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?

Peppapig's link is excellent. Here's a quote:

"Breast Cancer. Two meta-analyses of moderate methodological quality concluded that there was a reduction of breast cancer risk in women who breastfed their infants. The reduction in breast cancer risk was 4.3 percent for each year of breastfeeding in one meta-analysis and 28 percent for 12 or more months of breastfeeding in the other. In addition, one of the two meta-analyses and another systematic review reported decreased risk of breast cancer primarily in premenopausal women. Findings from primary studies published after the meta-analyses concurred with the findings from the earlier meta-analyses. In summary, consistent evidence from these studies suggests that there is an association between breastfeeding and a reduced risk of breast cancer."

ISNT, I agree with you that studies are too often reduced to soundbites but it's difficult practically to print all the study conditions and complete figures in leaflets, internet debates etc. so they tend to get reduced down to the gist of the study. I don't think anyone's said anything particularly misleading though here.

Good studies however do take into account all the possible influences on data such as social influences (as has been questioned earlier in the thread) and Peppa's link provides some excellent references.

I'm interested in the evidence showing that there is little benefit to women over 35 having their first child. Which study is that?

Is the reduction in breast cancer to do with not having periods though, rather than the actual process of breastfeeding IYSWIM? I'm sure I heard that somewhere

I know what bumpsoon is getting at, that people use soundbites and stats which best support their cause - the exclusive BF rates usually are used to demonstrate what a shocking state it is in but I don't think those are the most appropriate ones to use. But they are always used and I don't think it helps the debate, as it always then ends up with "women actively choosing not to BF aren't they stupid handwring handwring" when it should be "women trying to BF and not being supported to do so, what can we do?"

Agree that people can't note down every single aspect of every bit of research, but if the cancer thing doesn't work if you are a first time mum over 35, then that's quite a big one isn't it.

Those results are miles apart aren't they?

"The reduction in breast cancer risk was 4.3 percent for each year of breastfeeding in one meta-analysis and 28 percent for 12 or more months of breastfeeding in the other"

Seems a bit odd.

Different studies will conclude different figures - what they really look for is whether there is a significant difference. As we cannot do randomised controlled trials for breast and formula feeding (I curse ethics every day ) we are never going to be able to control for every single other variable that might come into the relationship between breastfeeding and cancer risk. What the studies reliably show is that there is a risk reduction, just not a specific reduction. It is the overall pattern that is interesting.

For example, going off on a complete tangent, meta analyses of genetic inheritance of intelligence come out with figures of between 45 and 90% inherited - a huge difference but again they are more interested in whether there is a significant figure - not what the figure is.

Carmen I wonder what you make of the most recent studies with regards to aggressive breast cancer and breastfeeding here

I really am loathe to post this link, as I would honestly hate for something unproven to worry anyone. The underlying conclusion is, however, to continue breastfeeding.

Anybody can find anything they want on the internet to prove their point - if they look hard enough.

The last two things I read about breastfeeding suggested that its benefits have been massively overstated.

Imsonottelling - there are few large UK reliable studies. The link I put further up looks at the studies conducted in developed countries only so much more applicable.

Nancy66 - can you elaborate or provide a link please?

Wubblybubbly I have only had chance to scan the link but think it is saying that sometimes mums don't recognise lumps as being something suspicious as they blame it on the pregnancy or breastfeeding? Or they cant find a lump because their breasts are larger / confused with milk ducts?

This has been known (somewhat anecdotally I think) for a while. I would like to know the risk of this happening to a woman versus the reduction risk from breastfeeding.

The reason the NHS is labelling it as formula feeding bringing risks is the based on the idea of breastfeeding being the biological norm.

Imsonottelling - yes I think it is to do with delay of periods, ovulation, the hormones involved etc. Goes back to the idea that as animals we are 'supposed' to (biologically speaking not suggesting it is law!) to have very few periods over our life times. Thats one of the reasons why exclusive breastfeeding offers the greatest protection I think.

peppapig....that would sort of defeat the whole point of my post.

Wubbly; Awful article but doesn't suprise me. Pregnancy can exacerbate cancers because of the big hormonal changes. I'm pretty sure (but haven't looked for any evidence) that cervical cancer for example can be triggered or become more aggressive following pregnancy and a friend of mine very sadly died of leukemia diagnosed shortly after having a baby.

Don't really see any link to breastfeeding though other than they speculate that changes in the breasts may mask a cancer (although I would have thought breastfeeding could actually result in women paying more attention to their breasts. Lactation counsellors are trained to consider breast cancer etc. when mastitis doesn't clear up etc.)

Nancy, that's just nonsense. Of course you can find anything on the internet if you don't care about sources but most of the links posted here have been from solid peer reviewed medical journals.

peppa, the stage and grade of the cancer are two seperate issues. Any delay in finding cancer, due to changing breasts etc, would affect the stage but not the grade, I think?

Carmen, the article I linked to covered two seperate studies I think.

The second study seemed to focus more on the breastfeeding issue, rather than just pregnancy.

"Dr Butt said: "We found a statistically significant risk of grade III tumours in women with an average time of breast-feeding of 6.2 months or more. The risk of tumours expressing higher levels of Ki67 was also significantly associated with longer duration of breast-feeding. We concluded that long duration of breast-feeding was associated with more unfavourable types of breast cancer."

I want to counter this quote by again saying that the study concludes that women should still breastfeed and that further research is required.

Nancy - I dont quite understand. Do you mean anyone can prove anything with a random internet link? I was just interested in what you had read

However we are not talking about random internet links here but high quality studies?

At the end of the day there is a considerable amount of research that shows that breastfeeding is associated with a decreased risk of cancer. However that is a decreased risk. It does not mean if you formula feed you will get cancer. It does not mean if you breastfeed you will not.

