Annie over at PhD in Parenting recently said something that got me thinking. (Not the first time that’s happened. My brain usually hurts after visiting that blog…I have no idea how she manages to be so eloquent about so many things, when half the time I resort to half-assed puns.) Someone responded to her post about the Darcia Narvaez debacle and referred to formula as “junk”; Annie pointed out that this was probably not the best approach, but also wondered why “there is not a greater lobby among formula feeding families to improve the product, improve the ingredients, and get BPA and other toxins out of the containers.”
When I read this a couple of evenings ago, my initial reaction was that I don’t see much need for improvement in the product, considering how it has allowed my children to grow and thrive. But the question lingered, much like the noxious odor of my ex-coworker Frank. (Seriously. I worked with the guy a decade ago and I still have a sharp olfactory memory of his scent. It was RIPE….)
As our own FFF Antigone so wisely pointed out in the same thread, formula may seem “junky” because of the processed ingredients, but in reality “formula MUST be processed in order to be digestible and give the right balance of nutrients to infants. Infants cannot digest solid foods and other animal milks are too high in protein, too low in carbohydrates and fat, and missing essential vitamins.” Smart girl, that Antigone. But I’m not sure this negates what’s at the heart of Annie’s point. There is always room for improvement, and maybe it is high time we started fighting that battle in addition to the fight we rage against the bullying and propaganda of the formula-is-risky campaign.
Or, maybe the battles are one and the same.
When I discuss the issue of breastfeeding pressure with feminists, the one thing I always try and argue is that protecting our right to breastfeed cannot compete with our responsibility to protect a woman’s right to choose how she uses her body, and how she defines what makes her a woman and a mother. These rights are not mutually exclusive. Likewise, I think we need to be careful about separating a political/social need for infant feeding choice, with a consumer need for the best product possible.
I’m willing to bet that the reason most formula feeders haven’t lobbied for better product is because as a group, we are constantly on the defensive; to admit that a product has flaws is to give ample ammunition to those that look down upon our choices. Because of this, formula companies are spending money on marketing (further perpetuating the myth that we all formula feed because some smarter-than-us-silly-mommies advertising exec told us to, subliminally, by putting a blond woman in an ad instead of a brunette) rather than research and development.
Breastfeeding science has focused primarily on proving how much better breastmilk is than formula, without asking the more productive – and interesting – question: WHY. I’m talking about the biological, chemical why, not the moral or fundamental why. (i.e., I’m not interested in platitudes about how the natural will always trump the artificial, because that doesn’t get us anywhere.) What is in breastmilk that makes it superior, and is there a way to reproduce this?
****Before we continue, I want to be clear: I think that purely as a substance, breastmilk is pretty darn awesome. It’s not unicorn blood, but as a food, it kicks ass. Does this mean I think that on a case by case basis, it is going to make that much difference in a child’s life? No. But I also think it’s important to give credit where credit is due. My argument is, and always has been, that every parent needs to do a risk/benefit assessment, weighing the benefits of breastmilk (if this is even an option) against the risks of what it might do to the mother and her family emotionally and physically. And of course, if a baby is intolerant of his mother’s milk, like my son was, or the mother is not making sufficient milk to feed her child, then we also must weigh the negative implications of breastfeeding a child for whom breast is clearly NOT best.****
Imagine what would happen if instead of a study showing a correlation between better cognitive development and breastfeeding, the research focused on what was conferring that benefit. First, they’d have to use two sample groups – one that was exclusively pumping and feeding breastmilk in bottles; the other that was predominately feeding from the breast. Depending on these results, we could infer whether the benefit was coming from the milk or some aspect of the breastfeeding experience. If it was the milk that was increasing IQ, then a separate study could be undertaken to try and decipher which element of breastmilk was doing so. This ingredient could then possibly be created synthetically and added to formula.
