They're clever...

[NoodleSnack]

"chain mothers up and force them to breastfeed"?? wtf? I think at least the majority of pregnancies are planned. No one chained anyone up and forced them to have children. Breastfeeding is part of having a child-- it's how you feed them. No one would ever stand up for a woman's "right" to leave a child in a 2x4 play yard all day; why can't that be construed as "chaining a mother up and forcing her to take care of her child"? New mothers need access to cold, hard facts. Not placations about how formula is "fine".
As for babies and choosing, the difference between the scenarios is that in the milk scenario, you're forcing the poorer choice onto your child when they would choose the healthier choice. In the sleep scenario, you're making the better choice for your child. No one would support forcing a child to eat McDonald's and a coke if they'd instead eat the veggie stew and a water that are also available.

I don't think you support baby's choice as such, if a baby prefers bottle and the mother can't get any milk from a pump, would you tell her to feed him formula in a bottle because that's his preference? It's more that you think women shouldn't have a choice to feed their babies what you deem to be inferior, that's a bit of a god-complex.

Babies often prefer to sleep on their fronts, which is also proven dangerous. Of course it's not about giving a baby a choice. It's that, as human beings and mammals, our bodies expect breastmilk. Just like they expect to drink water, not coke. They work at their optimum level with the intended inputs.

We aren't just any mammals though, we are a specie that is highly intelligent, living in complex societies with many considerations going into the raring of our youngs and dealing with different societal pressures. If it's just one variable that makes babies grow up to reach their best potential, then it would be a simple thing to push BF, but that isn't the case.

 

[patch2006uk]

It kind of is the case, though, isn't it. I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing. There are no long term studies on formula use. Since it's become more commonly used, allergies, asthma, autism and add and obesity have become more common. We can't extrapolate all the variables of the data-that would clearly be impossible-but it's a bit suspicious, no? And some people could use those extra couple of IQ points.

We don't even know what's in breastmilk and how it works. Bit arrogant of us to assume we've perfected the 'formula' and our alternative us harmless.

 

[NoodleSnack]

It kind of is the case, though, isn't it. I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing. There are no long term studies on formula use. Since it's become more commonly used, allergies, asthma, autism and add and obesity have become more common. We can't extrapolate all the variables of the data-that would clearly be impossible-but it's a bit suspicious, no? And some people could use those extra couple of IQ points.

We don't even know what's in breastmilk and how it works. Bit arrogant of us to assume we've perfected the 'formula' and our alternative us harmless.

I'm arguing that how we feed our babies is not the only variable that goes into whether they reach their best potential, that there are many things we need to consider when we raise a child and the decision to BF or FF aren't always a simple one.

It's not suspicious at all, there are good reasons why diagnosis of allergies, asthma, autism and obesity has gone up without it having anything to do with formula. Everyone has their own favourite (conspiracy-)theory about why those things appear to be on the rise, from vaccines to pollutants to GM food to our farming methods. It could very simply be because we are more likely to catch these conditions than before, in other words, the diagnosis has gone up, not the prevalence rate. For obesity, look at the portion size and lifestyle, think France (which has very high FF rate) VS America, or NZ (very high obesity rate).

I don't think anyone has assumed that we've "perfected the 'formula'" so that's a strawman, and that doesn't have anything to do with whether the alternative is harmless or not.

 

[patch2006uk]

So many people think formula is 'just as good' as breastmilk. Maybe you know it isn't, but many genuinely believe that's the case. Especially the generation or two before us, who were told that their milk was insufficient and that formula was required.

I agree that there are many variables. But I genuinely believe that nothing is going to have as big an impact on lifelong health as what you're fed exclusively during the time of intense brain growth and initial development. Of course you can be formula fed and healthy, but your body has been deprived of some key components during its formative years. Of course that will have an impact, and it's impossible to know for whom it will be devastating and for whom it really won't have made much difference, until it's too late and any damage is done.

 

[pinklightbulb]

Why are we arguing over the right to choose formula in a thread in the BF section? Lol. Oh dear.

