Breast is not best, language, guilt and lactivism musings

[patch2006uk]

I think that a lot of the 'formula is normal' comes from the last few generations. Formula was this amazing, new, scientific product, and how could something made for free, and by boobies no less, compare to or be better than something made by scientists? In a lab! It's even called 'formula'. Ooh, science!

There is also a lot of misinformation that was peddled not that long ago. Breastfeeds must be 15 mins each side maximum no more than every 4 hours. No wonder babies lost weight and failed to thrive! These women then believed that they 'couldn't' breastfeed, because their milk just 'dried up'. It's true that their milk dried up, but only because of the stunningly bad advice they followed. This bad info gets passed down, mother to daughter, and the cycle of 'can't' continues.

The social aspects are the interesting ones. Poorer people breastfed, so the upper classes formula fed, to show off their wealth. The poor people then copied the rich people, as a social aspiration, and so fewer and fewer people breastfed. Now breastfeeding is seen as a middle class pursuit, something that most of the working class wouldn't consider doing.

It's a really weird cycle. And one that's very hard to break.

 

[vintage67]

My first son's latch issues started from severely low blood sugars due to my diabetes. I had a long, extended labor and subsequent c-section due to the onset of pre-eclampsia. (20 pound weight gain 3 days)

Within hours of his birth, he was trembling and his numbers were crashing. I did express as much colostrum as I could but it wasn't enough. They did the nasal tube of glucose and at first it looked like it was improving but he continued crashing into the 20's (1.1-1.7 on UK scale) A normal infant should be at least 40. I kept doing the syringes but I wasn't getting anything; drops. I gave it all to him. One afternoon he looked terrible and was cold. They took him to the nursery and called me and said his blood sugar was 18. (1.0 UK) They told me he was close to a coma. A blood sugar level of 15 (under 1.0 UK) could be a coma and brain damage. They said we had to feed him NOW. The formula saved his life. It took several days for his numbers to stabilize fully, with formula and what I could express.

It's hard to hear a product so maligned that saved your child's life. I realize my situation with formula is far from a lifestyle choice but when you hear it maligned so and the suggestion of the "risk" based campaign, you are including everyone in that. The new mother in my situation may have refused formula to the point of her baby being damaged if she has been so terrified of it by scaremongering. The stuff that revived my son was very stinky and extra rich and I thank G-d for it.

I would just hate to see ad campaigns make formula so much of a stigma that someone would be scared to make a proper health decision for their baby. This happened with someone in my neighborhood whose 9 day old daughter ended up in the hospital. She was so furious over the whole thing and the overly aggressive lactation consultants that she used that she put her second baby on formula at birth because she was still traumatized. This woman has a similar medical profile to mine; PCOS , diabetes, hypertension, thyroid disorder.

This is what I mean by such a campaign actually harming breastfeeding rates. It can cause a backlash. Formula is there for a reason, and the decision to use it should not be looked at as careless and irresponsible.
That reason could be as traumatic as mine or for many, many other causes.

Painting in such a bad light casts a wide net. You can't just flip a switch in your head and say, "Oh that didn't apply to me because I truly couldn't do it."
We all know that a woman with a double mastectomy wouldn't get a pass from some of the loudest lactivists out there. I've had my stories with each of my children belittled and been bombarded with, "If you'd only...",
"But did you..." and I'm talking about online and in real life.

I think I have a calling now to try and help other women through that transition from BF to FF when they have exhausted their efforts, are at a breaking point, have a very real supply issue, have to go on a medication, or any of the other very real reasons to turn to formula. I feel obligated to help.
That in no way makes me anti-breastfeeding. I'm all for it.

You don't drive your car down to a river and think of driving it in, come home and tell your husband of your decision to end your life, over not being able to do something that you don't support.

 

[midori1999]

My first son's latch issues started from severely low blood sugars due to my diabetes. I had a long, extended labor and subsequent c-section due to the onset of pre-eclampsia. (20 pound weight gain 3 days)

Within hours of his birth, he was trembling and his numbers were crashing. I did express as much colostrum as I could but it wasn't enough. They did the nasal tube of glucose and at first it looked like it was improving but he continued crashing into the 20's (1.1-1.7 on UK scale) A normal infant should be at least 40. I kept doing the syringes but I wasn't getting anything; drops. I gave it all to him. One afternoon he looked terrible and was cold. They took him to the nursery and called me and said his blood sugar was 18. (1.0 UK) They told me he was close to a coma. A blood sugar level of 15 (under 1.0 UK) could be a coma and brain damage. They said we had to feed him NOW. The formula saved his life. It took several days for his numbers to stabilize fully, with formula and what I could express.

