A public health perspective on formula use & breastfeeding advocacy – Guest Post

I’m incredibly thankful that someone in the field of public health is taking a stand on how we ignore the reality of formula use, and I really hope others will follow. We need decision-makers and influencers – physicians, scientists, public health professionals, nurses, politicians, hospital administrators – to start looking more closely at these issues, and to speak up when they see flaws in the current system. It’s the only way true change can happen.



A public health perspective on formula use and breastfeeding advocacy:

What we don’t say matters


by Hillary Kuzdeba, MPH


In the United States, the majority of babies will receive formula at some point during their first year. Despite what we may personally believe about the importance of breastfeeding, it is critical that medical and public health professionals keep this fact in mind when we design infant feeding educational initiatives for families. When we fail to discuss formula with families, or worse, when we purposefully withhold information on formula from them, we are doing families and infants a great disservice.


Today, most of the breastfeeding advocacy programs implemented in hospitals, birth centers, and OBGYN/midwifery practices utilize a two pronged approach to encourage breastfeeding. The first method, which is the active promotion of breastfeeding, is immediately apparent. Women are empowered to breastfeed through intensive educational materials, classes, consultations, and support groups. The second method is less noticeable, but important nonetheless. Here, strategic obstacles deter women from formula feeding. The obstacles include the reorientation of discussions about formula back towards the “breast is best” message, limiting access to formula during hospitalization, and generally withholding any information on formula lest it “encourage” the family to use it. Used in tandem, both methods create an environment where breastfeeding is presented as the only healthy feeding option. This is why pro-breastfeeding institutions rarely disseminate any information on formula feeding, except to mention that it is suboptimal. In these environments, families will find a myriad of resources on lactation, breastfeeding positions, latching, pumping, and other breastfeeding topics. Meanwhile, practical guides discussing formula selection, appropriate mixing, safe storage, and feeding have been almost completely eliminated.


The first method employed by these programs is wonderful. Most of us agree wholeheartedly that women who want to breastfeed should receive extensive support. I did, and I am so thankful for the resources that helped me breastfeed for as long as I did. But it is the second part of the advocacy approach that worries me, both as a public health professional and a mother. The strategy of withholding health information from patients and families, out of a misguided fear that more information might encourage an undesired behavior, has long been debunked by the scientific community as ineffective and potentially harmful. And yet we continue to implement this strategy in regards to formula feeding.


Some public health researchers, advocates, and other parties may balk at this statement. They may point to evidence suggesting that placing obstacles in the path of a decision can “nudge” individuals towards a different choice. That may be true in specific instances, such as smoking or alcohol use, where the undesired behavior is recreational, unnecessary, addictive, and downright harmful. But infants must eat, formula is a proven healthy option, and breastfeeding can be very challenging for numerous physical, psychological, and social reasons. Most women in the US initiate breastfeeding. So when they do use formula, it is usually a conscious decision for reasons outside of personal preference. Withholding information from these women does not “nudge” them towards breastfeeding. A lack of knowledge about formula does not make extreme nipple pain disappear, or milk flow. It does not change a baby’s mouth structure, or eliminate a working mom’s 12 hour shift. All it does is create the impression that a parent has no option other than breastfeeding.


How does this strategy really play out?


  • When a parent who is aware of the benefits of breastfeeding still wants to talk formula, twisting the conversation into another discussion of how “breast is best” is not education – it’s intimidation. This behavior alienates and stigmatizes her, while simultaneously undermining her intelligence and personal authority. It is a form of intellectual bullying, and it delays the provision of requested education on formula feeding. When we use this approach, the message we are sending is clear: “You must not be aware that formula is a poor choice. Let me reeducate you because you clearly aren’t getting it. Maybe now you’ll come to the right decision.”


