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.

"Although the exact cause isn?t known, researchers think that a combination of factors play a role in SIDS. Some theories implicate breathing failures or problems with the heart not beating regularly. Recent research suggests that babies with SIDS have problems in a part of the brain called the medulla oblongata, which controls breathing. Other theories involve allergy, bacterial toxins, and genetic abnormalities, but none of these have been proven." on the SIDS website.

Rhubarb, the fact that FF is associated with an increased risk of SIDS is not the same thing as saying that it is the only cause of SIDS. As the passage you quote says, there are a number of risk factors for SIDS. One of those is FF.

If you think that linking FF to SIDS is "dangerous" and "horrible", perhaps you should tell FSID.

Expat's idea of hell = gorilla dressed as a clown. Or vice versa

TBH, I think rhubarb's original point seems to have got lost somewhere along the way.

She said that we didn't need to breastfeed as much as someone who lives in poor conditions, or animals.

Surely this is true? It isn't as important for me to BF my children as it is someone who has no access to clean water for formula, no access to decent health care and a huge amount of illnesses surrounding them.

That doesn't mean it isn't important to breastfeed our children, nor that using formula milk does not have more risks than not. Just that in comparison, it is safer for us not to than other people/species.

Actually my quote says that there are theories for cot death but none have been proven. FF is not mentioned. It does say however that putting a baby to sleep with a dummy may help.

I'm sorry but if you want to win the argument so badly then fine, win it, because I feel very uncomfortable with the accusations about ff and cot death. I never intended to argue this point and would not willingly be dragged into such a debate.

I started off pointing out that you cannot compare the Western world to the Ape world. How it came to cot death I'm not sure. But I'm finishing it now before it starts getting into blame. I never thought some of the posters here would have such extreme views and it has changed my opinions of them.

Thank you VS. Yes that was my original point. And I take yours that we do see bf as more important for other reasons. But we are lucky that we don't need to because we do have another option open to us that apes and some human communities do not. Whether that option is a healthy one or not is besides the point, many women do choose to ff, thereby making the statement that bf is not necessary for them. And the majority of ff babies grow up healthy and happy.

VS, I'd agree the stakes are higher in an environment of poorer nutrition and without clean water, as evidenced by the higher mortality rates in those communities.

Rhubarb, if that was your original point then I missed it; it seemed to me that you were arguing that BFing is unnecessary in developed countries, full stop, and I was trying to make the point that it's a matter of degree and I don't think you can dismiss it as unnecessary when there are many demonstrated risks of not breastfeeding.

I know you don't want to continue to discuss SIDS, but I must respond to your point: there is a difference between a theory and a risk factor. A theory is an attempt to explain the mechanism of what causes SIDS. A risk factor is something that has been observed. Not enough is known for any explanations of the causes of SIDS to be more than hypothetical, but studies have identified risk factors. One risk factor is tummy sleeping. Another risk factor is FF.

I think it was the line "At no point in this country do babies risk death if we choose to bottlefeed them." that changed the tone of the whole thing.

I too believed that babies didn't die because of formula, sadly it seems some do, but nowhere near the extent that babies die in the third world.

The discussion became too emotive, obviously none of us wish to talk about babies dying and I'm sure rhubarb wasn't dismissing those deaths, but I can totally understand where she was coming from, although I can also understand why Tiktok and hunker felt the need to publicise those links.

I only hope someone who bottle fed their baby who later died doesn't read this. Yes FF has been attributed to SIDS but a little extra tact wouldn't go a miss sometimes.

"It isn't necessary because our children are not going to die once they are off the breast.

In developing countries, in medieval times, in the animal kingdom there is much more of a risk of the child eating or drinking dirty and contaminated food or water. Therefore the longer you bf the safer it is and as the child gets older their immunity gets stronger. Also you have to take into account the scarecity of food, another good reason to bf for as long as possible.

In this country food is plentiful. A child will not be lacking in nutrients and there is not such a risk of contamination.

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."

One of my original posts talking about extended breastfeeding not exclusive breastfeeding.

A risk factor is not the same as saying that ff babies are twice as likely to die from cot death as bf babies. I would want to know how many babies they studied, for how long and where from. Because it's very easy and dangerous to make such bold statements, but when you read the small print, one study isn't sufficient evidence for such a statement and it does kinda seem as though it's being used as a stick with which to beat mothers who ff.

Yes VS, but that line has to be taken in context. I can understand now why they've picked up on that, but I was comparing the high mortality rate amongst ff babies in rural Ethopia with ff babies here and saying that mothers who choose to ff are not exposing their children to certain death.

I appreciate everything else you are saying. Thanks!

It depends on what you define as 'necessary'.

In this country it is not necessary to BF at all if you define 'necessary' as 'what you have to do to prevent your baby dying of malnutrition/illness from contaminated water'.

But if you wish to do all within your capability to ensure the best possible health of your baby, and avoid raising their risks of a number of well documented health concerns, then I'd say BF is a necessary part of that. If for whatever reason you cannot BF, then we are lucky to live in a country where formula is a relatively safe option.