Rather than approaching breastmilk as if it were magic, let’s make it subject to the rules of our reality. It is a substance, and substances can be analyzed. By focusing on the cause rather than the effect, we could help babies thrive without essentializing their mothers. We could free women from biological imperatives, and instead give them choices which didn’t make them feel they were putting their own needs before their childrens’. It would level the playing field, so that fathers could be the primary caregiver in every sense of the word, and that adoptive parents wouldn’t feel they had to induce lactation to feed their very wanted babies appropriately.
None of this is to say that I think commercially available formulas are insufficient – because I think they do a great job nourishing our children - but there is always room for improvement. That’s one advantage of a manufactured product over a biological one; it can be altered to our liking. Let’s look at the DHA/ARA addition to formula in recent years, for example. While this remains controversial, I do believe that this additive is beneficial. One study found that formula with DHA/ARA had a comparably protective effect against autism as breastmilk. Or, take the recent research suggesting that kids raised on partially hydrolzed protein formula gain weight at similar rates to breastfed kids, versus the steeper weight curve shown in kids fed on normal formulas. To my mind, this is evidence that formulas DO differ; that the old adage that “all formulas are the same”, usually spoken in disdainful/dismissive tone by a pediatrician or breastfeeding advocate, is incorrect. It does matter, and I worry that we are being told it doesn’t due to the current breast-or-bust mentality.
Why is Similac spending their money on paying transparent lip service to breastfeeding rather than serving its true customer base – those who have already chosen formula, or had it chosen for them by circumstance? Why is the government taking the easy way out – telling women to bear the burden of responsibility for our nation’s health and intelligence – rather than investing money into research for better formulas that can improve health on their own merit? If what we feed our babies in the first year really has that much of an impact on lifelong health, this should be a priority – because in reality, not all babies are going to be able to be breastfed, as long as we want to live in a world where women have the freedom to decide how to use their bodies; whether to work or stay home; whether to be a primary caregiver or not. In reality, there are going to be children raised by single dads; there are going to be children raised by grandparents; there are going to be children who are adopted by parents who aren’t able to induce lactation, even if they want to. There are going to be children whose mothers don’t produce enough milk, or who are on drugs not compatible with breastfeeding. If the anti-formula camp truly believe formula is so incredibly sub-par, then why the hell aren’t they rioting in the streets demanding better product so that babies will not suffer?
I do not believe formula companies are on our side, nor do I believe they have to be. They are corporations like any other, and I do not in any way think they are on par with Big Tobacco, like some have argued; I resent that they are treated as such under the auspices of WHO Code. On the other hand, if we are demanding that fast food restaurants put calorie counts on their menus, maybe it is appropriate to demand some accountability from formula companies. But I still think the onus of responsibility should fall on the same folks insisting that all women breastfeed. I think they have a responsibility to exhaust all other options, before they demand that of us.
Breastfeeding should be a rewarding, warm, loving experience, and I wish it were promoted as such. It isn’t, though. It is being promoted as medicine. Medicine which requires a physical, emotional effort on the part of mothers who live in a society where motherhood is difficult enough. If we are going to continue down this path, then I think we as formula feeders need to start making demands of our own. Better research. Better evidence. Better options.
And now, I better shut up.
About the Author:
Suzanne Barston is a blogger and author of BOTTLED UP. Fearless Formula Feeder is a blog – and community – dedicated to infant feeding choice, and committed to providing non-judgmental support for all new parents. It exists to protect women from misleading or misrepresented “facts”; essentialist ideals about what mothers should think, feel, or do; government and health authorities who form policy statements based on ambivalent research; and the insidious beast known as Internetus Trolliamus, Mommy Blog Varietal.
Suzanne Barston – who has written 428 posts on Fearless Formula Feeder.
Breastfeeding science has focused primarily on proving how much better breastmilk is than formula, without asking the more productive – and interesting – question: WHY. I'm talking about the biological, chemical why, not the moral or fundamental why. (i.e., I'm not interested in platitudes about how the natural will always trump the artificial, because that doesn't get us anywhere.) What is in breastmilk that makes it superior, and is there a way to reproduce this?”