It's hard to hear a product so maligned that saved your child's life. I realize my situation with formula is far from a lifestyle choice but when you hear it maligned so and the suggestion of the "risk" based campaign, you are including everyone in that. The new mother in my situation may have refused formula to the point of her baby being damaged if she has been so terrified of it by scaremongering. The stuff that revived my son was very stinky and extra rich and I thank G-d for it.

I would just hate to see ad campaigns make formula so much of a stigma that someone would be scared to make a proper health decision for their baby. This happened with someone in my neighborhood whose 9 day old daughter ended up in the hospital. She was so furious over the whole thing and the overly aggressive lactation consultants that she used that she put her second baby on formula at birth because she was still traumatized. This woman has a similar medical profile to mine; PCOS , diabetes, hypertension, thyroid disorder.

This is what I mean by such a campaign actually harming breastfeeding rates. It can cause a backlash. Formula is there for a reason, and the decision to use it should not be looked at as careless and irresponsible.
That reason could be as traumatic as mine or for many, many other causes.

Painting in such a bad light casts a wide net. You can't just flip a switch in your head and say, "Oh that didn't apply to me because I truly couldn't do it."
We all know that a woman with a double mastectomy wouldn't get a pass from some of the loudest lactivists out there. I've had my stories with each of my children belittled and been bombarded with, "If you'd only...",
"But did you..." and I'm talking about online and in real life.

I think I have a calling now to try and help other women through that transition from BF to FF when they have exhausted their efforts, are at a breaking point, have a very real supply issue, have to go on a medication, or any of the other very real reasons to turn to formula. I feel obligated to help.
That in no way makes me anti-breastfeeding. I'm all for it.

You don't drive your car down to a river and think of driving it in, come home and tell your husband of your decision to end your life, over not being able to do something that you don't support.

No one is saying that formula itself is a bad thing though. It is without doubt a valuble and much needed product, both in terms of where it's medically needed or because a woman chooses to use it. I don't think anyone here is 'anti formula' and anyone who is is a bit mad, IMO.

Re: the bit in bold. This is what BF counsellors can do if they get the chance. They are there to support and help women. Yes, primarily to breastfeed if that is what the woman wants but also to help them to mixed feed if that is what they want to do or to help them transition safely and smoothly to formula if that is what they want and to counsel them about their feelings regarding any or all of that. Contrary to popular belief, they don't exist to 'make' women BF at all costs.

 

[Tasha]

Vintage it must of been a scary time for you.

I think most people on this thread have said that a risk campaign would be the wrong way to go!

 

[summer rain]

I think it's a lot more helpful to every woman to hear "every ounce of breastmilk helps reduce the risk of X Y Z" as everyone can deduce the alternative.

But breastmilk doesn't reduce risks, formula raises them. We've come full circle!

...but your goal was to convince the uneducated public who was susceptible to advertising, was it not?

I'm still waiting to know of one person who wasn't aware that breastfeeding wasn't "normal" or "natural".

Sorry have to jump in here, 'me me'! Just reminded me of when MIL asked when LO would be moving onto 'normal milk' (meaning from BF to FF). It did make me chuckle at the thought of my 'abnormal' milk

I have to say, among my friends, I have many who have recently had babies. About 1/2 have BF and stuck with it for several months and the other 1/2 have decided to go straight to FF. I have to say, among the FFers I know, FF is generally seen as equal to BF and feeding choice seems to be more of a lifestyle choice (from what they have told me without me probing).

I don't know if changing the way BF is marketed as suggested in the OP would change perception, maybe so (they are all educated ladies I am sure aware of the benefits of BF as they are currently presented), but I do know (if only from reading how this thread has unfolded) that it would cause offence to some.

I guess the key is finding the right balance and I don't think we are quite there with the 'breast is best' approach. If anything I reckon the formula companies were rubbing their hands together when the campaign was released, to me it kind of makes BF seem elite and even unattainable.

This is just an observation, so no one tear my head off for this, but the FF being seen as "normal" seems more predominant in the UK, which seems so odd given that their births tend to be way more natural than ours across the pond... What changes suddenly after the babies are born?
Here we book our c sections like booking a hotel room, then walk out and proudly display our boobs to the viewing public lol