I defined my use of the word 'necessary' as per your definition AA.

Rhubarb "A risk factor is not the same as saying that ff babies are twice as likely to die from cot death as bf babies. I would want to know how many babies they studied, for how long and where from. Because it's very easy and dangerous to make such bold statements, but when you read the small print, one study isn't sufficient evidence for such a statement and it does kinda seem as though it's being used as a stick with which to beat mothers who ff."

It was not based on one study. If you really want to know, here is the reference to the meta-analysis which came to that conclusion:

McVea KL, Turner PD, Peppler DK. The role of breastfeeding in sudden infant death syndrome. J Hum Lact. 2000; 16: 13-20. jhl.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/16/1/13

The results of that were confirmed in another, more recent, meta-analysis:

Ip S, Chung M, Raman G, Chew P, Magula N, DeVine D, et al. Breastfeeding and maternal and infant health outcomes in developed countries. Evidence report/technology assessment No. 153 (prepared by Tufts-New England Medical Center Evidence-based Practice Center, under contract No. 290-02-0022) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2007. p. 1-186. www.ahrq.gov/clinic/tp/brfouttp.htm

In most developing countries, quality and quantities of food (to support breastfeeding in almost every instance bar places like Darfur at the moment)is plentiful, potable water is available, medical care for things like d&v, ear and chest infections available and many women breastfeed though it has for many years been and continues to be under threat from some of the same ideas and misrepresentation that destroyed breast feeding in the this UK, US etc.

I can't get my head around these 'developing countries' which Rhubarb and many posters who hold this idea that bf is more necessary in lesser developed countries than is the US, Uk etc.

Some parts of the US and the UK are positively third world in regard to nutrition, housing, medical care, etc. I think there is something inherently, probably culturally and institutionally racist to say that those people in the third world need breastfeeding more than babies in the West do.

I can't get the first link. The second had 400 individual cases studied and concluded only that it lowered the risk.

Please start a different thread if you want to argue about SIDS and ff. So I can opt out.

I don't get the racist accusation at all. I have used rural Ethopia in all my examples and have said that it is necessary because they can't afford ff, although they aspire to it because it's seen as the thing to do if you have the money. And as you say, it's wrongly advertised as the healthiest option.

Do lay off with the racist accusations ffs, because I can and will fight that particular accusation.

I thought that whether or not it lowers the risk was the point you were arguing?

No, I'm arguing that you cannot and should not even hint that ff is a contributory factor.
There simply is not enough evidence to conclusively support that.

But different thread, please!

Rhubarb, I did not want to read about this either, but can't help responding to your misinformation! There is clear evidence that FF is a risk factor. Like tummy sleeping is. If lives can be saved this should not be denied, however hurtful. It must be really horrible for parents whos babies died of SIDS to learn about any thing they did which may have put their babies at greater risk, not just FF. This does not mean that facts should be concealed and not even hinted at.

Foxytocin, if a baby in a country with no access to clean water is fed formula it is at a much higher risk of dying either due to the dirty water, or malnutrition because the formula is watered down to last longer. I don't see how anyone could suggest that babies in the third world don't need to be breastfed more than a baby in the western world does.

People in different countries/cultures have different needs, there is nothing racist about that.

rhubarb, i wasn't accusing you of being a racist. a lot of people hold this idea about developing countries and extended breastfeeding. i think it is worth exploring where these ideas are rooted. i take it you don't want to explore why you hold those views and that is fine by me. i see it differently because i was born and raised in a 3rd world country.

i happen to believe that it is part of inherently racist ideas about who is 'allowed' to ext bf and why in the eyes of 'the west'.

how much food these people and their children have, etc are red herrings or at least, gross simplification of reality.

see, vs, me and all 5 bros and sis, all 40 odd cousins and heaven knows how may others in my extended family were all ff from early on - i and one cousin are the only 2 i know of who have bf past one year. my grand mum had 9 kids and she bottlefed in the sixties in the 3rd world too. all of us are these mythical 3rd world people. none of our 'tribe' have died due to the classic ff reasons.

to talk about 3rd world people as a faceless mass of humanity serves to undermine the complex character of their existence and what exactly is the 3rd world. this simplification is dehumanising (ie racist) and serves the other side, the nestle's of this world, to punch holes in the reasons why formula should not be promoted in the 3rd world or anywhere. just like it seves to justify why 3rd world bfing is necessary, but not 'necessary' here.

my dad and his siblings were BF'd for 2 years, but it was in the 30s and 40s and there was no formula then and they were poor.

and when they turned 2, well, let's just say my grandmother, a Mayan Indian, wasn't into self-weaning and she didn't live by a no-smacking policy .

although foxy, my dad was raised in 3rd world conditions if not countries, all 16 were ff, usually by the propping method , and every one has suffered something related to ff, several (10 to be exact) died way before their time.

Its got to be down to genetics: if you're lucky to be striong then fab- if you're vulnerable then BF is essential, and you cant know which your baby is.

aitch- chocolate nipples- my ds's call one side KFC, the toehr Macdonalds