This is *such* a great point. If I were in charge of assigning government grant money, I would not allocate one more cent to studying the benefits/risks of breastfeeding vs. formula feeding. Instead, where we've already established some kind of supposed effect of breastmilk, let's figure out what substance in breastmilk is causing it and whether it can be replicated for use in formula.
The lactivists I know online are uninterested in discussing even the possibility that formula could be improved. I've seen two primary arguments:
(1) Any supposed “improvements” formula companies make are for marketing/profit purposes, not for purposes of actually improving babies' health.
To this I say, so what? If it's an improvement, it's an improvement, and I don't care what the motivation was for making it. All kinds of real improvements in medicine and pharmaceuticals (not to mention virtually every other industry) have been motivated by profit. If a drug cures my disease, I don't care that Merck created it to make money.
(2) Breastmilk is so amazing and complex that adding something to formula to make it more like breastmilk is like getting “one step closer to the moon”–a pointless thing that is certainly not worth paying money for.
This reflects a kind of breastmilk-as-magical-substance thinking that you alluded to in the post, and it drives me crazy. Breastmilk is, as you say, “subject to the rules of our reality,” and it can be analyzed. If breastmilk actually has a significant effect on a particular disease or condition, it's because there are one or more components that are having that effect at a biochemical level. If we can figure out what those components are and add them to formula, thereby reducing that one “risk” of formula, that's significant.
I think that is great. I did go to the HCHW website and it mostly seems about telling individuals how to buy safer products though, which is again putting the impetus on individuals, rather than what action they are taking to remove unsafe products altogether. I personally, resent the stress of having to research everything and wonder if it is safe and can I afford the safe option? Really if it's not safe it shouldn't be available.
I hope you don't think I was trying to say that breastmilk is less safe than cow's milk. I wasn't. I was just giving an example of a public health issue that isn't given much attention (by mainstream groups in general) because collective action is required to solve it. We can't fix chemicals in breastmilk by telling mothers what to do – this is caused at the industrial level.
Amy, I agree. On a related note, something I find troubling is that whenever a new study comes out showing some new reason to breastfeed, the lactivists I know online seem *happy* about it. They seem to want to believe it's true, and sometimes they'll say things like, “Another great reason to breastfeed!”
But if, as they say, such studies show “risks” to formula-fed babies (who are going to exist in some number, no matter how good BFing support gets), every newly identified risk of formula should be really sad, right? If all you care about is infant health, then the optimal situation is one in which formula and breastmilk are identical. The only reason to be happy about studies showing they're not is if your primary goal is *not* infant health in itself, but rather convincing people to breastfeed.
Anna–I totally agree with you, but would add one more point.
If formula could be improved to be as good as breast milk by adding whatever component/s are currently missing, what is the incentive to breast feed then? There would be no more argument that FFed babies are dumber, fatter and sicker than BFed babies, because they would be fed the same thing (from a nutritional/biochemical standpoint).
The only advantage to BFing in that situation is that breastmilk doesn't cost money. Sure some women would prefer to BF for whatever reasons (save money, they enjoy it, don't want to carry around bottles) but I think BFing rates would decrease if formula was made in such a way that it had the same benefits as BFing. The real hardcore lactivists do not want to see that happen–they don't want formula to improve, that would undermine their ideology.
I've done a lot of reading on the corn syrup in formula issue and as far as I can tell you are right – it's not metabolically different. The problem for me is that corn is actually not uncommon as an allergen/intolerance, and once you get out of straight milk-based formula it's almost impossible to avoid (Alimentum RTF is the only one we could find, and by that time he was a toddler and it wasn't sufficient). And then they label Neocate and Elecare as “hypoallergenic” when they are really 50% or more made from the corn syrup solids. The whole situation damn near killed my kid; he is corn-intolerant and the doctors kept insisting that his formula was “hypoallergenic” so it was something wrong with HIM not his food.