  • If a woman is really struggling to breastfeed and we oppose her when she requests formula, we create a power struggle with a vulnerable parent who is just trying to feed her child. This undermines her trust in us and causes anxiety. She may begin to question whether we really care about her and her infant. This can be devastating for our relationship with poor women, minorities, or other groups who already have reason to be suspicious of the medical establishment or government due to past medical and scientific abuses.


  • When we send new parents home with absolutely no education on even the basics of formula feeding like appropriate bottle cleaning and safe storage, we are purposefully withholding critical safety information that could potentially result in harm to an infant. Even parents who appear committed to exclusive breastfeeding should still be educated on these subjects given that most will end up using formula at some point. Assuming they won’t need this information is wishful thinking.


Worst of all, when we create an environment that strongly implies that we are against formula, we accidentally send the message that breastfeeding should be prioritized above all else, including the health of mother and baby. In this environment, our silence on formula use speaks volumes. It overexaggerates the risks of not breastfeeding to the point where mothers may actually endanger themselves and their babies in a desperate effort to avoid the dreaded F word. No mother should be so hesitant to give her child a bottle that the baby ends up hospitalized for extreme dehydration or malnutrition. No mother should be so afraid of formula that she spirals into depression over her inability to breastfeed. And no mother should be led to believe that formula is so risky that she is willing to turn to unscreened, unregulated human milk from an anonymous stranger on the internet to feed her child. And yet, this is happening every day across the US.

Educating families on safe formula selection, preparation, feeding and storage in no way undermines breastfeeding. If a mother is committed to exclusive breastfeeding, providing her with an extra handout on formula use is not going to change her mind. But including that same information can make a world of difference to a family who finds themselves in need of formula. When we include formula in our discussions, our classes, and our educational materials, we create a safe space that shows parents we are on their side – regardless of how they feed their baby. I think that is a strategy we can all get behind.

Hillary Kuzdeba holds a Master of Public Health (MPH) with a focus on social behavioral science, health promotion, and women’s health. Over the last few years, she served as the program coordinator for a large nursing research group at a renowned Children’s Hospital. Today, she spends her days at home taking care of her beautiful, formula-fed daughter.

All new parents deserve a place at the consumer protection table, not just breastfeeding ones: A response to the “Day of Action: Keep Infant Formula Marketing Out of Healthcare Facilities”

Public Citizen is known for its advocacy for ordinary citizens who have been harmed by large entities–and rightly so.  Much good has been done by this organization in the name of everyday citizens who otherwise have little power to lobby our government for stronger laws and regulations to protect our society.  However, Public Citizen’s recent event, “Day of Action: Keep Infant Formula Marketing Out of Healthcare Facilities,” does not accomplish the goal of protecting consumers.  A consumer protection advocacy organization has an obligation to women to support their right to bodily autonomy, as well as support their and their children’s health care needs—issues that are sometimes incompatible with breastfeeding and do not currently receive sufficient support in our breastfeeding-centric post-partum health care model.

The Day of Action fails to address many of the true issues that affect women’s and children’s ability to breastfeed.  A complete lack of formula advertising is not going to enable women with insufficient glandular tissue (IGT) to make sufficient milk, or change the fact that many women have to take necessary medications that are incompatible with breastfeeding.  It is not going to prevent complicated births or medical conditions in babies that sometimes make it exceedingly difficult – or impossible –for moms to breastfeed.  It does not reduce adoptive or foster families’ need for formula.  And a lack of advertising is not going to change the fact that some women do not want to breastfeed, and have a right to their bodily autonomy.  While we agree that it would be best for parents to receive information about formula from a non-profit source, currently, there is no such source that provides accurate, unbiased formula information, even to families for whom breastfeeding is not an option at all.

