Here we go, breastfeed and help boost the economy

[llareggub]

interesting article here

Yes, people are generally aware of all the other issues that breastfeeding entails. The formula companies meanwhile love it that people think it doesn't really matter what or how you feed your baby.

Oh my goodness. That article is fascinating.

Really interesting, thanks.

Really interesting but also really scary for those who don't bf past 6 months (or don't bf at all)...

V Interesting.

BTW I suppose a similar kind of article (based, like this one, on statistical stuff across populations) could be written about any kind of health choice / issue: smoking, overeating, eating junk food, not exercising etc. E.g. 'eat well & help boost the economy!' or 'stop smoking & help boost the economy!' etc.

I have to admit, if I'm honest, that even though interesting, this kind of line of argument doesn't appeal to me. It's a kind of guilt inducing thing. 'You have to bf not just for your benefit & the baby's benefit, but for the benefit of the nation'. I think this is not the right way to approach promoting bf & in general, not the right way to approach promoting any good health decision.

Guilt inducing? Nah. One should know the facts.

Sometimes I think too much pussy footing around is done these days.

Tell it exactly like it is.

After all, The formula companies have been spouting crp for decades. That* needs to be combatted for starters.

Of course it's guilt inducing.

'Stop smoking to boost the economy'.

'Lose weight to help the NHS'.

'Do more exercise & less NHS surgery involving cardiovascular diseases will be needed'.

'Drink less alcohol & help NHS A&E departments'.

'Have more children to bring up the national population'

'Have fewer children; help the planet earth'.

'BF more & help boost the NHS by reducing allergies, breast cancer, leukemia etc'

Need I go on?

And by the way. This type of scaremongering & guilt-inducing lecturing will do nothing to increase bf rates. Nobody, after all, thinks 'ah, I'll have fewer kids even though I was planning on 4 just to help save the planet'. And nobody will bf just to help 'boost the economy'. These are highly personal decisions & if we want to help things (health-wise) on a population level, we need to treat these decisions with respect, understanding their complexity & individuality.

It's American, the stats are American, and the health service it describes is American.

Of course the same principles apply - as a public health issue, infant feeding has economic costs to us as a society.

This is not a message individual mothers need to take on board (unless they want to!) - their responsibility is to themselves and their babies, and their decisions need not be made with society as a whole in mind.

Any official campaign should not target mothers with this, but articles which outline the effects beyond the indvidual decision making are perfectly ok, surely.

They're also a reminder that infant feeding is something that is everybody's business, and governments and others should be removing barriers to breastfeeding.

I really don't think that hiding the information that it has economic effects is justified, simply because it might make people feel guilty....that can't benefit anyone. Of course we should be sensitive to people's choices and feelings, but not discussing interesting facts about economic impact is not an option.

Tiktok, of course bf (and infant feeding in general, and various other health issues) concern the population as a whole. That's completely true. But I'm really reluctant to accept any argument- even when it involves good, right bits- that advocates concern over the health service influencing personal health decisions, I think that's a completely wrong way of presenting facts, and can be a horrible slippery slope. Even when it's not presented this way, it still affects women on a personal level &- lets be honest- guilt trips them.

I think the health benefits of bf (or rather, more accurately, the health disadvantages of formula feeding) should of course be widely available. The same as any other health issue really. But the economic effects of any health decision are of no concern to any person (except NHS bureaucrats). Either you have a free to all health service or you don't. The States, of course, do not... hence this article. But I'm really sad / annoyed when I read similar articles about the NHS not being 'burdened' by this or that personal health decision.

Well, no man is an island and I do think we have a responsibility to ourselves and to others instead of expecting someone else to constantly pick up the tab.

We should be able to do what we like and guilt free? It's not as simple as that.

The NHS can't actually afford to sustain everyone who needs healthcare so I think personal health decisions should take that into account.

Maria you can't compare it to campaigns against smoking or obesity or drinking to excess. These are deviations from the norm.

Breastfeeding however is the physiological norm.

A better analogy would be to say

DO eat well, exercise, and breastfeed

DON'T eat to excess, drink to excess, be sedentary, formula feed your children.

The former are associated with good health.

The latter are associated with poor[er] health.

And I am all for people taking personal andcollective responsibility for the health of the nation. What kind of people are we if we don't think about how the decisions we make affect society as a whole?

That's the slippery slope.

There is no point telling us how good it would be for the economy and people's health for more mothers to feed unless a great deal more support is given to women to help them establish breast feeding.

I think the argument that it is bad for the economy/health should be part of a general discussion on why it is wrong to allow formula to be made for profit/marketed/advertised/presented as a wonderful alternative.

The onus is on HCPs and formula manufacturing regulators to change this situation.

Just sorting out those two things; level of support and the image of formula, would go an enormous way to improving BF rates.

People do however also need the facts in order to make informed decisions and articles like this are part of a grown up factual discussion about the important issues surrounding infant feeding IMO.

And the NHS is not free. We all pay for it.

Anyway, who wouldn't want a boost to the economy?

If you can't or won't breastfeed, then there are other ways to contribute.

Just because this particular breastfeeding way doesn't suit everybody doesn't mean articles like this shouldn't be written.

It just shows the enormous ripple effect breastfeeding has.

Oh, but I'm not going to read it because somebody might feel guilty.

I've woken up and am at my desk in a very bad mood this morning!

Also I really don't think that there can be very many mothers who choose not to breast feed whilst thinking "hey the NHS is there to pick up the tab if my kid gets sick".

I came within a hair's breath of giving up trying to breast feed my first born and only continued because I got help from one fantastic midwife and spent half my time on the phone to Le Leche League.

Whether one ends up breast feeding or not should not come down to pot luck over the level of support that is available.

Of course we also need to change our farked up cultural barriers to breast feeding too but I guess that is another whole thread.

Am I being thick or nitpicky here but would the economic effects not be offset (even somewhat) by the infant formula industry going bust? Personally I'd be happy to see every woman breastfeed if she wants to, but from an economic pov would it be better? Has that actually been taken into account? I can see the arguments for healthcare and for the finances of the individual, but I ws under the impression that the economy improves when we all spend - not save!

The infant formula business won't go bust because there will always be people who use it and need it. Its market might get smaller though.

Formula does save lives too. Those babies who can't bf or whose mums are on anti Ds or those who simply prefer to use formula.

winky, no need to stop BFing because you are on ADs

off to read the article now!

Sorry I thought the article was taking the extreme view of everyone breastfeeding (presumably exclusively) and using that for its calculations. I realise that's an extreme but it's useful to see the figures. Anyway the argument's the same, if the infant formula market is cut by ...80%? then that would have an impact on the economy as well. Or would that just be drowned out by the health savings?

Any health economists about?

Of course formula doesn't save lives! If a baby is unable to be breastfed/a mother is unable to breastfeed, there are several alternatives, none of which involve using formula.

It is convenient to give formula, and none of the alternatives is necessarily easily available to all....but it's unnecessarily dramatic to give this 'life saving' accolade to formula.

Tik, I disagree with the several alternatives none of which being formula, but the wider issue being to normalize breast feeding...

A bit like the slogan, 'dig for victory...'

ilovemdog - how can you 'disagree with the several alternatives'??? It's like disagreeing that the grass is green!