On the actual topic: that ad is shocking. In Australia they soon won't be allowed to put on cans "with added such and such!!!" anymore because it implies breast milk is deficient in these things. The advertising of stage 2 and up formula is still allowed, however I think it should be a blanket ban, not just stage 1. Subliminal advertising can be extremely cunning and plant many seeds of doubt that needn't be there.

And this is from a FF mother who had to stop BF months ago. I still know the difference and support the banning of formula advertisements because the companies are deceitful and ruthless, and only care about their bottom line, not your baby's health.

 

[MommyJogger]

If there's no difference in outcomes, then it's not "impactful", it's only "impactful" for the cases where the out comes indicate a difference due to the feeding method.

And I don't think you've thought very deeply about what you're pushing here. There are many things that hurt hundreds of babies a year, sometimes baby wearing incorrectly can cause hip dyspepsia, should we ban baby wearing as prevention? The list can go on, where does it end? Or really, it's not about preventing harms to baby pre se, but about BF?

Once again, I would call saving the lives of hundreds of babies "impactful". That's hundreds of babies in the general population, including full term, healthy, good weight, infants with all other risk factors (smoking, alcohol consumption in pregnancy, maternal education level, economic class) controlled for. Those are babies like yours and mine, not just the sick ones. If you were to ask me if I'd jump up and down and pat my head every two hours for a year to halve my baby's chances of dying from SIDS, the answer would be an unconditional "yes". I think most would say the same. And this is just one outcome associated with feeding method. If you could lower their risk of acute respiratory infections, adult IBS, painful recurring ear infections, type 2 diabetes, food allergies and intolerances, why would someone choose not to do so? You can look at one stat and say "well that risk isn't very high", but if you pool risk factors and assume even a moderate level of overlap, you're looking at a statistically significant chance that formula feeding will result in reduced lifetime health.
Are there things that you can do incorrectly that can cause negative outcomes? Yes. The difference is that even "correct" formula feeding results in a decrease in overall child health.

You make it sound like most women who supplement or don't breastfeed without a "medical reason" are very superficial. Maybe where you're from that's the case, but where I'm from the most common "non-medical" reasons I've heard are that the mother is exhausted or in pain and needs a break or she has to go back to work, it's not because she want to go to a bar or "doesn't want her boobs to sag".

But in any case, I don't see why you should be the judge for what legitimate for each person, you don't know their circumstances - that's the god-complex I'm talking about.

Sorry, but being exhausted and in pain is called childbirth and taking care of a newborn. I don't see how people can go into it not expecting that. Going back to work should not mean that babies are given formula on day 1 or even that breastfeeding stops completely. If you can nurse at night, then nurse at night. If you can pump, then pump. And if it were the norm for formula to be used as a last resort, mothers who go back to work and want to continue breastfeeding would have a lot easier time of doing so-- it would be expected for them to take pumping breaks instead of employers being able to expect them to just use formula and mothers having to negotiate for space or time. (And sorry if this offends someone, but "pumping at work is annoying/inconvenient/I just don't want to" is a selfish reason. Don't respond to the pump? I absolutely sympathize. Work fast food/somewhere else where you literally can't pump to make ends meet? I absolutely sympathize. Just don't want to? Bitch, your wants don't come first anymore.)
As for the god complex, every human judges. We all have ideas about when it's okay to do things in certain situations. We'd never condone poking our babies wit a needle unless they're getting a medical procedure done, for example. You should never have open heart surgery performed on a baby without medical necessity. Does that mean I have a god complex about those too? No, it means I'm human and it's natural to categorize and evaluate what we see as acceptable and unacceptable behaviors.

How do you define "extraordinarily inferior"? There are many considerations that goes into raising a child, how do you know that BF or FF is the better option for each person without knowing their circumstances? Who are you to judge?