The Day of Action implies that information about formula is plentiful and accurate.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Information about formula is typically riddled with fear mongering about not breastfeeding and uses value-laden language that assumes women who use formula lack perseverance or are selfish, lazy, uneducated, immoral, or ambivalent about their children’s health, despite ample evidence to the contrary. Formula supplies in hospitals are hidden in drawers or even locked up.  Lactation consultants are held to the WHO Code and urged not to discuss formula unless under special circumstances (lest it send a message that formula is “just as good as breastfeeding,” even though it is a medically appropriate option, and sometimes the only option).  Doctors are not taught about formula preparation and are frequently scared off of even talking about formula for fear of being labeled anti-breastfeeding.  Where are formula-feeding families supposed to get the accurate, unbiased, judgment-free information they need?

Perhaps Public Citizen is unaware of the extent to which breastfeeding marketing relies on shaky claims.  Maternity wards are typically papered over with literature that claims breastfeeding improving babies’ IQ and helps new moms lose weight—claims that some assert are based on poorly-done research that frequently confuses correlation with causation, and that have not been borne out in more powerful, well-designed studies.  Recent research on breastfed and formula fed siblings (three well-regarded published studies[1]) showed little to no long-term effect of breastfeeding for a number of oft-mentioned issues.  These studies are powerful because, unlike many other studies on breastfeeding, variables such as parental IQ, educational status, and socio-economic status are much better controlled.  Several large metastudies (including those conducted by WHO[2] itself and the United States’ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality[3]) have found that the evidence in favor of breastfeeding is marred by confounding factors.

A consumer protection advocacy organization has the responsibility to ensure that advertising claims are based on sound science, but the “absolutes” plastered on maternity ward walls, city buses, and doctor’s offices (“Breastfeeding prevents asthma[4]”, “breastfeeding makes babies smarter[5]”, “Breastfed babies grow up stronger, healthier and smarter[6]”) and liberally sprinkled in literature distributed to new parents do not fulfill this criteria. Public service messages cannot be immune to the regulations that restrict other advertising.

Further, perhaps Public Citizen is unaware of how much of the advertising for breastfeeding actually benefits corporate entities.  New moms in hospitals are given sample tubes of Lansinoh nipple cream, Medela breast pads, and coupons or ads for local boutiques that sell breastfeeding products such as Boppy nursing pillows and covers.  It is common for new mothers to receive sample magazines, which exist both to promote themselves as well as the advertisers within. It seems counter to Public Citizen’s goals to protest one form of advertising and not others.

Women deserve to know the full range of medically viable options for feeding their children, in an unbiased, accurate, and judgment-free manner, and we feel a consumer protection organization should be at the forefront of that fight.  Formula feeding parents need help, advice, and support just as much as breastfeeding parents. Unless Public Citizen is willing to help establish a non-profit center to train “infant feeding consultants”, not just “lactation consultants,” whose job is to support all medically viable methods of feeding a baby, this Day of Action seems just another way to deny formula-feeding families what little information they can still get about their health care options for their children.  It seems to contradict the stated goals of Public Citizen to protect consumers.

We encourage Public Citizen to speak with actual formula feeding parents, many of who feel marginalized in our healthcare system for the choice or necessity of formula.  Breastfeeding—and products and service providers who support it—is so heavily promoted in hospitals that formula feeding families are left without the kind of education or support that breastfeeding families receive. As there are no non-profit sources of education for formula, other than a few websites run by mothers who have taken up the charge, companies are the only remaining source. This is not ideal, but it is currently all we have. We encourage Public Citizen and all who support this Day of Action to read the stories of actual formula-feeding parents, the vast majority of whom report seeing no advertising prior to using formula, at FearlessFormulaFeeder.com, and consider how they may equitably represent the needs of pregnant, birthing, and post-partum mothers and their babies at the consumer protection advocacy table.


Concerned Members of the FearlessFormulaFeeder.com Community



[1] Evenhouse, Eirick and Reilly, Siobhan. Improved Estimates of the Benefits of Breastfeeding Using Sibling Comparisons to Reduce Selection Bias. Health Serv Res. Dec 2005; 40(6 Pt 1): 1781–1802; Geoff Der, G David Batty and Ian J Deary. Effect of breast feeding on intelligence in children: Prospective study, sibling pairs analysis, and meta-analysis. BMJ 2006;333;945-; originally published online 4 Oct 2006; Colen, Cynthia G. and Ramey, David M. Is breast truly best? Estimating the effects of breastfeeding on long-term child health and wellbeing in the United States using sibling comparisons. Social Science & Medicine, Volume 109, May 2014, Pages 55–65.