I would *love* to see some company put effort into a line of specialty formulas made without corn. Milk and soy allergies/intolerances aren't the only feeding problems out there, but they're the only ones that really get attention from the formula companies (and really, doctors too) – so if you have a kid who can't digest milk OR corn, you're really up a creek.
I think only animal milks and soy are complete proteins. That might be part of it. So is quinoa but I've never heard of making a milk out of that. I wish I could find some information on corn syrup solids/corn malodextrin and whether they are actually any worse than other carb sources. For now I use formula that's only sweetened with lactose.
The thing I've found with organic formulas is that organic lactose is very expensive, so they tend to have less lactose and more plant-based sweeteners. This is a mixed bag. Earth's Best uses corn syrup solids, but the packaging calls them “glucose syrup solids” deliberately to mislead customers. I Earth's Best is also manufactured by PBM which makes all the store brand formulas, so buying the Walmart organic formula is literally the same thing. I believe their cans still have BPA however.
Similac organic uses sucrose (cane sugar) which I'm wary of because it is sweeter than other sweeteners. I find sticking with the non-organic Similac advance the lesser of two evils for now. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/us/19formula.html
Baby's Only uses organic brown rice syrup. I don't have any proof it's better (it sounds better, haha). Baby's only doesn't have DHA/ARA. There is some questioning of the manufacturing process, but I'm not sure if it's legit. They have a less processed DHA/ARA supplement from egg that you can add in, but they don't provide instructions for babies because….infants under 12 months should only have breastmilk DUH! I swear, I consider switching to Baby's Only because it's really the most “organic” “natural” formula out there, but their condescending marketing strategy just makes me not want to support them. If Baby's Only really is better I would like this to be more widely known. Instead they confuse the issue by calling their infant formula a toddler formula, telling you to go to a doctor if you want to feed it to an infant when doctors are not going to know what in the heck it is and are going to lean toward telling you to stay on the formula they are familiar with.
I think that formula companies spend money on marketing in addition to, not instead of, research and development. The leading companies are continually researching and refining their product. Are they perfect? No, but they are constantly working on it. Why? Because they want to make money, and for a formula company the way to make money is to make a product that results in thriving babies or can be clinically shown to have X, Y or Z benefits, so parents trust the name and want to spend the money on it. The best way to demand better formula is to vote with your wallet.
The ingredients of formula, however, are not anything like those of a chocolate bar.
I think the militant lactavist camp cares more about their agenda than babies. Some it seems go so far as to almost advocate the Darwinian survival of the fittest mentality. Especially when they try and cite 3rd world statistics and implement them as 1st world standard. The neglect to mention that those who dont thrive on the breast and where a wet nurse cant be found the child dies. You would think they would lobby for clean water and ask the formula companies to make donations to relief agencies to insure that these babies get fed and will thrive. But they dont, instead they just talk about how evil formula and Nestle are. I think they think that if a baby isnt thriving on BM than its best to let nature take its course and the child be allowed to starve to death as its “weak”
I wonder if this concern could extend to all the other factors that make children healthier or not as well – for example, encouraging mental health screenings for new mothers, classes on safe child dressing and the use of car seats (our hospital wouldn't show us or help us b/c didn't want to be liable so we used YouTube instructions!), and so on. The health risks posed by some of these matters seem as great if not greater than that posed by formula vs. breastmilk. Much as I support lactation programs in hospitals and found mine crucial for getting through the first few days.
Good to know that re: corn solids – I was just stunned at how similar the ingredients seemed to those on a chocolate bar. But at least Neocate did not stink like Alimentum (thank FSM!) I'm not crunchy per se but there's something about feeding a wee one that makes one a bit paranoid and I've started getting the organic milk and so on.