It does depend on the area, here in Essex there are very bfing focused

I'm not in Essex but on the borders (several of the TOWIE cast live literally a stones throw away), and many areas around here still have an essex address and postcode, I really think it depends on your health authority because around here they give lip service to BF but in hospital very few of the women are BF and there is even a formula trolley that they go around with and the midwives expect to be writing 'exclusively formula feeding' on your notes. In my particular 'neighbourhood' BF rates are high but in other areas of the borough they are lower than average and in a neighbouring borough where I used to live; BF rates are horrendously low and most women FF from birth. Its quite sad as the HCPs in that area are a lot more pro-BF than here but there is a huge FF culture there that they cannot crack. Recently the local health authority switched to just cow and gate on most wards in the hospitals here but before you'd have a choice of the big three (not hipp as they only recently did RTF bottles for hospitals) and the big cases of formula bottles would be clogging the corridors and even putting some rooms in the SCBU out of use because they had that much surplus. With my eldest they were using the little cow and gate bottles of sterilised water as breastmilk storage bottles, tipping the water out and throwing it down the sink because they had so many of these blimmin things they had no other use for them. xx

 

[patch2006uk]

Vintage it must of been a scary time for you.

I think most people on this thread have said that a risk campaign would be the wrong way to go!

I think most posters who haven't cried 'formula feeding isn't the same as a battery chicken' - which is so not what that article on page one says, it only says the marketing language is the same- have accepted that getting our language the right way up is important. In no other area of health is the biological norm presented as advantageous.

We're not saying that the campaign needs to be 'formula fed babies are more likely to be sick more often and for longer', just that if shouldn't be presented as 'breastmilk reduces risk of...'.

I disagree with vintage that telling women the facts would cause more guilt. No doctor would prescribe you a tablet but state 'not taking these tablets means you have less risk of high blood pressure', they'd say 'taking these tablets carries a risk of raising blood pressure'. Would you thn feel guilty for taking the tablets?? Or would you feel informed of what you're putting into your body?

I think what is overlooked is the hormonal side to giving up BFing. Your body doesn't know formula exists, so it grieves if you don't bf, thinking the baby has died. It's a hormonal response. How many women at the moment confuse 'guilt' with 'grief'?

 

[MommaAlexis]

That's really interesting! I never thought of it like that. I'm gonna research that grief thing a bit.

 

[Tasha]

I think most posters who haven't cried 'formula feeding isn't the same as a battery chicken' - which is so not what that article on page one says, it only says the marketing language is the same- have accepted that getting our language the right way up is important. In no other area of health is the biological norm presented as advantageous.

We're not saying that the campaign needs to be 'formula fed babies are more likely to be sick more often and for longer', just that if shouldn't be presented as 'breastmilk reduces risk of...'.

I disagree with vintage that telling women the facts would cause more guilt. No doctor would prescribe you a tablet but state 'not taking these tablets means you have less risk of high blood pressure', they'd say 'taking these tablets carries a risk of raising blood pressure'. Would you thn feel guilty for taking the tablets?? Or would you feel informed of what you're putting into your body?

I think what is overlooked is the hormonal side to giving up BFing. Your body doesn't know formula exists, so it grieves if you don't bf, thinking the baby has died. It's a hormonal response. How many women at the moment confuse 'guilt' with 'grief'?

I agree with most things you've said there (although the grief thing is a sensitive area for me, even though I KNOW there is research into it, I am sure given the circumstances I can be forgiven for that).

The thing with comparing it to taking a tablet and not feeling guilty, is that wouldn't be your baby, where there is immense pressure to do what is right and best for your baby, and by putting them at risk your not doing that. Would it encourage more women to BF? Maybe. Would it make women who felt they had 'failed' at BF feel worse about that? Probably. No one wants to harm or put their baby at risk and the wording is crucial to make sure BF and FF's are not further alienated from one another.

As for the for the mistaking grief for guilt. I think that it is probably a bit of both, they aren't mutually exclusive and so peoples very real guilt shouldn't be dismissed as 'just' a biological reaction x

 

[Tasha]

And sorry if that doesn't make sense on my phone with a tiny screen so frustrating. Sorry for typos too.

Also there are some women who don't try BF because of the pressure they feel they are under, whether that be from professionals or whatever. Do you think a risk campaign or even just changing wording to this (so simply just saying if you FF your childs risk of ..... Increases), could perhaps make women feel under pressure and therefore you see more women refusing to try for that reason?

I don't know the answer obviously, just sort of musing out loud x

 

[patch2006uk]

There are studies coming our constantly about things being less than ideal for babies. Infant paracetamol has been linked to asthma, less effective injections, and a few other things. does knowing that make moms who dish out calpol at every squeak feel guilty? Or does it allow them to take a calculated risk, weighing up the benefits vs the risks? Sleeping on the front being linked to SIDS. Does that make moms with babies who will only sleep on their front feel guilty, or allow them to take extra precaution to keep their LO safe? I think in Australia now they've added breastfeeding to the list of things to help prevent SIDS. Does that make FFing moms feel guilty? Should the info be withheld from new parents just to protect a few from feeling guilty?