[2] Horta, BL and Victora, CG Long-term effects of breastfeeding: A systematic review. World Health Organization, 2013.

[3] NIH Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Breastfeeding and Maternal and Infant Health Outcomes in Developed Countries. Evidence Reports/Technology Assessments, No. 153, April 2007.



City of Ottawa Public Health Unit’s “Informed Consent” webpage: A case study in (un)informed consent

An anonymous FFF reader has allowed me to publish the following letter, which she sent to her local Public Health unit in Ottawa. I visited the site that caused her so much consternation, and I was equally incensed. Please click here to see what she and I are talking about:

Make an informed decision about feeding your baby

My thoughts on the Ottawa website follow this letter. I’d also encourage you to check out the letter sent by the blogger at Awaiting Juno. And, if you’re feeling inspired to do so and happen to be a citizen of Ottawa (or even if you just feel like giving them your opinion), feel free to write your own letter and send it to healthsante@ottawa.ca.


Dear City of Ottawa Public Health Unit,

I discovered the following webpage on Informed Consent and was utterly dismayed at what I had read.

I had my daughter seven years ago and am hoping to have another child within the next two years. When I was pregnant with her I knew I was going to breastfeed her. I felt that formula was vastly inferior. Unfortunately having breast hypoplasia (something that none of the literature of had prepared me for), made exclusive breastfeeding an impossibility. My daughter went from losing weight on my breasts alone (I did have a postpartum nurse who was very concerned about my breasts due to their shape and spacing, but I dismissed it as an unsupportive nurse, not as her giving me relevant information on my situation), to thriving on formula.

That page isn’t giving informed consent, it is scaring women into breastfeeding by bringing up scary words like “obesity”, “SIDS” and “Cancer”, without mentioning any potential  drawbacks for breastfeeding (including not being able to take certain medication and that it can be a physically and emotionally draining experience for some) and without making any positives about formula. It also doesn’t mention that formula prepared properly is a valid feeding method and choosing it doesn’t mean that a child will end up toothless, obese, diagnosed with cancer, or dead. From what I have seen about the research the main risks are a higher rate of gastrointestinal viruses and ear infections (which my daughter did get, when she was 5 and a half years old). For a woman who might be already sad that breastfeeding isn’t working out with them, such phrasing of information without perspective or actual risk amounts could contribute to postpartum depression. I should know- seeing that kind of information online (it exists all over the internet) after switching to formula was a contributing factor to my own depression.

You mention on the first page that the Baby Friendly designation includes supporting women’s feeding choices, but I do not see how that supports a formula feeding woman at all and could increase the stigma and isolation about using a product that is in fact very safe to use in our city.

I encourage you to take that “Informed Consent” page down and rework it so that it does not demonize formula. The benefits of breastfeeding in all honestly should be able to stand on its own without resorting to demonizing formula. Furthermore, I am more than willing to help with any rewording to help formula feeding moms feel more supported in their choice.

As a taxpayer, mother and a woman who felt intense guilt for 2 years for using a product that nourished my daughter where I couldn’t (I also have the perspective that she is a very healthy, active 7 year old), I urge you to reconsider your approach.

Yours truly,



Before I return to my Pad See-Ew, which is currently getting cold (yet another reason to be annoyed at the city of Ottawa – they are ruining my damn dinner), I want to add a few of my own thoughts to Anonymous’s letter.

The document on the Ottawa Dept. of Health website is coercive and factually inaccurate, starting with the first sentence. They state:

Deciding how you are going to feed your baby is one of the most important decisions you will make as a parent.

What the “most important decisions” you’ll make as a parent are is entirely subjective.