The most important thing obviously was that child did well and gained and did not scream constantly post-feed when on Neocate for which I was willing (and thankfully able, with some sacrifices) to pay what it took. Can't imagine what it's like when you have no options.
I'm glad you're working with HCHW, Annie. Getting toxins out of the environment will help everyone – breastfeeder, formula feeders, and people who don't feed babies in any way, shape or form (sometimes I forget these humans exist).
I, for one, would be happy to advocate for better formula. When we searched out formula for our daughter we did a lot of research to try and fine one that was organic, non-dairy (milk protien allergy), without high fructose corn syrup. We would have loved to find oat milk or goats milk formula as an alternative to soy (we were concerned about the estrogen complexes in soy) Or at least something with ingredients we could pronounce. Near impossible. We found one organic soy formula with bown rice sugar that we would have to have shipped from Ontario that cost an arm and a leg. I truly wish there were more options for us reluctant “crunchy” formula feeders!!!
As someone (I think FFF Brooke??) pointed out a while back, corn syrup solids are not the same as HFCS. Made from the same stuff, but in the end, CSS are just a form of sweetener, and are less sweet than HFCS or many other commercial sweeteners. It is a manufactured product, and if you're trying to stay away from corn, you should avoid it… but otherwise, I'm not sure on a metabolic level it's all that different from any other form of sweetener. Formula needs to be sweet so babies will take it; breastmilk has a high sugar count, and babies are programmed to prefer that type of taste.
I prefer natural sweeteners, and I totally agree with amoment2think that there should be better dairy-free (maybe even vegan) options on the market. It would solve a lot of problems (hormones in the cows milk, dairy allergies, concerns about soy) if they could make an oat, coconut or hemp-based formula. I did some research on this once and only got vague answers about how it wasn't possible to make a nutritionally adequate formula with these products. The amino-acid formulas (neocate) are dairy free, but I don't think they are vegan, and they are certainly not “organic”.
It must be frustrating to be someone who is “crunchy” and prefers things closer to nature and can't breastfeed; it's unfortunate there are so few options, and that the ones that are available are not affordable. Here in the States we do have a variety of organic formulas available, but they really aren't much different from the usual suspects. Just because they are made with milk from organic cows doesn't mean the rest of the ingredients are any closer to nature. I've heard good things about Earth's Best…
I'm a lactivist, a Canadian, and a supporter of our public health system. I do think that it needs more/better lactation support though. Budget cuts have unfortunately brought cuts to lactation programs in hospitals, which increases the chances that supplementing will be suggested as the first/best solution to breastfeeding problems within the first couple of days.
Antigone – brilliant point about individualism and its effect on BFing promotion vs formula regulation. Add to that the cult of motherhood and I guess people are more comfortable telling individual women it's all about being as self-sacrificing and dedicated as you possibly can and giving up everything for your child rather than thinking about social action to help children's health. On a related point, I wonder if lactivists are concerned with universal health coverage and other things that might lead to better health outcomes for children overall
Actually, there are a lot of us that are fighting against those toxic contaminants that get into our breastmilk and also into the milk of cows, which is used as a key ingredient in most infant formulas. I am a parent ambassador for Healthy Child, Healthy World, which is just one of many non-profit organizations that are actively trying to get contaminants out of our air, water, and consumer products, so that we can all live healthier lives.
This is a great post. Thanks for quoting me!
I think there are several things at work here. First, to many lactivists, breastfeeding is a religion. It's only about what's best for babies in an abstract sense. If they really cared about maximizing babies' well being, they wouldn't advocate informal milk sharing, they wouldn't encourage people to ignore medical advice and breastfeed while on untested rx drugs, or act like supplementing with formula is the absolute worst thing you could possibly do, when in some situations, it's absolutely necessary. People like this do not want to make formula better. They want to make it unavailable (except for “emergencies”), because in their dogmatic viewpoint, formula will never be human milk and therefore it will never be adequate.
