The Dangers of Formula - Page 5

[krystyn33]

Originally Posted by annettemarie

I am pretty sure that not one person on this thread has talked about walking into a room full of formula-feeding mothers and spouting abuse with them. Rather, we have talked about the change coming from doctors, midwives, etc.

I would agree with this, but we're not talking about opinions, we're talking about facts. And I think even facts need to be presented with love. But they need to be presented.

Yes! ITA.

[KirstenMary]

Originally Posted by annettemarie

I would agree with this, but we're not talking about opinions, we're talking about facts. And I think even facts need to be presented with love. But they need to be presented.

It's all about the presentation. Which do you think would have more of a positive impact on a FFing mother?

"BFing can increase a your child's IQ," or "FFing is going to lower your child's IQ."

[annettemarie]

Originally Posted by KirstenMary

It's all about the presentation. Which do you think would have more of a positive impact on a FFing mother?

"BFing can increase a your child's IQ," or "FFing is going to lower your child's IQ."

Neither, actually. But I think laying out all the risks of formula feeding to a mother before she chooses between breastmilk or formula could make a huge difference.

FWIW, I don't believe either of those statements are true.

Breastfeeding doesn't increase a child's IQ. A breastfed child's IQ is the norm.

Formula feeding doesn't lower a child's IQ. But a child who is fed formula will not reach their full normative potential.

[delphiniumpansy]

Originally Posted by annettemarie

I would agree with this, but we're not talking about opinions, we're talking about facts. And I think even facts need to be presented with love. But they need to be presented.

But, the FACT is that formula is not dangerous. It is not as healthy as breastmilk but it is not dangerous. And statements like this

But a child who is fed formula will not reach their full normative potential.

just serve to be divisive and do nothing to further the cause.

I knew nothing about breastfeeding before my first child was born. I fell into extended breastfeeding by accident. What would have helped to know more and to plan to nurse as long as possible right from the start would have been my OB talking about it as the best choice right from the beginning instead of giving me formula samples and free diaper bags. The rhetoric spouted in this thread about formula babies having lower IQs and formula being dangerous angers me and I am a breastfeeder. I also volunteer for a pro breastfeeding organization that assists moms in feeding their babies. We have LCs to help and low cost and free pumps to rent and all sorts of supplies and ways to help moms and encourage nursing. Even then, with all that help, there are still some who cannot or do not breastfeed. To tell them their children are going to be dumb because of that is mean and untrue. To tell them they are doing something dangerous is also false. And, it does nothing to help them to breastfeed the next baby. Nothing.

[annettemarie]

I posted a link earlier that stated, factually and statistically, the risks of formula feeding. I'm not sure how those facts can be interpreted as anything other than they are.

[delphiniumpansy]

To clarify, the problem is with the loaded language. You put people off with loaded language like "dangerous" and "lower IQ" but you bring people in with words like "benefitial" and "natural." It would do better to the cause to use the latter two when referring to Bfing rather than the first two when referring to formula.


You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar!

[rmzbm]

Originally Posted by annettemarie

Neither, actually. But I think laying out all the risks of formula feeding to a mother before she chooses between breastmilk or formula could make a huge difference.

FWIW, I don't believe either of those statements are true.

Breastfeeding doesn't increase a child's IQ. A breastfed child's IQ is the norm.

Formula feeding doesn't lower a child's IQ. But a child who is fed formula will not reach their full normative potential.

Just what I was going to say.

I don't think facts should be sugarcoated. Even if unpleasent to the intended audiance. Sure, be nice...but the point needs to be made. The point can be lost with TOO MANY nicities.

[BugMacGee]

Heck, I just tell people I was back to pre pg weight 3 weeks pp, a fact which I attribute to BF'ing. That's a big selling point for some!

The fact that it costs NOTHING, that's another biggie for others.

Practicality here. Future, seemingly theoretical, statistical risks aside.

[rmzbm]

Originally Posted by delphiniumpansy

To clarify, the problem is with the loaded language. You put people off with loaded language like "dangerous" and "lower IQ" but you bring people in with words like "benefitial" and "natural." It would do better to the cause to use the latter two when referring to Bfing rather than the first two when referring to formula.


You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar!

I think the point trying to be made here though is babies aren't "benefited" by BM, cuz it's nothing above the norm.

[delphiniumpansy]

Originally Posted by annettemarie

I posted a link earlier that stated, factually and statistically, the risks of formula feeding. I'm not sure how those facts can be interpreted as anything other than they are.

You all can present it the way you want to. I am on your side when it comes to the idea that breastfeeding is best. Where I disagree is how to convert others. I can guarantee you that if you walk up to a pregnant woman who is planning to formula feed and tell her she is not going to have as smart a child because of the formula and that formula feeding is going to increase her child's risk of death, she is going to be so put off she will just stop listening to you.