Next, they state:

Making an informed decision means you have all of the information you need to help you decide what is best for your family.

Yep. Exactly. You deserve accurate, dispassionate information so that YOU can decide what is best for YOUR family. This document does the polar opposite. It confuses correlation and causation (I only see two uses of the important qualifier “may” in the lists of benefits and risks – for example, they claim that breastfeeding “helps to protect against cancer of the breast and ovary.” It would be accurate to say that breastfeeding “may help to protect…” or “has been associated with a lower risk of…”, but the way they pronounce this benefit makes it sound proven without a doubt. This is simply not true); it does not mention any of the potential downsides of breastfeeding, nor the benefits of formula feeding (even if they’d just said “the ability to feed your child when breastfeeding isn’t working or there isn’t a mom in the picture”, it would have sufficed); and most importantly, it does not leave the reader with any choice other than to breastfeed, or feel like an inadequate, terrible human being. And before someone starts misquoting Eleanor Roosevelt to me, let me stop you: yes, people CAN make you feel guilty without your consent. Or if you can’t agree with me on that, let’s forget about guilt – how about embarrassed or judged? Can people make you feel that way without your consent? And what if you’re not in any emotional place to give that consent? Like when you are a hormonal pregnant or newly postpartum parent, and it’s your city government posting a bunch of fear-inducing drivel under the headline “the benefits or breastfeeding for the baby, mother, family and the community”? How about then?

The document’s piece de resistance is this half-assed suggestion at the bottom of the page:

If you have made the informed decision to formula feed and need information on how to prepare it safely, please visit Ottawa Public Health’s Food safety page.

Ah, I see. So if you’ve made a decision to do something that causes nothing but inconvenience, pain, and suffering for you and your child (and your community- can’t forfet your community!) based on this “information”, you should just go to a different department, because we’re freaking OVER you. Notice that when the link for more information on breastfeeding follows this taxonomy:

Residents>>Public health>>Pregnancy and babies>>Healthy baby and parenting>>Feeding your baby>>Breastfeeding

There is NOTHING about formula in this “Feeding your baby” section. Instead, formula feeding monsters, er, mothers are directed to:

Residents>>Public health>>Food safety and inspections>>Baby Formula

Apparently, healthy babies and parenting only has to do with breastfeeding. Formula feeding is on par with selling hot dogs at softball games.

I don’t even know what to say, except to all the soon-to-be moms and currently formula-feeding or combo-feeding mothers in Ottawa, I am so, so sorry. Your city health department sucks donkey balls. And if I were you, I’d start the angry tweets and emails right. Freaking. NOW.

Twitter: @ottawacity

Email: healthsante@ottawa.ca



Dear Beverly Turner: You do realize the definition of misogyny, right?

Dear Beverly Turner,

I suppose you could call me the Queen Bee of the Gobby Women, or the Ringleader of the  “Noisy loons creating ‘Brestapo’ caricatures to appease their own consciences“. I’m quite proud to wear these labels, if you’re going to insist on stooping to schoolyard name-calling, but on behalf of my gobby, looney sisters, I wanted to respond to your allegations that we are partly to blame for the recent, slight decrease in UK breastfeeding rates.

The thing is, Ms. Turner, you’re operating under the assumption that we are incorrect in our assessment of current breastfeeding rhetoric. Your experience may not have matched ours, but why is your own truth more valid or weighty than the truths of hundreds of other women – a group so adamant, in your estimation, that we can make an impact on the collective consciousness of your great nation? Do you really believe that we are all just making this stuff up? Perhaps formula feeding correlates with a vivid imagination; I have yet to see a study showing this association, and I’ve read practically every infant feeding related study to hit a peer-reviewed journal in the past 5 years. But considering how you’ve positioned yourself as a master social critic in this arena, I suppose I should bow to your expertise in this matter.

