I'm not sure where you think I said "nutrition has no part in childhood health", but it kind of muddies the water, don't you think?A wet nurse would have fed your child.How would a wet nurse have helped?
Has anyone bothered to mention infant mortality rates before formula existed?
Infant mortality rates weren't higher because of a lack of formula, but almost completely down to childhood diseases with no vaccinations, antibiotics or penicillin, unhygienic living conditions and other socioeconomic factors.
If there was one available. Or if you were wealthy enough to afford one. If there wasn't you made do- you fed your baby milk from another species or you fed them pap- a mix of flour and water or bread and water and you dealt with a child that was "sickly" and probably would not make it to 5 years of age. To say that nutrition has no part in childhood health is a bit short-sighted, if nutrition has no part in childhood mortality then breastfeeding would not have made a difference either.
Mortality rates were higher because of all the things you mentioned. But they were certainly higher because there was not a suitable, readily available alternate. Formula is a life saver. That's why it was invented, to save babies lives. The whole "formula companies are bad because they are all about profits" irritates me- i don't see the same vitriol toward medela, they are out for profits with their pumps and their supplementary feeding systems, and the manufactors of nipples pads and creams and boppy pillows are out to make a buck out of breastfeeding just as much as the formula manufacturers. We live in capitalist system. Everything we buy benefits a company and profits. Just because one is warm and fuzzy and the other stigmatised doesn't made the end result any different.
I also think it's inaccurate to make a corellation between infant mortality rates improving in any significant way with the advent of formula. In fact it's quite the opposite in a lot of countries if you bother to look beyond your own borders.
It's also inaccurate to suggest that formula is "readily available" in terms of price. That stuff is expensive and for the vast majority, it's not safely available.
No-one is denying that formula is a lifesaver in some situations, but that doesn't mean we're not allowed to question the way it's marketed. I put trust in life-saving antibiotics because the state decides which ones to buy and allow doctors to prescribe, with nothing to do with profit. Companies whose most important target is profit, and this has always been the case for formula companies, are suspicious in general and up for debate, no matter what they market and especially if what they market is what we are feeding our newborns.
The whole "don't criticise formula companies because they provide lifesaving nutrition" line irritates me, as does the "we live in a capitalist system" argument. You're basically saying "don't question anything because there's nothing to be done about it". You may be happy in the knowledge that you and your immediate family are doing just fine, but some people get worked up about what these supposedly god-like companies are up to and the effect they have on other human beings, and that is our right, if we're lucky enough to live in a democracy