If you talk to her OB and train that person to talk to the mom-to-be about the benefits of breastfeeding to both mom and baby, you will win more breastfeeders that way. If you sit down with that mom and chat about how breastfeeding worked for you and all the reasons you like it, all the reasons it is great for babies, then you will win converts. If you talk about how you lose baby weight faster, you lower your risk of breast cancer, you spend far less money, etc, you will win more converts. But, I do think that the OBs are the key. They need to talk to moms a lot more about breastfeeding and stop giving out those dang formula samples.

[songbh]

Originally Posted by delphiniumpansy

I can guarantee you that if you walk up to a pregnant woman who is planning to formula feed and tell her she is not going to have as smart a child because of the formula and that formula feeding is going to increase her child's risk of death, she is going to be so put off she will just stop listening to you.

If you talk to her OB and train that person to talk to the mom-to-be about the benefits of breastfeeding to both mom and baby, you will win more breastfeeders that way. If you sit down with that mom and chat about how breastfeeding worked for you and all the reasons you like it, all the reasons it is great for babies, then you will win converts. If you talk about how you lose baby weight faster, you lower your risk of breast cancer, you spend far less money, etc, you will win more converts.

What is your evidence for these claims?

I ask b/c the "benefits of BFing" and "breast is best" approach is how BFing education/promotion has been done for years now. And it's not working. Our society's BFing rates are abysmal.

Moreover, other successful public health campaigns that sought to change people's behavior have done so by portraying the undesired behavior as risky, dangerous, potentially catastrophic. Like the crash test dummies for promoting seat belt use. When people realized that by not wearing their seat belts, they were putting themselves and their kids at risk unnecessarily every day ... they started buckling up. Those were some harsh, scary, shocking images in those crash test dummies ads. They stuck in your mind so that you were compelled to change a habitual behavior. What's more -- as public awareness of the importance of seat belts increased, so did political pressure to require safer passenger restraints in new cars. So this "negativity" and "scare tactics" actually ended up changing the entire culture -- not just individual behaviors, but political discourse and our physical built environment -- for the better.

So I'm curious how you can "guarantee" that a public health message that neglects to fully inform society about the risks of non-emergency use of breastmilk substitutes will "win more converts" to breastfeeding? Because your argument flies in the face of a good deal of research, and, I daresay, logic.

[songbh]

Originally Posted by KirstenMary

It's all about the presentation. Which do you think would have more of a positive impact on a FFing mother?

"BFing can increase a your child's IQ," or "FFing is going to lower your child's IQ."

Why do you assume that FFing mothers are the target of breastfeeding promotion? Isn't that just a little bit like analyzing a birth control campaign for its likely impact on postmenopausal women?

Seriously, though, I really am frustrated by this very common argument against effective breastfeeding promotion on the grounds that it makes women who don't or didn't breastfeed feel bad. There are lots of other people who might really be helped by more effective lactivism -- babies who deserve the food their bodies are designed for being at the top of that list, but also mothers who want to breastfeed but can't find the information and support they need to succeed because everyone around them is telling them formula is just as good and won't do any harm and whatever they do they shouldn't feel guilty. And not to mention fathers, teachers, neighbors, coworkers, and taxpayers, all of whom would benefit from being surrounded by generation after generation of people who are as healthy and bright as possible.

I think the target of lactivist discourse should be, first and foremost, the policymakers and budget-planners of government, industry, medicine, and education. After that, society at large -- the kind of folks who see public ad campaigns when done properly and not hamstrung by an unethical formula industry and a compromised AAP -- in other words, everyone who watches TV or sees billboards. Third, I would target America's schoolchildren, female and male alike, through health education curricula. Fourth, every student in medical or nursing school. Fifth, pregnant women.

Mothers who already are not breastfeeding don't even make my list for BFing promotion campaign targets. Not that I want them to feel left out or anything, just ... you know ... logic?

[songbh]

Originally Posted by bri276

a doctor lecturing about the *dangers* of something so widely accepted to be safe, regardless of the truth or reality behind it, is not going to be as effective as a fresh new approach that makes someone perk up and listen.

Discussing the non-emergency routine use of formula as risky or potentially dangerous IS the fresh new approach that makes people perk up and listen.

It's soooo complicated.

Agreed. There is no silver bullet, no overnight cure.

We can't just begin lecturing people about dangers of something that doesn't appear dangerous at all.

Why not?

I'm asking seriously. So long as your answer isn't, "Because that might make FFing mothers feel guilty!" I'm interested in why you think we "can't" start telling people that something they have long believed to be safe and normal is in fact risky and inferior.

[G8P4]

You all can present it the way you want to. I am on your side when it comes to the idea that breastfeeding is best.

And herein lies the rub. Breastfeeding is not best. It is just the biological norm for our species.

[saimeiyu]

you know, the more i think about it, the more i want to compare formula to fast food.

