All the cancers that formula feeding cause. any figures?

[mumtotwoboys]

So we know bottle feeders suffer more breast and ovarian cancers, and their babies suffer more childhood cancers (like leukimia) and bowel cancers later in life..
Any specific percentages?
Anything showing the amount of cancers it causes in relation to smoking?

Seemed a reasonable OP to me. If people choose to take it as inflammatory then that's their choice. OP was asking for information, not stating a fact, and interpreting it as that is an interpretation.

FF has been linked to cancer with the plastic in the bottles... for example... but I don't know the research well enough to know the statistics. Something being LINKED to something is different to the link being proven, and it would be interesting to know what the actual evidence for this was, for instance.

I have no patience with the concept that everyone has to fluffle around FFing because saying anything negative about it may offend or upset people. It's perfectly reasonable to look at the evidence and request information on it, good and bad, and frankly if I was to choose to FF (or be forced into it) I would want all the evidence first, pros and cons.

OP has clearly stated the obvious that FF is much better than a baby starving. I would also add it's better in many cases than a desperately unhappy mother. But, asking for research on it is NOT saying that there are not excellent reasons to FF, that FF is wrong or that people are wrong to FF. It's just asking for information. With this information, those who have the choice to BF or FF can make an informed decision.

So OP, support from me for the question even if it wasn't written in a way that would avoid attack ( ) and I hope you find the answers you wanted.

'constantly bugged me about giving him a bottle like a normal baby has'

Well they wouldn't be welcome in my home! Grow some balls & tell them you are BF, they don't have to like it, they don't have to lump it.

BUT don't come on here, telling us that ff causes cancer without backing it up (properly, because saying 'oh I have a leaflet that says....., is not proof) and expecting us to agree with you!

We are not stupid & writing things like ''If mumsnet women are representative of the general population then almost 80% of mothers here wouldn't have breastfed for 6 months even'' is not going to make you any friends! You only have to read the breastfeeding threads to find we have plenty of extended bf-ers here.

OP you won't let it drop will you.

You worded your OP as a request for information but all of your subsequent posts have revealed that you are in possession of lots of informaiton and have a very definite view on this topic.

Your OP was not a request for information pease stop trying that line, it was an attempt to deliberately upset. You say you have seen threads like this before and on termination and you know how they go so you knew exactly what you were doing.

carmen it is absolutely right that there is a conversation about the benefits of BF, and how to encourage rates in this country. We have threads about it all the time, as you know. It is nit helpful to have threads starting "FF causes cancer". It just isn't and to say otherwise shows a remarkable lack of empathy which is why people have responded to the OP as they have. The OP title will be up in active convos and women who have lost loved ones will keep seeing it. Why was that necessary if the OP just wanted info? Read her posts - she didn't want info she wanted to cause hurt and pain.

As for the real debate - I find it odd that whenever I link to those NHS stats which show that the situation in the UK is not as dire as people often think, they are completely ignored. I wonder why that is.

OP I thought you wanted more information because your pregnancy notes lead you to want further information (or so it reads on your post...)

Now that the reason for the information is: "I don't have the energy to argue against all these people, so cold hard facts are what I would think of as effective, if anything." (as you say) Why don't you copy your notes and give it out to those in your circle in RL who bully into bottlefeeding.

I would like to find out more re the link with cancer and the plastic in bottles as I give EBM in bottles too.

This link is an excellent review paper of the health benefits of breastfeeding in developed countries. It is a meta analysis paper which takes into account lots of studies looking at the same thing to give an overall risk here

Not debating any of the arguments on here just providing a link to the evidence.

Whether breastfeeding reduces risk or formula increases risk is mainly semantics. However the reason why breastfeeding is associated with a lower risk of female cancers is due to hormones, suppression of ovulation etc. Whether you argue that this is a biological norm or not determines really whether you argue for risk or benefit.

Haven't read the whole thread but it's quite obvious that although the information you found OP links the reductions in those illnesses through breastfeeding, it doesn't (and wouldn't by the NHS) say that formula does the opposite. They are merely saying that research shows that breast reduces thoses illness; not formula causes them (although they obviously want people to assume it means that).
It doesn't tell you about the study group and consider other factors such as good diet, genes etc.
You have to be very careful when looking at research as to who carried it out, the details of the study group etc.
I'm generally anti formula but in this instance, I think it's dangerous and misleading to imply that FF causes the illnesses you say BF reduces. Mums already feel enough guilt about infant feeding and I think most people know deep down that human breast milk is best for human babies but that's not the issue.

Now here's some stats for you lot to ponder:

"In cases where breast milk feeding is not an option, avoiding formula feeding can be shown to cut the cancer risk by almost 100%."

(Cory's Statistical Bureau for Evidence-Based Science)

Im going to give mumoftwo and carmen the opportunity to answer my two main gripes and then im off ,cant see that they will but its worth a go.

