factors when it comes to childcare decisions." Does it matter what I think? What a preposterous question! I said that I was unwilling to discuss links between ff and cot death because it remains, as yet, an unproven fact. You may discuss whatever you like, so long as you don't include me in it.

erm, yes, I would say that WAS an even score Rhubarb, as the article goes on to say :

'The issue of environmental pollutants is not simply one for breast milk but potentially affects all foods, including cow's milk from which many infant formulae are derived."

Also, why is physical health the only 'necessity' you consider? It has been shown that babies can die due to lack of touch, so the comfort aspect of breastfeeding may be even more important than we currently think. I think it is the Attachment Parenting people who say on their website that they suspect many behavioural problems documented in kindergarten-age children may be connected in some way to forced early weening from the breast. Whether this is true or not, I guess a lot more research needs to be done on this, but you do really need to define what you mean by 'necessary'.

True Diva - the pollutants affect everything pretty much. But I just wanted to expell the myth that only formula milk is contaminated.

And I don't want to go onto touch. I feel formula feeding has had enough bashing as it is.

Fair enough. But your post has just made me think about how we label these things 'breast feeding' and 'formula feeding'. (Of course, we are not feeding the babies breasts, per se, nor are we feeding them bottles....). I guess our own labelling skews our views of what is happening when a mother holds her child and nourishes it, whether with love, attention, milk, water or carrots.

First time I've smiled on this thread so far!

Rhubarb,
According to the Informed Choice booklet 'Breast or Bottlefeeding' I've got sitting in front of me, (produced by the Midwives Information Service), 100 preterm babies die every year from necrotising enterocolitis who would not have died if they'd had breastmilk. NEC is up to 7 times more common in a/f babies.

So, though there won't be any certificates with 'bottlefeeding' as a cause of death, health professionals who care for preterm babies know that a lack of breastmilk can and is sometimes fatal.

I'd also like to point out that many of the problems caused by bottlefeeding manifest themselves as severe illness only once the child has entered adulthood. Diabetes is one, hypertension is another - both these things are more common in adults a/f as babies.

And lets not forget those mothers in the UK who die every year from breastcancer, who wouldn't have died had they breastfed their babies. Again - according to the midwives information service several hundred women die every year who wouldn't have died if we'd had the same rates of bf as Norway.

"Therefore it is not necessary to bf beyond the age of 1, it is a choice. Those who choose to bf beyond this age don't do it because of necessity"

Honestly - how depressing to see someone reduce bf to simply being about nothing more than putting calories into a baby.

I'd be careful with those statistics. You cannot say those women would not have died had they breastfed, breast cancer commonly runs in the family.

Also adult cases of the conditions you mentioned, again I'd be careful because adults who had been breastfed were also diagnosed with them.

There is evidence that breastfeeding can lower the risks, but it cannot, alone, prevent these illnesses. It's not a cure.

I think I'm going to put an end to my contributions there.

If you don't like what I've said, that's tough. It's an opinion and it's also research from validated sources.

I appreciate what hunker and tiktok are saying, but I think that their views are a little extreme regarding cot death. However they are entitled to those views as I am to mine.

I've outlined my posts in the last big post I did. I've no inclination to spend my weekend debating it further. I'd only end up repeating myself over and over again as new people join in. The main points have been covered, we've all debated, all said our piece and none of us have changed our standpoints. Typical of Mumsnet!

I bid you all good day!

Interesting thought, AIDS and cancer don't kill anyone.

"I'd be careful with those statistics. You cannot say those women would not have died had they breastfed, breast cancer commonly runs in the family."

Umm, Rhubarb, don't you think that the dozens of people with PHDs in epidemiology who have been involved in research into this subject for many, many years might have - gasp - controlled for familial susceptibility to breast cancer when they did designed the studies?

DOH!

"Also adult cases of the conditions you mentioned, again I'd be careful because adults who had been breastfed were also diagnosed with them."

And again!

DOH!

"There is evidence that breastfeeding can lower the risks, but it cannot, alone, prevent these illnesses. It's not a cure."

Weeelllllllll.... that's a bit of a specious point because (raises voice and speaks very slowly)

NOBODY HAS IMPLIED OR SAID THAT BREASTFEEDING ALONE CAN PREVENT OR CURE BREASTCANCER

And therefore your argument is complete tosh.

"Umm, Rhubarb, don't you think that the dozens of people with PHDs in epidemiology who have been involved in research into this subject for many, many years might have - gasp - controlled for familial susceptibility to breast cancer when they did designed the studies?"

Don't insult my intelligence. Just don't.

You quotes didn't mention that they'd taken anything into consideration so I can only presume they are looking at death rates for breastcancer and trying to find a correlation between those rates and breastfeeding.

We all know that breastfeeding lowers the risk of cancer. But I'm not here to debate the mother's health so do me a favour and don't try and drag me into an irrelevant debate ok? Everytime I make a point, someone then produces another that is a complete irrelevance to the original debate.

Keep it polite ok? I've managed to so why can't you?

Rhubarb, I don't have 'views', extreme or otherwise. I am reporting uncontroversial, long-standing and robustly evidence-based links between ff and cot death. I may have views on how this should or should not be disseminated, but I can't have 'views' on whether the links exist or not, unless I decide for some daft reason to report what I think, rather than what I read.