Millions of years of evolution vs 60 or so years of men going "How can we make this as cheaply as possible". That's how I define extraordinarily inferior. Having all the nutrients processed out vs containing everything necessary for growth and development in bioavailable forms = extraordinarily inferior. Learning how to eat to fullness vs stomach stretching causing overeating and obesity = extraordinarily inferior. And I would argue that providing proper nutrition is one of the biggest things that goes into raising a child.
Not changing dirty diapers has no scientifically proven long-term effects. Does that mean I'm Judgy McJudgerson for thinking it's not okay to just leave your baby sitting in a dirty diaper all day because you can't make the effort to change diapers? Or is that considered "chaining a woman to the changing table all day"? I'm sure if given an alternative, many women would resent their infants if they had to spend all day making sure they're clean and dry.

in my family, our idea of a stew is pork belly or pork hog stewed until the fat just melt in our mouth, with some vegetable thrown in, my granddad's fried noodle with vegetable is so salty it makes McDonald's fries seems tasteless, so McDonald would be a healthier choice. Make judgement for your own circumstances, unless you're god and privy to the lives of others, you're not the best person to judge what's best for them or their baby.

1)That almost turned me vegan.
2) That's not veggie stew
3) You don't have to be a god to know that there are people out there who choose to ff for selfish reasons and that formula is subpar nutrition.

The medical conditions I referred to are things like CMPI/A that makes formula more difficult for them. Most studies would look at the general population, I don't know if the studies account for them or not, if they haven't, then accounting for them would make the risks for things like reflux and eczema that are symptoms of these conditions appear lower among FF infants.

Again, "doubling the risk" sounds scary, but it's still a very small risk.

These infants appear in the general population, yes. The idea behind statistics is that you have a mathematical way to determine whether the prevalence of these conditions in the population is to blame for the outcome or whether the data can be extrapolated to apply to the general population. In this case, it can. It's not just saying "hey look, these things are higher in ff infants", it's "hey, these things are higher in ff infants when we control for x, y, and z and our sample size allows us to say our confidence level that this applies to everyone and isn't being confounded by a minority in the sample is very high."
"It would never happen to my baby" syndrome is too common and was also said by the mothers who chose to ff and lost their babies to the preventable side effects. Risk rationalizing is a poor practice to take part in and somehow ff is the only practice that gets a pass to do this. Very few would sympathize with the mother who leaves blind cords down because "it's a very small risk". So why is the risk okay with ff, but not okay in other practices?

 

[MommyJogger]

Anyway, back to the topic. ::MJ checks watch:: Yup, formula companies are still greedy and manipulative.

 

[Keyval]

I have inverted nipples and they are so bad my doctor said there was no point breastfeeding . Wether that was true or not I didn't really wanna breastfeeding anyway tbh . Some very judging people on this thread that would make any mother who ff feel guilty . My baby is super healthy and only every been sick once in 10 months . Bf wasnt something I was comfortable doing anyway . Does that make me selfish and a bad mother ? It's great that people bf and well done but it's not for everyone .

 

[BigAl]

Not to be rude or anything, but it comes to something when you can't even big up bf in a breast feeding forum. It's bad enough I feel I have to hide the fact I bf from my ff feeding friends, just in case I make them feel guilty. So I will say politely if you don't like bf then please don't post negative comments on a bf forum (positive comments/questions always welcome)

But yes that advert is awful, so sly, I hate formula companies. I should get round to reading the politics of breastfeeding.

 

[pinklightbulb]

I think sometimes people forget that this is the BF forum and that stating facts about BF doesn't equal bashing formula.

 

[patch2006uk]

I have inverted nipples and they are so bad my doctor said there was no point breastfeeding . Wether that was true or not I didn't really wanna breastfeeding anyway tbh . Some very judging people on this thread that would make any mother who ff feel guilty . My baby is super healthy and only every been sick once in 10 months . Bf wasnt something I was comfortable doing anyway . Does that make me selfish and a bad mother ? It's great that people bf and well done but it's not for everyone .

Inverted nipples arent a reason not to breastfeed, though. Mine are still pretty flat after almost 2.5 years of BFing. It's great that your lo is healthy, but that doesn't mean that everything said about FFing isn't true. Formula fed babies are statistically less healthy on a population level. Not every baby will be as fortunate as yours.

 

[Tiff]

Closed for review.