So, let’s go with your theory for a moment. Let’s say that we all are making this up, that none of us have been bullied, shamed, scared, or downright devastated by how breastfeeding is currently promoted. If society is really so bottle-friendly, and formula feeding is “cool”, why would we be inspired to create an elaborate group fantasy to assuage our feelings of inadequacy? I’d assume that if the cool kids were formula feeding, we’d be wielding our bottles of Aptamil with pride, rather than lurking behind our anonymous keyboards, haranguing innocent breastfeeders on Mumsnet.

Or maybe – bear with me for a moment – there really are women who have been thrust breast-deep into severe postnatal depression after failing to breastfeed. Perhaps women truly exist who were raped or sexually abused in childhood, for whom a NCT nurse shoving a breast in a baby’s mouth triggers horrid memories that make a new mom want to throw her babe against a wall. Suppose there are adoptive mothers for whom the constant barrage of articles and admonishments about how superior breastfeeding mothers are to formula feeding ones is like nails on a chalkboard (if the chalkboard was your heart). Consider an alternate universe where some parents really do end up starving their babies to the point of hospitalization because they were worshipping at the altar of the almighty exclusive breastfeeding edict despite a physical inability to produce sufficient milk (there may only be 2-5% of women who are physically unable to breastfeed, but with the current British birth rate around 800,000/year, we’re talking 16,000 women at minimum- nothing to sneeze at).

I won’t discuss my reality or experience here, because I’m American. And honestly, one woman’s experience is hardly important in the grand scheme. However, I can happily point you to hundreds of personal stories British women have shared with me over the years, women who reflect the groups I’ve just “made up” in the last paragraph. I suppose they could all be lying, but I think it’s just as likely that you’re extrapolating a data set of one (yourself) to your entire country, without stopping to think about the women you’re hurting in the process.

Regardless of who is right, I would like to see these masses of vocal harpies who are crushing the hopes of expectant mothers hoping to breastfeed. I am curious why they would lobby for the NHS to cut funding for breastfeeding support, considering they tried to breastfeed and couldn’t; one would think that better support would have been welcomed by these “failures”. Claiming that the current state of breastfeeding support is harmful is not synonymous with being anti-breastfeeding; quite the contrary. With the right kind of support, not only would more women be able to meet their breastfeeding goals, but those who chose not to or could not breastfeed wouldn’t feel sufficiently disenfranchised to spend hours arguing with people like you online.

Instead of trying to understand where we are coming from; instead of listening to our experiences with an open mind and accepting that just because we dislike the posters on the maternity ward walls, we still love breastfeeding moms (and many of us wish we could have been one), instead of trusting your fellow women – you threw us under the bus.

Lastly, speaking of misogyny, I assume you know that the definition of the term is a “hatred, dislike or mistrust of women”. The only person I see hurling hatred and mistrust towards a large group of women (because formula feeding mothers who rail against a systemic failure to support our efforts while simultaneously shaming us are, in fact, still women, despite their lack of lactational abilities) is you.


A particularly noisy, gobby loon (and proud of it),

Suzanne Barston

Breastfeeding might not protect kids from obesity. So what?

The past few days have produced a flurry of articles on how breastfeeding may not protect against obesity. You’d think I’d be shouting an obnoxiously loud DUH or TOLD YOU SO. Instead, I want to poke my eyes out and claw at my ears until they bleed. That’s maybe slightly dramatic, but seriously – I’m at my wit’s end, here.

The truth is, there have been quite a few studies and reviews that showed negligible or conflicting results regarding the effect of infant feeding practice on later obesity (ie, this one, this one, or this one). That hasn’t stopped numerous government or health organization from urging us to support breastfeeding because it will solve the obesity epidemic, opting to focus on this convoluted claim rather than the myriad of health benefits that have been repeated consistently over metastudies and reviews (i.e., lower risk of gastrointestinal infection, lower risk of ear infections, hell, even the IQ thing is more soundly supported by the research).