I'd rather know the truth about whatever I've decided to do, even if that truth is hard to hear. Knowledge is always better than ignorance.

 

[Missy86]

I think it's a lot more helpful to every woman to hear "every ounce of breastmilk helps reduce the risk of X Y Z" as everyone can deduce the alternative.

But breastmilk doesn't reduce risks, formula raises them. We've come full circle!

...but your goal was to convince the uneducated public who was susceptible to advertising, was it not?

I'm still waiting to know of one person who wasn't aware that breastfeeding wasn't "normal" or "natural".

Sorry have to jump in here, 'me me'! Just reminded me of when MIL asked when LO would be moving onto 'normal milk' (meaning from BF to FF). It did make me chuckle at the thought of my 'abnormal' milk

I have to say, among my friends, I have many who have recently had babies. About 1/2 have BF and stuck with it for several months and the other 1/2 have decided to go straight to FF. I have to say, among the FFers I know, FF is generally seen as equal to BF and feeding choice seems to be more of a lifestyle choice (from what they have told me without me probing).

I don't know if changing the way BF is marketed as suggested in the OP would change perception, maybe so (they are all educated ladies I am sure aware of the benefits of BF as they are currently presented), but I do know (if only from reading how this thread has unfolded) that it would cause offence to some.

I guess the key is finding the right balance and I don't think we are quite there with the 'breast is best' approach. If anything I reckon the formula companies were rubbing their hands together when the campaign was released, to me it kind of makes BF seem elite and even unattainable.

This is just an observation, so no one tear my head off for this, but the FF being seen as "normal" seems more predominant in the UK, which seems so odd given that their births tend to be way more natural than ours across the pond... What changes suddenly after the babies are born?
Here we book our c sections like booking a hotel room, then walk out and proudly display our boobs to the viewing public lol

It does depend on the area, here in Essex there are very bfing focused

I'm not in Essex but on the borders (several of the TOWIE cast live literally a stones throw away), and many areas around here still have an essex address and postcode, I really think it depends on your health authority because around here they give lip service to BF but in hospital very few of the women are BF and there is even a formula trolley that they go around with and the midwives expect to be writing 'exclusively formula feeding' on your notes. In my particular 'neighbourhood' BF rates are high but in other areas of the borough they are lower than average and in a neighbouring borough where I used to live; BF rates are horrendously low and most women FF from birth. Its quite sad as the HCPs in that area are a lot more pro-BF than here but there is a huge FF culture there that they cannot crack. Recently the local health authority switched to just cow and gate on most wards in the hospitals here but before you'd have a choice of the big three (not hipp as they only recently did RTF bottles for hospitals) and the big cases of formula bottles would be clogging the corridors and even putting some rooms in the SCBU out of use because they had that much surplus. With my eldest they were using the little cow and gate bottles of sterilised water as breastmilk storage bottles, tipping the water out and throwing it down the sink because they had so many of these blimmin things they had no other use for them. xx

Thats interesting, my hospital Southend wont supply formula at all
Its funny how different hospitals in such a small area can be

 

[Missy86]

There are studies coming our constantly about things being less than ideal for babies. Infant paracetamol has been linked to asthma, less effective injections, and a few other things. does knowing that make moms who dish out calpol at every squeak feel guilty? Or does it allow them to take a calculated risk, weighing up the benefits vs the risks? Sleeping on the front being linked to SIDS. Does that make moms with babies who will only sleep on their front feel guilty, or allow them to take extra precaution to keep their LO safe? I think in Australia now they've added breastfeeding to the list of things to help prevent SIDS. Does that make FFing moms feel guilty? Should the info be withheld from new parents just to protect a few from feeling guilty?

I'd rather know the truth about whatever I've decided to do, even if that truth is hard to hear. Knowledge is always better than ignorance.

I have known women on the forum who feel extremely guilty for letting their baby sleep on their front but its the only way the baby will sleep

 

[patch2006uk]

There are studies coming our constantly about things being less than ideal for babies. Infant paracetamol has been linked to asthma, less effective injections, and a few other things. does knowing that make moms who dish out calpol at every squeak feel guilty? Or does it allow them to take a calculated risk, weighing up the benefits vs the risks? Sleeping on the front being linked to SIDS. Does that make moms with babies who will only sleep on their front feel guilty, or allow them to take extra precaution to keep their LO safe? I think in Australia now they've added breastfeeding to the list of things to help prevent SIDS. Does that make FFing moms feel guilty? Should the info be withheld from new parents just to protect a few from feeling guilty?