Second, we have a major cultural challenge in the US. We like to consider ourselves an “individualist” society and now more than ever, any mention of a possible societal cause of a problem that must be solved collectively is dismissed as socialism and derided. It's downright easy and cheap for society to lay all the blame on mothers, to demand that they breastfeed if they care about their babies, to make breastfeeding yet another issue in which we prove our worth. Regulating formula companies and funding unbiased research on better breastmilk alternatives? Expensive. Difficult. Socialist.
Let's look a related issue – we have seen that breastmilk contains tons of environmental contaminants due to the fact that mothers are ingesting these contaminants. This issue gets precious little attention because you can't blame the mothers for it – contaminants are in the air we breathe, the water we drink – we can't avoid them. Do we see very many people studying where these contaminants come from, what they are doing to our children, and how to clean up our acts so that breastmilk can be healthier for babies? No. This would be expensive, and god forbid we place any impetus on corporations to excrete less pollutants! They would make less profits, and you know what happens when corporations make less profits.
Then we see articles about how pregnant women and small children shouldn't eat certain fish or too much fish because of mercury concerns. No mention of where the mercury came from in the first place (coal plants) or how we can prevent it from getting in our food chain. Nope, it's just yet another thing individual mothers need to deal with.
Finally, formula feeding families as a whole, do not have the scientific or nutritional knowledge to be able to make specific demands of formula companies. When people say formula is “junk food” it's not like they know specifically why they think it's junk food. Maybe because it's simply not breast milk, or it's “processed” (as I said, inevitable). Or they might have an issue with corn syrup, but I haven't seen any studies on how corn syrup is worse than lactose, rice syrup, or cane sugar as a source of carbohydrates for formula. I think this sentiment mainly comes from the research done on high fructose corn syrup in processed foods, which is not the same as the corn syrup used in formula. So how do we make formula better? We need passionate scientists who are concerned with this and not just proving for the millionth time that breastmilk is superior and end with that. We need funding for such research that doesn't come from formula companies (let's face it, the research from the formula companies is going to say whatever they just added to their formula is awesome). How do we get it? No freaking clue.
Sarah – you are totally right that you can't control for that – which is why I personally think the IQ thing isn't worth worrying about, as a formula feeding, extremely attentive/pro-education parent. In the study I was imagining, we wouldn't be comparing these 2 groups to the third group of formula feeders, just to each other. If the IQ differential was significant towards breastfeeders vs pumpers, that might infer that it is something in the act of nursing rather than the milk. But it would absolutely be subject to the same challenges as any infant feeding study. Perhaps a better study would be if we took a group of babies who were bottle feeding and gave one group donor milk and the other formula – blinded, of course.
Good catch, there.
In your paragraph, “Imagine what would happen if instead of a study showing a correlation between better cognitive development and breastfeeding,”…I'm not sure that that would even show if its really the breastmilk. I mean if you take a mom who is willing to pump and feed breastmilk–and a mom that can breastfeed straight from the source, how do you control all the years of parenting in between infancy and when the IQ is tested….Couldn't there be some parenting in between (regardless of breast or formula, regardless of bottle or straight from the breast) that could have an effect on what these studies are showing?? Could it be that all these moms who are willing to sacrifice the time and effort to give their babies breastmilk in any form are also willing to read to them and spend time with them etc? I'm a formula feeding mom who is willing to sacrifice any time and effort for my baby–and I think that could have a very positive effect on her IQ and cognitive development—how do these studies control for that??!!
This part of your post got me thinking: “Why is the government taking the easy way out – telling women to bear the burden of responsibility for our nation's health and intelligence – rather than investing money into research for better formulas that can improve health on their own merit? “
Absolutely – the govt needs to invest in formula development for public health, but will they do it given the privatization of health care in the US? Can WIC have any influence on this? Have any other countries with better public health records had any luck – anyone know?