Think about it. it's highly processed, doesn't adequately meet ALL the needs that a newborn baby's body is expecting after birth (i.e. beneficial bacteria and antibodies/lymphocytes, etc), and carries an increased risk of diabetes, obesity, etc.
How is it different from fast food?
Seriously. I'm not being facetious or mean, or anything... I just think it might be an apt comparison, and one that might get people's attention.

lots of people know that fast food is bad for you, but millions of people eat it every day, and most of them are at least superficially "ok" or "fine"... it's food, but it's not food that's GOOD for you. if you have no other options, it will keep you from dying of starvation, and that's about the sum total of the benefits it will give you.

it might have the potential to make moms who ff out of necessity feel bad, but maybe it might also help to encourage using donated breastmilk whenever possible. I know a lot of mom's that don't even know donated milk *might* be an option.

so i think another part of encouraging more bf/breastmilk usage is how do we encourage BM donation? are there nonprofit milk banks? would it be feasible to start a grassroots type of milk bank? I know that the spread of HIV might be a concern, but what else? How much is donated BM in relation to FF? and how can we get insurance companies to cover it? or maybe even WIC?

I think if more moms knew that formula is basically the baby equivalent of fast food, more might re-think the choice to FF.
(BTW, i'm sure it would probably be best have to be MD's and midwives that stress this point.)

[Tine]

Originally Posted by songbh

Mothers who already are not breastfeeding don't even make my list for BFing promotion campaign targets. Not that I want them to feel left out or anything, just ... you know ... logic?

Ditto. C'mon, people, we're talking about changing the way DOCTORS sell BF to women who WANT TO BF or ARE UNDECIDED. We are not talking about pitching BF to FF moms. Mmmmkay?

[goodheartedmama]

Originally Posted by delphiniumpansy

To clarify, the problem is with the loaded language. You put people off with loaded language like "dangerous" and "lower IQ" but you bring people in with words like "benefitial" and "natural." It would do better to the cause to use the latter two when referring to Bfing rather than the first two when referring to formula.


You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar!

I really don't think people in this thread are going to get that. The title of the thread says it all.

[krystyn33]

Originally Posted by songbh

Why do you assume that FFing mothers are the target of breastfeeding promotion? Isn't that just a little bit like analyzing a birth control campaign for its likely impact on postmenopausal women?

Seriously, though, I really am frustrated by this very common argument against effective breastfeeding promotion on the grounds that it makes women who don't or didn't breastfeed feel bad. There are lots of other people who might really be helped by more effective lactivism -- babies who deserve the food their bodies are designed for being at the top of that list, but also mothers who want to breastfeed but can't find the information and support they need to succeed because everyone around them is telling them formula is just as good and won't do any harm and whatever they do they shouldn't feel guilty. And not to mention fathers, teachers, neighbors, coworkers, and taxpayers, all of whom would benefit from being surrounded by generation after generation of people who are as healthy and bright as possible.

I think the target of lactivist discourse should be, first and foremost, the policymakers and budget-planners of government, industry, medicine, and education. After that, society at large -- the kind of folks who see public ad campaigns when done properly and not hamstrung by an unethical formula industry and a compromised AAP -- in other words, everyone who watches TV or sees billboards. Third, I would target America's schoolchildren, female and male alike, through health education curricula. Fourth, every student in medical or nursing school. Fifth, pregnant women.

Mothers who already are not breastfeeding don't even make my list for BFing promotion campaign targets. Not that I want them to feel left out or anything, just ... you know ... logic?

Again, brilliant post. Wish I could say it as well as you! We need to stop the guilt issue from stymying our lactivist efforts. And I am not saying it is ok to be insensitive and disregard the feelings of FF moms--our efforts should not be directed at them. But watering down the truth for the general public in order to protect feelings of those who may be offended has only benefitted the formula companies.

[songbh]

Originally Posted by goodheartedmama

I really don't think people in this thread are going to get that. The title of the thread says it all.

Goodheartedmama, I'm pretty sure we all "get" that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. We just disagree -- strongly -- that this platitude applies to the issue of breastfeeding advocacy.

I think the people in this thread not "getting" something are those who, despite much persuasive and well-documented evidence that not breastfeeding causes harm to babies, mothers, and societies, insist that non-emergency routine formula usage ISN'T risky. I think this because you (and the others in this thread who are taking this tack) keep repeating the same formula-marketing-derived rhetoric and refuse to engage seriously with the ideas that the rest of us are sharing.

[the_lissa]

Originally Posted by goodheartedmama

I'm shocked that so many people think it's okay to offend others in such ways. Yes, breastfeeding is best. But I'm confused about what people think it accomplishes when you say "your kid is going to be obese and sick because you feed him formula." It's really not going to change anything except perhaps formula feeders feel even more strongly that breastfeeders are rude and pushy.

I'm shocked that people think not hurting someone's feelings is more important than protecting women and children's health.

Last October, I saw a woman from a breast cancer group saying she didn't want to tell people how things like breastfeeding and diet can affect breast cancer because she didn't want people to think it was their fault.

Well, first of all, how can one think it is their fault if they didn't know, and isn't preventing future cancers more important?