Like smoking and lung cancer, which is also not proven as a direct cause and effect, we can never run a blind randomised controlled trial on breastfeeding, which would be the only way to prove a cause - just as you can't take two identical cohorts and order one lot to smoke for 30 years and the other lot not to, without either cohort knowing which group they were in, you can't 'test' ff and bf by ordering two identical cohorts to ff or bf. You can only use epidemiological data, and observation with case control studies, and conclude or not that there is an association, which we can translate into individual risk - in just the same way as the 'back to sleep' research did, not with an RCT but with epidemiology and case controlled studies.

There is masses of data on breastfeeding and breast cancer - mothers who do not breastfeed increase their risk of breast cancer both before and after the menopause. Why is this something not to share? There is also data to show that baby girls who were not breastfed have an increased risk of breast cancer themselves but these studies are fewer than the other ones.

Again, this is not my 'view'. It just is the case.

'Cause clever researchers don't automatically do all the control groups and factor in other things.

I have to assume Rhubarb is not actually reading any of the links posted here, or she would not be responding with a 'yes, but....' post every time.

And BTW, Rhubarb, smoking and birth defects are not proven cause and effect, either - they have a powerful association, but there is no proof. The association is powerful enough for the public health message to be pretty clear - smoking when pregnant is a risk to infant health (and life, too, as neonatal death is liked with smoking in pg, as well). Why are you ok about informing mothers of this, and also (presumably) ok about the message that smoking with babies and children around risks their health, too, and not ok about pointing out the link between ff and cot death?

It is not true to say there is a proven, cut and dried relationship between SIDS and formula feeding. The American Academy of Pediatrics does not agree, for a start.
see here
Even the positive Scandinavian studies describe any link as 'weak'. So there may be a link, but it is weak and unproven, and pretty irrelevant to babies over a year old, when SIDS is extremely rare anyway.

It is not true to say there is a proven, cut and dried relationship between SIDS and formula feeding. The American Academy of Pediatrics does not agree, for a start.
see here
Even the positive Scandinavian studies describe any link as 'weak'. So there may be a link, but it is weak and unproven, and pretty irrelevant to babies over a year old, when SIDS is extremely rare anyway.

mabanana, no one said there is, read TikTok's last post.

I think Rhubarb's back is up against the wall, and she is just trying to swat away the random (and sometimes unnecessarily rude) attacks coming her way.

I think we can all see where she is coming from, and she has not yet made a FACTUALLY incorrect statement, now has she? Of course we all want to breast (milk) feed our children until they are seven years old but as she said originally, it is not considered (physically, medically or ethically) necessary in our culture to do so. That's all. This debate has been had umpteen times already, and we all know where it will end.

Now can we return to finding out why certain MNers have a pathological fear of primates, please?

Er this is what Tikok said: "I am reporting uncontroversial, long-standing and robustly evidence-based links between ff and cot death." And that's simply not true. There are a lot of conflicting studies, some of which show a risk from formula feeding (as I believe is the approved terminology) and others absolutely don't, including a large 2005 study in Chicago, which showed that once confounding factors were removed, breastfeeding was not protective. The American Academy of Pediatrics says there is not enough evidence to say there is a link. So this is a controversial area with many conflicting studies, and at best, even in the studies which suggest a risk from formula, the association is described as 'weak'.

Yes, LINK! That's totally different to what you said.

mawbroon, you're misinterpreting the function of the AAP statement, which was to assess what US physicians should tell their patients (and the government) about reducing the risks of SIDS. It was not primarily to discover causes of SIDS.

They found, as you say, that despite many studies showing a link between not breastfeeding and SIDS, other studies found no link if confounding factors were taken into account: 'These results suggest that factors associated with breastfeeding, rather than breastfeeding itself, are protective.'

They felt this meant that they could not list 'breastfeed' as a separate recommendation to patients and government. I think based on that evidence, this may well be a respectable position to hold (though I would argue it's them being controversial, not me!).

They are aware that not bf is associated (as a separate factor) with other forms of infant mortality, as they say, but not SIDS.

Interestingly, despite this, what they say to mothers direct is different:

www.aap.org/new/sids/reduceth.htm

On that 'direct to parents' leaflet, breastfeeding is listed separately as a way mothers can reduce risk of SIDS, so I am not sure why they are inconsistent there.

LOL at "keep it polite" after adding in provocative "Where are your pitchforks?" "Did I hit a nerve?" and "has anyone mentioned "bitty" yet"

[loses all respect]

Rhubarb "I'd be careful with those statistics. You cannot say those women would not have died had they breastfed, breast cancer commonly runs in the family."

With respect, that statement just shows that you don't have much of a grasp of statistics. Of course you cannot take a handful of women and say that they would not have died from cancer had they breastfed. But you can say that the research indicates that an increased rate of breastfeeding would reduce the incidence of breastcancer and hence the deaths associated with it. It is the same for the research on babies - we can never suggest that any given individual's life could have been saved if they had been cared for in a different way, whether back-to-sleep or breastfed. But we can say that these things are associated with lower risks.

I am very glad this research has been done and it will inform the choices I make in caring for the baby I will soon have. More importantly, on a population level, it may save many lives. It really worries me that you seem to think that it should be suppressed.