I'd rather know the truth about whatever I've decided to do, even if that truth is hard to hear. Knowledge is always better than ignorance.

I have known women on the forum who feel extremely guilty for letting their baby sleep on their front but its the only way the baby will sleep

Indeed. But it doesn't mean they stop telling people the risks. What if they decided instead to campaign 'the benefits of sleeping on the back'. Does that make sleeping on the front sound normal? What if they had that approach, and more babies died. Wouldn't there be a massive question 'why didn't you tell us the risks?'

 

[midori1999]

There are studies coming our constantly about things being less than ideal for babies. Infant paracetamol has been linked to asthma, less effective injections, and a few other things. does knowing that make moms who dish out calpol at every squeak feel guilty? Or does it allow them to take a calculated risk, weighing up the benefits vs the risks? Sleeping on the front being linked to SIDS. Does that make moms with babies who will only sleep on their front feel guilty, or allow them to take extra precaution to keep their LO safe? I think in Australia now they've added breastfeeding to the list of things to help prevent SIDS. Does that make FFing moms feel guilty? Should the info be withheld from new parents just to protect a few from feeling guilty?

I'd rather know the truth about whatever I've decided to do, even if that truth is hard to hear. Knowledge is always better than ignorance.

I have known women on the forum who feel extremely guilty for letting their baby sleep on their front but its the only way the baby will sleep

Indeed. But it doesn't mean they stop telling people the risks. What if they decided instead to campaign 'the benefits of sleeping on the back'. Does that make sleeping on the front sound normal? What if they had that approach, and more babies died. Wouldn't there be a massive question 'why didn't you tell us the risks?'

I think Patch has made some really good points.

Women have a right to know the facts and a right to be informed and be told the truth, so they can make an educated decision. I personally feel that by sugar coating it we are sort of saying 'there, there, silly. emotional little pregnant women who can't cope with the facts' and I personally give women more credit than that.

 

[freckleonear]

Indeed. But it doesn't mean they stop telling people the risks. What if they decided instead to campaign 'the benefits of sleeping on the back'. Does that make sleeping on the front sound normal? What if they had that approach, and more babies died. Wouldn't there be a massive question 'why didn't you tell us the risks?'

That's a really good comparison actually. "The benefits of sleeping on the back" makes it sound like front-sleeping is fine and normal but back-sleeping has some additional benefits. If I had been told that, I probably would have put my son to sleep on his front (because he was a terrible sleeper and very high needs baby) without realising that there were risks. I think it's very important to be told about risks because you can then make an informed decision, weighing up any other factors in your individual situation to decide whether it's worth the risk or not, and taking steps to minimise the risk if possible.

 

[Tasha]

Hmmm, here all the medical professionals (that I have seen) have made it a sort of benefit campaign rather than a risk. They will say things like putting them to bed on their backs with their feet at the foot of the bed decreases the chances of SIDS (obviously not word for word but you get what I am saying), I have never heard a professional say putting them on their tummy to sleep increases the chances of SIDS. Interesting.

 

[Missy86]

I wonder sometimes if they change the guildlines to much and ordinary mums cant keep up

In the 80s it was the guideline for babies to sleep on their front, did the number of SIDS drop after the new guidelines and what is the reason for babies to sleep on their backs

Sorry for all the questions I am honestly interested

 

[Tasha]

Missy, yes by a massive amount. Over 50%.

 

[Missy86]

Missy, yes by a massive amount. Over 50%.

Really wow

Its a wonder how I survived being born in 1986

 

[patch2006uk]

I wonder sometimes if they change the guildlines to much and ordinary mums cant keep up

In the 80s it was the guideline for babies to sleep on their front, did the number of SIDS drop after the new guidelines and what is the reason for babies to sleep on their backs

Sorry for all the questions I am honestly interested

Yes, the number of SIDS deaths has reduced since the 'back to sleep' campaign was introduced in about 1992.

I've seen a few theories for why sleeping on the back is safer: oxygen circulates easier as face isn't near the mattress; the sleep is less deep, so babies arouse easier; some babies have an immature part of their brain, and sleeping on the back can help keep the airways open and remind the baby to breathe; if the baby is sick, they might inhale it if on their front, and effectively drown in it

Just for balance - I have also seen some arguments that the back to sleep campaign has coincided with a reduction in smoking levels amongst new parents, and alcohol consumption, both of which may also be responsible for the number of deaths reducing, alongside babies sleeping on their backs.

My mom was a neonatal nurse in the 80s, and she thought putting a baby to sleep on their front was really unnatural. They always put the preemies on their fronts when she worked.

I don't think it's fair to say that guidelines change all the time. Mostly they change every couple of decades, on the basis of new information.