I found Neocate pretty darned impressive and it worked like a charm for offspring's various fussies. But it also cost us about $500 a month and insurance did not cover it. Perhaps those who make this high end stuff (our doc referred to it as the Mac Snow Leopard of formula) think there's only a very small market for it. I personally got skeeved out by the presence of corn syrup and solids in most formulas. I do think they are regulated and they are pretty decent, but it would take more consumer awareness for buyers to push for even better formulas at an affordable price. I think it's similar to the standards for sunscreen in the US – any old sunscreen used to be able to call itself broad spectrum and the ingredients were always way behind what you could get in Europe and even Canada, but most people just saw it as a way to avoid burning and didn't care about cancer-causing UV-A radiation. Even now the Mexoryl sunscreens are really expensive and are marketed practically as beauty products or post-peel or post-skin cancer products. Don't have an answer, just pondering the economics of it.
I've had this argument before actually. Formula is constantly being improved and changed, and one lactivist who's always in my face online about it loves to point out how they change it and it's now an untested substance, that the ingredient they add usually is NOT proven to be any benefit it's just that the formula company goes “hmm… breastmilk has DHA… it may be connected to intelligence… let's add it, can't hurt right?” in order to sell more formula and make more money. Recently the formula companies are adding pre-probiotics to formula because breastmilk has prebiotics of some sort that may help with gut bacteria and the like. She crows how it's just to cheat people out of money since adding prebiotics means they can charge an extra buck or something, and it's untested to have any benefit, and could actually have harm. I mean, on the argument of BPA for instance… that's the whole reason why Enfamil introduced the new packaging where you buy a bag of formula to pour into a larger container, there's little to NO BPA! It only took like 2 years from the studies for them to come up with this solution and implement it. That's honestly not bad.
So here's their problem. You are trying to make a substance as close to breastmilk as you can.
Anyway, formula companies are constantly trying to improve. They do this to try and compete with one another and to sell their product as well as to have the differences between breastmilk and formula smaller so that more women will choose formula and they make more money. They do lipservice because it's a law from what I understand that they have to say breastmilk is best, and because a woman who is seeing formula as poison may let her baby starve before allowing poison to be given to her baby but a woman who sees the formula companies as supporting women (breastfeeding and formula feeding) is more likely to use their formula.
Will they improve with the recent research about weight gain and everything? Probably, I wouldn't be surprised if a new formula comes out in 2-3 years that has fewer hydrolyzed fats (as well as the substances they're now saying may improve intelligence.) And the lactivist I argue with will point out that they have no proof any of it will do any good, and that it's all less tested and they're using the babies as guinea pigs for this 'new' formula and charging more for this extra processing, and and I'll point out that the goal should always be to be as close to breastmilk as possible… and the argument will continue. She points out that these formula companies are funding research about formula vs breastmilk, and I point out that they should (she feels like if they truly believed breast was best they'd leave the formula as it is. It keeps the babies alive, the babies should not thrive on it.)
Why don't we push for formula to be changed for the better? We do, by buying the 'new formulas' that's closer to breastmilk, and by voicing concerns about things in it, and all the studies that the formula producers fund about whether there's a difference and what it is… I tend to believe we don't need to lobby to improve formula. They're trying to improve it as we speak. All we need to do is call them and make sure our concerns are heard and they'll incorporate it as possible changes to the formula in the future.
Oh beloved FFF, please don't ever ever ever shut up!
“If the anti-formula camp truly believe formula is so incredibly sub-par, then why the hell aren't they rioting in the streets demanding better product so that babies will not suffer?”
Indeed, that would be much more productive that blaming mothers, since blaming mothers obviously leads us nowhere. Of course, some will say, “well then you just have to breastfeed”, to which many of us will reply “but I *can't*” and we'll just keep going in circles.
This was something I'd never considered; thank you for giving me some food for thought!