I get why there’s more attention being paid to this finding – it comes from the PROBIT study, which is the closest thing we have to a randomized, controlled experiment in the infant feeding world (other than sibling studies, of which there have been exactly two- at least that I’ve been able to unearth). For those who don’t spend their free time reading the canon of breastfeeding research, let me give you the Cliff’s Notes: PROBIT was a study undertaken in Belarus, which had low breastfeeding rates at the time. They took a cohort of pregnant moms and gave one randomized group more intensive prenatal breastfeeding education and baby-friendly hospital etiquette when they delivered; the other group got the status quo by way of breastfeeding support. The thought was, the group that got better education and support would breastfeed more exclusively and for longer; the other group probably wouldn’t.

Are you confused? You should be. The thing that puzzles me (and hopefully you as well) is that while this plan might have convinced more women to initiate breastfeeding, the same pitfalls that plague all breastfeeding research still remain. Some of the women in the “breastfeeding friendly” group still – presumably – could not breastfeed for physical reasons, others may have chosen not to. All this study can really show us, after all the necessary confounders are accounted for, is whether this type of breastfeeding promotion and support can increase breastfeeding rates. Otherwise, it’s basically more of the same. There are still fundamental differences in the women who were able to breastfeed and those that couldn’t/didn’t.

But, for whatever reason (desperation?) the medical and advocacy communities have grasped onto PROBIT as the Holy Grail of irrefutable breastfeeding science. So, if PROBIT shows that breastfeeding confers no protective effect against obesity, that means something. (Incidentally, as the babies involved in PROBIT get older, I’m sure we will see a lot of headlines on the long-term effects of breastfeeding… so if you’re interested in this stuff, try and familiarize yourself with it now. Here’s some good literature on it, to get you started.)

While I believe, based on my reading of additional research into the obesity link (more on this in Bottled Up, not that I’m plugging my book or anything. I mean why would I have to, book sales being as horrible great as they are?), that there truly is little to no advantage to breastfeeding in regards to later obesity, there’s no excuse for bad science or bad reporting. And this, my friends, is a both. We are taking ONE finding from ONE study – a well-designed one, to be sure, but far from perfect or immune from the problems plaguing most infant feeding research- and proclaiming its results as absolute truth. The sad thing is, some of the biggest breastfeeding advocates are just as guilty of this as the knee-jerking media: Dr. Ruth Lawrence, one of the founders of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine, even admitted that she was “disappointed” about the result (although as someone so wisely pointed out on our FFF Facebook page, how freaking ridiculous is it that she is “disappointed” to find out that the vast majority of Western babies – being that they are nearly all at least partially bottle fed – are not doomed to a life of morbid obesity just because their mothers were “suboptimal” breastfeeders?? And what does this suggest about the inherent bias of breastfeeding researchers?).

The near-hysteria surrounding this finding is just further evidence of how warped our thinking is around infant feeding. Why is it such a big deal that breastfeeding doesn’t solve the obesity epidemic? Because we’ve made it a big deal. We’ve built a house of cards on top of this one health claim: it’s the basis of the First Lady’s push to support breastfeeding; Mike Bloomberg has used it to justify locking up formula in NYC hospitals; pretty much every article about breastfeeding in the past year has suggested that formula fed babies better start saving up for Lap Band surgery. The grotesque amount of fat-hating aside (because if you think formula feeders have it bad, you should see how awfully we treat overweight people in our public health discourse), it’s ridiculous that we’ve focused so much attention on this supposed benefit of breastfeeding when common sense says that our nation’s growing waistlines are due to a multitude of factors – genetics, cultural differences, lack of clean air/safe streets/room to move in our cities, processed food, sedentary lifestyles, the time we waste on the (ahem) internet….

My hope is that breastfeeding advocates and health officials might learn from this; that they might take a step back and reassess the way they are promoting something that should be a basic human right as a medical necessity. But at the very least, I hope this will be a cautionary tale for those of us who strive for critical thinking to remain skeptical of absolutism, in both science and in life.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...