1. breast milk contains higher levels of pvc's and pcb's than formula ,also if you have eaten red meat before ,during or after pregnancy your breast milk also contains the same toxins attributed to formula due to a process called bioaccumulation .
2. breast feeding does reduce the risk of premenapausal breast cancer ,however the risk is severly negated by age at which breastfeeding is done and is also linked to multiple births , ie a woman in a developing country who breastfeeds six children and has those children between the age of 16 and 25 has a dramatically reduced rate of premenapausal breast cancer ,a woman who has her first child at 35 ,the risk isnt particularly reduced .

I am for breastfeeding ,i think its the best option from a physiological point of view ,from an economic point of view and just because i think its a lovely bonding experience. I am against people spouting the term 'research' without actually bothering to look at the research and what it actually says.

Like it cory!

I breastfed ds2 for 9 months, he developed acute lymphoblastic leukaemia at 3 years old.

I still ponder the cause of it daily.

Really truly sorry to hear about your little boy aloiseg ,that must have been fucking awful for you

He's fine now thanks, nearly 5 years off treatment. It was absolutely dreadful but I would really love to find out what caused it for him, especially if its something preventable.

I don't believe in hiding stats just in case people don't like the outcome, we have to have all the information to hand so that we can make informed choices, ignorance is never bliss.

Thank goodness he is fine . Honestly ,you will probably never know the cause ,although research into childhood leukaemias will continue to try and discover one ,so hopefully one day it will be preventable

Thanks carrotsarenottheonlyveget.

Great posts Alouiseg

'imsonottelling'
I 'knew exactly what i was doing, should stop lying about my OP being a request for info, and i just wanted to deliberately upset people'
My response;
What. The. Fuck?

Believe it or not I don't specifically come on here to deliberately upset people, why would you think that of another person?
That's just weird/fucked up, I wouldn't even consider someone's sole aim to be that.
Why would YOU assume that? Unless you have personally done that yourself, talk about cynical.
Crazy

You're sick for even thinking that.

As if I go to immense efforts to make parents of childhood cancer sufferers to feel bad.

What a sick fucked up accusation, to all of you who demanded that that was my intent.

Alouiseg of course we would all like to know all we can to protect our babies.
I'm so glad your child recovered.

NHS stats aren't really reliable, I know people who told their GP's they've given up smoking and were rewarded with £100 in Adsa vouchers who still smoke, just as I told the HV we were still bf DD2 at 6 months when I wasn't.
Just wasn't in the mood for an argument.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

Not sure who said that but they probably had a point.

Which stats are reliable millymolly?

I have tried in vain to find the UK stats on the WHO site but I can't, and from what I can find they are based on the NHS ones anyway.

mumtotwoboys please don't call me sick and fucked up I'm not the one who has been posting inflammatory OPs.

I believe 85% of them are made up on the spot.

It's difficult isn't it.
My theory is if you can't breast feed then what else could you possibly do other than offer a bottle of formula, cows milk isn't advisable and the baby can't eat for at least 3 months (which is when we were told to wean 10 years ago) so you have no other option. And if you feel bad you can spend the rest of your life trying to make up for it with organic food etc or you can add to the list of things mothers feel bad about.

I don't lie to HCPs but then I know I'm odd in that respect and it doesn't actually do me any good but never mind.

If the stats are totally unreliable then really we have no way of knowing whether low BF rates really are a problem in the UK or not. So it kind of renders all of these conversations void

Personally I would think the NHS ones are fairly near the mark - and the "any breastmilk" ones paint a pretty positive picture. This is rflected in my own experience (in my postnatal group of about 12 women, only 1 wasn't BF). The figures for exclusive BF are always going to show a doom and gloom scenario as that's not how things usually work in our culture - many babies are given the odd bottle of formula but are still majority BF, and those people i would say are BF.

I agree that there are a whole host of things that go towards peoples lives and how they are fed as an infant is only a small part of a huge picture. bumpsoon's points about toxins in breastmilk are also very good but they never seem to be acknowledged.

Bumpsoon, you asked about toxins in breastmilk. I found an interesting report on it here.

The exact amount of PVBs vary wildly with environmental pollution and diet and vary between countries. That report says one study in Holland where levels are particularly high found slight problem-solving and response delays but these children had better spatial awareness.

The bottom line though is this: 'Many researchers have looked into the risks posed to breastfeeding children by PCBs in breast milk,29 and most have concluded that the small increased risk associated with breast milk exposure to PCBs is outweighed by the benefits of breastfeeding'

I don't understand your second point. What was the question?

I think bumpsoon was trying to say that people often make statements about BF and how wonderful it is but without including the caveats.

For example i have been cheerfully thinking that BF will possibly reduce my risk of breast cancer as per the headlines. I had no idea that the benefits were all but lost if you were over 35.

So posts which say "BF reduces teh risk of breast cancer" are a bit misleading, as for a large number of women it doesn't, and in the UK the number of first time mothers over 35 is not insignificant.

That was how I read her post anyway.

where is the link to the research that says the benefits are lost if you are over 35?

i would be interested to see this, likewise the research that shows you need to be between 16 and 25 and have 5 children - was this linked to earlier, i seem to have missed it