Eco-Mama

By Wendy Correa
Issue 95, July/August 1999

In the past few decades we have become increasingly aware of the need to radically alter our lifestyles in order to draw less upon our natural resources. Breastfeeding is probably the most overlooked means of contributing to the health of our planet.

Breastmilk is a valuable renewable natural resource that is the most ecologically sound food source available. It is produced and delivered to the consumer without using other resources, and it creates no pollution. In contrast, artificial baby milk production pollutes our land, air, and water and uses up natural resources. It also causes the deaths of one and a half million babies every year and ill health in countless others.1 Breastfeeding is not just a lifestyle choice; it is a health issue for mother and infant, a social issue, and an environmental issue.

Each year more and more scientific evidence is gathered to prove what many people already intuitively know: that a mother's milk is the best food for her baby. In December 1997 the American Academy of Pediatrics issued its most aggressive statement to date urging mothers to breastfeed for at least a year and beyond, "for as long as mutually desired."2 Mother's milk alone provides all the nutrients necessary for a baby's physical and mental development for at least six months, with the added benefit of natural immunity against numerous diseases. Breastfed babies experience fewer incidents of ear infections, allergies, diarrhea, bacterial meningitis, childhood lymphoma, sudden death syndrome, and diabetes.3,4

Concerns have been raised in the last few years about potential pollutants absorbed by mother's milk from the environment. According to La Leche League International, "In reviewing investigations of contaminants in mother's milk...the research shows consistently that even in a polluted world, breastfeeding offers advantages which outweigh the risk of ingesting possible contaminants. Indeed, the benefits of breastfeeding may prove to be essential to compensate for and outweigh the risks of toxic effects from the environment. The focus of scientific concerns should be directed toward removing such chemicals from our environment, not casting doubts about the only unprocessed source of perfect nutrition for infants-human milk."5

Indeed, there may be more risk of contaminants associated with the use of artificial baby milk than with breastmilk. Pesticides, fertilizers, and antibiotics-all potential contaminants-are part of the production of cow's milk and soya used in artificial baby milk, and other contaminants have been found. Some of the formula recalls in the last few years have been triggered by the discovery of high levels of phytoestrogen hormones, high levels of aluminum and lead, bacterial contamination, unsanitary production linked to gastrointestinal illness, salmonella, and glass particles mixed in with the powder6 Researchers in the Netherlands found dangerous bacteria, which can cause meningitis and sepsis, in 52.5 percent of the formula samples they cultured from 35 countries.7

Breastfeeding provides benefits to the mother who breastfeeds as well as to her baby. Women who breastfeed reduce their risk of ovarian cancer, pre-menopausal breast cancer, and post-menopausal hip fractures; reduce postpartum bleeding and iron deficiency anemia; and delay ovulation as a natural means of child spacing.8

Here are ten more reasons why breastfeeding is best:

Producing artificial baby milk contributes to inefficient use of land, deforestation, and soil erosion. Each grazing cow that produces milk used in artificial baby milk needs about 10,000 square meters of land.9 Wooded land is cleared for pasture, leading to deforestation as well as depletion and erosion of the soil. Land used to grow cattle feed in Third World countries is often land that was formerly used for family food production or was forested. Brazilian forests, for example, are cleared and burned to make way for soya plantations. Soya is used to feed cattle and as a base for some artificial baby milk. Growing soya also requires a high amount of fertilizers and irrigation.

People in non-industrialized countries often use wood as fuel to heat artificial milk; each bottle-fed baby requires a minimum of 73 kilos of valuable wood each year.10 One study determined that producing one kilogram of formula in Mexico costs 12.5 square meters of rain forest.11 Gabrielle Palmer, a nutritionist and breastfeeding counselor, states: "Human milk is a commodity which is ignored in national inventories and disregarded in food consumption surveys, yet it does actually save a country millions of dollars in imports and health costs. The Mozambican Ministry of Health calculated in 1982 that if there were a mere twenty percent rise in bottle-feeding, in just two years this would cost the country (the equivalent of) 10 million US dollars, and this did not include fuel, distribution, or health costs. They also calculated the fuel required for boiling the water would use the entire resources from one of the major forestry projects."12

The manufacturing of the packaging of artificial baby milk creates toxins and uses paper, plastic, and tin. For every 3 million bottle-fed babies, 450 million tins of formula are consumed.13 The resulting 70,000 tons of metal in the form of discarded tins is not recycled.14 The 550 million tins of artificial baby milk sold each year to bottle feed US babies alone stacked end to end would circle the earth one and a half times;15 550 million tins equals 86,000 tons of tin and 1,230 tons of paper labels.16