If we take the 28% reduction (the higher figure) then that means if a woman has a 20% overall risk of getting breast cancer in her life (guessing at that figure) then if a woman breastfeeds her risk drops to 14% or something. So breastfeeding is certainly something that is worth doing if you can.

However it is not a large enough or definite risk to force women to do it, make them feel guilty if they cannot etc. The womans (and family) overall situation needs to be taken into account.

So does breastfeeding reduce cancer risk? Yes. Does it eliminate it? No.

Wubbly - that is really interesting. I am going to try and find the paper.

I wonder if we are now getting to the situation (as some of the allergies and bf studies suggest) that women know about the reduction in breast cancer risk and therefore those who have a higher familial risk choose to do so for longer? I would be really interested in seeing what the study controlled for, participants etc.

Then if it is the case it increases it...back to weighing up the evidence I think. If it does lead to an increase in this but a decrease in other things then what do you do...become a health economist / statistician I think

I'm fairly new to MN and new to this thread so scarcely dare to voice my opinion for fear of being shot down in flames.

I can see that the thread title is worded a little insensitively - but no more than, say, a tabloid headline.

And, I'm a bit confused as to why people are accusing the OP of saying that FF 'causes' cancer, when the title clearly says that 'FFs suffer more cancer' - which is totally different. No causation implied, as far as I can see - not in the title, at least although perhaps I've missed something in a post since?

Overall though, I'm really worried to see the strength of feeling in some of the posts, even calling for the thread to be deleted - what happened to the right to free speech? Surely calls to delete threads should be reserved for illegal/ obscene/ grossly unethical comments?

Is it, as Carmen, has suggested, because this is a feeding support forum? If so, is it possible to set up some other sort of discussion forum where these sorts of valid debates (and some really good links to useful information in the posts, btw, thank you) can take place without the heat that this thread has attracted?

Personally, as a new Mumsnetter, I think the level of vitriol against the OP gives mums, and Mumsnet, a bad name.

Sorry for the long post, esp being new so late in the thread.

Sorry - have just reread title (as opposed to the post) and see that the word 'cause' is in there so take back that part of my post. The rest still holds, however.

Sorry wubbly, I'm guilty of skimming on that article a bit - was a bit early in the morning! It is interesting though. I don't really have anything more to say than Peppa. One study clearly doesn't negate all the stacks of other research that has been done but it warrants further study and perhaps changes to breast screening recommendations in the postnatal period.

Chicadee. Good post. Welcome to Mumsnet. What I like about Mumsnet is that we can have more intelligent and developed levels of debate on the whole. The rest of the net is full of 'aww hun don't feel bad lol'.

But there are very different sides to MN. Some people are here primarily for support and friendship, particularly in times of need. I can understand why people therefore may find the op hurtful but at the same time I don't feel the thread should be deleted or that anyone should be ashamed. It's an important debate and worth having, I just wonder if MN could be better structured so these debates can be had without upsetting people feeling desperate and sensitive.

I don't like threads like this really, I think the benefits of breastfeeding can stand up on their own, without resorting to such emotive language. I'm not saying it ought to be deleted and I recognise that the OP has apologised for the terms used.

I do think it is fair to say that research shows that breastfeeding may reduce the risk to some women of developing premenopausal breast cancer. I'm not convinced we really ought to claim any more than that without definitive scientfic evidence, which, as peppa has already said, is extremely difficult to measure due to the number of variables.

This research for example, suggests that the reduction in risk could be primarily linked to those women who are genetically predisposed to develop breast cancer, which I think accounts for around only 5-10% of breast cancers.

OMG I posted on here on page 2 and can't believe how much it has ballooned over Easter! I will say this though-

CarmenSD: Thanks for that next post after mine, I realise now that Ethics committees wouldn't allow it - but was so caught up by seeing red at the OP's title I didn't even think of that when I posted.

And surely thats the crux - no one knows? Illness is a terrible thing which we all try to avoid and hope and pray that our loved ones avoid it too. I think because Im planning to change to Fmilk at 6mths I got a bit sensitive....

Oh Thanks. My son is 13, and back then we weren't villified for not BF... I was unable to do so, as Ive said before in a previous post. So for an inability to do something I wish desperately I could have done, Im now told he'll get all sorts of carcinomas, as will I 9and most of you) as frankly back in the 60s and 70s BF was in the minority.

May as well go drown my sorrows as hey, Im not only going to get Cancer, but Ive condemned my DS to it to

Sukie1971 - don't blame the BFs/FFs in this thread - my sister and I were bottle fed in the '70s and weaned onto solids at 3mths as it was the thing to do then. We're still here. Relax. Don't drink too much!

I absolutely agree with Carmen that there need to be separate areas to post for breast/bottle feeding debate and for support.

I've breastfed both my babies but both times struggled to begin with and definitely needed support. However, threads like this one (and many others posted here) really put me off. I'd like to be able to hide these posts (or read them when I feel up to it, like AIBU), but without having to hide the very useful support element.

I understand that to many breastfeeding is a political issue, but to me it is just feeding my child.

I'll post something in the MN Site area and suggest some sort of separation.

Laugs- Of course it is a very personal choice, but it becomes political (to me anyway) when you are questioned over why you are feeding your baby in such a way? Esp after a few months when "society" thinks you should be bottle feeding"?

Or at least feeding expressed milk from a bottle. And suddenly BF isn't "normal" anymore - the baby is too old?

This is my sticking point

Sukie read my previous post. No one is saying that - not the stats or any of the posters on here. Its about level of risk not definitives. We all take risks with our children every day. It is deciding what is best for our families.